1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 2, 2016 6:50:12 GMT
Some results in:
Telegraph: 2 stars
Daily Mail: 2 stars
Time Out: 2 stars
The Times: 4 stars
Further late results awaited!
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jun 2, 2016 7:38:48 GMT
And we know that the Standard has given it 4. So maybe a Marmite play?
|
|
2,740 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jun 2, 2016 7:52:00 GMT
I think a Marmite play requires 1* and 5* reviews. This is like that weak summer version of Marmite that came out a few years ago.
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jun 2, 2016 8:14:13 GMT
I think a Marmite play requires 1* and 5* reviews. This is like that weak summer version of Marmite that came out a few years ago. Ah, I see. British Theatre Guide seems to like it but they don't use a star system. A theatre blogger I follow has also given it 4 stars, so by my calculation that's more or less a 50/50 split between 2 and 4 stars. Wonder if anyone will give it 3?! |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 2, 2016 8:28:20 GMT
I think a Marmite play requires 1* and 5* reviews. This is like that weak summer version of Marmite that came out a few years ago.
Or a Gentleman's Relish of a play?
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jun 2, 2016 8:32:19 GMT
I think a Marmite play requires 1* and 5* reviews. This is like that weak summer version of Marmite that came out a few years ago.
Or a Gentleman's Relish of a play?
I know you're joking but do you realise that so far, it's actually the ladies who seem to like it more? Not exclusively but definitely a trend, so I wonder if there is a gender divide here? |
|
1,475 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jun 2, 2016 8:44:14 GMT
Or a Gentleman's Relish of a play?
I know you're joking but do you realise that so far, it's actually the ladies who seem to like it more? Not exclusively but definitely a trend, so I wonder if there is a gender divide here? Proud to be a lady for the day. That he which hath no stomach for this play, Let him depart; his passport shall be made, And refunds minus 2 pounds put into his purse; We would not watch in that man's company That fears his fellowship to philistine with us. This day is call'd the feast of Campbell. Showgirl the Queen, Fiona, Peelee and Steve, We few, we happy few, we band of sisters. |
|
1,475 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jun 2, 2016 9:00:47 GMT
Each to their own, but the strain in the reviews which are angry about this play not being about the EU and the Euro, are missing the mark I think.
Letts says "for a new play on this subject to fail even once to mention the European Union and the damage it has done to Greece – causing far worse misery and exploitation than anything shown here: that just seems perverse, if not downright craven;"
Cavendish says "Given its many, Hydra-headed woes, Greece should be fertile territory for dramatists at the moment, but there have been slim pickings. Could it be that playwrights here are reluctant to grasp the nettle of the EU and the stinging failures of the Euro? Are they so used to having a go at the old easy scapegoats like capitalism, nationalism and US imperialism that they’re bereft of ideas?"
If being angry about what the play is NOT about is a reason to downgrade to 2 stars, that's a little harsh. That's like a Shakespearean contemporary saying of Hamlet: "Shakespeare's lack of topicality reveals itself in his refusal to deal with Denmark's economic crisis, farmers brought low by new taxes, brought about by the King's feckless war with Sweden. Instead, he wallows in the redundant and obvious family squabbles of the Dark Ages."
This play ends in the mid seventies, so it isn't about Greece squandering borrowed money on the Olympics in 2004, and being unable to weather the financial crisis brought about by fraudulent bankers in 2007 because they were unable to devalue their currency, due to hitching themselves to the Euro in 2002. It can't be, and isn't, about those things.
It is about how some liberal do-gooders profess to care about things, that when tested, they really don't care about. If Quentin Letts thought about it, he'd realise he actually agrees with Campbell lol.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 2, 2016 9:23:53 GMT
Each to their own, but the strain in the reviews which are angry about this play not being about the EU and the Euro, are missing the mark I think. .... It is about how some liberal do-gooders profess to care about things, that when tested, they really don't care about. If Quentin Letts thought about it, he'd realise he actually agrees with Campbell lol. This makes me wonder - I know some film critics will re-watch films they originally hated years later, and reassess them, realising that their review was more about their expectations of the film than the film itself - do you think theatre critics ever do the same? It's harder to revisit theatre, obviously, especially when a play wasn't well-received, but do critics ever re-read their original reviews and go 'what was I thinking?!' I recall some very sniffy responses to the Donmar's all-female Julius Caesar, for example, especially when it was first announced, but by the time Henry IV came around everyone seemed to have agreed that the JC was wonderful and all-female casts an excellent idea, and to have suffered a bout of amnesia about their original response to it. |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 2, 2016 9:46:46 GMT
There are people on this board (and I may be one of them) who suffer periodic bouts of amnesia where their reviews are concerned.
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Jun 2, 2016 11:00:02 GMT
I don't know why but this line from the Telegraph review made me laugh out loud: 'with sweet but uncomfortable-making support from a pair of child-actors in skimpy beach-wear.' Whatever was going on? The little girl is in a too-small bikini which when she sat down showed, well it gave her a "builder's bum." Perfectly innocent of course but seeing it on stage, just because we're so aware of such issues (The Nether) was slightly surprising. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 11:49:53 GMT
I don't know why but this line from the Telegraph review made me laugh out loud: 'with sweet but uncomfortable-making support from a pair of child-actors in skimpy beach-wear.' Whatever was going on? The little girl is in a too-small bikini which when she sat down showed, well it gave her a "builder's bum." Perfectly innocent of course but seeing it on stage, just because we're so aware of such issues (The Nether) was slightly surprising. Very surprised about that, I'd have thought theatres would be hyper-aware of the fit of any and all clothing on child actors, just so that such things wouldn't happen. Surely a one-piece would have been a better option? |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 2, 2016 14:28:32 GMT
More reviews:
Indy: 3 stars
WOS: 3 stars
Eve Std: 2 stars (HH)
The Stage: 2 stars
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jun 2, 2016 14:58:19 GMT
Now looking not so much like a Marmite play as a real melange!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jun 2, 2016 19:32:30 GMT
I hesitate to comment after the latest posts but I was also there last night and for all the faults others perceive, I did enjoy this and whilst the PN audience is untypical, the general reaction seemed positive. Yes, maybe the author should have written a different play or none and I could quibble with the plot in part but even if it is flawed, I had a good time overall and am sure plenty of others will, too. If that makes me a Philistine in the eyes of some here, so be it - but it seems to have worked in my favour if so! Oh I hope to like it on the basis that I have a ticket, am hoping it's that old lower expectations to rock bottom and then be pleasantly surprised or at least not terribly disappointed. |
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jun 3, 2016 4:39:23 GMT
I think you will, Peggs, and without even needing to lower your expectations. I went all the more intrigued owing to the earlier, unfavourable comments here, but to hear the audience engaging and responding, you would never have known that some had written it off. Plus, the bloggers seem to rate it higher and more positively than do the professional critics, which may be a good sign, or at least a reaction more akin to that of a paying member of the public.
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jun 3, 2016 12:08:28 GMT
4 stars from the Guardian, a little late to the party.
|
|
19,650 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 4, 2016 15:26:38 GMT
DuchessConstance is right, it's just "hyper-awareness." Very sad that something which really is nothing to worry about, suddenly becomes - in the mind of an innocent observer - "Oh, that is a worry because a pervert might be in the audience and get a thrill from it." Not a criticism of DC's posting, just a deep sadness that we have lost a sense of proportion even as we strive (rightly) to protect. Give it a few years, the kid will be suing the producers for "exploitation". |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 12, 2016 9:42:32 GMT
Saw this yesterday and, having gone back over this thread, I find myself fully agreeing with the major issues in the writing raised by DuchessConstance on 30 May. So I won't repeat.
On another point, what proportion of plays, films, etc., are based around writers as characters? Sometimes I sink in my chair when I find a main character is yet another writer. I know the first advice writers are given is 'write about what you know', but one hopes they can get beyond knowing about writing!
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 12, 2016 11:22:31 GMT
On another point, what proportion of plays, films, etc., are based around writers as characters? Sometimes I sink in my chair when I find a main character is yet another writer. I know the first advice writers are given is 'write about what you know', but one hopes they can get beyond knowing about writing! Like everyone else, what interests writers most is themselves. |
|
213 posts
|
Post by peelee on Jun 13, 2016 0:57:44 GMT
In this play one character being a writer does essentially explain the social and work circle in which he met his wife, an actress. I think she says she likes the villa they are holidaying in because it's somewhere that her husband can write with little distraction and where she can learn her lines.. Early on, her husband refuses to discuss his writing with one of the visitors to the villa despite the latter's persistent curiosity. Years pass and some mention of his writerly success or failure is made, as slight exposition and to indicate the passing of time and the personal transformations undergone.
In 'Apologia', another of this writer's plays, a character has written a memoir, but that relates to the life she has lived and what another character will say they think of that life. I liked the performed production but have forgotten some characters in 'The Faith Machine', though recall that somewhere in it a Greek island features. These sorts of characters and locations variously feature as significant or incidental factors. So in new play 'Kenny Morgan', for instance, one character being a famous writer is integral to the story and the social world being depicted, whereas in the recent 'Lawrence After Arabia' one character's fame as a writer, he being George Bernard Shaw, helps explain and assist what else playwright Brenton wants to do in the play. All different again from 'Seminar', a a recent play at Hampstead, which really was about writing as an occupation.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Jul 8, 2016 21:57:48 GMT
Well I'm late to this one but was pleasantly surprised.
It's a clever enough play which inverts the paradigm of the first half in the second and ends up making us feel (or trying to) that we might all be guilty of something (a la An Inspector Calls) through commission or omission.
The Ben Miles character, who I think we have to loathe, turns out to be rather more ambiguous than at first glance. Whereas the Pippa Nixon actress character - who really is totally anal and unglamorous and hard to see as an actress - is...insufferable.
I'd forgotten how poor the sightlines were in the galleries here. I now have an intimate acquaintance with the hairlines of all actors involved and the top of Elizabeth McGovern's blonde wig.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 9, 2016 23:14:25 GMT
Thought this was a bit rushed, unfinished, clumsy, kind of like it hadn't quite developed all it's ideas so they became squashed in the second half in an attempt to draw it to its conclusion with some rather speechy sections where an idea or view had to be put across but in a rather obvious way. Think there were some rather bad reviews on here for this and so had lowered expectations but then assumed having done so that i'd be pleasantly surprised. I mean it was easy watching just could have been more I thought, felt like too early a version so was disappointed that it wasn't more.
The caveat is that I did feel really ill and was losing a running battle with the braying woman behind me who was alternating kicking me with chatting to her friend 'oh the shutters are now blue' 'aren't the children well behaved', why do people think their companion can hear but no one else can? Or do they not give a damn? And frankly in the second row with a set that close why don't they realise forget me the actors can probably hear too. These things probably didn't help me be more positive. Will see what I think in the morning and when i've got back over other's thoughts.
On the upside despite starting late and then going back on late, the speed of the clockrooom staff was such that it mitigated all the people who seem determined to stand and block doorways so I made me train without having to resort to attempts at running.
|
|
81 posts
|
Post by addictedtotheatre on Jul 12, 2016 9:11:39 GMT
Finally got around to seeing this, and I don't understand the hate directed at it. Yes, it is schematic and inconsequential but the roles were well-written and I was genuinely intrigued by what was going to happen next.
It'll never be on anyone's top 10 list (unless they've only seen ten plays) but compared to some of the dreck I've seen at the Cottesloe\Dorfman it made for a pleasant evening out.
|
|
245 posts
|
Post by barelyathletic on Jul 14, 2016 10:30:58 GMT
Saw this last night and thought it was very good. The writing was interesting and compelling, and the acting generally very strong (Surprised that I really liked the kids who were very natural and believable and not, as I expected, annoyingly stage school). Elizabeth McGovern struggles a little perhaps with her big monologue but is otherwise very watchable, a loose cannon but also vulnerable. Pippa Nixon is excellent (as you'd expect) as the supposedly liberal voice of conscience who comes spectacularly undone, and Ben Miles is absolutely terrific. His transformation (both in character and physicality) in act two, once the years have taken their toll, was very well performed. When I first read this I instantly saw John Hamm (that would have been a coup) in the role so, was somewhat surprised by the casting. But he really does give one of the best performances I've seen in a while. Charismatic and flawed and slightly dangerous. I can see why some might think the play a bit clunky but I thought it made some interesting points about imperialism, power and responsibility, all wrapped up in a believable and quietly compelling relationship drama (about both marriage and friendship). All in all I think the critics were less than generous. It may not be the subtlest of pieces but its ideas and characters make for a compelling two hours and one that is finally quite moving. Credit also to Simon Godwin and Hildegard Bechtler for a very atmospheric production.
|
|
