|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 13, 2022 15:57:59 GMT
I have to say I'm in two minds about this piece, although Bertie Carvel is a marvel in it, I have to agree with a few others here about the script. Also I think I agree with a couple of the reviews and think it's a bit too soon. Like someone doing a play about covid. Sir David Hare gave us a Covid play some time ago, the need to be first outweighs being timely. |
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 16, 2022 23:44:22 GMT
Entertaining to start off with then sort of fizzles down as the idea loses steam. As a piece of future history it is pretty preposterous leaving the assumption that it's a comedy? But despite the best efforts of the audience to laugh whenever they recognise something or someone, and despite the marvellous Trump impersonation, this isn't a comedy, it's trying to make some deep political point which escapes everyone, including possibly Bartlett himself.
A revue is not a drama, and that is what this play smacks of - late-night laughs cheaply won by putting real-life figures in comic scenes and getting the audience to laugh because they are aware they should be laughing.
Ditto the writing, the blank verse threatens to soar at times but keeps clunking back to earth aided by lines of the "Oh yeah?" type. Ultra prosaic.
It's not a dud but it's not an aesthetic hit.
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Apr 21, 2022 17:31:43 GMT
I can't help but compare this to King Charles III for all the obvious reasons plus I directed a production of that play so Bartlett's words still now occasionally float around in my brain. The structures are very similar, but then it could be argued this is also true of Shakespeare, and the "lifts" from the Shakespearean canon are littered around in much the same way.
Story wise - it's a version of the future, which is why it needed to be done now. You can only get away with exploring the future of Trump in the run up to the 2024 election, after that (one imagines) he'll be long gone out of the political picture. Chances are this story will play out less true than KC3 has done so far, however it walks the "just about plausible but also pretty incredible" bridge well. The final scene however, felt like something of a cop out to try to tie some ends up. Does it mirror one of the History plays that I'm forgetting?
I don't think this will have a long life - King Charles III felt at the end of plausibility to product when I directed it in 2018 and The 47th is naturally limited by 2024. But future amateur staging potential was realistically not in Bartlett's mind when he sat down to write The 47th.
Very well staged and surely this has to be a candidate for video effect awards (with a special guest appearance yesterday afternoon by a fly who kept flying in the projector beam and on the lens by the seems of it for the final 20 minutes).
I was pleasantly shocked at just how good an impersonation of Trump Carvel was able to achieve. As I heard someone say when I was leaving "it felt weird to be cheering for Trump at the end".
This feels like a reasonable second album, but it doesn't live up to the heights of KC3.
|
|
4,789 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 21, 2022 19:30:23 GMT
You can only get away with exploring the future of Trump in the run up to the 2024 election, after that (one imagines) he'll be long gone out of the political picture. I mean, he’s currently bookies favourite to win the 2024 election, so he could be around for a long while yet. |
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Apr 22, 2022 21:40:42 GMT
You can only get away with exploring the future of Trump in the run up to the 2024 election, after that (one imagines) he'll be long gone out of the political picture. I mean, he’s currently bookies favourite to win the 2024 election, so he could be around for a long while yet. Fair enough, however everything else in this is clearly rooted as the build up towards the 2024 electoral cycle. |
|
1,471 posts
|
Post by mkb on Apr 22, 2022 22:46:06 GMT
It's a pity Trump is always afforded the limelight. As with a persistent internet troll, he is best simply ignored. Of course, the principal twist of the "The 47th" is that the title does not refer to Trump, as you were expecting, but to Harris. |
|
8,109 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Apr 23, 2022 18:11:24 GMT
I'm not a huge play fan but this appealed to me.
Have to say I quite enjoyed it although it was not as funny as I thought it would be.
Quite dark in places and very wordy. Really had to concentrate.
Very well acted and great cast.
Bertie Carvel was amazing and I was convinced that it wasn't him and we had an understudy. It wasn't until the interval when I looked at some pictures online of him on the role that I realised it was him.
Nice afternoon out.
|
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on May 6, 2022 12:34:25 GMT
Interesting article in the NY Times about the play. It seems we Americans are more freaked out than entertained by the premise. There's a paywall, but you should get a number of free articles each month, so hopefully folks can read the whole thing. "Ranney Mize, 79, a retired neuroscientist visiting from New Orleans, said afterward that he had not laughed as much as the theatergoers around him in the orchestra level. He and his wife “were deeply concerned about the future of American democracy and the threat Trump poses to that institution,” he said. Carvel’s portrayal of Trump was more evil than funny, Mize said." "Rupert Goold, the play’s director, said that when he spoke to audience members during intermissions, Americans found the play more serious and politically urgent than others." www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/theater/the-47th-play-trump-london.html |
|
|
|
703 posts
|
Post by theatremiss on May 27, 2022 22:09:13 GMT
I quite enjoyed this, Carvel was superb.
Was anyone else in tonight as in act 2 towards the end a phone went off and for a rather long time too. The actress who plays the nurse kept in character and said “are you gonna answer that phone”. Last time I saw that happen was also at the OV when Spaceyberated someone being on their phone when he was playing Clarence Darrow
|
|
309 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by jm25 on May 28, 2022 0:43:43 GMT
Saw this earlier in the week. It was alright I guess but felt totally predicated on the spectacle of seeing Carvel as Trump. (To be fair, he's excellent - and I was high up enough that there was no way of telling it wasn't the real deal!) But beyond that the plot felt pretty thin on the ground. Didn't seem to be delving into anything more profoundly horrifying than what we all already lived through for four years. Wasn't convinced by the various attempts to channel Shakespeare either.
Don't regret seeing it but not a personal highlight.
|
|
703 posts
|
Post by theatremiss on May 28, 2022 17:38:57 GMT
Saw this earlier in the week. It was alright I guess but felt totally predicated on the spectacle of seeing Carvel as Trump. (To be fair, he's excellent - and I was high up enough that there was no way of telling it wasn't the real deal!) But beyond that the plot felt pretty thin on the ground. Didn't seem to be delving into anything more profoundly horrifying than what we all already lived through for four years. Wasn't convinced by the various attempts to channel Shakespeare either. Don't regret seeing it but not a personal highlight. Oh yes I agree about the Shakespeare reference. Started off clearly King Lear then channelled a few other plays along the way. Also quite annoying with the language. I kept trying to work out if the next line would rhyme or half-rhyme |
|
5,149 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on May 28, 2022 18:08:32 GMT
Interesting to see it again this afternoon, having seen the 3rd preview back in March.
Bartlett has made some changes to Act 1, which fix a lot of my pacing issues that I had first time round - the removal of the other presidents other than Biden is a good change and means the narrative doesn't stop.
Act 2 has some great 'battle scenes' - your Shakespearean comparisons are easily evident (Henry V when they're decided whether to lock him up or not, the Gravedigger in Hamlet with the Nurse at the end) and Carvel and Tunie have both relaxed into their roles and are very good.
We did have a cover for Ivanka in place of Lydia Wilson, and whilst I didn't think much of Wilson in previews, I thought her cover was dreadful. She seemed to have no idea how to play her, or even who she was, so she just smiled for two and a half hours, and that got incredibly tiresome when she didn't have an ounce of menace about her - the 'reveal' at the end was very dull.
Something for me doesn't gel though. The ingredients are all there: the script is witty, the performances are strong (by and large), it's topical, it's a bit dystopian, but it just doesn't come together for me as a good play overall. I don't even know what I want to change, I just can't get excited about it, and give it more than 3 stars.
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on May 28, 2022 23:05:08 GMT
Interesting that Wilson missed the final matinee given that the play closed tonight. What a shame for her - and you.
|
|
|
|
Post by thistimetomorrow on May 28, 2022 23:29:42 GMT
Interesting that Wilson missed the final matinee given that the play closed tonight. She's been off since Monday |
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on May 29, 2022 15:47:12 GMT
I liked this a lot. It took some concentrating to hear all the words, as you had to tune in (like when I go to a Shakespeare play!) but boy was Carvel good and the script for him to work with…all the weird little things he does (like claim he has the best eyes etc!) and the way he argues in a “debate”….using interruptions, non sequiturs, insults and challenges…..just like Boris Johnson….and sort of railroads his way through. I thought it was also an important play as it shows how difficult it is in society to tackle issues when peoples attention is often a nanosecond and it is so attractive to believe a plot or conspiracy. Do the “good guys” have to fight dirty or just be reasonable? It’s very easy to be caught up in the moment when feelings are involved. Interestingly I think the situation in the US has overtaken the play….abortion rights and gun laws anyone?
I enjoyed spotting the Shakespeare and I suppose the point is that history tries to teach us things (it’s all been done before) but the play asks if we can ever learn or are we driven by base primeval instinct?
|
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Jun 28, 2022 19:08:49 GMT
Today's Congressional hearings in Washington DC on the January 6 events had a bizarre near-parallel with the last part of The 47th. In the play, Trump was nearly killed in a car accident with a mysterious cause, possibly involving his driver.
On January 6th, apparently, Trump wanted to go to the Capitol during the riots and was told he couldn't. From the testimony today: "When told no, the president was "irate," and Trump said, "I'm the effing president. Take me up to the Capitol now." Trump tried to grab the steering wheel. Then used his free hand to try to grab the guy's neck."
With people scuffling for the steering wheel, the car could easily have crashed. I wonder if the rest of the plot would have played out?
This is also eerie because the play King Charles III foreshadowed Harry wanting out of the Royal Family over a young woman. Does Mike Bartlett have a crystal ball to see possible futures?
(I'm assuming since both plays have closed that there's no need for hiding the plot details? If that's not correct, please let me know and I'll do so.)
|
|
