Marys Seacole - Donmar

[theoracle]

I've booked a ticket for the closing week but am keen to hear what people's thoughts are before I go. I found Fairview very hard-hitting and the cast here looks very strong. In the intimate space of the Donmar, this should be another show to get people talking.

[jojo]

I'll be interested to hear more too please. Mary Seacole is a fascinating person, so I hope they do her justice.

[theatrelover123]

This is not the play title.

[lynette]

Apr 16, 2022 15:02:06 GMT theatrelover123 said:

This is not the play title.

Can anyone enlighten us? We can then correct the title. 

[david]

Marys Seacole is the play title.

[lynette]

Apr 16, 2022 19:24:35 GMT david said:

Marys Seacole is the play title.

Thank you. 

[justinj]

Dreadful. Best thing about it was that it was only 1h45 long.

[Dave B]

This was pretty dire. I read various 2 star reviews on the way home and they all feel generous, like they all tried to pick out something good that they could say about it. A number of people asleep, not many positive words overheard afterwards. If there had been an interval, I would have left.

I really don't like coming here or Twitter or anywhere and kicking a production, there are times when I'm still happy that I went and that I can recognise it just wasn't for me or perhaps even that I didn't understand what I've seen - this was just poor.  Even before the descent into a surreal fantasy towards the end, it had almost nothing going for it.

While many early reviews praise the cast, this evening felt like just going through the motions with little to no interest left at all. I feel bad, so many poor reviews and so many offers and a not full house - though thanks and love to the Donmar staff who more than happily reseated us from our usual cheap row C in the circle when I asked and said we'd booked the whole season back in October and there were deals now so could they please help.

It has almost another month to go... ooof.

[cavocado]

I thought this had some interesting ideas, that didn't quite fit together into a coherent play, but was worth seeing. It was largely about the way that black women have done the (often invisible) mental and physical work of caring for others, so that those others can live fuller lives undiminished by having to devote themselves to all that effort; and also the broader theme of caring (paid or unpaid) and the toll it takes on women's lives. It tried to go into the nuances of this - racism, social class, white carers, the irony of black women having to do paid care in order to support their own children who they then can't personally care for because they are caring for others' relatives.

Mary S was shown as a problematic figure, celebrated (and presented by herself?) as a positive image of black woman as carer - independent, resourceful, powerful, maternal, clever, capable. But that this image has also contributed to a stereotype that doesn't allow for the grim reality that caring is a low status, low paid job that can suck the life out of those who do it. I liked the way her character was played, not as a heroine, but someone more complex, who achieved a lot, blew her own trumpet and had a few flaws/blind spots too. 

But in some ways it was a bit of a mess. I think we were meant to see the portrayal of MS as a symbol of ongoing hypocrisies and stereotypes about how we see care work, but it was trying to say too much, with too many different characters and narratives going on, and not enough of those were fully developed. But I liked it for trying to get to grips with the realities of a really complex social issue that I haven't seen a play about before, particularly the personal toll on the lives of carers and putting that into a political and historical context.

[david]

Having a keen interest in medical and social history, I booked for this show hoping to spend a great evening indulging in my passion and learning a bit more about Mary Seacole and her struggles in trying to provide medical care set against a backdrop of medical misogynoir. What I hadn’t considered was that having seen Jackie Sibblies Dury “Fairview” at the Young Vic a few years ago maybe I should of lowered my own expectations based on her writing style and how her plays are staged. Whin the first 10 minutes, I quickly concluded this wasn’t going to be a straight forward historical piece and instead spent the entire 90 or so minutes having a really good laugh at the sheer craziness of this show. I just ended up switching my brain off and going with the madness of it all.

If there was any social commentary about Mary Seacole’s life and the problems she encountered in trying to provide healthcare in the Crimean war or the role and issues faced by black women in a modern healthcare system I don’t think the points landed particularly well in my opinion. The mix of the historical bits mixed with the more modern settings just felt a bit of mess and didn’t really gel for me. I just felt there was too much telling - introductory monologue to give a brief overview of Mary’s early life I felt would of better being shown. Then you have the whole final fantasy scene. I’ve got no idea what the point of that was. All I can say that it was just a crazy scene.

This wasn’t a great piece of theatre in all honesty. Having sat through the show (we did have one couple walk out half way through), I didn’t really get any more information about Mary Seacole than when I took my seat. The show programme offers far more use in this regard. Tonight wasn’t a sell out but having booked one of those fantastic value £10  Circle row C seats, it kept me entertained if only for the fantastic cast delivering a bizarre show.

[theatrebee]

Couldn't agree more with david. Anyone who's expecting to learn about this amazing woman's life and struggles is in for a big disappointment. First off, the accent was a little difficult to follow so I spent the first twenty minutes just getting used to that. It didn't help that the first 15 minutes were a monologue; I guess I would have comprehended better if things were shown rather than told.

And then the play goes in a completely bizarre direction. (Minor spoiler) At one point Seacole was playing world of mines (or is it Minecraft? or Warcraft? some such ridiculous game) on her phone and complaining about her battery dying. Really? It felt like the writer just wanted a laugh at the audience's expense.

One woman in the audience had the audacity to give a standing ovation at the end of the performance. Wonder if she was a friend or family of the cast. Even then, a standing ovation for a performance like that is akin to just spitting on the concept of theatre.

One of the worst 1 hour and 45 theatre minutes (without interval) of my life.

[theatrebee]

May 10, 2022 21:37:24 GMT Dave B said:

I really don't like coming here or Twitter or anywhere and kicking a production, there are times when I'm still happy that I went and that I can recognise it just wasn't for me or perhaps even that I didn't understand what I've seen - this was just poor.  Even before the descent into a surreal fantasy towards the end, it had almost nothing going for it.

When that surreal fantasy came I felt like the writer just wanted to mock and insult the audience out of sheer contempt.

[samuelwhiskers]

There was a wonderful stage play which was a straight bio of Mary Seacole on the fringe a few years ago, starting Cleo Sylvestre (the first black woman to star at the National). Such a shame strong traditional playwriting with solid performances that just tell the story, don’t get programmed for larger venues, while fancy stuff with lazier storytelling does.

[tal]

Cancelled tonight because of covid. Luckily I hadn’t left home when I got the email at 5:45pm.

[couldileaveyou]

[n1david]

The stat that 40% of visitors to Mary's Seacole had never been to the Donmar before is quite a striking one. Certainly it didn't sell as well to Donmar members as most productions, as there were lots of tickets available for public booking. However, I did see a lot of offers for this which makes me wonder how much the Donmar made from the run and how much that matters given its corporate sponsors' deep pockets. It feels to me that the Donmar is in a state of transition; Dolls House 2 and The Band's Visit might fit more with the "traditional" Donmar audience. But it will be interesting to see how things pan out.

[oxfordsimon]

Going for the first time is not the key metric.

How many return for a second, third or tenth visit to the theatre is far more important.

[Jan]

May 31, 2022 23:13:27 GMT oxfordsimon said:

Going for the first time is not the key metric.

How many return for a second, third or tenth visit to the theatre is far more important.

Plus it's only 40% who'd never been to the Donmar, not 40% who'd never been to theatre at all.


Would it also be "immense" and "change" if The Bush put on something which induced me to go there for the first time ever ? 

[inthenose]

Now this play has closed, it is worth saying several seat filling companies were offering this 8 shows a week and they weren't even able to give the seats away to fill the house. The Donmar has really lost its status.

[zahidf]

Hopefully the next run of plays will get it back to selling out

I like a theatre which takes risks, even if it doesnt 100% work out.

[shambles]

I think people are spelling out doom too soon. There are exciting, interesting productions on the horizon and they should hopefully perform better. It still attracts "names" very easily. Though I do think the Mendes + Grandage eras had it punch far beyond it weight, and it's muted a little since then.

[Jan]

Jun 1, 2022 10:45:57 GMT inthenose said:

Now this play has closed, it is worth saying several seat filling companies were offering this 8 shows a week and they weren't even able to give the seats away to fill the house.

Subsidised theatre often regards that as a mark of success. Their interpretation is that they have put on something too edgy and challenging for their “traditional” audience. Audience members walking out during the performance are interpreted in the same way.

[Steve]

I suppose if you want to sell out, and you don't want to rely on critics and/or word of mouth, you've either got to cast a star or you've got to programme a popular title (and if you do both, tickets will be like hen's teeth at such a small theatre).

I imagine many of the 40 percent new to the Donmar were black people, as it was my impression that the percentage of black attendees the day I saw it was much higher than usual, and that has to be a good thing, to speak to experiences not often spoken for or about, especially at a theatre that takes public money.

This show would have sold out in a second if Mary Seacole had been played by Whoopi Goldberg, for example. She would have been hysterical in it, as the central part is a comedic role in what is otherwise a tragedy. People would have raved lol.

As it was, I found Kayla Meikle tremendous in the central role, and her part and comic performance in this, were wonderful, and are what made my trip worthwhile. Seacole is written as a mighty ego who gets absolutely no respect, and no matter what humiliations she suffers, she just keeps on boasting and bragging and bigging herself up. She's as inspirational as any Beckett character that rages against the dying of our light. Meikle's prideful and indignant delivery, of what is essentially a Rodney Dangerfield comedic skit, made me laugh out loud.

But this wasn't enough to make this a good play, in my opinion, and it really suffered in comparison to other plays.

Primarily, it suffered in comparison to "Fairview," by the same playwright and director, which was an astonishing, engaging and revelatory piece of theatre, that wrongfooted the audience by making them laugh at stereotypical rubbish and then electrified them by questioning why they were laughing, and then exploded into an unforgettably involving climax. This show doesn't involve the audience, and makes no challenges beyond asking them to understand jumpcuts thorough history, confusing but with no payoff, as the historical comparisons were merely illustrative of black women's experience through the ages, without really engaging or challenging the audience. The idea that black women are straightjacketed as carers, throughout history, was never coherently argued, but instead was presented as a fait accompli.

The play also suffered in comparison to the Almeida's "Daddy," playing at the same time, which excavated a black male's experience in the way this play wanted to excavate a black female's experience. "Daddy" was also experimental (choruses, monologues, swimming pool, characters in stop motion) and funny (George Michael's "Father Figure" will forever make me laugh now), but unlike this play, told a coherent and fascinating story with a convincing argument about how racism poisons humanity to the extent it's impossible to care about anybody any more. It was the rollercoaster ride of theatrical experiences that this show failed to be.

And having failed to be sufficiently experimental, this show also failed, for some, in comparison to the imaginary conventional biopic of Mary Seacole this could have been, alerting us to her amazing role in history. Instead of course, this play (cleverly and ingeniously, in my opinion - I just wished the rest of the play worked as well) reduces Seacole to a Beckettian comedy skit.

So, for me, I'm glad I went, for Kayla Meikle's comedic performance, but I wish the rest of the play had been as good.

3 stars from me.

[Jon]

Jun 1, 2022 10:53:10 GMT zahidf said:

Hopefully the next run of plays will get it back to selling out

I like a theatre which takes risks, even if it doesnt 100% work out.

I agree, I imagine if the Donmar was putting on safe and reliable choices then it'd be criticised for not taking risks. They can't win either way. 

[oxfordsimon]

Jun 1, 2022 14:11:07 GMT Jon said:

Jun 1, 2022 10:53:10 GMT zahidf said:

Hopefully the next run of plays will get it back to selling out

I like a theatre which takes risks, even if it doesnt 100% work out.

I agree, I imagine if the Donmar was putting on safe and reliable choices then it'd be criticised for not taking risks. They can't win either way. 

The balance is surely to put on safer choices that don't need big names in the cast and then cast the names in the more experimental pieces

When a small theatre like the Donmar has to paper so heavily, they have to acknowledge it as a failure of some sort.

They have had big successes with more daring programming in the past. This one just didn't find an audience for whatever reason.