184 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Aug 7, 2024 15:39:37 GMT
Maybe British audiences don’t relate to references about guns and basketball. Maybe the NT should commission British writers instead of perpetuating American cultural imperialism. I suppose it won a Pulitzer because the play meant more in an American context and because they had to give the award to something - there are some real duds on that list, it’s hardly a guarantee of quality. Are you saying that British audiences are so inherently unable to relate to anything that goes even vaguely beyond their direct experience that they should only be presented with material and situations that are recognizably and stereotypically British? Besides... guns and basketball are not what this play is about. The focus is primarily on the interpersonal dynamics within a group of four friends, two of which are in a romantic relationship. These dynamics are further intertwined with reflections on family / fatherhood / toxic masculinity, these themes being explored in particular through two other characters that are extended family to one of the four friends. Of course, the fact that they are all black and grew up and live in the south of the USA has an impact on how they speak, on their cultural background and traditions, but their being American (and therefore not British!) is not what defines them first and foremost. The playwright invites the audience to have a look into their lives and to see what is in there that they can relate to as human beings, and to have a think about things that they may usually take for granted, assumptions that they may make the first time they meet these characters, etc. There's definitely no attempt at imposing and perpetuating American culture over the audience. Would it really make a difference for British audiences if the same story were instead told about a group of four British-born, Caucasian friends who meet to cook the best Sunday roast ever to present it at a local fair, and if two of them went briefly in the backyard and bonded over kicking a football around? If that's the case, then the problem does not lie with the NT's programming, but elsewhere... |
|
|
|
Post by aloysius on Aug 8, 2024 21:08:11 GMT
I just saw this and enjoyed it, though wished I'd eaten beforehand. Also surprised the NT can't get decent accent coaches in at the moment (this and Grapes of Wrath have the same problems - they're also both 20 minutes too long).
But I loved the charm of the actors; the feel of an 90s sitcom subverted to showing affluent, happy gay friendships; the lovingly detailed staging. A bit like a sitcom the tension was a bit convoluted and concluded too easily. But hey, not every play has to end in tragedy.
It was fun, well acted and gave me a window into a world I've not seen portrayed on stage. And made me very hungry. What's not to like?
|
|
184 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Aug 9, 2024 10:10:15 GMT
It was fun, well acted and gave me a window into a world I've not seen portrayed on stage. And made me very hungry. What's not to like? Yes, this one and Clyde's previously at the Donmar definitely challenged an empty stomach  |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Aug 9, 2024 11:04:25 GMT
Maybe British audiences don’t relate to references about guns and basketball. Maybe the NT should commission British writers instead of perpetuating American cultural imperialism. I suppose it won a Pulitzer because the play meant more in an American context and because they had to give the award to something - there are some real duds on that list, it’s hardly a guarantee of quality. Are you saying that British audiences are so inherently unable to relate to anything that goes even vaguely beyond their direct experience that they should only be presented with material and situations that are recognizably and stereotypically British? Besides... guns and basketball are not what this play is about. The focus is primarily on the interpersonal dynamics within a group of four friends, two of which are in a romantic relationship. These dynamics are further intertwined with reflections on family / fatherhood / toxic masculinity, these themes being explored in particular through two other characters that are extended family to one of the four friends. Of course, the fact that they are all black and grew up and live in the south of the USA has an impact on how they speak, on their cultural background and traditions, but their being American (and therefore not British!) is not what defines them first and foremost. The playwright invites the audience to have a look into their lives and to see what is in there that they can relate to as human beings, and to have a think about things that they may usually take for granted, assumptions that they may make the first time they meet these characters, etc. There's definitely no attempt at imposing and perpetuating American culture over the audience. Would it really make a difference for British audiences if the same story were instead told about a group of four British-born, Caucasian friends who meet to cook the best Sunday roast ever to present it at a local fair, and if two of them went briefly in the backyard and bonded over kicking a football around? If that's the case, then the problem does not lie with the NT's programming, but elsewhere... Certain themes can't help but reappear from some posters. Who could forget the classic "No one in England knows who LeBron James is"? |
|
391 posts
|
Post by lichtie on Aug 12, 2024 9:22:56 GMT
When I saw this quite a few left at the interval probably because of the dodgy accents becoming incoherent at times... But for me the real flaw as others have noted is that it's just all over the place. Is it a comedy doing an alternative take on 90s black US sitcoms? Is it a drama tapping into territory like the Wire? (It's not Eastenders style as the US don't do thiose sorts of soaps). The cross over links between the two end up in rather thin relationship drama. On the plus side the remaining largely young mixed audience who were there at the end seemed to love it...
|
|
145 posts
|
Post by mjh on Aug 12, 2024 10:49:02 GMT
Anyone have any experience of where the Friday Rush tickets are located for this?
|
|
1,826 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Aug 12, 2024 11:04:33 GMT
Anyone have any experience of where the Friday Rush tickets are located for this? Yup, we got Pit L4 and L5 which were great seats - better than they look like they'll be on the seating plan. |
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Aug 22, 2024 8:36:21 GMT
I enjoyed this overall, but as has been mentioned before, my god the accent work was TERRIBLE. To varying degrees all six actors struggled, some to the point of incomprehension at multiple moments and the young nephew was doing the strangest Memphis-via-Dick-Van-Dyke-attempting-Cockney that I honestly couldn't believe they had let him go onstage with, and then he seemed to be trying to compensate for this by simply screaming every line (in his bizarre accent). I could just about get by with the others but that performance really took me out of the play every time he did any acting.
But the play was entertaining and the audience was truly the seventh character, with some excellent audible reactions to the twists and turns. I was happy to see something that was ultimately positive in its outlook while still remaining nuanced about the implications of societal pressures around (perceived) masculinity on black American men and gay men (and as with many good plays, the nuances within that and the many and wide-reaching analogues within our society).
I didn't quite walk away thinking the play was a Pulitzer-worthy masterpiece but I do wonder if this was mainly to do with the actors and the accents especially because on refection I think that was the thing that caused the biggest disconnect for me. Overall still just about a 4 star show for me.
|
|
75 posts
|
Post by claireyfairy1 on Sept 2, 2024 9:55:43 GMT
I saw this on Saturday night and theatre was full and highly engaged. I mean, it's been a while since I've been in the audience of a play where people were so involved in the drama, with gasps and shouts and exclaims with a roaring standing o at the end. It honestly made the night so fun and a contrast to the polite clapping at the end of the matinee of the Real Thing I'd seen that day. Anyway, personally I really enjoyed it, no doubt carried along by the audience. It's too long, they could certainly cut out the singing. The general tone is very sitcom I agree, but I enjoyed that if I'm honest, sometimes it's nice to have a laugh in the theatre. I wouldn't call it award winning writing, I also don't think it really said that much about the themes it was exploring, and the ending was too tied up in a neat little bow, but overall it was a lot of fun. The accents I can't comment on as I don't have an ear for them, but I was with an American and she wasn't too bothered by them at all, said they were ok but not perfect.
|
|
