45 posts
|
Post by publius on Jul 31, 2017 23:09:53 GMT
It's a bit like saying "Oh that dog sh*t won't taste very nice" Hardly premonition exquisite Thank you for making it clear just how much you despise people of my upbringing and location. It would be interesting to find out what the reaction would be, if you went there and tried your comments out in situ. I grew up just off the Old Kent Road... He wouldn't have the courage to get off the bus there nevermind tell us scumbags what he thought of us... Time to ban this idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2017 23:20:25 GMT
Thank you for making it clear just how much you despise people of my upbringing and location. It would be interesting to find out what the reaction would be, if you went there and tried your comments out in situ. I grew up just off the Old Kent Road... He wouldn't have the courage to get off the bus there nevermind tell us scumbags what he thought of us... Time to ban this idiot. For the record my comment referred To the quality of the play as dog sh*t Not the subject matter or the people portrayed in it Quite different indeed A similar criticism has been made about Dessert at Southwark playhouse Which portrays a stereotyped wealthy group of people That it is unsubtle and ineffective and even vulgar That's how I found Road A parody Perhaps working class playwrights lack something when it comes to storytelling That is an important part of a play you know Just presenting a group of people From Whatever social background does make an engaging play So some people will obviously identify with some characters Again that doesn't make for a satisfying whole You can just as well watch a social documentary Like Distant Voices Still Lives One of my favourite films from one my my best directors One of my favourite plays is Port Which left me very moved and affected And actually showed people having proper interactions Not like Road Which shows them behaving like small children And quite frankly does nothing positive for the people it tries to portray I didn't find it timely Or relevant I found it stupid dumb and self indulgent And secondly Hardly likely to be on a bus
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 1, 2017 0:04:04 GMT
You are just digging deeper, Some knowledge of different approaches to characterisation would help, that heightening is not the same as stereotyping, that social realism is not the only way to represent people who you see as lower class or to highlight 'issues', that montage and monologue are excellent means to represent isolated lives in isolating circumstances.
You wouldn't find it timely because you live in a rarefied world of metropolitan hauteur, haute couture and surfaces. Nicely packaged Terence Davies films that trade on nostalgia and quiet desperation have their place but the reality was/is loud, sweary, alive and often teetering on the edge of kicking off. The world of 'Rita, Sue and Bob, Too', of 'Shameless' (which, at times was scarily close to reality), of 'Bouncers'.
I've lived in comparative wealth and on the edge of poverty, surrounded by high culture and working men's clubs, suburbia and council flats. Parts remind me of relatives, parts my own teenage years. You get to know what rings true. Any attempt to claim objectivity and that you are talking about the production really doesn't cut it when you can't help inserting even more digs at the working class.
The final chorus of 'somehow a somehow might escape', that is so powerful. That was me, destined for the factories that would soon close anyway, drilled by my grandmother into the importance of education, of speaking properly and of not getting into trouble. 'Somehow a somehow'.......I escaped.
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Aug 5, 2017 19:46:42 GMT
I saw this on the Thursday matinee. It was pretty good, very much enjoyed. I'll leave my comments to that.
|
|
485 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Aug 11, 2017 8:37:21 GMT
I saw this yesterday matinee and found it very moving. I'm not going to bother scrolling back through this thread, I have no interest in seeing or engaging with the small-minded, sneering opinions I'm sure I'll find. Mainly because, to be frank, this isn't their play.
I grew up in a working class area in the South. Like most, my experiences have shaped me. I recognised Scullery right away. The the way he speaks, the way he moves, the way people who know him move around him, (and crucially) the way those who don't know him move around him. My life is richer having been surrounded by people similar to those depicted in this play, there isn't an ounce of doubt in my mind about that. It was enthralling, invigorating and joyful to see these people portrayed on stage, in all their messy, flawed glory.
I also know plenty of people who were, and still are, left behind. What a perfect use of Lippy Kids.
|
|
2,946 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 11, 2017 8:48:14 GMT
I'm off to see this on Monday - question: I have a choice of two tickets, one centre front circle, the other stalls row C - which should I go for?
|
|
485 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Aug 11, 2017 8:52:57 GMT
I'm off to see this on Monday - question: I have a choice of two tickets, one centre front circle, the other stalls row C - which should I go for? TM's your man This might help in the mean time seatplan.com/london/royal-court-theatre/
|
|
2,946 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 11, 2017 10:25:10 GMT
Row C stalls unless very short Thanks...I'm 5'5" so the tall people thing can be an issue!
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Aug 11, 2017 10:25:27 GMT
Also note for Road - "some episodes spill down a flight of steps towards the stalls." so the stalls may be a better experience.
|
|
2,946 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 11, 2017 10:42:16 GMT
Thanks - I think the circle might be more comfy neckwise, though, because I'm not tall! It's a long time since I sat in the Royal Court stalls...though I see from theatremonkey that further back in the stalls and front row circle are premium so... decisions...
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 11, 2017 11:28:04 GMT
This production is very rich from moment to moment and scene to scene but I regret that I also found it obscure, like most Opera and many Classical Theatre productions.
Most actors are cast in multiple named roles and also in other smaller, unnamed ones. And most scenes are played in the same, central space on the stage. So, when actors reappear in different scenes, there's often insufficient clue as to whether they are returning characters or new characters. I could only piece together the sense of what I'd seen by rooting through the playtext afterwards.
I completely missed the simple, central story of Carol and Louise in the first half because I wrongly thought that the actors were playing different characters in each scene. And, conversely, I wrongly identified bed-bound Joey as the same character as the stay-at-home brother in the early scene. And then I sat fruitlessly racking my brain trying to recall where Clare might also have featured in an earlier scene. Mark Hadfield's scenes were here diminished by the ambiguity as to whether they were each new or returning characters.
The final scene of mass community movement is very powerful (as is very much else, from moment to moment) and it made me reflect as to whether the director and designer had chosen deliberately to present Road as a total community and to strip out as many elements of individual story as possible. It would seem a slightly wayward approach - I don't really understand it.
Another Operatic aspect is the setting of the time of this production. The text is very specifically set in the time it was written and first produced. But this production seems to let the present seep in at times, although it completely ignores aspects of today's Lancashire towns such as the largely divergent White and Asian communities there.
In the original production, there was a whole road of individual dwellings set all around the promenading audience, so each character was physically linked to their individual set and everything was so so much more clear. I think that the repeated forum criticisms in previous posts of a "series of vignettes" stem from the casting and staging of this production - the audience isn't presented with enough information to properly follow all the narrative and character links which are actually there in the text.
And it doesn't help that the acooustic is too reverberant with this set - with clear sound only in the miked scenes staged in the enclosed room.
I'd still recommend seeing this production which is very fine in many ways. But it has also niggled me in the ways I've tried to explain.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 11, 2017 11:47:01 GMT
Yes, the production fell short of the script, in my opinion.The physical divide between character and audience should be non existent but it felt like i was being treated as separate rather than part of them, being placed an observer at an objective distance. Maybe that's because these are 'my people' in a way that the well heeled Royal Court audience isn't (however much I am part of it, it never goes away). I wasn't so worried about the characters, maybe as I knew the play anyway, but, as nobody else had mentioned it, I thought the acoustic was just me from where I was sitting (side stalls halfway back). I rationalised it as the acoustcs of the sort of place shown, with the hard surfaces of packed in buildings, but it also added to the relative coldness.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 11, 2017 12:06:31 GMT
Yes, the production fell short of the script, in my opinion. I felt that it lost some of the direct clarity of the text but it added other things, evoking elements of later Jim Cartwright plays such as the music of Little Voice and the whimsy of Bed. Probably an intentional Operatic approach to be multi-dimensional. as nobody else had mentioned it, I thought the acoustic was just me from where I was sitting (side stalls halfway back). I rationalised it as the acoustcs of the sort of place shown, with the hard surfaces of packed in buildings, but it also added to the relative coldness. I sat similar, a bit more central. I had the same sound issue, to a greater degree, at X because of its three-sided (and topped?) box set. I doubt it's an aesthetic sound choice (coldness?), more likely a feature of hard stage walls, and the problem is that I lose a lot of the dialogue - Obviously, it affects people differently, according to their hearing condition. The physical divide between character and audience should be non existent but it felt like i was being treated as separate rather than part of them, being placed an observer at an objective distance. Maybe that's because these are 'my people' in a way that the well heeled Royal Court audience isn't (however much I am part of it, it never goes away). Lemn Sissay as Scullery was brilliant at bridging that gap but the staging does deliberately keep everyone else apart from the audience. I didn't mind that because in the text it is Scullery introducing us all to the road on this night so we should relate directly with him and we should just be observers of everyone else.
|
|
717 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Aug 11, 2017 12:20:56 GMT
Saw it yesterday and I too found it frustrating.....the sound (couldn't make out some of the dialogue and I am from Manchester!), the box (added a barrier between us and the actors), trying to work out if doubling was supposed to be the same character or different, the exasperation of wanting to see more of some of the charatcters as we quickly moved on to the next......I can imagine it would have worked far better as promenade with each set of characters in their own setting. I also found narrator annoying...couldn't make out what he was saying sometimes and did not seem drunk And I found his breaking of the 4th wall unconvincing and quite cringe making. I did enjoy bits of this but it never touched me and frequently irritated me. Thanks also to the elderly couple behind who felt it necessary to keep up a running commentary! Oh and to add to my irritation I paid full price for my ticket when booking first opened and then the Royal Court sent me an email asking if I would like to book with a special offer £10 off.....
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 11, 2017 12:44:54 GMT
I also found narrator annoying...couldn't make out what he was saying sometimes and did not seem drunk Ah, I'd forgotten he was meant to be drunk! He wasn't played as drunk. Yesterday afternoon, we (audience) didn't respond to some of his early addresses and I think maybe he held himself back, apart, a bit after that? Oh, couples behind! At both Road and Queen Anne yesterday, I had elderly visiting Americans - in varying degrees of detachment and alienated disengagement with both shows. At least they were in premium seats at Queen Anne and making a disproportionately generous contribution to keeping West End theatre financially afloat! It reminded me how diverse is the audience of London theatre, especially the West End, which makes it hard for some shows to make a proper direct engagement with the audience. The Road couple behind were bemoaning the prevalence of Ivo van Hove productions everywhere they go in the world, and ruing the apparent extinction of straightforward direction! I'm not sure they made the leap to fully connect with Road but they were happy enough to lap up Queen Anne, as an exotic gem, which of course is pretty much how I encountered it too.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 11, 2017 12:48:29 GMT
HG - the only thing I would disagree with is the idea that we are supposed to be observers of all except Scullery. I feel that each monologue section is best served by the character scanning the audience around them, looking them in the eye. This is best served by anything other than an end stage, so that it is clear that the character is making a choice as to talk to us (collectively and individually). Other outdoor scenes, in the street and chip shop, can be better served by the audience also being 'in the street/chip shop'. I'm glad I've seen it staged this way but I think it loses more than it gains.
|
|
2,946 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 11, 2017 15:25:46 GMT
Thanks for the advice - the stalls seat was row B not C so - thinking about my neck - I'm going with the circle (the man in the box office said it was his preferred seat of the two).
|
|
167 posts
|
Post by caa on Aug 11, 2017 17:02:55 GMT
I'm 5ft 7 and always go for front stalls at the Royal Court. Same here Front Row every time or anywhere in the stalls, Circle sometimes feels too far from the stage and has less leg room
|
|
167 posts
|
Post by caa on Aug 11, 2017 17:10:21 GMT
Yes, the production fell short of the script, in my opinion.The physical divide between character and audience should be non existent but it felt like i was being treated as separate rather than part of them, being placed an observer at an objective distance. Maybe that's because these are 'my people' in a way that the well heeled Royal Court audience isn't (however much I am part of it, it never goes away). I wasn't so worried about the characters, maybe as I knew the play anyway, but, as nobody else had mentioned it, I thought the acoustic was just me from where I was sitting (side stalls halfway back). I rationalised it as the acoustcs of the sort of place shown, with the hard surfaces of packed in buildings, but it also added to the relative coldness. I really felt that the play lost something by not being a promenade production, and this meant there was less of an impact. I'm glad to see it again but I can't help thinking it was a better production when I first saw it in 1997
|
|
2,946 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 11, 2017 17:13:31 GMT
I like front row where possible but if if the stage is low and the seats are raked a bit so the heads-in-front isn't an issue I prefer a couple of rows back because then you're on the actors' eye level. Leg room not an issue cos I'm short! I don't like being so close I'm looking up their noses if the stage level is high, though.
|
|
2,946 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 11, 2017 17:16:06 GMT
I really felt that the play lost something by not being a promenade production I presume that would be very difficult now because of security (this point may have already been made but I haven't read the other comments because I haven't seen it yet - I loved the Alan Clarke film from the 80s. It's just come out on BluRay/DVD and I have it but I've put off watching it again until I've seen this version.
|
|
520 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Aug 12, 2017 10:26:27 GMT
I saw this around a week ago and have been struggling with what to say about it ever since.
My gut reaction was immense frustration - the play in its original form has been butchered with a lot of text and narrative lost to reach this incarnation. With a far greater emphasis on movement/sleekness and much less on text and grit. Thinking back now, I should have realised that was to be the case considering the type of work John Tiffany produces.
I found it slightly laughable that this production uses more actors than the original one however has far fewer characters (and it was still tricky to discern sometimes who was actually who).
It also seems to be the most heavily marketed production the Royal Court have produced for some time (if my social media feed is anything to go by), is it not selling at all well?
|
|
2,946 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 12, 2017 10:43:23 GMT
is it not selling at all well? There don't seem to be any sold out dates and there are still lots of good available seats - but then, I suppose it's not that appealing a play to a London/tourist audience in August, and there are no big names attached.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 12, 2017 10:51:14 GMT
It also seems to be the most heavily marketed production the Royal Court have produced for some time (if my social media feed is anything to go by), is it not selling at all well? Maybe the difference from marketing new plays at the Royal Court is that, very unusually at this theatre, this is a revival of a well-known play. So, many more people are likely to respond to the marketing - a much wider audience than the Royal Court regulars and the followers of new plays. And John Tiffany is a further marketing plus, with the Harry Potter recognition factor. So, there really must be the potential for this to completely sell out its limited run and it's well worth the Royal Court doing everything to maximise its audience. And some of the newcomers may well return to see future shows there, which would be an extra bonus for the Royal Court. Thursday matinee was pretty busy.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 12, 2017 12:29:23 GMT
Time was when working class voices were part of the Royal Court - Bond, Wesker - but it was never like Stratford East's embrace of the whole culture under Joan Littlewood, always remaining at an objective distance. I suppose the university expansion of the sixties changed things, as most working class writers were more able to get noticed through being in higher education, leading unmediated working class voices to dwindle but, occasionally, an untutored writer still popped up such as Cartwright or Andrea Dunbar. As such, I think Road, is no longer what the Court audience expect and that sheen of theatrical respectability which Tiffany brings to it here is counter productive.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 12, 2017 12:48:10 GMT
Time was when working class voices were part of the Royal Court - Bond, Wesker - but it was never like Stratford East's embrace of the whole culture under Joan Littlewood, always remaining at an objective distance. I suppose the university expansion of the sixties changed things, as most working class writers were more able to get noticed through being in higher education, leading unmediated working class voices to dwindle but, occasionally, an untutored writer still popped up such as Cartwright or Andrea Dunbar. As such, I think Road, is no longer what the Court audience expect and that sheen of theatrical respectability which Tiffany brings to it here is counter productive. When Road was premiered, the only biographical information given by the Royal Court about Jim Cartwright was that he was an unemployed Bolton man. Which implied complete theatrical outsider status, as had earlier been the case with Andrea Dunbar, another writer championed by Max Stafford-Clark at the Royal Court. But in factJim Cartwright was an actor, trained at a drama school. This counters the outsider myth.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 12, 2017 13:49:20 GMT
Time was when working class voices were part of the Royal Court - Bond, Wesker - but it was never like Stratford East's embrace of the whole culture under Joan Littlewood, always remaining at an objective distance. I suppose the university expansion of the sixties changed things, as most working class writers were more able to get noticed through being in higher education, leading unmediated working class voices to dwindle but, occasionally, an untutored writer still popped up such as Cartwright or Andrea Dunbar. As such, I think Road, is no longer what the Court audience expect and that sheen of theatrical respectability which Tiffany brings to it here is counter productive. When Road was premiered, the only biographical information given by the Royal Court about Jim Cartwright was that he was an unemployed Bolton man. Which implied complete theatrical outsider status, as had earlier been the case with Andrea Dunbar, another writer championed by Max Stafford-Clark at the Royal Court. But in factJim Cartwright was an actor, trained at a drama school. This counters the outsider myth. That's the education expansion part. To get there from a council estate, having been to a secondary modern where, he's said of himself that he could 'barely write', by the time he left was your usual pathway to get into GSA and Central! That he was good at acting was a way out for a few like him, though. So, the lad done good. He's also been very active in trying to provide classes for those who are in a similar position to how he was, with his own drama studio. www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40705516
|
|
1,175 posts
|
Post by joem on Aug 13, 2017 20:29:56 GMT
I enjoyed this rather more than I thought I would. Having missed it before and only read some cursory information about it I was half-expecting a humourless two-hour rant telling me how awful I am for having the money to go to a theatre to be told how awful I am for having the money......etc.
It's not like that at all is it? Whilst the overarching theme is the waste of human lives caught up in unemployment, deprivation and meaninglessness this is more about human nature and how people react to such pressures. Incidentally, why do we have to define ourselves as what we do? Surely the ultimate ambition should be to find ourselves as persons not be defined by what pays for the bills. "I am a fireman"... you shouldn't be. You shuld be a man who likes this and does that and puts out fires so you can afford to do the things you enjoy.
The poetic language which is used at times is really effective and takes the play to a different level, elevating it from the prosaic drinking and bad sex which occupies much of its time. The two monologues highlighted in an earlier post are things of beauty. Liked the use of music and the staging too.
What brings the play down a notch is the endings in both acts. Too vague and wordy, especially the long bedroom scene (clever as it is technically) where the character is flailing around with ideas which he doesn't understand and cannot communicate.
Not having seen the original production but having read the playtext it seems to me that any aspirations towards innovative presentation have more or less been abandoned and this is done here as a straight play with some quirks. But it's a pretty good play and certainly worth its revival.
|
|
520 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Aug 14, 2017 11:45:31 GMT
Have to admit it didn't do a lot for me. Hated the glass box - totally separated the audience from the characters. Loved many of the character scenes in act 1, and confused how totally the structure changed in act 2. Sound performances, but not what I expected in terms of emotional impact. I hoped for real anger and didn't feel it, alas. Yes, it felt very "staged" - nothing had any genuine impact. There's a lot of raw emotions within the play, it's a shame this production didn't bring it out.
|
|
270 posts
|
Post by littlesally on Aug 14, 2017 17:18:09 GMT
Have to say I absolutely loved this. I liked the glass box as it emphasised the isolation, even in the middle of all that long life! Performances superb all round. Much more humour than I'd expected too. And more than a few poignant moments.
|
|