2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 18, 2018 9:32:18 GMT
People may fnd it interesting to do the twitter search I referred to above - pity royalcourt (with no space).
Opening night tonight.
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on Jul 18, 2018 9:49:56 GMT
People may fnd it interesting to do the twitter search I referred to above - pity royalcourt (with no space). Opening night tonight.
Twitter reaction should be taken with a big pinch of salt. It's usually 90% artists looking to play nice with the institution or big up their friends' work. Check the bios.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 18, 2018 10:17:32 GMT
People may fnd it interesting to do the twitter search I referred to above - pity royalcourt (with no space). Opening night tonight.
Twitter reaction should be taken with a big pinch of salt. It's usually 90% artists looking to play nice with the institution or big up their friends' work. Check the bios.
I do. Amazingly, you won’t believe it, but theatre connected people comment on the theatre that they see. Well, colour me surprised! I see people I know from the theatre world (know personally) regularly commenting on all sorts, it’s because they love it and like talking about it, for good or ill. Their views are closer to what transpires for me, it never lets me down. Of course, some may feel more kinship with parsley and fellow travellers. Up to them, I suppose, but they are of very limited use to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 10:32:39 GMT
I'm not necessarily cynical about *who's* saying things on Twitter, but I am cynical about people saying *anything* on Twitter. Most of my buddies don't like to comment on a bad show* - sometimes they're aware that their remarks will be visible to those involved, sometimes they're going by the "if you can't say anything nice" rule, sometimes they just don't want to give any more of their brain space to a bad show - so if I only see positive comments, that doesn't automatically mean it's a good show, it just means that anyone who's commenting on it liked it but with no indication as to whether that's the majority or minority view. Similar problem with negative comments: is this a genuinely bad show, or have I just discovered the sort of people who complain about anything and everything?
If someone I already have an established relationship with likes a show, then I can usually work out from how our opinions have meshed previously whether I'm likely to enjoy it or not, but there's not much point searching hashtags to see what random people you've never met and will never know have to say about it. That's why this board is so useful; we may not always agree, but we have the space and time to establish whose opinions often match your own, therefore whose opinions are going to be valuable to you.
*though if a show is TERRIBLE they might make an exception, because sometimes a show is so bad that it would be more unkind to *not* warn people away from it.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 18, 2018 11:32:20 GMT
I only post about shows I have liked or an aspect of a show I have liked or found interesting on Twitter - and I think a lot of people do the same.
I won't say I liked something I didn't but I save my pans for here.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 11:43:29 GMT
I have to add something to my statement about this in the interests of honesty: I have a feeling that younger people may love this. There were only a couple of walk outs when I saw it and quite a few young people in the audience seemed to be having the time of their lives. A few audience members had faces like thunder! The cast were fantastic and the effects were well done. The script was weak and puerile but It wouldn’t surprise me if this got raves. Would I recommend it? Let’s just say that you won’t be bored.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 11:58:03 GMT
They don’t really count
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 18, 2018 12:04:25 GMT
I only post about shows I have liked or an aspect of a show I have liked or found interesting on Twitter - and I think a lot of people do the same. I won't say I liked something I didn't but I save my pans for here. I only post to any great degree on things that I loved or hated. Quite often on things that I loved which others hated or hated that others loved. I see the same on twitter. The middle ground just gets tumbleweed. The Writer, to take an important example, had both great and incandescent tweets and the positive balance of them were reflective of my own opinions. People can only comment on their own experience. I find most comments on this board to be of no use to me because we are too different. In fact, anything beyond the mainstream that gets some people fulminating on here is actually likely to make me more positive on it. That’s not to say that comments here aren’t interesting, because they are, even if at times ill informed and reactionary but, if I want to see if I should or shouldn’t book something, it’s twitter over this board that is vastly more reflective at each point of my own taste.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 12:12:42 GMT
I only post about shows I have liked or an aspect of a show I have liked or found interesting on Twitter - and I think a lot of people do the same. I won't say I liked something I didn't but I save my pans for here. I only post to any great degree on things that I loved or hated. Quite often on things that I loved which others hated or hated that others loved. I see the same on twitter. The middle ground just gets tumbleweed. The Writer, to take an important example, had both great and incandescent tweets and the positive balance of them were reflective of my own opinions. People can only comment on their own experience. I find most comments on this board to be of no use to me because we are too different. In fact, anything beyond the mainstream that gets some people fulminating on here is actually likely to make me more positive on it. That’s not to say that comments here aren’t interesting, because they are, even if at times ill informed and reactionary but, if I want to see if I should or shouldn’t book something, it’s twitter over this board that is vastly more reflective at each point of my own taste. No one forcing you to post here Or to read the forum
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 18, 2018 12:31:08 GMT
I only post to any great degree on things that I loved or hated. The reality is that that's the nature of the internet in general. A platform that's built around getting as many people to like your comment as quickly as possible (like Twitter) inevitably pushes content creators towards extreme opinions and short/snappy dialogue. Like newspaper headlines but without any actual main text which might include the nuances. Messageboards like this one obviously don't push the 'low word count' as strongly as twitter, but IMO there's still a tendency towards shorter and more polarising opinions. I find most comments on this board to be of no use to me because we are too different. IMO this is down to the wide and scattered nature of the users. With a traditional reviewer, they're consistently writing their opinions on a whole range of theatre. This means that over a period of time you get to know whose opinions line up with your own, and consequently whose reviews you 'trust'. On this messageboard, the fact that commenters & comments are more scattered means that it's less straight forward to get a decent understanding of each persons tastes - outside of those people who stick out to you. There probably are TB users whose viewpoints would line up well with yours, you just haven't found them yet.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 18, 2018 12:37:41 GMT
I only post to any great degree on things that I loved or hated. Quite often on things that I loved which others hated or hated that others loved. I see the same on twitter. The middle ground just gets tumbleweed. The Writer, to take an important example, had both great and incandescent tweets and the positive balance of them were reflective of my own opinions. People can only comment on their own experience. I find most comments on this board to be of no use to me because we are too different. In fact, anything beyond the mainstream that gets some people fulminating on here is actually likely to make me more positive on it. That’s not to say that comments here aren’t interesting, because they are, even if at times ill informed and reactionary but, if I want to see if I should or shouldn’t book something, it’s twitter over this board that is vastly more reflective at each point of my own taste. No one forcing you to post here Or to read the forum Straw man, that isn’t my view as I made clear. What people say here is invariably interesting but not particularly useful for me as an individual. Other places are more useful but, even then, only to a degree. EDIT: jadnoop, there are posters whose tastes match my own to a greater degree and that’s interesting as you can see what connects you. Nowhere near 100% but how could it be? In the end, you can’t trust that you would like or hate anything just because someone else did.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 18, 2018 12:51:03 GMT
Twitter reaction should be taken with a big pinch of salt. It's usually 90% artists looking to play nice with the institution or big up their friends' work. Check the bios.
I do. Amazingly, you won’t believe it, but theatre connected people comment on the theatre that they see. Well, colour me surprised! I see people I know from the theatre world (know personally) regularly commenting on all sorts, it’s because they love it and like talking about it, for good or ill. Their views are closer to what transpires for me, it never lets me down. Of course, some may feel more kinship with parsley and fellow travellers. Up to them, I suppose, but they are of very limited use to me. Chameleon is right though. You're very rarely going to see people, especially theatre people, slamming a show they've seen. They're more likely to stay silent. The rare ones that are honest about bad shows tend not to tag in the theatre, director etc. Those that want the jobs tag and praise.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 12:27:31 GMT
I do. Amazingly, you won’t believe it, but theatre connected people comment on the theatre that they see. Well, colour me surprised! I see people I know from the theatre world (know personally) regularly commenting on all sorts, it’s because they love it and like talking about it, for good or ill. Their views are closer to what transpires for me, it never lets me down. Of course, some may feel more kinship with parsley and fellow travellers. Up to them, I suppose, but they are of very limited use to me. Chameleon is right though. You're very rarely going to see people, especially theatre people, slamming a show they've seen. They're more likely to stay silent. The rare ones that are honest about bad shows tend not to tag in the theatre, director etc. Those that want the jobs tag and praise. Theatre connected people definitely won’t slam their mate’s work and they don’t have recourse to silence because their friends will read that as a comment in itself.
|
|
1,189 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jul 19, 2018 14:14:43 GMT
I wonder why there are no press reviews of this yet. Wasn't last night the press night?
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 19, 2018 15:13:03 GMT
Did 'Allelujah' have the same press night? Did that push 'Pity' out?
|
|
1,189 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jul 19, 2018 15:23:14 GMT
They both had press nights last night so maybe there is second press night tonight for Pity.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 17:16:03 GMT
I wonder why there are no press reviews of this yet. Due to the size of the theatre and demand, they regularly have two press nights, and ask that reviews are embargoed until after the second one. That is the case for this one, and it's noted in the press pack. I am anticipating the reviews for this
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 19, 2018 21:27:48 GMT
Pity embargoed until tomorrow.
God help it...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 21:48:42 GMT
@parsley , dare I ask what the story was? Jacqueline Wilson “Girls out late” For a bit I love children’s audio So interesting and I dip and out as know whole chunks off by heart Part of it is the narrator Who bring the story to life in a way reading a novel can’t do And then some old Sue Townsend “The Queen and I”
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 22:26:57 GMT
“That got me noticed by the Royal Court, which I’d never heard of and presumed was where the Queen lived”
From an interview with the playwright In the ES
Where do they find these utter idiots ? Almost as if they scout for bad talent At the moment Both the shows playing at the RC Are so badly written
Is this really the pinnacle of new theatre Fresh writing These were the cream of the crop?
I really really doubt it
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 23:14:42 GMT
Here is a summary of the reviews
For Saint George and The Dragon:
Guardian 3* Time Out 3* Telegraph 3* Independent 3* Broadway World 2* The Times 2* City AM 2* WOS 2* FT 2* The Stage 2* London Theatre 2* ES 2* Daily Mail 1*
And for The Wolf from the Door:
Express 3* FT 3* ES 3* WOS 3* Time Out 3* Telegraph 3* Observer 2* Guardian 2*
And now Pity:
Guardian 2* The Stage 2*
This sort of thing Just shows how stupid Idiotic And up its own arse The world of theatre is That people keep commissioning Talentless individuals To write utter sh*t
Three plays in a row None of which was a critical hit And which have all been progressively worse
WTF is going on in the minds Of producers And directors And actors
Pathetic
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 23:17:15 GMT
Oh but of course The forum is useless Twitter is much more useful For a guidance of quality 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Just watch this www.whatsonstage.com/london-theatre/news/pity-royal-court-opening-night-rory-mullarkey_47156.htmlHe can’t even string a coherent sentence together And what he says is meaningless Very indicative of his play writing Apparently Saint George Took him three years of full time Writing 🤣🤣🤣 You can do a degree in this time “I wrote a play for the National Theatre called Saint George and the Dragon which took three years of nearly full-time work and was the most wrenching, frightening, thrilling, exposing, exhausting thing I’ve ever been involved with and I feel bonded by fire and blood forever to everyone who made that show with me.” And MORE From Time Out: “Pity’ is a dark satire on the ever-present possibility of total societal collapse that also pokes mischievous holes in the very idea of conventional narratives, which Mullarkey doesn’t have a lot of time for. ‘When I’m watching a more conventional play, I can tell what’s going to happen five minutes in and then you’re sitting there for two hours,’ he says. ‘Our attention spans work a bit differently than perhaps they did in Ibsen’s day, so I wanted to write something that would feed that need for events that surprise, rather than being: no, theatre is a fenced off space where we have to build plays like we did 100 years ago.’ Most drama struggles to really convey the chaos of life. ‘Pity’ may actually exceed it” What annoys me the most Is the collusion of certain “media” To boost the already large egos of these talentless people Who have nothing to say And devoid of any real ideas Instead they are nurtured Why is failure and bad work like this rewarded In the arts sector
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 19, 2018 23:59:03 GMT
Oh but of course The forum is useless Twitter is much more useful For a guidance of quality So you didn’t understand the original point. To reiterate. Different people’s reviews are reflected in different places. Professional reviewers are no more useful than anyone who expresses an opinion, including people who post their opinions here or elsewhere. If you find a way that is useful to you, use it but it will be of little use to someone else. Giving a few comparisons, I agree with someone like Gardner, Lukowski, Hitchings probably more than half of the time. Some like Cavendish less than half. Others like Treneman and your good self and other hypernegative sources maybe ten to twenty percent. It’s not enough to be useful is it? Interesting in a way, but not useful. It’s not about this show or ‘being right’ it’s about the impossibility of measuring taste or the chance of finding it reflected. We find some people/places that prove better matches than others but that’s as good as we can manage.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 0:07:28 GMT
I think this writer is talented and interesting but his work has been exposed on the main stages too early in his career. St George might have been a hit in the Dorfman. The reviews for Pity could have been a bit more generous for the actors and designer. I wonder how much dramaturgical support Mullarkey has had. I also feel that he has written quite a lot in a short space of time which is why the quality of the thinking in the work is so poor. I blame the producers for this - they should be looking after young talent not damaging it. One consolation for Mullarkey may be that the young audience seemed to genuinely enjoy this so it may yet do well commercially. I hope so.
|
|
1,189 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jul 20, 2018 6:54:43 GMT
Looks like it is 1 and 2 stars across the board so far (apart from one 4 star review from The upcoming)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 6:58:39 GMT
Oh boo. See, I really liked Wolf From The Door, and there was enough about St George And The Dragon that I didn't hate, but it does sound like his work might be steadily decreasing in quality. Still, only a few days before I get to judge this for myself, at least the hard part will be over then.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Jul 20, 2018 10:00:34 GMT
I think this writer is talented and interesting but his work has been exposed on the main stages too early in his career. St George might have been a hit in the Dorfman. The reviews for Pity could have been a bit more generous for the actors and designer. I wonder how much dramaturgical support Mullarkey has had. I also feel that he has written quite a lot in a short space of time which is why the quality of the thinking in the work is so poor. I blame the producers for this - they should be looking after young talent not damaging it. One consolation for Mullarkey may be that the young audience seemed to genuinely enjoy this so it may yet do well commercially. I hope so. He spent three years on Saint George and the Dragon, by his own account. That seems plenty of time to do some quality thinking. I haven't seen Pity, but I am curious about how heavily he has been promoted. You're right to say he has been exposed on the main stages, but so many writers, of all ages, would give their right arm for that exposure.
|
|
1,189 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jul 20, 2018 10:18:58 GMT
Some 3 and 4 star reviews coming through too so it's a proper Marmite show
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 11:00:42 GMT
I think this writer is talented and interesting but his work has been exposed on the main stages too early in his career. St George might have been a hit in the Dorfman. The reviews for Pity could have been a bit more generous for the actors and designer. I wonder how much dramaturgical support Mullarkey has had. I also feel that he has written quite a lot in a short space of time which is why the quality of the thinking in the work is so poor. I blame the producers for this - they should be looking after young talent not damaging it. One consolation for Mullarkey may be that the young audience seemed to genuinely enjoy this so it may yet do well commercially. I hope so. He spent three years on Saint George and the Dragon, by his own account. That seems plenty of time to do some quality thinking. I haven't seen Pity, but I am curious about how heavily he has been promoted. You're right to say he has been exposed on the main stages, but so many writers, of all ages, would give their right arm for that exposure. How much thought needs to go into a play differs from project to project. Michael Frayn says that he keeps ideas on file and that it may take many years before he is able to find a form that fits the subject matter. You get an indication of Mullarkey’s thinking and the work he has exposed himself to because the play references and satirises Handke, Kane, Kushner, Churchill...and perhaps many more. If a writer has several commissions then they sometimes have to deliver a play before it is fully formed. With a wild and wayward talent like Mullarkey’s I would guess that creatives at the RC leave him to do his own thing because they’re not up to giving him useful dramaturgical support. Despite my reservations I would have given this 4 stars but that would have been for the efforts of the other creatives involved - design, acting, directing. Much as I am interested in Mullarkey’s work I would give this script 1 star.
|
|
|
Post by smallperson on Jul 20, 2018 11:29:27 GMT
I saw this last Friday with my young family (in their 20s not toddlers!) and I was pleasantly surprised that something I thought might be just too weird for any of us, young and (me) old alike, had us engaged with the messaging and caring about it enough to go the bar afterwards and argue about its merits and - to be sure - faults. It reminded me of Anthony Neilson's Wonderful World of Dissocia which for heaven's sake was 11 years ago and a reference totally lost on the children. The consensus was that it threw the kitchen sink at a load of cultural references, it moved on at a pace, didn't outstay its welcome and in the era of Trump and Brexit made us reflect on how mad the real world is and the world of theatre as a consequence can be. Family outings like this seldom disappoint because we are a gobby lot who like talking afterwards and this gave us all plenty to say. So for us a successful night out - star ratings don't really hack it because we all know how subjective they are but adding them up from the five of us for what it’s worth = 15*.
|
|