|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 12:15:38 GMT
Times 1* City AM 1* Guardian 2* Time Out 2* Independent 2* London Theatre 2* Broadway World 2* The Stage 2* WOS 3* Telegraph 4*
I would not really call that marmite I would call it bad reviews For the third play in a row for the playwright
As far as "reviews hub" and "the upcoming" are concerned I do not think they really count or register for anything anywhere Certainly their reviews or quotes are never used by mainstream commercial shows for publicity Although perhaps the RC will have to in this case as there isn't much else for them to spin
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 9:30:46 GMT
People may fnd it interesting to do the twitter search I referred to above - pity royalcourt (with no space). Opening night tonight. You do realise The two are not mutually exclusive And people post on forums AND Twitter So I am not sure of your point In fact If someone’s entire contribution To social media Is Twitter It says a lot about them
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 21, 2018 11:08:38 GMT
People may fnd it interesting to do the twitter search I referred to above - pity royalcourt (with no space). Opening night tonight. You do realise The two are not mutually exclusive And people post on forums AND Twitter So I am not sure of your point In fact If someone’s entire contribution To social media Is Twitter It says a lot about them I was thinking about this and it’s the brevity of the medium. I’m looking between the lines for what the production is about and the way it is done. Easily done in a short tweet, yes or no and then move onto the next one and people who like something tend to better describe what they have seen. Actually, the opinions are pretty much irrelevant at that point. Once I’ve seen something then it’s interesting to read longer responses so I can compare them with my own.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 13:01:06 GMT
Perhaps a discussion about why we post on forums belongs on another thread. I don’t consider my posts to be reviews. They are not intended to help other people make up their minds about what to see or avoid. They are purely a way of expressing my immediate thoughts on my experience of watching a play. If they were reviews I would spend more time on them, working them up until they were succinct and accurate representations of my experience. Sometimes I’ve been pointed in the direction of a play by comments on this forum - negative or positive. I’m drawn to plays because of the subject matter and would go to see a play that interests me regardless of reviews or any number of negative/positive posts or tweets.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 21, 2018 17:53:41 GMT
Mr Foxa wanted to see this today, so we went to the matinee.
Oh my.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 21, 2018 18:47:26 GMT
Show report: Running time: One hour forty no interval (probably a good thing.) Dogs or other animals: No, but at one point actors pretend to be animals (not so great) or pretend they are walking dogs (quite fun.) Loud noises: Tonnes, constantly, yes! If you have a thing about loud noises don't go. Audience: Not at all full today. The audience seemed to arrive happy and leave unhappy. Positives: Chloe Lambert's design was inventive, if, at times, troublesome and sound designer Pete Malkin did a couple of good things. I think Francesca Mills is a potential star - she has a lot of charisma, a grasp of comedy and did some very good physical work. Liked some of the early synchronised movement. Front of house staff (except for grouchy box office guy) were lovely. You are given the choice of the usual entrance or the dock entrance. We liked the dock entrance where you walked across the stage and could buy an ice cream and get a free tombola ticket if you so desire. The Royal Court is beautiful and I loved feeling the hug of the auditorium from the stage. Negatives: Ah. I've seen three of Mullarkey's plays and I can't say on that evidence if he's a good writer or not. He must certainly be excellent at pitching ideas to get people willing to put them on and he has a certain confidence, but I've yet to see anything where he's created a character or had a believable or involving story arc - which he would probably disdain but, for me, watching a bunch of ciphers do unbelievable things is, well, not great. It reminded me of when my son was about twelve and he had that computer game Sims (?) where you were supposed to design a house and a family and have them do things. He would build outlandish things and then have disasters - the bins were constantly on fire and family members were hurtling out of windows. 'Pity' had that same childish nothing matters nihilism. The atrocities section was almost unbearable in its repetition and tedium.
I've been researching Arthur Miller for something and its interesting to see how much of his early life involved menial, manual labour type jobs and while we think of 'Death of a Salesman' as an early play, it was actually (depending on how you count them) approximately his tenth. His best writing tended to be rooted in his understanding of ordinary working people. His playwriting apprenticeship and experience of the real world was essential to his best work. I think if you are someone who has only been a student and then a writer, you may have less to say to audiences. Or at least to me.
I would give it one and a half stars because of some charm and inventiveness in the first ten minutes.
Mr Foxa said zero stars and asked if I could think of anything we'd ever seen that was worse. (I have been more bored or offended, so not the worst for me.) He thought it was insultingly bad.
The man in the row in front of us kept resting his head on the seat before him. He'd occasionally look up - see something ghastly - then rest his head back down.
It is a bit heart-breaking how much money was spent on this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 19:07:17 GMT
Mr Foxa wanted to see this today, so we went to the matinee. Oh my. So you are one of the posters I always look out for Regarding comments and views In this case Did the negative reviews both in the forum And the press Not serve to put you off attending this? Do you wish you had not bothered? Or did you take enough away from it? I am not asking this to be rude or provacative But with all respect Our time is precious Too valuable to see things this worthless It always amazes me That people read universally bad press and reviews I am not talking the odd review I mean across the board And then still see something at their time and expense Also when I say about reading reviews Not just noting the number of stars But the content All the reviews for this show Have observed the tedious And protracted nature of the play Poor direction And staging And text After reading this Are people actually expecting to enjoy it when they go? Do they think the bad reviews and criticism are just made up??
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 21, 2018 19:18:33 GMT
I'm not offended at all, Parsley, and I see what you are saying.
I suppose there are two things: part of the success of my unbelievably long marriage to Mr Foxa is to say sometimes, sure, okay, why not? He was intrigued - he had liked St George and the Dragon more than me and, despite the reviews for this, wanted to go. And the second thing, is that I am quite a curious person and a bit of a play collector. The Royal Court is easy for us to get to and I got my work done this morning, so...fine. And, oddly, I still had quite a pleasant afternoon.
I think you are in some ways more passionate and sensitive than I am - it is like you are in physical and mental anguish during a play you don't enjoy - whereas I am, I suppose, a bit like a a clock maker. If I don't enjoy it, I sit there trying to figure it out.
In terms of other people's reviews - I'm always interested to read your reviews and if you rave about something (such as 'Cuttin' it') then I sit up and take notice. And sometimes I agree with your pans, but sometimes I enjoy those plays a bit more :-)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 19:23:00 GMT
I'm not offended at all, Parsley, and I see what you are saying. I suppose there are two things: part of the success of my unbelievably long marriage to Mr Foxa is to say sometimes, sure, okay, why not? He was intrigued - he had liked St George and the Dragon more than me and, despite the reviews for this, wanted to go. And the second thing, is that I am quite a curious person and a bit of a play collector. The Royal Court is easy for us to get to and I got my work done this morning, so...fine. And, oddly, I still had quite a pleasant afternoon. I think you are in some ways more passionate and sensitive than I am - it is like you are in physical and mental anguish during a play you don't enjoy - whereas I am, I suppose, a bit like a a clock maker. If I don't enjoy it, I sit there trying to figure it out. In terms of other people's reviews - I'm always interested to read your reviews and if you rave about something (such as 'Cuttin' it') then I sit up and take notice. And sometimes I agree with your pans, but sometimes I enjoy those plays a bit more :-) Yes you are right I think difference in personality has a lot to do with it I am very impatient And get very agitated if a show doesn’t grab me As you said I get physically distressed And angry and insulted I am also quick to realise and decide if I like a show or not There are some shows which surprise me Recently Utility comes to mind Which I think was mundane But I very much found it absorbing So it’s not that the show has to have bells and whistles to catch my attention I find your points interesting As so often the reason I am very polarised and dramatic in my reviews Is the idea of others having to suffer a dud show as I have done Upsets me greatly
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 21, 2018 19:26:28 GMT
Yes, and that's how I have always understood your reviews, Parsley!
AND I agree about 'Utility' that was a surprise hit with me - and I went to that just on a whim on my own one afternoon. I was totally absorbed. But I like real, sympathetic portrayals of people with a dilemma (that's not the only thing I like but that play certainly had it!) It was the exact opposite of 'Pity.'
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 19:57:24 GMT
Yes, and that's how I have always understood your reviews, Parsley! AND I agree about 'Utility' that was a surprise hit with me - and I went to that just on a whim on my own one afternoon. I was totally absorbed. But I like real, sympathetic portrayals of people with a dilemma (that's not the only thing I like but that play certainly had it!) It was the exact opposite of 'Pity.' I am thinking of all you forum sisters At heart When I post about shows !!!!!
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 21, 2018 20:27:55 GMT
Surprised to report that I really, really enjoyed this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 20:45:26 GMT
Surprised to report that I really, really enjoyed this. 🤗🤗
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 22, 2018 8:56:30 GMT
Tell us more, xanderl.
Over breakfast, Mr Foxa continued his complaints about the play, including the rather unique observation:
'And that postwoman saying she was off to do the afternoon post. Where in the country do they still have an afternoon post? It's arcane!'
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 22, 2018 10:31:34 GMT
Well, the large glass of wine I necked beforehand may have helped but it was one of the most entertaining evenings in the theatre I’ve had for a long time. I kept thinking about the sandwich song on the way home and laughing again
Reminded me of the films of Roy Andersson crossed with a panto.
And this is despite me being repeatedly accused of playing Pétanque by the Red General.
Was quite exiting being in the front row as I could feel the heat from the pyrotechnics
Could have been edited a bit but (as with Andersson) going on a bit too long made it funnier most of the time.
Only criticism- that was a raffle, not a tombola
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 10:32:32 GMT
Tell us more, xanderl. Over breakfast, Mr Foxa continued his complaints about the play, including the rather unique observation: 'And that postwoman saying she was off to do the afternoon post. Where in the country do they still have an afternoon post? It's arcane!' good observation from Mr Foxa. For all that posters like Pirelli go on about how this play represents our sense of the world being destroyed or whatever, my feeling on watching this play was how out of touch the writer is. The scene when they are all refugees made me gag because we all know that people are actually experiencing that right now and his response is to treat it like a video game.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 22, 2018 10:43:19 GMT
That's interesting Cleostryker - the line that I hated was 'And your unborn child' - spoken the way it was and treated so lightly. So gauche.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 22, 2018 11:14:07 GMT
Tell us more, xanderl. Over breakfast, Mr Foxa continued his complaints about the play, including the rather unique observation: 'And that postwoman saying she was off to do the afternoon post. Where in the country do they still have an afternoon post? It's arcane!' good observation from Mr Foxa. For all that posters like Pirelli go on about how this play represents our sense of the world being destroyed or whatever, my feeling on watching this play was how out of touch the writer is. The scene when they are all refugees made me gag because we all know that people are actually experiencing that right now and his response is to treat it like a video game. I’m reporting what others have said. Take it up with them!
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 22, 2018 11:34:20 GMT
Reminded me of the films of Roy Andersson crossed with a panto. Uh oh. I was all set on giving this a miss given the critical panning it has had, but this single line has piqued a little interest in me...
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 22, 2018 12:10:03 GMT
Despite what I've written above I wouldn't say that you shouldn't go see this. (Sorry, what an ugly sentence full of Trumpian double-negatives!) I did get something out of the afternoon - even in thinking about what theatre is and what I like. Also I will say it again - I really liked Francesca Mills' performance. Mr Foxa and daugthter Foxa had seen her in The Two Noble Kinsmen at the Globe playing the Jailer's daughter and had thought she was fantastic in that. I enjoyed everything she did in this.
I don't know Roy Andersson's films and I didn't find this very pantomimic (word?) I saw a big influence of Peter Handke's 'The Hour We Knew Nothing' which was on at the National a while back, which was also set in a market square, but was far quieter/subdued/gently whimsical.
Xanderl - good and correct point about Tombola. It was indeed a raffle!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 13:54:24 GMT
Well. I can now say that I've appeared on the stage of the Royal Court. I resisted the temptation to give a bow to the great unwashed after receiving my raffle ticket but got distracted by deciding whether to go for an ice cream or not. Raspberry Ripple or Mint Choc Chip from a supermarket tub were the options. I decided against it. I did not win the raffle, probably karma for not buying an ice cream. One raffle winner in particular seemed very excited to win and almost ran to the stage in a 'Price Is Right' fashion. I don't think she gets out much.
As for the play, I can't really say that I know what I was watching. There is a lot going on. Some of it was funny, other parts dragged somewhat and there's an 'Atrocities' dance break which is initially amusing but does seem to go on forever. On the plus side, you get lots of lovely theatrical tricks, some pyrotechnics AND not one but TWO little tanks. The first appearance is really rather a joy. An appearance by an angel is very funny indeed, there are some very cute fluffy dogs (not real), a soldier who is very light on his toes and the exits of any characters who die is delivered with deadpan delight from the cast who work VERY hard. I especially liked Sandy Grierson who could make me giggle just with a little glance.
It's all pretty bonkers really. I heard two old duffers on the way out who hated it while the yoof (as I believe they are known) seemed more open to it's absurdity.
Oh and if you don't like loud noises then don't go. Really, don't go. I couldn't even begin to pre-warn you where they appear, there are so many.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 27, 2018 9:52:40 GMT
“Reminds me of that fella back home who fell off a ten-story building. As he was falling, people on each floor kept hearing him say, "So far, so good."” The Magnificent Seven.
I did get to see this after all, yesterday afternoon, having travelled down a bit earlier, and glad that I trusted my own instincts as I liked it a lot (and this is still getting a vociferous online appreciation, so is reaching at least some of its audience).
Angry play. Complacent audience.
I don’t think they really got that this was aimed at them. ‘i’m alright’ is the constant refrain and serves as the approach to life of far too many. We see our country, and beyond, sliding into disaster and, like the person falling, there’s an inevitable point where you reach a sticky end. Stylistically on point, the play as written shows real talent. The directing, however, is where some problems arise. Having done some good work, such as Pygmalion, elsewhere, I never got the impression that he knew how absurdism works. It isn’t that common nowadays but it needs reality in its delivery and depth not surface. The sheen of comedy that is aimed for, with lines sounding like laugh lines, isn’t the best approach. Audiences are confused by tone and it’s a place of anger and despair that the play springs from so it is better when that underpins the absurdity. He got that in parts but it was inconsistent. What he did do well was pacing and the switch from frenetic to glacial and so on worked well.
Just a few touchstones, all of which I appreciate but, if you don’t, then you are likely to disagree with all of this. Spike Milligan, especially his post apocalyptic play ‘The Bed Sitting Room’, which is one of the earliest plays that I read/saw and truly loved. Vic Reeves’ Big Night Out. Thornton Wilder’s ‘The Skin of Our Teeth’, maybe the best absurdist play written in the English language.
A highly political play, but a production in danger of hiding that.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 29, 2018 13:00:58 GMT
I feel awful writing this because the cast were doing their best, but Jesus, this was Springtime for Hitler-level bad.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 29, 2018 13:14:01 GMT
But it wasn't. It seemed to suggest events were as random as lightning bolts*, unemployment just happens, terrorist attacks just happen, wars just happen, and 'sides' are just arbitrary colour schemes. FFS! A line about jealousy over avocados rather than addressing the whole herd of elephants in the room. The current world situation is not random or 'absurd' - its various strands have been a long time brewing. And to cap it all, a whole ship filled with helium, a finite resource about which future generations will go "what - you used it to fill party balloons??" *And a meteorologist will doubtless point out the complex patterns that lead to them, as well.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2018 14:56:46 GMT
But it wasn't. It seemed to suggest events were as random as lightning bolts*, unemployment just happens, terrorist attacks just happen, wars just happen, and 'sides' are just arbitrary colour schemes. FFS! A line about jealousy over avocados rather than addressing the whole herd of elephants in the room. The current world situation is not random or 'absurd' - its various strands have been a long time brewing. And to cap it all, a whole ship filled with helium, a finite resource about which future generations will go "what - you used it to fill party balloons??" *And a meteorologist will doubtless point out the complex patterns that lead to them, as well. Life is beyond our control, things just happen without any will of our own. The things that happen and which shape our lives are purportedly the fault of someone else, the politicians, those who control the message through media or business etc, although absurdists would posit that even they are not in control. How can anyone think that any of this is by design? This is not a literal, logical style and reading it as such and attempting to make each thing connect to reality is futile. Beckett wasn’t making a social commentary by putting characters in dustbins, Arrabal didn’t think people would would picnic on a battlefield. It’s one of the central pillars of absurdism, based as it is on nihilism and the existentialists. If people look for politics as in left/right wing then they are going to be lost, this is a cri de couer at the idiots who claim that they can do something or ‘take back control’. No, the characters were not ‘alright’ and an acceptance of their powerlessness would at least have enabled them to face that as a community rather than individuals whittled down until there was just one person who was still ‘alright’.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 29, 2018 15:13:17 GMT
If people look for politics as in left/right wing then they are going to be lost, this is a cri de couer at the idiots who claim that they can do something or ‘take back control’. I disagree. I came to this just after reading Tish Murtha's passionate 1980 letter that accompanies her photos of youth unemployment in the late 70s. If you're in London, go along to the photographers' gallery and have a look. Read her letter, especially the last page. This isn't Candide's earthquake. All the things happening in the world today have human causes and can be changed by humans if they try.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2018 15:24:24 GMT
If people look for politics as in left/right wing then they are going to be lost, this is a cri de couer at the idiots who claim that they can do something or ‘take back control’. I disagree. I came to this just after reading Tish Murtha's passionate 1980 letter that accompanies her photos of youth unemployment in the late 70s. If you're in London, go along to the photographers' gallery and have a look. Read her letter, especially the last page. This isn't Candide's earthquake. All the things happening in the world today have human causes and can be changed by humans if they try. I disagree, the world is too complex to be controlled. I wish that were not the case but experience has told me that the best we can do is tinker at the edges.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 29, 2018 15:51:06 GMT
the best we can do is tinker at the edges. We made a concerted effort to improve things in the postwar period, despite it being a society physically, financially and emotionally shattered by war. Today's humans are far more comfortably off and in a better position regarding health, wealth and wellbeing to actually plan for the future and make the serious changes needed for their long-term survival and happiness, but are instead sitting there like the dog in the burning house in that meme.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2018 16:29:50 GMT
Yet all that had to be done within a particular system that thousands of years had led to and which would take a similar time to change. I appreciate that that sort of long term view is not exactly in tune with most. I do think we are getting close to a Malthusian catastrophe which would be prove to be more than a minor tinkering, however, sometime in the next century.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2018 17:06:38 GMT
If people look for politics as in left/right wing then they are going to be lost, this is a cri de couer at the idiots who claim that they can do something or ‘take back control’. I disagree. I came to this just after reading Tish Murtha's passionate 1980 letter that accompanies her photos of youth unemployment in the late 70s. If you're in London, go along to the photographers' gallery and have a look. Read her letter, especially the last page. This isn't Candide's earthquake. All the things happening in the world today have human causes and can be changed by humans if they try. I agree with you, Crowblack. The Cardinal references Beckett, but Beckett certainly knew which side he was on during WW2 when he worked for the resistance. He had a reason to write the plays he did because he committed to a cause, lived with the fear of being caught. What is Mullarkey committed to here?
|
|