89 posts
|
Post by gazzaw13 on Aug 26, 2019 21:45:09 GMT
Just back from tonight’s preview with mixed feelings. Superb performances from two of our national treasures as a warring couple - an MP and his wife. Set and set up seem dated and I inevitably questioned whether we really need another upper middle class kitchen/dining room critique of the Thatcher era and Section 28. However the interest comes from viewing that era through an entirely different 2019 lens. Would we have reacted like the characters in 1988 or as our 2019 selves. The Section 28 arguments seem inconceivable now only 30 years on. Writer Simon Woods is clearly influenced by Albee but the play is quintessentially English with much mirth about how different we are from Americans.
The play packs an emotional punch which I found manipulative but the reaction of other audience members was very different. On balance I would say an interesting evening at the theatre - 3*.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 27, 2019 13:47:31 GMT
I saw this last night ( Monday) it played well to a packed house. As Andrew says, we can't really talk about where the play goes without giving too much away. I will say this though, it's deftly written and staged and the performances are strong. There's more to this play than meets the eye and I admire the fact that while all of the dots end up being connected, it was left to us ( the audience) to connect a few of them after the fact. A very worthwhile evening.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 21:21:44 GMT
I rather liked this! From a writery pov, I thought it was confident and accomplished for a first-timer. Sharp, wry, some cracking lines, and an animated dialogue held the attention throughout. Lovely shape to this as well imo, with thoughtful and thought-provoking strands well weaved. Well played Simon Woods and thoroughly decent innings' from both A. Jennings and L. Duncan
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 21:32:28 GMT
This is the first thing I’ve been truly excited about seeing at the NT for a while. I’m aiming to catch the cinema screening - sounds intriguing from the reviews here so far.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Aug 29, 2019 18:08:17 GMT
This is a really strong work for a debut. A traditional play about conservative values. How incredible is Duncan, who I have never seen on the stage before? I also enjoyed Jennings but I found it hard to believe two such sexy people were not having sex with each other.
|
|
3,058 posts
|
Post by david on Aug 31, 2019 21:15:39 GMT
A good night tonight at the Nash watching this really well written and acted play. It was my first time seeing Lindsay Duncan on stage and for me she really was terrific in her role. The 80 minutes flew by. As others have said, the play despite having a lot of comedy does deal with a lot of issues that are going to be great to discuss on here further down the road. A definite must see if you have the time.
|
|
4,028 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 31, 2019 21:16:51 GMT
Quentin Letts is going to hate it.
We loved it!
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Aug 31, 2019 21:29:40 GMT
Thought this was really brilliant and when it became clear what its focus was actually about and cleanly linked the political drama with human conflict it really hit its stride. I was worried it may end up an hour and twenty minutes of political back and forth with no real focus, especially given such a broad title as Hansard, but it zeroed in on one particular topic which I definitely did not expect to be the basis of this play but was especially relevant given the current discussions (even though it would have been equally as good without them). I did think it could have stood to end maybe a minute or so earlier at the (maybe spoilers but without context it shouldn't matter) projection scene. I just thought that might have been a little more poignant and equally demonstrated the husband's final line just a little less plainly but other than that a thoroughly entertaining night with laughs and also things to think about (and Lindsay Duncan was especially brilliant, even getting applause after some of her lines - she clearly has her timing down to a tee).
|
|
115 posts
|
Post by alexandra on Sept 3, 2019 20:13:08 GMT
Hated it. Sub-Albee, sub-Bennett. National Theatre audience giggling away at unfunny offensive lines. AJ and LD playing roles we’ve seen them play many times before and they can do with one arm tied behind them. A “revelation” you can see coming a mile off. NT middle class fodder, nothing to frighten the horses, including George Osborne whom Norris was practically cuddling afterwards, and Geoffrey Archer who’d probably heard his novels got a mention. Dire.
|
|
884 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Sept 3, 2019 22:06:57 GMT
Jeffrey Archer, actually. But his name check is the least of the play's problems including a joke about the Tebbit family that could have been written by Donald Trump and an oddly anachronistic name check for Norma Major given that John Major didn't become PM until 1990 so in 1988 she would not have been a name on these characters' lips. The Albee estate should sue.
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on Sept 3, 2019 22:08:06 GMT
Hated it. Sub-Albee, sub-Bennett. National Theatre audience giggling away at unfunny offensive lines. AJ and LD playing roles we’ve seen them play many times before and they can do with one arm tied behind them. A “revelation” you can see coming a mile off. NT middle class fodder, nothing to frighten the horses, including George Osborne whom Norris was practically cuddling afterwards, and Geoffrey Archer who’d probably heard his novels got a mention. Dire.
Absolutely. No story. Nothing new or interesting. Felt like listening to a few opinion columns from 'The Guardian' stitched together, with characters occasionally being gratuitously nasty to each other to keep the audience awake..
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 3, 2019 22:20:30 GMT
Jeffrey Archer, actually. But his name check is the least of the play's problems including a joke about the Tebbit family that could have been written by Donald Trump and an oddly anachronistic name check for Norma Major given that John Major didn't become PM until 1990 so in 1988 she would not have been a name on these characters' lips. The Albee estate should sue. I thought the Tebbit joke was intended to be crass so as to reflect an aspect of the character.
John Major was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in this period and established as Thatcher's chosen successor.
Fwiw, I sometimes think the NT is a little like the BBC; it has to programme for everyone but there is a demographic that subsidises what else can be shown. Given the Government chips in only 17%, in the expensive seats of the Olivier and Lyttelton middle class England does a lot of carry.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Sept 4, 2019 16:21:24 GMT
If this was a writing exercise to see if you could hold an audience's attention with a two-hander in continuous time where the only forward plot action is the question of whether or not the couple will be able to serve lunch, then it would be a 5/5.
With those limitations as an actual play it's a 3/5 thanks to some snappy dialogue and very good performances.
I think Tory cabinet ministers and their wives would know who Norma Major is in 1988, but there was definitely some anachronistic dialogue.
Playing to the sort of audience who know who Noam Chomsky, Nancy Mitford and Ian McEwan are and are happy to laugh at non-jokes to let everyone know they do.
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Sept 4, 2019 22:26:06 GMT
I think its fair to say that this was a slightly underwhelming experience considering how quickly tickets had sold and how expensive they were. Paid £89 for an 80minutes show, over a pound a minute to occupy a seat in the Lyttleton next to a man more than twice the size of the seat... Well, the performances first of all are stellar, both Duncan and Jennings are on top form exuding their brilliance which really fills the theatre. A most commendable debut from Simon Woods too as the play managed to find both humour and heartbreak. But the heartbreak as some critics have noted came a little bit too late and the witty snapbacks did get tiring after the 45mins point I thought. Still, the 80mins went by quickly, perhaps too quickly? As much as I wanted to love it, Hansard seemed to lack certain nuances which this company was certainly capable of demonstrating. By no means was this a bad play though but I did want a little bit more. 4/5
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 5, 2019 8:12:40 GMT
If this was a writing exercise to see if you could hold an audience's attention with a two-hander in continuous time where the only forward plot action is the question of whether or not the couple will be able to serve lunch, then it would be a 5/5. With those limitations as an actual play it's a 3/5 thanks to some snappy dialogue and very good performances. *** SPOILERY STUFF BELOW ***
After some reflection, I have started to settle on the idea that this play - rather quietly - covers a period of perhaps half a century.
As we know, the S28 amendment was passed in the week of the action. It was later repealed and the intervening three decades have perhaps culminated in the legalisation of gay marriage. It would have made sense for this to be put on last year (30th Anniversary of Clause 28) but stuff presumably got in the way. My sense is one thread of Hansard implicitly celebrates what has been achieved in those 30 years (look at fromwhere we have come).
Looking back from 1988 - and perhaps beginning with a Standing Jump - we spend quite some time questioning two opposing schools of parenting, as well as chart the rocky course of a marriage. Well, we could equally describe it as competing political philosophies.
In real-time - on the Wed, the day of the law passing - both separately took 'private' or personal actions that reflected the reality of this still being a family, albeit with one absentee.
Let me apologise in advance; I'm slowing being drawn into using Hansard - the son and the fathers version - to help with my own writing interests. I may feel a compulsion to comment further
Fwiw, I found this is a particularly helpful piece, not least because it includes civil actions mentioned in the play (plus the Sue Lawley moment):
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Sept 5, 2019 11:13:56 GMT
I enjoyed this a lot, for two marvelous actors slyly throwing cutting lines at each other, and for how it shows that politics never changes, but it's essentially "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf" with the drama excised ("Get the Guests" WITHOUT the Guests), and with a hefty dose of Heavily Signaled Didactic Compassionate Liberalism injected in the void where the drama should be. Consequently, it bears the hallmarks of a play preaching to the already converted, though those already converted will have a good time. Some spoilers follow. . . This play is an obvious homage to Edward Albee's "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf," even name-checking Virginia Woolf herself at one point, so that we know that the playwright knows we know, so that we don't think he's playing us for fools. But in Albee, the catalyst of the drama is the Guests, their interaction with the bitter arguing central couple, and how the central couple must adapt their games, insults and one-upmanship to include those guests. Without those Guests, the drama collapses, and what we are left with is the naked elements. Each of these elements will entertain different audiences to different degrees, and how much you enjoy them show depends on how receptive you are to each element:- (1) Almost universally entertaining is watching Alex Jennings and Lindsay Duncan go toe to toe: they are such adept and layered actors that Jennings has a way of seeming reasonable even when he isn't, and Duncan has a way of seeming unreasonable even when she is; (2) Preponderantly entertaining are the barbs that Simon Woods comes up with to weaponise his brilliant actors, with some real original zingers, through he does miss almost as many targets as he hits; (3) Entertaining for those with a long memory are the historical references: it's like you are constantly scoring points for remembering ghosts: a point for Margaret Thatcher, two points for Norman Tebbit, 4 for Cecil Parkinson, 7 for Norman St John-Stevas and a full 10 for Guardian Readers who recognise that Polly Toynbee is the only character mentioned in the whole show who hasn't changed a bit in 30 years; (4) Entertaining for those that like to hear their liberal values validated and championed, even in a didactic and obvious way that is unlikely to lure in and change the mind of the socially illiberal: I could almost feel myself wanting to pantomime boo every mention of the dreaded Section 28, which was fun for me, anyway. Anyway, despite the lack of drama, this has plenty of entertainment to provide a good night out, provided you are willing to forgo actual drama, and are not a fan of Ann Widdecombe. 3 and a half stars.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Sept 5, 2019 11:39:56 GMT
It is also set only 21 years from homosexuality becoming legal so anyone born in 1967 would have always know homosexuality to be legal and were hitting the homosexual age of consent themselves. As the play points out social attitudes towards homosexuality were as they were when it was a criminal offence. I barked laughing at Robin's ignorant comment about "Uncle John living a lonely life with just his china" but for many homosexual man they just didn't/couldn't settle down or if they did they did it very privately. {Spoiler - click to view} There is also a bit that touches on transvestites/transgender (It isn't clear if their son wears Diana's dress for pleasure or due to his identity). Even the liberal Diana is repulsed by this and I thought it was an interesting comment on feminist attitudes to gender and gender expectations.
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Sept 5, 2019 12:55:53 GMT
This play is an obvious homage to Edward Albee's "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf," Albee's play is, to some extent, an homage to Strindberg's The Dance of Death.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 5, 2019 14:56:30 GMT
Anyway, despite the lack of drama, this has plenty of entertainment to provide a good night out, provided you are willing to forgo actual drama Not sure I can quite agree with this, not least becasue I can still see Alex Jennings at the end with a combination of tears and snot running off his chin on to the floor.
@snicole
I did think the moment Diana entered her bedroom and saw her son would have been the first such experience of that nature in her life. Perhaps she was being unkind to herself by saying she was 'repulsed'. She would certainly have had the shock of her life. She was immediately physically sick so what conclusion would the son draw ... you can understand the guilt. It's not stated but surely we presume her visit to London on the day of the vote - to tell her husband of the day their son came out to his mother - was intended to influence his vote on the S28 bill. As such Diana finally risked Robin accusing her of causing the death
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Sept 5, 2019 15:56:37 GMT
Alex Jennings as Britten in The Habit of Art (which was not a good play) was an emotional tour de force; I love a proper snotty crying performance. I am cheap. {Spoiler - click to view} I think Diana saw herself as a very liberal and open woman. I expect she was just naive to the fact that could happen in her house. I found that aspect very moving. I think the son didn't care if his father accepted him (he brushes off the prostitute incident) but he must have been so hurt by his mother's reaction.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 5, 2019 16:10:58 GMT
I think the thing with the very posh is they are generationally used to ignoring odd behaviour, whether it's an entire second family, Uncle John's china collection or, indeed, his own wife tripping around in dress shoes and a dressing gown all morning. The son would barely register. Growing up, Simon Woods wouldn't be far from that.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Sept 5, 2019 17:28:18 GMT
Anyway, despite the lack of drama, this has plenty of entertainment to provide a good night out, provided you are willing to forgo actual drama Not sure I can quite agree with this, not least becasue I can still see Alex Jennings at the end with a combination of tears and snot running off his chin on to the floor.
@snicole
I did think the moment Diana entered her bedroom and saw her son would have been the first such experience of that nature in her life. Perhaps she was being unkind to herself by saying she was 'repulsed'. She would certainly have had the shock of her life. She was immediately physically sick so what conclusion would the son draw ... you can understand the guilt. It's not stated but surely we presume her visit to London on the day of the vote - to tell her husband of the day their son came out to his mother - was intended to influence his vote on the S28 bill. As such Diana finally risked Robin accusing her of causing the death Oh, I agree with you about Jennings' tears. From the second row, I was very moved. I suspect our difference is merely semantic. If I sit and cry tears right now about something that happened ten years ago, I wouldn't describe my tears as a dramatic moment, merely the memory of a dramatic moment. There is ONE dramatic moment in the play, when someone tells someone something they didn't already know. Other than that, its all zingers and memories.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 5, 2019 18:08:04 GMT
My initial thoughts on shape are in the post immediately above longer post. I'll ponder this for some while and may buy the script.
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Sept 5, 2019 21:40:12 GMT
I think that there may have been something a little monotonous about this piece despite the witty jabs. I wonder how it would have worked with some shouting or some growling in midpoints of the text to accentuate the tension between the couple. The ending is certainly moving and hard-hitting, perhaps more so because the tone remains largely the same throughout the first 45mins. I certainly have questions about Simon Godwin's direction considering how differently Anthony & Cleopatra turned out.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 5, 2019 22:01:48 GMT
I did wonder how the first third of the audience must look from the back, almost like a Wimbledon rally, I imagine, with heads turning from side to side. After an early cheek kiss, my only memory of them almost touching was when he did up her dress zip, otherwise they only very occasionally crossed. On two occasions it felt like a trip to the kitchen signalled the next section of writing.
Difficult job though, how do you direct it ...
|
|
2,946 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 7, 2019 18:46:27 GMT
I haven't seen the play and doubt I will (not my kind of thing at all) but I've seen/heard a few reviews mentioning how 'resonant with today ' a line about Old Etonians is - but the Thatcher / Major era wasn't dominated by Old Etonians in the way current politics is.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 7, 2019 22:12:11 GMT
I haven't seen the play and doubt I will (not my kind of thing at all) but I've seen/heard a few reviews mentioning how 'resonant with today ' a line about Old Etonians is - but the Thatcher / Major era wasn't dominated by Old Etonians in the way current politics is.
Douglas Hurd was Home Sec but you're probably right. The Etonian reference come very early, at a point at which the audience assumes the play is contemporary. It would have been more accurate to say 'public schoolboys' but Etonians gets the bigger laugh. The intention, landing retrospectively, is to remind us how little changes.
|
|
2,946 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 7, 2019 22:50:34 GMT
is to remind us how little changes. But it has, which is why I don't think that line rings true. Thatcher wasn't of that old boy network, nor Heath before her, and nor were many in her cabinet - the "more old Estonians than old Etonians" rather racist line from the time. Cameron, Osborne, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and co feel like a throwback to the 1950s before the grammar school children came through, or even further, to the braying Eton/Oxford types in early Evelyn Waugh.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 8, 2019 13:57:33 GMT
The couple in the play courted, married and he became an MP in the 50s. That is their experience.
|
|
5,571 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 9, 2019 20:30:04 GMT
is to remind us how little changes. But it has, which is why I don't think that line rings true. Thatcher wasn't of that old boy network, nor Heath before her, and nor were many in her cabinet - the "more old Estonians than old Etonians" rather racist line from the time. Cameron, Osborne, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and co feel like a throwback to the 1950s before the grammar school children came through, or even further, to the braying Eton/Oxford types in early Evelyn Waugh. Interesting about grammar schools because I think they, the politicos from them, have now gone through and the closing of many, some having become fee paying independents, has meant fewer coming through in the younger generation. Hence now the political old class regaining ground with a few people from the real world popping up now and then. Another unseen consequence of the education system.
|
|