|
|
Post by theoracle on Jan 25, 2023 11:56:55 GMT
This has now piqued my interest. Daniel Evans directing as well, have a very good feeling about this one
|
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Jan 25, 2023 15:21:16 GMT
I saw the writer Danny Lee Wynter in the Normal Heart and of course Ako Mitchell has been in a lot of musicals. Intrigued!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2023 22:01:12 GMT
Looking forward to any early reports now that this is playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Mar 18, 2023 22:13:42 GMT
Saw it last night. Very entertaining; moving and at times extremely funny. Great cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by alessia on Mar 19, 2023 7:07:17 GMT
Seeing this next week, looking forward!
|
|
|
|
Post by nottobe on Mar 20, 2023 22:51:35 GMT
Saw this tonight with the £12 Monday tickets. Thought the premise sounded interesting but wasn't my cup of tea. It seemed to get a warmish response.
|
|
|
|
Post by luvvie23 on Mar 20, 2023 23:15:53 GMT
Saw this tonight with the £12 Monday tickets. Thought the premise sounded interesting but wasn't my cup of tea. It seemed to get a warmish response. Did it have a big house? I’m obsessed with the American actor from Pose. Dylan Burnside |
|
|
|
Post by nottobe on Mar 20, 2023 23:32:18 GMT
Saw this tonight with the £12 Monday tickets. Thought the premise sounded interesting but wasn't my cup of tea. It seemed to get a warmish response. Did it have a big house? I’m obsessed with the American actor from Pose. Dylan Burnside When £12 tickets went on sale this morning all three levels were on sale. By afternoon they closed off top circle and there was still lots of available seats in stalls and dress circle. I was in front stalls and didn't have a proper look during show however. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 0:02:41 GMT
I checked a couple of dates for when I am in town at month's end and none of them were more than approximately 25-30% sold.
|
|
535 posts
|
Post by jek on Mar 21, 2023 9:45:24 GMT
Daughter said that it was pretty full when she went on Friday - but that may well have been because the earlier preview she had booked for was cancelled and so more than one performance's worth of audience was put together on the Friday. She quite enjoyed it - but then she only paid £10 for the ticket.
|
|
|
|
Post by nottobe on Mar 21, 2023 10:24:12 GMT
Ok so I have given it some further thought since last night. As I said earlier I was intrigued to see this because the premise sounded interesting. Based on the description of the play I thought it may be a clever look at Marvel type films and be actually set in a superhero universe, as I thought that sounded very original. This was not the case.
I would say I found the play to be somewhat predictable and fairly uninteresting. Yes it is trying to shine a light on topics that we don't see in theatre however it really felt like it wasn't saying anything new or in an interesting way. Lots of the people around me found it funny, I chuckled only once. As a text it was fine and I'm sure some people will enjoy it but for me it didn't do it.
I have seen four plays at the Royal Court in my theatre going world and have only actually enjoyed one out of the four of them. I don't think I will be returning again in a rush.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 21, 2023 12:09:46 GMT
Think it's a real shame that during the discourse surrounding the Lucy Kirkwood play, there were many complaints about theatres programming the same old writers, and that the RC should be commissioning talented female and minority writers who have been working away at fringe theatres for the past few years.
Then when they do exactly that, they don't sell well.
Easy to claim to be offended and upset, harder to put your money where your mouth is.
|
|
|
|
Post by chameleon1 on Mar 21, 2023 23:36:23 GMT
Think it's a real shame that during the discourse surrounding the Lucy Kirkwood play, there were many complaints about theatres programming the same old writers, and that the RC should be commissioning talented female and minority writers who have been working away at fringe theatres for the past few years. Then when they do exactly that, they don't sell well. Easy to claim to be offended and upset, harder to put your money where your mouth is. that's a failure of the theatre. a really good play will end up selling well through word of mouth. the royal court's failure over the past 10 years hasn't been because they've embraced diversity, but because they appear to have no interest at all in the 'craft' of playwriting, or in supporting playwrights in producing the best version of their play. at a guess, they've wrongly identified good writing with conservatively structured 'well made' plays.. and thrown out the baby with the bathwater.. |
|
185 posts
|
Post by harry on Mar 22, 2023 0:49:49 GMT
Think it's a real shame that during the discourse surrounding the Lucy Kirkwood play, there were many complaints about theatres programming the same old writers, and that the RC should be commissioning talented female and minority writers who have been working away at fringe theatres for the past few years. Then when they do exactly that, they don't sell well. Easy to claim to be offended and upset, harder to put your money where your mouth is. that's a failure of the theatre. a really good play will end up selling well through word of mouth. the royal court's failure over the past 10 years hasn't been because they've embraced diversity, but because they appear to have no interest at all in the 'craft' of playwriting, or in supporting playwrights in producing the best version of their play. at a guess, they've wrongly identified good writing with conservatively structured 'well made' plays.. and thrown out the baby with the bathwater.. I broadly agree with this comment and think you’ve hit the nail on the head with why the Court is not currently top of the pile with audiences looking for the next big hit. However I thought this was one of their best offerings in a long time. Not perfect but a strong “voice”, a very slick and well-directed and designed production, vivid performances across the board and above all (and absolutely something that can’t be said for the majority of the output under the current leadership) an entertaining night at the theatre. I’m not saying plays can’t have a point to make or be hard-hitting, but when they’re so “right on” as to be like a lecture, with cheap production values and school-play direction (as some of the recent offerings at the RC have) then they just end up making their point to an almost empty auditorium of bored people who aren’t listening. So I guess I’m saying I hope this does find its audience as it’s far more deserving, in my opinion, than a lot of other recent work at the same venue. |
|
3,478 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 22, 2023 4:25:40 GMT
Think it's a real shame that during the discourse surrounding the Lucy Kirkwood play, there were many complaints about theatres programming the same old writers, and that the RC should be commissioning talented female and minority writers who have been working away at fringe theatres for the past few years. Then when they do exactly that, they don't sell well. Easy to claim to be offended and upset, harder to put your money where your mouth is. that's a failure of the theatre. a really good play will end up selling well through word of mouth. the royal court's failure over the past 10 years hasn't been because they've embraced diversity, but because they appear to have no interest at all in the 'craft' of playwriting, or in supporting playwrights in producing the best version of their play. at a guess, they've wrongly identified good writing with conservatively structured 'well made' plays.. and thrown out the baby with the bathwater.. Indeed. I looked at the current and new seasons and could see nothing which looked like what I consider a normal, well-structured play & about a subject which appealed. So maybe the RC isn't aiming for me/my audience type but if so it's a loss for us both & I used to be a regular in both houses. |
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 22, 2023 10:32:42 GMT
Think it's a real shame that during the discourse surrounding the Lucy Kirkwood play, there were many complaints about theatres programming the same old writers, and that the RC should be commissioning talented female and minority writers who have been working away at fringe theatres for the past few years. Then when they do exactly that, they don't sell well. Easy to claim to be offended and upset, harder to put your money where your mouth is. that's a failure of the theatre. a really good play will end up selling well through word of mouth. the royal court's failure over the past 10 years hasn't been because they've embraced diversity, but because they appear to have no interest at all in the 'craft' of playwriting, or in supporting playwrights in producing the best version of their play. at a guess, they've wrongly identified good writing with conservatively structured 'well made' plays.. and thrown out the baby with the bathwater.. Well, I tend to agree that broadly speaking the current trends in fringe theatre are a certain type of play which may not sell particularly well somewhere like the RC, and plays that as a whole I'm not particularly interested in seeing personally (as others have said, quite didactic and lacking in more traditional theatrical structures) which is why I think a mixture of established names and new talent would be the most beneficial way to spread out a season. But when previous seasons were announced with established names, the debate always rages about RC in particular not meeting its remit, that fringe artists 'can't even get a look in/a meeting' and calls for this exact this type of show - so why aren't those same people booking these up when they're announced? If the complaint at the time is that the RC should be more radical in its programming, braver about who is produced, and not about the actual plays, then personally I think those same people should be putting their money where their mouth is and booking as soon as it's announced, rather than waiting for the reviews or word of mouth, otherwise their argument falls apart. 'They should be commissioning a certain type of play, but I won't go and see it and it won't sell well.' How does that help? |
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 22, 2023 15:35:29 GMT
that's a failure of the theatre. a really good play will end up selling well through word of mouth. the royal court's failure over the past 10 years hasn't been because they've embraced diversity, but because they appear to have no interest at all in the 'craft' of playwriting, or in supporting playwrights in producing the best version of their play. at a guess, they've wrongly identified good writing with conservatively structured 'well made' plays.. and thrown out the baby with the bathwater.. Well, I tend to agree that broadly speaking the current trends in fringe theatre are a certain type of play which may not sell particularly well somewhere like the RC, and plays that as a whole I'm not particularly interested in seeing personally (as others have said, quite didactic and lacking in more traditional theatrical structures) which is why I think a mixture of established names and new talent would be the most beneficial way to spread out a season. But when previous seasons were announced with established names, the debate always rages about RC in particular not meeting its remit, that fringe artists 'can't even get a look in/a meeting' and calls for this exact this type of show - so why aren't those same people booking these up when they're announced? If the complaint at the time is that the RC should be more radical in its programming, braver about who is produced, and not about the actual plays, then personally I think those same people should be putting their money where their mouth is and booking as soon as it's announced, rather than waiting for the reviews or word of mouth, otherwise their argument falls apart. 'They should be commissioning a certain type of play, but I won't go and see it and it won't sell well.' How does that help? This is a problem over all media. Companies listen to the demand for more diverse voices and actors but when they deliver, with mixed results, the audiences aren't actually there. Whilst I'm sure there are those who ask for diversity and consume the products aimed at them, they are actually a small audience. For the rest, all they care about is that companies are doing what they demand. This in turn is also alienating the established audiences, the loyal ones who pay lots of money to consume the products they love and just want a good story and be entertained, not be lectured or given sub-par stories. It's made even worse when one expresses their issues with the quality and is accused of every -ist or -phobe imaginable, especially from the creators themselves. People see that and go elsewhere. I do wonder how long it will be until the Royal Court turns their attention solely to writing that will make them profit. |
|
|
|
Post by sph on Mar 22, 2023 16:12:50 GMT
Well, I tend to agree that broadly speaking the current trends in fringe theatre are a certain type of play which may not sell particularly well somewhere like the RC, and plays that as a whole I'm not particularly interested in seeing personally (as others have said, quite didactic and lacking in more traditional theatrical structures) which is why I think a mixture of established names and new talent would be the most beneficial way to spread out a season. But when previous seasons were announced with established names, the debate always rages about RC in particular not meeting its remit, that fringe artists 'can't even get a look in/a meeting' and calls for this exact this type of show - so why aren't those same people booking these up when they're announced? If the complaint at the time is that the RC should be more radical in its programming, braver about who is produced, and not about the actual plays, then personally I think those same people should be putting their money where their mouth is and booking as soon as it's announced, rather than waiting for the reviews or word of mouth, otherwise their argument falls apart. 'They should be commissioning a certain type of play, but I won't go and see it and it won't sell well.' How does that help? This is a problem over all media. Companies listen to the demand for more diverse voices and actors but when they deliver, with mixed results, the audiences aren't actually there. Whilst I'm sure there are those who ask for diversity and consume the products aimed at them, they are actually a small audience. For the rest, all they care about is that companies are doing what they demand. This in turn is also alienating the established audiences, the loyal ones who pay lots of money to consume the products they love and just want a good story and be entertained, not be lectured or given sub-par stories. It's made even worse when one expresses their issues with the quality and is accused of every -ist or -phobe imaginable, especially from the creators themselves. People see that and go elsewhere. I do wonder how long it will be until the Royal Court turns their attention solely to writing that will make them profit. I see this happen on "theatre twitter" all the time. People complaining about cast announcements for shows they never have any intention of seeing. If people want a more diverse theatre scene, they have to put their money where their mouth is and go out and support it in person, not just in a twitter thread where they can pat themselves on the back for being a tenuous participant. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2023 16:20:15 GMT
Seems like there is an interesting and broader conversation to have about current realities and future aspirations for diversifying programming, casting, marketing, etc. I wonder if moderators might mvove those posts to a new thread where it can continue with more focus.
|
|
|
|
Post by jr on Mar 22, 2023 22:56:53 GMT
Just read a 4* review on The Guardian.
I went today and left at the interval. Found it full of clichés and boring. I liked the main actor, who I thought might be a stand in for the writer, and I was right, he was the writer! Lots of navel gazing. Def not for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2023 23:20:50 GMT
Just read a 4* review on The Guardian. I went today and left at the interval. Found it full of clichés and boring. I liked the main actor, who I thought might be a stand in for the writer, and I was right, he was the writer! Lots of navel gazing. Def not for me.
Amazed that 4 stars was the final verdict after reading that review which offered lots of critical commentary and fairly muted praise.
|
|
|
|
Post by teamyali on Mar 22, 2023 23:29:20 GMT
It’s mostly three stars from major publications (Evening Standard, WOS, The Stage, BroadwayWorld UK), four stars from The Guardian, two stars from The Times. It’s not Black Boys type of success but I guess it’s not that bad from a debut play by Danny Lee Wynter. I look forward for what he does next, as an actor and writer.
The Royal Court appears to be struggling to make bona fide smash hits the way the Almeida or Bridge do these days. There’s also @sohoplace which could turn out to be the more commercially viable option for future Almeida/Donmar/YV production transfers, or take on new productions (Brokeback is one), or the place for the new interpretations of classics (As You Like It and Medea are examples). The Dominic Cooke era of the Royal Court was the last “golden era” of the venue??
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 22, 2023 23:44:42 GMT
I saw this tonight and was surprised at how engaging it was. Often funny, sometimes insightful but for me what worked were the characters. They were actual individuals and not just mouthpieces for different points of view. Terrific direction from Daniel Evans and no weak performances anywhere to be found. A perfect play? No but it asks a fair number of unanswerable questions and gives us all something to think about. I'd give it 4 stars because I think people should see it. three stars would indicate that it's missable.
|
|
3,478 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 23, 2023 4:40:47 GMT
Am almost tempted now to try it for myself as I'm wondering if I'd stand a better chance of enjoying a play with mixed reviews and of which I have lower expectations than with recent productions at the RC which others' comments have persuaded me to see despite my initial instinct and which proved that I should have trusted my own judgement.
For instance, I loathed The Glow, escaped asap from the inexplicable and unintelligible Kylie Jenner and regretted enduring the baffling and seemingly interminable For Black Boys (etc) but quite enjoyed Rare Earth Mettle. The public and critics seemed to like or even love the first 3 but were more divided and less enthusiastic about the last.
Shame that if I do go, it will use up yet another scarce matinee slot due to the long running time - even if it was engaging, I'd risk falling asleep if I tried to sit thrugh something so long in the evening.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 23, 2023 5:35:54 GMT
Am almost tempted now to try it for myself as I'm wondering if I'd stand a better chance of enjoying a play with mixed reviews and of which I have lower expectations than with recent productions at the RC which others' comments have persuaded me to see despite my initial instinct and which proved that I should have trusted my own judgement. For instance, I loathed The Glow, escaped asap from the inexplicable and unintelligible Kylie Jenner and regretted enduring the baffling and seemingly interminable For Black Boys (etc) but quite enjoyed Rare Earth Mettle. The public and critics seemed to like or even love the first 3 but were more divided and less enthusiastic about the last. Shame that if I do go, it will use up yet another scarce matinee slot due to the long running time - even if it was engaging, I'd risk falling asleep if I tried to sit thrugh something so long in the evening. I know exactly how you feel about risking going to the Royal Court. I was fascinated and frustrated by "The Glow" , I left "For Black Boys" because it clearly wasn't intended for me, I thought Voices from the Underground a total mess, like you I enjoyed Rare Earth Mettle though it was far from perfect - my point being not that we have similar tastes but that more than a lot of theatres the Royal Court time and again offers us something rare: surprise. Yes our time is valuable , and we could look at a list of their productions in under Vicky Featherstone and probably not remember 90% of them, but sometimes in the midst of those forgettable plays something of worth emerges. "Black Superhero" is far from perfect but at least it offers up insight and discussion from characters we don't often meet on stage in the theatre. |
|
|
|
Post by chameleon1 on Mar 23, 2023 7:20:02 GMT
that's a failure of the theatre. a really good play will end up selling well through word of mouth. the royal court's failure over the past 10 years hasn't been because they've embraced diversity, but because they appear to have no interest at all in the 'craft' of playwriting, or in supporting playwrights in producing the best version of their play. at a guess, they've wrongly identified good writing with conservatively structured 'well made' plays.. and thrown out the baby with the bathwater.. Well, I tend to agree that broadly speaking the current trends in fringe theatre are a certain type of play which may not sell particularly well somewhere like the RC, and plays that as a whole I'm not particularly interested in seeing personally (as others have said, quite didactic and lacking in more traditional theatrical structures) which is why I think a mixture of established names and new talent would be the most beneficial way to spread out a season. But when previous seasons were announced with established names, the debate always rages about RC in particular not meeting its remit, that fringe artists 'can't even get a look in/a meeting' and calls for this exact this type of show - so why aren't those same people booking these up when they're announced? If the complaint at the time is that the RC should be more radical in its programming, braver about who is produced, and not about the actual plays, then personally I think those same people should be putting their money where their mouth is and booking as soon as it's announced, rather than waiting for the reviews or word of mouth, otherwise their argument falls apart. 'They should be commissioning a certain type of play, but I won't go and see it and it won't sell well.' How does that help?.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Not sure why this quote failed, but response below: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. I think you're perhaps mixing up two different questions here - whether the RC are producing more 'established' names or new talent - and whether the playwriting itself is any good; ie whether it has tension, complexity, economy etc - and whether the playwright is intentional in their decisions about narrative and character and structure and style, and uses those decisions effectively to tell the story they want to tell, even if they're not writing a naturalistic, linear play. Recent plays by 'established' writers at the RC have been just as shaky as those by 'new talent' - so I suspect the issue here is that writing good plays is just really hard - and even 'established' playwrights can benefit from knowledgeable, perceptive, open-minded dramaturgical support - which just hasn't been present in the building, for the past few years. |
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 23, 2023 10:54:45 GMT
Well, I tend to agree that broadly speaking the current trends in fringe theatre are a certain type of play which may not sell particularly well somewhere like the RC, and plays that as a whole I'm not particularly interested in seeing personally (as others have said, quite didactic and lacking in more traditional theatrical structures) which is why I think a mixture of established names and new talent would be the most beneficial way to spread out a season. But when previous seasons were announced with established names, the debate always rages about RC in particular not meeting its remit, that fringe artists 'can't even get a look in/a meeting' and calls for this exact this type of show - so why aren't those same people booking these up when they're announced? If the complaint at the time is that the RC should be more radical in its programming, braver about who is produced, and not about the actual plays, then personally I think those same people should be putting their money where their mouth is and booking as soon as it's announced, rather than waiting for the reviews or word of mouth, otherwise their argument falls apart. 'They should be commissioning a certain type of play, but I won't go and see it and it won't sell well.' How does that help?.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Not sure why this quote failed, but response below: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. I think you're perhaps mixing up two different questions here - whether the RC are producing more 'established' names or new talent - and whether the playwriting itself is any good; ie whether it has tension, complexity, economy etc - and whether the playwright is intentional in their decisions about narrative and character and structure and style, and uses those decisions effectively to tell the story they want to tell, even if they're not writing a naturalistic, linear play. Recent plays by 'established' writers at the RC have been just as shaky as those by 'new talent' - so I suspect the issue here is that writing good plays is just really hard - and even 'established' playwrights can benefit from knowledgeable, perceptive, open-minded dramaturgical support - which just hasn't been present in the building, for the past few years. It's more that I'm trying to separate the two. As has been said above, there is a lot of demanding that the RC produces a certain type of season, but very little actual support when those plays are announced (prior to anyone having seen or reviewed the show, which is why I'm saying this is separate to whether the show is actually any good). On the point of the actual quality of the theatre produced, it seems strange that there are complaints that fringe artists are bringing fringe shows in, when fringe shows & artists were demanded. Also agree that some recent plays (with a fair few personal exceptions) by more established artists haven't been up to the usual RC standard, but they have sold better. Is that simply because those who ask for established/recognisable/(fairly) reliable names are more likely to put their money where their mouth is than the people who demand a theatre is programming in a certain way? Possibly, and that's an issue. Damned if you do etc... It doesn't really help anyone when the demanding masks the actual demand. Certainly doesn't help fringe artists either to have a season mainly dominated by them which doesn't sell well, because that will make the future AD less likely to programme them (I expect, although I hope not, as I do respect RC's somewhat fearless vision and the 'right to fail' ideology). All that is essentially a load of words that come down to my hope that future seasons will be more balanced, and that if people are going to express outrage, they damn well had better support what they're asking for, or otherwise it all just seems hollow. |
|
|
|
Post by chameleon1 on Mar 23, 2023 12:30:54 GMT
I see your point, but still think you're putting too many demands on the audience, and too few on the theatre. A few years ago (before VF) the RC was discussing these issues, and their conclusion was that the only way to sell shows by unknown playwrights in advance was to make a promise of quality, and to keep it, over time. This doesn't exclude the ability to experiment, and the 'right to fail' - there's a big difference between ambitious experimental work that has clear goals, and just doesn't connect with an audience in the way the creators had hoped, and dull, muddled mediocrity - but it does involve working to devise a definition of 'good' playwriting that doesn't inadvertently exclude experiment, or diverse creative traditions, but doesn't, also, include mediocre work just because it's experimental, or part of those traditions. Hopefully, that's what whoever replaces VF will decide to do.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 23, 2023 12:53:48 GMT
I see your point, but still think you're putting too many demands on the audience, and too few on the theatre. A few years ago (before VF) the RC was discussing these issues, and their conclusion was that the only way to sell shows by unknown playwrights in advance was to make a promise of quality, and to keep it, over time. This doesn't exclude the ability to experiment, and the 'right to fail' - there's a big difference between ambitious experimental work that has clear goals, and just doesn't connect with an audience in the way the creators had hoped, and dull, muddled mediocrity - but it does involve working to devise a definition of 'good' playwriting that doesn't inadvertently exclude experiment, or diverse creative traditions, but doesn't, also, include mediocre work just because it's experimental, or part of those traditions. Hopefully, that's what whoever replaces VF will decide to do. I hope so too. I don't want to see fringe artists excluded, I just believe there has to be give and take with the demands. If there is a 'demand' from audiences for this type of work, it isn't unfair to demand that those audiences support the work. That support should come at the stage before anyone is able to make a judgement of the quality of the end result, because that is the same stage at which people complain that it's the 'same old' names when established names are announced. Otherwise this is the result - poor attendance and half-empty theatres, leading to the possibility of certain decisions being made. It's very easy to be outraged at something, harder though to actually take steps to be a part (however small) of the solution and progress. Probably just going round and circles and repeating myself here. I'm actually excited for the new season - it's the first in a while where I will look to book at least 3 shows in advance and it does have a mixture of more fringe-orientated shows and some more well-known names, so I'm very hopeful that balance will serve them well and allow the next AD to hit the ground running. It's encouraging that so many people are waiting for them to turn it around and succeed. |
|
|
|
Post by alessia on Mar 27, 2023 10:11:57 GMT
back to Black Superhero topic, it's cancelled tonight for technical difficulties.
|
|
