1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Oct 31, 2016 21:35:23 GMT
This is apparently on at the Birmingham Rep. Has anyone been to see it?
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Nov 1, 2016 9:23:31 GMT
Joem has apparently created a thread. Has anyone bothered to reply to it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 10:11:10 GMT
Honoured Guest has apparently written a witty reply. Has anyone even done a pity-laugh at it?
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Nov 20, 2016 18:12:49 GMT
Interesting idea to check on how Enoch Powell's pronouncements in the sixties relate to the modern debate on immigration. In the end, though, there is something missing in this play.
The idea of introducing a modern dimension where two academics of different races have had previous due to different interpretations the "Rivers of Blood" speech but now look for ways in which they can work together is introduced for dramatic tension, to create another story arc. But you're left a bit frustrated by these fictional characters. Enough happened in real life without having to graft them into the story.
Admittedly Hannan isn't writing a straightforward biplay. He is trying to establish (did anyone say Brexit?) if it is possible to have dialogue between radically opposing views. So it is certainly an ambitious play, probably worth toruing in my view.
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Aug 30, 2017 20:52:33 GMT
Given the overwhelming response last time I know there will be cheering and dancing in all thesp households in the capital when they learn that this is being done at the Park Theatre for a month from late September.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 21:17:03 GMT
I saw the play last year, Ian McDiarmid was superb as Powell. A couple of the original cast are reappearing too. A couple of characters could have been described as racial stereotypes but that is a minor gripe. Certainly worth seeing for Ian doing the famous speech alone.
|
|
3,471 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Aug 31, 2017 3:57:45 GMT
Indeed. I booked for the Park Theatre run as soon as tix went on public sale and am looking forward to this. Due to devious previous behaviour on the pricing front, I no longer book ahead for either space in that venue except in cases such as this where the production has a good track record.
|
|
211 posts
|
Post by peelee on Sept 3, 2017 12:24:17 GMT
Having missed a couple of plays at the Park Theatre in the past because I left it too late to book what I wanted — one in particular that I'd like to have seen was about Charles de Gaulle and, I think, Marshal Petain of Vichy Government notoriety, and I was just as intrigued by Madame Rubinstein — I got my booking in for this months ago while it slumbered unnoticed under 'What's On'.
|
|
211 posts
|
Post by peelee on Sept 29, 2017 17:16:00 GMT
This is a fascinating play, holding the attention from its opening scene between two women: an academic retired prematurely and against her will from the profession, and a younger academic who led protests against her questioning of shibboleths about 'race' and identity. They are invented characters, designed to justify the book that one wants them jointly to research and write on the controversies with which this play is concerned: 'identity' and the historical role of Enoch Powell and his attention-grabbing speech of 1968 that led to his sacking from the cabinet by Tory prime minister Edward Heath.
Thus do Joanne Pearce and Amelia Donkor whet the appetite for an unfolding story that moves back and forth between different points in years 1992 and 1968. Waled Akthar and Ameet Chana play several types of Pakistani immigrant and established characters between them, making serious points in the process while also providing some ironic, comic relief to indicate their changed circumstances over the years. All the aforementioned play several roles, as does Paula Wilcox, and play them well, leaving two actors to play a role each: Iain McDiarmid as Enoch Powell, and Nicholas Le Prevost as liberal Clem Jones his local acquaintance and newspaper editor friend.
So the cast comprises several actors whose qualities are long established and can be depended upon, and whatever the character they play they prove a delight to watch and listen to. Outstanding among them is Iain McDiarmid. Between all in the cast is presented a story that, while about way-back-then, proves so contemporary. The play structure is fairly conventional, and sound and stage design are quietly effective, while it is what characters say and do that grips the audience. I'd booked tickets some time ago once I saw that Iain McDiarmid was to play the brilliant, provocative, controversial, poetry-loving classicist Powell, and that trust proved justified. He is shown both at his strongest and when ailing physically — and we are reminded by the playwright that Powell had various unexpected views on issues other than that for which he is most remembered — McDiarmid revealing the whimsical and magnetic through to the waspish and marginalised Powell. A complex character to present, a type that some would have been tempted to pass off as a pantomime-villain, yet the performance is a tour de force by McDiarmid.
The play presents arguments and the dialogue certainly does crackle. It is going to be up to whoever is in the audience at any given performance to think about what they have seen and heard, when making up the minds which will be turning over with all sorts of thoughts about the play on their way home. Well done to everyone concerned in writing, acting, designing and producing this play.
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 30, 2017 10:47:05 GMT
Thanks peelee. I thought this would be a good 'un. I was in Birmingham in '68. A babe in arms of course. Enoch Powell went to my old school, the boys' part, 'other side of the drive. I'm looking forward to this.
|
|
3,471 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Sept 30, 2017 13:55:44 GMT
Oh hell, mine will probably be the only dissenting voice again; am still trying to formulate my minority verdict.
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 30, 2017 19:44:31 GMT
Oh hell, mine will probably be the only dissenting voice again; am still trying to formulate my minority verdict. O go on, minority away! I'm seeing it next week. We can have a proper ding dong then though I might not end up liking it of course. 😉
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Sept 30, 2017 20:31:16 GMT
Slightly odd question for those who have seen:
Is there much swearing?
I'd like to take my Dad along to this, but he's fairly old school in that regard and I know it'll ruin it for him if there Is a lot of strong language.
Ta
|
|
3,471 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Sept 30, 2017 22:17:56 GMT
Well, the first scene was excruciating and it's hard to believe it survived even to the final version, let alone for the whole of the original run. Unless it was an attempt to make everything which followed look better (unlikely), it seemed a textbook example of how not to do exposition: very crude, with the two characters concerned given such cliched, improbable and would-be portentous lines that I don't know how they delivered them with a straight face. Also quite unnecessary and dispensing with it would improved the play.
Then there were the bizarre tonal variations, from scenes of purple prose to others of group conversations but of the type when no-one is really listening/responding to anyone else but simply making pronouncements; choppy time shifts; cartoon-like minor characters and - I won't go on, other than to say that Iain McDiarmid was excellent, regardless of my views on the play itself, and that it was a shame to see Nicholas Le Prevost wasted.
The issues the play raises are scarily topical so imo it's a shame that it wastes the opportunity to do so more effectively.
|
|
211 posts
|
Post by peelee on Oct 1, 2017 14:35:55 GMT
I don't recall swearing, wiggymess. There were some muttered phrases that could have been swearing but their having been in Urdu or in Latin or Greek meant they'd have passed over our heads. The characters in the play aren't the sweary types. The language used is lively enough and measured. Now I think of it, one of the pleasures of the play was there wasn't a totally, absolutely, massively massively huge, completely and utterly outrageous, empty phrase to be heard from curtain up to closing remarks. The play moving back and forth between 1992 and 1968, and with characters wanting to say something that mattered to them, nothing was put in the way of understanding.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 4, 2017 8:10:56 GMT
I was under the impression this had officially opened, but I can't see any reviews of it, except dating back to 2016 when it was in Birmingham.
|
|
1,187 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Oct 4, 2017 8:45:40 GMT
Official press night was only last night so I imagine they will start trickling through
|
|
3,471 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Oct 4, 2017 15:39:56 GMT
The first one I've seen was on London Theatre 1, whose reviewer seemed to have a few criticisms but still gave it 4 stars.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Oct 5, 2017 9:40:34 GMT
I also reviewed it and my criticisms were slightly harsher but it is still worth it for McDiarmid's scenes, an actor who not only gets Powell but gets why he did what he did. The issue I have was mostly production rather than script or acting, though it was running far longer than 2hrs 15 when I saw it viewfromthecheapseat.com/2017/10/04/what-shadows-park-theatre/
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 5, 2017 9:48:09 GMT
I also reviewed it and my criticisms were slightly harsher but it is still worth it for McDiarmid's scenes, an actor who not only gets Powell but gets why he did what he did. The issue I have was mostly production rather than script or acting, though it was running far longer than 2hrs 15 when I saw it viewfromthecheapseat.com/2017/10/04/what-shadows-park-theatre/This is a very interesting review. Thanks for sharing it. I think it's Chris Hannan, rather than Chris Hannah, and you've also got "Nicholas Let Provost". I also didn't follow exactly what you meant by "Boris’s basic bitch articles are nothing compared to planning Powell made to make ‘Rivers of Blood’s the huge deal it became", but perhaps I'm just being stupid.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Oct 5, 2017 10:20:00 GMT
I also reviewed it and my criticisms were slightly harsher but it is still worth it for McDiarmid's scenes, an actor who not only gets Powell but gets why he did what he did. The issue I have was mostly production rather than script or acting, though it was running far longer than 2hrs 15 when I saw it viewfromthecheapseat.com/2017/10/04/what-shadows-park-theatre/This is a very interesting review. Thanks for sharing it. I think it's Chris Hannan, rather than Chris Hannah, and you've also got "Nicholas Let Provost". I also didn't follow exactly what you meant by "Boris’s basic bitch articles are nothing compared to planning Powell made to make ‘Rivers of Blood’s the huge deal it became", but perhaps I'm just being stupid. This is what happens when you write reviews on One Note after two glasses of wine and don't have an editor. Thanks Have you not been following Boris's THIRSTY attempts to become the leader of a party that hates him even more than they hate May. It is mostly embarrassing rather than informative. He someone managed to get one issue of The Telegraph dedicated to how amazing he is, not only by writing his own 'How I'd Brexit' article but also a load of columnists singing his praises. When that didn't work he did the same thing in The Sun a week later. The difference between Johnson and Powell is that Johnson was a journalist, perhaps a better journalist than he is an MP so he knows how it works and believes he can use it to his advantage. Of course, people are more media savvy now. It is entirely believable Powell had no clue how the media worked and hence why the speech went down badly as well as it went down well. The masses loved that someone senior was saying what they were thinking but his own peers (who hated him anyway) knew it was provocative rather than helpful. Nobody would even get to the selection stage with that level of naivety today.
|
|
3,471 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Oct 5, 2017 18:19:32 GMT
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Oct 5, 2017 22:01:16 GMT
What the Tory party hates is the possibility that a Boris blunder might stop it from retaining power.
Having said that I don't see the Powell/Johnson comparison as holding water, there is far more in common between Johnson and Corbyn.
|
|
3,471 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Oct 6, 2017 3:19:08 GMT
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Oct 6, 2017 13:28:51 GMT
What the Tory party hates is the possibility that a Boris blunder might stop it from retaining power. Having said that I don't see the Powell/Johnson comparison as holding water, there is far more in common between Johnson and Corbyn. It is interesting but I am not sure I agree, just because Johnson never kept his head down and *quietly* disagreed and there just isn't the cult of personality that follows Corbyn amongst even Johnson's biggest fans. Powell clearly was at odds with his own party, even if he wasn't as thirsty for leadership as Johnson clearly is, then he wanted to do something to elevate himself with not only his constituency but the British white working class? Why if he didn't want some sort of promotion.
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Oct 6, 2017 15:14:50 GMT
From what I have read, and this is a very unfashionable word, conviction. He could have had a cosy life in the cabinet but on more than one occasion - the incidents in this play were the final straw - blew it by not putting his head down and shutting up.
Johnson and Corbyn are populists in that they both say what they think will propel t=hem to power, as results show Powell was often rowing against the current.
|
|
3,471 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Oct 7, 2017 4:03:51 GMT
5 stars from Anne Cox (Staege Review).
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 8, 2017 12:04:40 GMT
First of all I have to say that I admire the writer for having a go at this. And on the whole he -is it a he? - has done well. It is a very big play and within the small setting the Park allows for, it seems to want to burst out. Who thought up the Chekovian trees, I wonder. A backdrop of Wolverhampton might have been better. I know he, Powell was supposed to be in love with the countryside but it didn’t look like English countryside. But what we got was the complexity of a guy who was happy with gay relationships and learned the Indian languages, respected the colonial soldiers and was nice to his wife and then was deaf to the actual language of prejudice. Of course what a gift in getting McDiarmid to play the part and wow, did he do well. He got the mouth movements and the accent so right yet didn’t descend into a caricacture. He conveyed the passion and the intellect. And the scene between the old men in the church was quality. Very impressive performance indeed. The others also did very well. Doubling not easy. And the little girl, super facial expression and stillness. It was hard following the arguments sometimes. But I think the writer earned the right to have a go at them. Lots of contemporary relevance but not shoved in your face for a change. I would have liked to see a forward trajectory, maybe using videos taking it right up to the referendum but maybe that would have looked cheap. Questions: why the brain cancer? He more likely would have been a successful businessman with a chain of electrical outlets with a daughter going to Oxford. And why the dementia? Better she could have been v happy and with a late child perhaps. Brave to have the actual speech. I can’t recall seeing any tv of it. Is there any? Radio I think maybe. Back in the day I was old enough to know about it but didn’t actually read it until I was much older. One thing I loved was the way the idea of 'colour' was presented. So tricky but done here so well. Lots to discuss from this play. I hope this writer goes on to write more. Not as assured as say, Oslo, but so superior to some of the rubbish the NT has served up lately.
Two little things: the signing from the tube to the Theatre is inadequate. Turn left and go thru the tunnel. And I highly recommend the Lebanese restaurant next door, really good and not expensive. The Theatre has stopped serving the lovely food it used to and gone over to pizzas.
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 8, 2017 12:19:15 GMT
Ok there is newsreel...what the play omits is the chorus of 'hear, hear' from the audience! And just read that author is 'acclaimed' so sorry mate didn’t know that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 10:04:47 GMT
Well. I thought I'd stumbled in on a production of Platonov when I first walked in. I'm sure I saw those trees at the Nash last year.
I found the play a bit hit and miss but thought some of the arguments about whether everyone is guilty of 'racism' in some way were interesting. I thought ultimately it attempted to cram too much into it though which left it all a little 'jumpy' and unsatisfying.
On the plus side, Emperor Palpatine was tremendous and Paula Wilcox looks terrific.
That speech is still utterly vile though even after all these years. And the bit where the gay man 'curtseys' to Powell needs to go.
|
|