2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 28, 2017 16:28:38 GMT
Yes, it was interesting. I didn't realise Colman had, well, I suppose stage fright or something - I assumed she didn't do stage work because she was so much in demand elsewhere. The Tom Stoppard point was a good one - ironically, when I read the synopsis a few weeks ago I worried that it might be a bit Tom Stoppard-y: I really don't like his work, 'aren't I clever?' but without much in the way of human warmth. Mosquitoes generally felt like the opposite. Btw, anyone who saw it in early previews. I saw it on Saturday and there's an event near the end which, in the playtext, is caused by one character but in the play I saw on Saturday by another, in a way which really changes the way you view a plot thread. the end of the world event, in Saturday's preview, was caused by Luke: in the text by a scientist called Gavriella. I wondered how late in the day the change was made? Ok spell it out for me as I can only think of one thing but don't know if it's what you mean, what event?
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 28, 2017 16:38:35 GMT
Yes, it was interesting. I didn't realise Colman had, well, I suppose stage fright or something - I assumed she didn't do stage work because she was so much in demand elsewhere. The Tom Stoppard point was a good one - ironically, when I read the synopsis a few weeks ago I worried that it might be a bit Tom Stoppard-y: I really don't like his work, 'aren't I clever?' but without much in the way of human warmth. Mosquitoes generally felt like the opposite. Btw, anyone who saw it in early previews. I saw it on Saturday and there's an event near the end which, in the playtext, is caused by one character but in the play I saw on Saturday by another, in a way which really changes the way you view a plot thread. the end of the world event, in Saturday's preview, was caused by Luke: in the text by a scientist called Gavriella. I wondered how late in the day the change was made? That's really interesting actually. It was Gavriella when i saw it(25th), but i think it may have worked better the alternative route. That would have made the entire plot thread hold up better IMO
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 28, 2017 18:00:07 GMT
I can only think of one thing The scene nearly at the end of the play, with the end of the old world and the creation of a new one - IVF for a new planet, reminding me of the end of Kubrick's 2001 with its stargate / foetus. It seems to make more sense to have it as Luke's discovery, given the themes of the loss of an IVF child, Luke as a child who feels 'lost' and who gets his life back, sort of, through Jenny, Jenny pregnant again to round it off, the apple symbol used of Luke's head in the opening scene as by the Boson to describe the new world in this closing one, and the way Luke is introduced on stage - the son rising, as it were, in a halo like Christ in a medieval icon painting. Also the irony of Luke dying of cancer, given his attitude to Jenny's cigarettes etc. earlier in the play - he dies, but his discovery allows a rebirth, in the revised ending
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 28, 2017 18:05:53 GMT
i think it may have worked better the alternative route Yes, it's a much better fit with Luke though for a moment there I thought Joseph Quinn was actually going to get to play a character with a happy ending! Alas, not yet... - - it'll be interesting to see which they stick with.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 28, 2017 18:31:53 GMT
i think it may have worked better the alternative route Yes, it's a much better fit with Luke though for a moment there I thought Joseph Quinn was actually going to get to play a character with a happy ending! Alas, not yet... - - it'll be interesting to see which they stick with. Ohh not what I was thinking of at all, in fact for a moment I wondered if I had managed to miss a whole scene but now understand which bit you meant. I saw it a week ago and it was Luke, makes much more sense in my head that way.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jul 28, 2017 20:06:11 GMT
The Olivias are going to be on Woman's Hour tomorrow - no, today, for it is now Friday! Glad they pointed out the line nicked from Father Ted. (Insert laughing emoji here.)
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 29, 2017 17:12:45 GMT
I agree that there's too much going on, but there was so much in there that I liked and found interesting and enjoyable that it outweighed the parts I didn't. Dramatically, it's chaotic - maybe that's the idea, non-linear to reflect the subject matter, things pinging off in all directions, but it does mean there's too much in there for one play in one sitting, and some parts threaten to overwhelm others. Apparently she was writing it over many years and it really does feel as though she's had so many ideas she doesn't know what to jettison: another factor maybe the expense. The bits I thought could be cut are probably some of the most expensive to stage. I wasn't convinced by either the old mother's character or the boyfriend, and he and his entomologist subplot felt unnecessary, as did the TV launch and the spanking scene - wtf? - whilst the Life of Galileo/Escaped Alone cosmic bits could have been edited back ("but they took ages to design and cost a bomb!" I can imagine someone saying).
Mulling it over and flipping back through the text, though, what I really love was the characterisation of Jenny, Alice and Luke, the way they repel and then come together, the way the clash of sense and sensibility, science and instinct interweave, the cosmic, slightly Hamlety or Kubrick's 2001 bits with the ghostly father and the creation and falling apart of worlds - Personal or universal - and those wonderfully awkward, embarrassing scenes, sex with mobiles, Jenny saving Luke in its aftermath (two of my favourite actors, Colman and Quinn, in that one, so an absolute joy!).
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2017 18:20:15 GMT
Lighting, sound, projection etc. will tend to be less expensive than making bespoke set and props, for which you have the cost of materials, people and time, the equipment is already in existence if you want a flashy light show (I haven't seen it yet, so don't know if there is much physical set) and it can be done by relatively few people.
The Follies set that people have seen serms like it's going to be pretty costly.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 29, 2017 18:41:31 GMT
I think the way some of it is designed it might be difficult to trim to fit a reorganised speech for which the visuals serve as an illustration, if you see what I mean.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 31, 2017 22:20:41 GMT
The scene with the boyfriend was staged like a farce I've just read the playtext and there's so much in there that I love, very dense and multilayered (I hope they change their mind and NT Live it, because it's too stuffed to take in in one evening). The two scenes before the interval really are a dog's dinner, though - the cafe scene with the boyfriend and the four way scene in the apartment afterwards with the sisters, mother and boyfriend (it's even more bizarre in the text). I saw it in Saturday preview and maybe they'll be rewritten or excised somewhere along the way because they do spoil it (did any of you like those two scenes?).
|
|
3,071 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Jul 31, 2017 22:55:17 GMT
I could be wrong but I think The Hard Problem is the only show which NT Live has broadcast from the Cottesloe / Dorfman, which is a shame as I think much of the most interesting stuff is on there. Maybe they feel the intimate scale of much of the work wouldn't translate well to the screen. I too would love to see this added to the line-up.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 31, 2017 23:07:11 GMT
I could be wrong but I think The Hard Problem is the only show which NT Live has broadcast from the Cottesloe / Dorfman, which is a shame as I think much of the most interesting stuff is on there. Maybe they feel the intimate scale of much of the work wouldn't translate well to the screen. I too would love to see this added to the line-up. IIRC Annie Barker's The Flick was at the Dorfman, and definitely would have been interesting to see in a cinema.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 31, 2017 23:17:34 GMT
Given Colman's status as National Treasure, maybe a TV adaptation like London Road or Charles III?
|
|
|
Post by floorshow on Aug 1, 2017 6:14:53 GMT
I agree that there's too much going on, but there was so much in there that I liked and found interesting and enjoyable that it outweighed the parts I didn't. Dramatically, it's chaotic - maybe that's the idea, non-linear to reflect the subject matter, things pinging off in all directions, but it does mean there's too much in there for one play in one sitting, and some parts threaten to overwhelm others. Apparently she was writing it over many years and it really does feel as though she's had so many ideas she doesn't know what to jettison: another factor maybe the expense. The bits I thought could be cut are probably some of the most expensive to stage. I wasn't convinced by either the old mother's character or the boyfriend, and he and his entomologist subplot felt unnecessary, as did the TV launch and the spanking scene - wtf? - whilst the Life of Galileo/Escaped Alone cosmic bits could have been edited back ("but they took ages to design and cost a bomb!" I can imagine someone saying).
Mulling it over and flipping back through the text, though, what I really love was the characterisation of Jenny, Alice and Luke, the way they repel and then come together, the way the clash of sense and sensibility, science and instinct interweave, the cosmic, slightly Hamlety or Kubrick's 2001 bits with the ghostly father and the creation and falling apart of worlds - Personal or universal - and those wonderfully awkward, embarrassing scenes, sex with mobiles, Jenny saving Luke in its aftermath (two of my favourite actors, Colman and Quinn, in that one, so an absolute joy!). Having had a week to digest it, I think you've summed up exactly how I feel about it. If it wasn't such a short run I'd probably be tempted to see it again, there is so much to enjoy despite the occasional excess.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 1, 2017 9:59:11 GMT
I could be wrong but I think The Hard Problem is the only show which NT Live has broadcast from the Cottesloe / Dorfman, which is a shame as I think much of the most interesting stuff is on there. Maybe they feel the intimate scale of much of the work wouldn't translate well to the screen. I too would love to see this added to the line-up. IIRC Annie Barker's The Flick was at the Dorfman, and definitely would have been interesting to see in a cinema. People in a cinema watching people cleaning an empty cinema! In a way I think its hyper naturalism and extended silences might have made it more of a difficult watch on screen, though, where we are conditioned to expect more action and changing visuals.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 1, 2017 10:12:53 GMT
I think Mosquitoes would transfer very well to screen, though - Colman, Williams and Quinn are all excellent screen/tv actors too. What's more, you feel at somewhere like the National that almost everyone watching it is in the upper-middle-class Alice character bracket and it'd be interesting to see how it played to an audience who are more socially mixed and share some of Colman's character's views.
|
|
578 posts
|
Post by michalnowicki on Aug 1, 2017 20:04:41 GMT
The play text was finally delivered by Amazon today. Will give it a read as I'm refreshing NT site for tickets on 26th September.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 15:52:06 GMT
Have annoyingly just had to return a single ticket for this for tomorrow night. £29.
I imagine it should go online for resale pretty soon for those keen to snap it up...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 16:01:42 GMT
Have annoyingly just had to return a single ticket for this for tomorrow night. £29. I imagine it should go online for resale pretty soon for those keen to snap it up... Already gone. Hope someone here managed to nab it.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 2, 2017 17:12:57 GMT
Have annoyingly just had to return a single ticket I've managed to get another one for September - I want to see it again now I've read the text - but noticed, with the Firefox Update scanner binging when the dates listings web page was updated, that quite a few tickets - some very good pit seats - popped up for the evening / next day performances, particularly around lunchtime. Ones further ahead are rare and go fast.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 2, 2017 17:14:41 GMT
Couple just up now for September
|
|
578 posts
|
Post by michalnowicki on Aug 3, 2017 15:23:24 GMT
How strange... For a very short time loads of dates were showing available tickets for £7.5.... I think this must've been a glitch on the website...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 15:54:03 GMT
How strange... For a very short time loads of dates were showing available tickets for £7.5.... I think this must've been a glitch on the website... There are plenty of £7.50 Entry Pass (NT's 16-25 ticket scheme) tickets available. Maybe they accidentally got released to the general public for a short period?
|
|
578 posts
|
Post by michalnowicki on Aug 3, 2017 15:58:05 GMT
How strange... For a very short time loads of dates were showing available tickets for £7.5.... I think this must've been a glitch on the website... There are plenty of £7.50 Entry Pass (NT's 16-25 ticket scheme) tickets available. Maybe they accidentally got released to the general public for a short period? That would make so much sense, thanks for letting me know. Oh, to be young again...
|
|
1,037 posts
|
Post by jgblunners on Aug 4, 2017 12:20:19 GMT
Last night was my first trip to the Dorfman (never went when it was the Cottesloe either) and it did not disappoint. This play is excellent. I've never seen any of Kirkwood's work before, but her writing was impeccable. The family drama aspects of the play are grounded and touching - never melodramatic or straying into soap opera territory. For someone who calls himself a scientist, the accompanying commentary on communication and scientific endeavours was eye-opening and made me examine my own attitudes towards such things. The articles in the programme are also very well written - I know a lot of scientists who need to be reminded of the themes they discuss.
Now, I don't study particle physics but I take an interest in it and have followed the studies that are being performed at CERN (I remember listening on the radio the day they turned the LHC on), so I was already familiar with almost all of the science that was mentioned in the play. I found that the interludes delivered by 'The Boson' were odd at first, but once I saw the parallels that Kirkwood was trying to make I actually thought they were quite clever. However, I would be interested to know how easy it is to understand for someone who isn't familiar with the science - the explanations seemed to be pitched at the right level, but it's always easy to say that when you've heard it all before. Given that one of the statements that Kirkwood is trying to make is about accessibility and communication of scientific information, I'd like to know if she's managed to achieve an appropriate level of communication in her own writing.
I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear me say that Olivia Colman is amazing. She deserves every ounce of praise that is sent her way, because her performance here is remarkable. Both Olivia Williams and Amanda Boxer also give fantastic performances with their characters who are imperfect in a very different way to Colman's, but to take a troubled character like that and make her so real and believable is very impressive. It reminds me of Denise Gough's performance in Angels.
Kudos to Rufus Norris for doing a production in the round so effectively - too often I've seen blocking that just looks unnatural, but here Norris has made every scene flow smoothly and naturally so that it can play to every side of the auditorium. I also disagree with those who were calling for the play to be cut down - 2hrs 50mins flew by for me, and I loved every word of it. I'm feeling very lucky right now that I've had the privilege of seeing both this and Angels - I feel like I should raise a glass to whoever started the Entry Pass scheme.
|
|
1,187 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Aug 4, 2017 13:11:51 GMT
Last night was my first trip to the Dorfman (never went when it was the Cottesloe either) and it did not disappoint. This play is excellent. I've never seen any of Kirkwood's work before, but her writing was impeccable. The family drama aspects of the play are grounded and touching - never melodramatic or straying into soap opera territory. For someone who calls himself a scientist, the accompanying commentary on communication and scientific endeavours was eye-opening and made me examine my own attitudes towards such things. The articles in the programme are also very well written - I know a lot of scientists who need to be reminded of the themes they discuss. Now, I don't study particle physics but I take an interest in it and have followed the studies that are being performed at CERN (I remember listening on the radio the day they turned the LHC on), so I was already familiar with almost all of the science that was mentioned in the play. I found that the interludes delivered by 'The Boson' were odd at first, but once I saw the parallels that Kirkwood was trying to make I actually thought they were quite clever. However, I would be interested to know how easy it is to understand for someone who isn't familiar with the science - the explanations seemed to be pitched at the right level, but it's always easy to say that when you've heard it all before. Given that one of the statements that Kirkwood is trying to make is about accessibility and communication of scientific information, I'd like to know if she's managed to achieve an appropriate level of communication in her own writing. I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear me say that Olivia Colman is amazing. She deserves every ounce of praise that is sent her way, because her performance here is remarkable. Both Olivia Williams and Amanda Boxer also give fantastic performances with their characters who are imperfect in a very different way to Colman's, but to take a troubled character like that and make her so real and believable is very impressive. It reminds me of Denise Gough's performance in Angels. Kudos to Rufus Norris for doing a production in the round so effectively - too often I've seen blocking that just looks unnatural, but here Norris has made every scene flow smoothly and naturally so that it can play to every side of the auditorium. I also disagree with those who were calling for the play to be cut down - 2hrs 50mins flew by for me, and I loved every word of it. I'm feeling very lucky right now that I've had the privilege of seeing both this and Angels - I feel like I should raise a glass to whoever started the Entry Pass scheme.
|
|
1,187 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Aug 4, 2017 13:13:47 GMT
This is why I love theatre and personal opinions/ reactions to theatre because I could not disagree more with any of what has been said above
|
|
1,037 posts
|
Post by jgblunners on Aug 4, 2017 13:35:51 GMT
This is why I love theatre and personal opinions/ reactions to theatre because I could not disagree more with any of what has been said above It's been very interesting reading back through the thread and seeing just how much I appear to be in the minority! I totally see where all the criticisms are coming from, but I found that the writing just resonated with me. As you say, it's all about personal reactions.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 4, 2017 13:46:31 GMT
I'd like to know if she's managed to achieve an appropriate level of communication in her own writing. I'm not sure - I enjoyed the play and hope to see it again, having read the text, but in performance I would have liked more time to digest the emotionally heavy domestic scenes before the barrage of the cosmic bits. I've seen Escaped Alone and Life of Galileo this year, both of which had similar scenes, and saw the play in preview deliberately not wanting to know too much about it - I like to see if a play can stand on its own two feet without backup. My general feeling was that I liked the Boson parts - though they got a bit long-winded - but was less keen on the TV launch (the Kay Burleyesque reporter was a bit cliche'd) and other digressions: I thought the old mother's Nobel prize/womanising husband backstory was another distracting complication to an already very busy plot, and wasn't convinced by the surprisingly uptight Quaker entomologist boyfriend cafe scene lobbing yet more themes into the mix (aren't Quakers supposed to be more mellow and empathetic?). I wonder if my approach would have differed had I not seen Escaped Alone and Galileo this year: I enjoyed the play, but the people I saw it with thought it was a mess.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 4, 2017 13:51:03 GMT
So it wasn't about the content of the 'science bits', but their placing in the play - I think I would have liked a bit more time for the domestic scenes to breathe.
|
|