1,016 posts
|
Post by andrew on Feb 24, 2018 21:49:39 GMT
To get specific, I'm fairly sure the lighting effect is good use of "projection mapping", where a surface is recreated in 3D in a computer and a projection is designed to be displayed on top of it such that it takes advantage of the shapes it's being thrown on. So over the monochrome bookshelf, it projects perfectly the individual books in colour. The regular lighting has to be toned down to reflect this, as the projection will look best when there's not much light thrown on the same surface. It's done really well in this, I don't think I've ever seen the technology used in quite this way, and what's really nice is that it doesn't make a huge song and dance about it, it's a briefly seen effect.
|
|
2,349 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Feb 24, 2018 21:53:31 GMT
I thought this was great, with a tour de forcd performance from Mulligan. I found the events at the end quite hard to get through, and im normally a cynical bastard so it certainly resonated with me!
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 26, 2018 9:50:10 GMT
Aleks Sierz of in-yer-face theatre fame seems to think it is one of the best plays in years. That makes me feel better about missing it - he generally hates the things I love so I'm hoping the reverse is true.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Feb 26, 2018 11:47:12 GMT
Three extra Thursday matinees added - 1st, 8th, 15th March. Booking open.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 16:30:24 GMT
It's reasonably similar to one of the recurring effects in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. Certainly got the same basis, but used a lot more subtly here.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 26, 2018 17:00:29 GMT
I've rebooked, but darn this weather! Worse seat, twice the price, and expensive transport....wish they did £12 matinees!
|
|
kps
Auditioning
|
Post by kps on Feb 26, 2018 17:29:51 GMT
I saw this on Saturday night. I felt that Carey Mulligan did brilliantly with the script she was given, but ultimately there was not enough dramatic tension to sustain the play for the full 90 minutes.
The opening thirty-or-so minutes felt like an excerpt from a middle-of-the road stand-up act, which jarringly transformed into a very serious lecture about the folly of man, or rather, masculinity.
Morality plays work when the audience is readily able to empathise with the struggles and motives of the doomed individual. This crucial element is lacking in Girls & Boys, and therefore audience members merely find themselves nodding along to what effectively constitutes a TED talk framed around an anecdote.
The set was nice enough, and Carey Mulligan is very watchable, but this was unfortunately a disappointment from my perspective.
|
|
53 posts
|
Post by nialld on Feb 26, 2018 18:49:16 GMT
I saw on theatremonkey.com that for sold out performances the Royal Court operates an in person waiting list for no shows - does anyone have any experience of this or know how likely it is to get tickets through this way? I tried to get £12 tickets this morning but they all went instantly, I can't do next Monday and the one after that is the last one of the show so I'm assuming will be even busier! Am desperate to see this show but fear I may have missed out!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 22:23:29 GMT
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 27, 2018 11:32:13 GMT
Keep hitting the Royal Court website, as seats do appear Yes, I got My Mum's a Tw*t seats for the day I wanted by refreshing the page a lot. Maybe try that Update Scanner (it's on Firefox, I don't think it's on Safari) and set it to repeatedly scan the page with the dates listed? You can set it to scan at 5, 15 or whatever minute intervals and it pings if the page is updated - though it can be frustrating when it pings on something that's already been snapped up, and it can slow your computer up.
|
|
1,221 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 27, 2018 17:46:09 GMT
I like Mulligan but I'm in the "second half wasn't good enough" column. I wasn't really sure what I was supposed to do with the 'events' that we're told of. There was no opportunity for me to feel the sadness, the grief with Mulligan because she's recounting events in quite a teachy way. But despite feeling teachy, I'm not sure what about this subject matter I was supposed to learn. I wouldn't have wanted a second half of more jokiness, because I was pulled in a bit more when the play got more serious, but it didn't quite pull it all the way through for me. I very much liked the set and the projections (which I think one could have not spotted the presence of) and the lighting and Carey Mulligan, and the direction was probably as good with the material as it could have been. Overall I liked the play, but the last 20 minutes of it just didn't present the best version of itself. So it was all Dennis Kelly's fault basically. I agree with all that. Mulligan fantastic, play flawed. The problem is that Mulligan's character is a tourist all the way through the play. The play is laugh-out-loud funny when Mulligan describes being an actual "tourist" at the beginning, but then she becomes a "tourist" in the drama of her own life, as all the real drama takes place in her husband's head. So too is the stuff, about the boy playing with guns, thin gruel, with respect to coming to terms with toxic elements of masculinity. A missed opportunity! I had an apparently affable acquaintance who committed family-murder-suicide, and everything that could be helpful in understanding his behaviour had to do with the poisonous expectations of what it is to be "a man," his fragile identity constructed on account of that poison, associated feelings of humiliation when he supposedly didn't measure up, macho inability to admit or ever talk about such feelings, compounding the fragility of his identity, and eventaually total despair, with only the worst and most violent "solutions" presenting themselves to him. He killed his wife, his child and himself. To make a drama about this successfully, you need to describe what goes on in his head. Watching from the outside, as Kelly does here, is as useless and pointless as watching this on the news. Nonetheless, worth watching for Mulligan and the great observational humour of the first half. 3 stars
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 14:41:39 GMT
I’m going to try for £12 day seats on Monday. Wish me luck!
|
|
515 posts
|
Post by callum on Mar 3, 2018 15:31:04 GMT
Saw this on Wednesday and didn't believe a single word of it. Very sixth form. Starts off as a stand-up comedy routine you wouldn't see on a cruise ship and ends with virtue-signalling lecture we've all heard a hundred times before. Can't abide by an independently-educated actress espousing the virtues of the working class. The final 15 minutes was not warranted for me, and made me dislike the play even more. Ultimately - a failure.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 15:33:29 GMT
Lovely acting
Awful play
Pathetically so
Not shocking
Didn’t tell me anything
Other than yet again how weak and desperate people are
To be in relationship
And they like learning the lesson the hard way
Utterly unbelievable and the writing was so cliched
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 4, 2018 0:29:35 GMT
Lovely acting Awful play Pathetically so Not shocking Didn’t tell me anything Other than yet again how weak and desperate people are To be in relationship And they like learning the lesson the hard way Utterly unbelievable and the writing was so cliched Parsley’s back.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 4, 2018 0:36:57 GMT
I saw this, this afternoon and really I am not a fan of one person plays, as they are very one dimensional and requires a lot of concentration on just one person, at least with two or more actors you can keep shifting your attention and this gives you pause. I didn’t also rate Ms Mulligan, who was far better in Skylight, that could be because of my earlier misgivings.
However at the end there is a coup de theatre with the stage design and lighting.
3 Stars
|
|
854 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Mar 4, 2018 14:08:42 GMT
Saw this on Wednesday and didn't believe a single word of it. Very sixth form. Starts off as a stand-up comedy routine you wouldn't see on a cruise ship and ends with virtue-signalling lecture we've all heard a hundred times before. Can't abide by an independently-educated actress espousing the virtues of the working class. The final 15 minutes was not warranted for me, and made me dislike the play even more. Ultimately - a failure. How odd that you should know where she went to school. Do you keep a list? Why is it relevant?
|
|
1,848 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Mar 4, 2018 14:38:29 GMT
After seeing two one person plays recently this one and B*easts at the Bush, on reflection this is the weaker of the two.
Saw an early preview so little preconceived ideas and on reflection this influenced my initial opinion along with the performance and impressive set.
Having had time to ponder, this is one dimensional and does not add anything to the subject of Girls & Boys, one likes playing with guns, one likes playing with dolls. A simple extrapolation to the theme and as previously stated there is by definition no counterpoint which is necessary to understand the drives to commit such events which most, if not all of us could not countenance in any circumstances.
B*easts deserves the plaudits as it not only covers a currently unlikely scenario but tries to understand it from the protagonists viewpoint along with the societal influences that could lead to the scenario and Monica Dolan is mesmerising in a way I only thought Imelda Staunton could be.
|
|
3,478 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 4, 2018 14:55:56 GMT
I saw this, this afternoon and really I am not a fan of one person plays, as they are very one dimensional and requires a lot of concentration on just one person, at least with two or more actors you can keep shifting your attention and this gives you pause. I didn’t also rate Ms Mulligan, who was far better in Skylight, that could be because of my earlier misgivings. However at the end there is a coup de theatre with the stage design and lighting. 3 Stars Sorry you didn't enjoy it more, Phantom of London, but (and this isn't Schadenfreude) thank goodness someone else has at last spoken out against one-person plays, as I was castigated for daring to ask whether, with a cast of one, this even amounted to a play. I never planned to see this anyway but in principle, give me at least 3 or 4 people so that there is, as you say, some interaction and shift of focus.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 15:18:18 GMT
No one castigated anyone. You can prefer to avoid one-person plays all you want and no one will give even a single solitary hoot as that is what works for you and it does not affect anyone else. But please don't mistake our "I disagree that a play with only a single cast member doesn't even count as a play" for castigation.
|
|
515 posts
|
Post by callum on Mar 5, 2018 0:21:34 GMT
Saw this on Wednesday and didn't believe a single word of it. Very sixth form. Starts off as a stand-up comedy routine you wouldn't see on a cruise ship and ends with virtue-signalling lecture we've all heard a hundred times before. Can't abide by an independently-educated actress espousing the virtues of the working class. The final 15 minutes was not warranted for me, and made me dislike the play even more. Ultimately - a failure. How odd that you should know where she went to school. Do you keep a list? Why is it relevant? Wikipedia. And yes it is relevant when a fairly well-to-do actress puts on a working class accent and slags off the rich for having too much opportunity in the creative industries. In a play that wouldn’t have got off the ground if it wasn’t for her. The words ‘irony’ and ‘dead’ spring to mind...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 9:39:07 GMT
Managed to get two £12 seats for his tonight. I was 489 in the queue at 9.00 and got a message that all of the tickets were in baskets (can’t remember exact wording) at about 9.10 when I was 179 in the queue. Eventually I got to be first in the queue, same message about no tickets left. I refreshed a couple of times, went and read some of the Bad Behaviour thread, refreshed again and I got two tickets at 9.25. So I am rather delighted!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 9:43:52 GMT
Can't abide by an independently-educated actress espousing the virtues of the working class. The final 15 minutes was not warranted for me, and made me dislike the play even more. Ultimately - a failure. Hold on. Actors are only allowed to play the class they are? Or are working class people allowed to play posh people? Can straight people play gay people? Or are they only allowed to do it if they don’t espouse the virtues of same-sex relationships?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 9:46:17 GMT
How odd that you should know where she went to school. Do you keep a list? Why is it relevant? Wikipedia. And yes it is relevant when a fairly well-to-do actress puts on a working class accent and slags off the rich for having too much opportunity in the creative industries. In a play that wouldn’t have got off the ground if it wasn’t for her. The words ‘irony’ and ‘dead’ spring to mind... At some point in the past, I read an article explaining how Julian Fellowes went to do a talk at Carey Mulligan's school, and afterwards she wrote to him asking for advice on breaking into acting. He invited her to lunch, set her up with a casting agent, and she ended up in Pride And Prejudice. She's an extremely talented actor, and had other jobs in the period before her acting career really took off, and clearly gets credit for the determination to make her own luck, but can you imagine a kid from a working class background being able to connect so easily with a fairly influential bod like Julian Fellowes? It's the kind of story that I found hard to forget while watching her playing such a strongly working class character. I liked the play and thought she did a great job, but can you imagine how much more impactful it *could* have been?
|
|
1,221 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 5, 2018 12:02:37 GMT
Can't abide by an independently-educated actress espousing the virtues of the working class. The final 15 minutes was not warranted for me, and made me dislike the play even more. Ultimately - a failure. Hold on. Actors are only allowed to play the class they are? Or are working class people allowed to play posh people? Can straight people play gay people? Or are they only allowed to do it if they don’t espouse the virtues of same-sex relationships? Agree. Judging Carey Mulligan's acting, by what school she went to, is not about Carey Mulligan or her acting, but about the psychodrama going on in the head of the audience member judging her. Carey Mulligan is one of the best actors I've seen, and she's great in this. Unlike Skylight, this play misses the mark, so it's not as exciting, but that's by the by. The world is unfair, and we should do all we can in every way, every day, to improve it, but holding a child's feet (eg posh background = bad, working class = good) to the fire, for the circumstances of her birth, is unhelpful. After all, great working class actors like Christopher Eccleston or David Morrissey are born able-bodied. By the same reasoning as above, you could say they don't deserve their success because they were born with limbs or with hearing, whereas others are not. Therefore they didn't really earn their success the way a non-hearing or non-able-bodied person would have to. This kind of reasoning is a cul de sac that demonises people, who are good at what they do, for circumstances they cannot help. Change, and progress, society every day in every way you can, I say, but don't blame the child.
|
|
515 posts
|
Post by callum on Mar 5, 2018 17:03:52 GMT
Can't abide by an independently-educated actress espousing the virtues of the working class. The final 15 minutes was not warranted for me, and made me dislike the play even more. Ultimately - a failure. Hold on. Actors are only allowed to play the class they are? Or are working class people allowed to play posh people? Can straight people play gay people? Or are they only allowed to do it if they don’t espouse the virtues of same-sex relationships? It is not particularly comparable. As Baemax has put it very eloquently, Carey Mulligan is privileged and quite famous actor playing a non-privileged character that is quite forthright in an attacking how privileged people in the creative industries get a leg up over the working class. When one of the principal reasons that the play is being put on in the first place is because Carey Mulligan had access to Julian Fellowes. Working class actors are disappearing at an alarming rate. Mulligan, Cumberbatch, Hiddleston and Lily James etc are all obviously very capable actors, but in their generation I don't see any successors to the great working class actors Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Julie Walters and Helen Mirren. Yes, Ecclestone, Morrisey and Maxine Peake are all great but they are the exception to the rule. Representation matters - and the way that the Royal Court handled this didn't sit right with me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 19:06:19 GMT
Hold on. Actors are only allowed to play the class they are? Or are working class people allowed to play posh people? Can straight people play gay people? Or are they only allowed to do it if they don’t espouse the virtues of same-sex relationships? It is not particularly comparable. As Baemax has put it very eloquently, Carey Mulligan is privileged and quite famous actor playing a non-privileged character that is quite forthright in an attacking how privileged people in the creative industries get a leg up over the working class. When one of the principal reasons that the play is being put on in the first place is because Carey Mulligan had access to Julian Fellowes. Working class actors are disappearing at an alarming rate. Mulligan, Cumberbatch, Hiddleston and Lily James etc are all obviously very capable actors, but in their generation I don't see any successors to the great working class actors Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Julie Walters and Helen Mirren. Yes, Ecclestone, Morrisey and Maxine Peake are all great but they are the exception to the rule. Representation matters - and the way that the Royal Court handled this didn't sit right with me. You're missing one key fact from your argument... Theatre and acting is a middle class interest for the most part and most working class people either have no interest in the World of theatre or the time to persue any interest anyway: I grew up on a council estate in one of London's poorest areas and am speaking from experience. Most actors in history haven't been working class and nothing has changed. There are acting schools such as the one in King's Cross with offer free or heavily discounted drama classes and these should be funded by the theatre and television industries and schemes like the Travelex at The National should be applauded and replicated by the main theatre groups, but they are only successful if there exists a demand (and the £15 tickets don't go to those with memberships at The National which cost the most). But what you can't do is bring a horse to water and make it drink. Plays like Amen Corner and Dara were meant to bring whole new audiences to The National but both were mostly attended almost exclusively by white middle class audiences. The same as The Barber Shop Chronicles. The same as the RSC's Hamlet will be in Hackney. Full of white audiences patting themselves on the back at their public display of embracing diversity. The theatre is for EVERYONE who wants to embrace it and every attempt possible - within reason - to make it accessible to all should be made but you can't waste time or money trying to attract people who aren't interested. Both are in short supply. For the record, by the way, and as someone from the same cultural background as the character portrayed by Mulligan, I have no issues with her - or anyone else perceived to be 'privileged' - playing someone from a similar background to me. The play emphasised the struggle we faced and continue to face and Mulligan gave a sympathetic, emotional performance full of empathy. What more could anyone ask for? Even the accent wasn't insulting to us either!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 19:16:33 GMT
Carey Mulligan is privileged and quite famous actor playing a non-privileged character that is quite forthright in an attacking how privileged people in the creative industries get a leg up over the working class. When one of the principal reasons that the play is being put on in the first place is because Carey Mulligan had access to Julian Fellowes. I imagine the play would have been put on regardless. The casting of Carey Mulligan - who I thought was excellent - will no doubt have helped it gain some extra prominence, but a new play by Dennis Kelly will be programmed on the merit of his name and the play itself. We are in danger of edging into a world where producers/casting directors/directors are going to have their choices severely limited by demands for actors to possess direct proximity to the role - and while representation, equality and equity are hugely important I strongly believe that there has to be scope for performers to operate outside of their class, whichever class that might be, and for creatives to be... err... creative in terms of their casting choices. I understand that there is a very real and valid point being made about creating more opportunities for working class actors (and writers/producers/directors/designers etc) but being critical of non-working class actors from taking on working class roles is - for me anyway - a movement away from equality and equity. Imagine if it went both ways, and working class actors were criticised for taking on non-working class roles? It would rightly be met with outrage. There absolutely needs to be more support for working class individuals in the creative arts, but I don't think criticism of non-working class individuals (or theatres that employ them) is the equitable way - and when it is the Royal Court, one of the chief champions of working class voices, it seems doubly unfair.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Mar 5, 2018 21:32:39 GMT
and when it is the Royal Court, one of the chief champions of working class voices, it seems doubly unfair. That might have been a valid description thirty years ago but the Court has been the mirror of the middle classes for a long time now. I don’t begrudge anyone who is a good performer playing any role but who gets to do so goes back to education. Working class audiences and performer are there to be cultivated and attempts at doing so last century paid off, from the Workers’ Educational Association to the Open University, to improved access to further and higher education through student grants and so on. The arts are dying in state schools now, numbers are way down, teachers leaving are not being replaced. The EBACC is doing exactly what its opponents said it would. This is going to get much worse before it gets better.
|
|
487 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 6, 2018 9:35:57 GMT
It is not particularly comparable. As Baemax has put it very eloquently, Carey Mulligan is privileged and quite famous actor playing a non-privileged character that is quite forthright in an attacking how privileged people in the creative industries get a leg up over the working class. When one of the principal reasons that the play is being put on in the first place is because Carey Mulligan had access to Julian Fellowes. Working class actors are disappearing at an alarming rate. Mulligan, Cumberbatch, Hiddleston and Lily James etc are all obviously very capable actors, but in their generation I don't see any successors to the great working class actors Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Julie Walters and Helen Mirren. Yes, Ecclestone, Morrisey and Maxine Peake are all great but they are the exception to the rule. Representation matters - and the way that the Royal Court handled this didn't sit right with me. You're missing one key fact from your argument... Theatre and acting is a middle class interest for the most part and most working class people either have no interest in the World of theatre or the time to persue any interest anyway: I grew up on a council estate in one of London's poorest areas and am speaking from experience. Most actors in history haven't been working class and nothing has changed. There are acting schools such as the one in King's Cross with offer free or heavily discounted drama classes and these should be funded by the theatre and television industries and schemes like the Travelex at The National should be applauded and replicated by the main theatre groups, but they are only successful if there exists a demand (and the £15 tickets don't go to those with memberships at The National which cost the most). But what you can't do is bring a horse to water and make it drink. Plays like Amen Corner and Dara were meant to bring whole new audiences to The National but both were mostly attended almost exclusively by white middle class audiences. The same as The Barber Shop Chronicles. The same as the RSC's Hamlet will be in Hackney. Full of white audiences patting themselves on the back at their public display of embracing diversity. The theatre is for EVERYONE who wants to embrace it and every attempt possible - within reason - to make it accessible to all should be made but you can't waste time or money trying to attract people who aren't interested. Both are in short supply. For the record, by the way, and as someone from the same cultural background as the character portrayed by Mulligan, I have no issues with her - or anyone else perceived to be 'privileged' - playing someone from a similar background to me. The play emphasised the struggle we faced and continue to face and Mulligan gave a sympathetic, emotional performance full of empathy. What more could anyone ask for? Even the accent wasn't insulting to us either! So no working class people attend the theatre, and non-working class people only attend the type of plays you've mentioned in order to put on a 'public display of embracing diversity.' I'm curious - would you rather these plays were playing to empty theatres, or that they were never commissioned in the first place?
|
|