67 posts
|
Post by ruperto on Jun 9, 2018 21:50:54 GMT
Just back from this. Like nash16, I was underwhelmed.
I liked some of the staging, and it’s got an impressive sound design. And I can see that it’s a historically important play, and also why they have chosen to revive it now. But I’m not sure that it’s a particularly good play...
Emily Berrington was ok, but played it all rather one-note - though maybe that’s how it’s written, or how she was directed?
I didn’t have a problem with the blinding lights. And anyone intrigued about the warnings on the Almeida website will be relieved/disappointed to hear that there’s nothing to frighten the horses here - the nudity mentioned seemed to amount to a bit of bare back (though as some on here will recall, the nudity ‘warning’ was definitely justified when Berrington appeared in Children’s Children at the Almeida a few years back), while the intriguing latex warning presumably related to when the lead character put on a pair of marigolds at one point. Plus I think maybe one character had a fag.
Started at 7.30, finished at 8.53, so a good one for those who like their early nights...
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 9, 2018 22:09:48 GMT
It opens with this amazing image of the main character on a crowded subway - framed by the set so you just see a slice of the group of commuters - so beautifully lit - it looked like a Renaissance painting.
The next is an outstanding scene in a busy office, with rapid dialogue (Kirsty Rider who plays the telephonist is superb - lightning quick changes, comic, surprising) with the chorus of other stenographers/workers reflected in the high mirrors positioned diagonally above the stage.
It's pretty much downhill from there, with the exception of a good scene between Berrington and Dwane Walcott.
I'd been excited to see this as I'd heard about it for years and thought of it as one of those odd but compelling 1920s plays or films that explored what it was to be human rather than a machine. like Elmer Rice's The Adding Machine (there are a number of plot similarities with this) or Fritz Lang's Metropolis. I'd also heard it described as an early feminist play. I suppose there is an argument that the main character feels she has few options in her life as she doesn't like her job and feels the only alternative is to marry a man she doesn't love. But the play itself seems to suggest she had other options but chose not to take them (the lively telephonist offers to set her up on a double date in the first scene, for example.) As Nash said above (and as my daughter who went with me voiced) its relevance to contemporary issues seems limited. She is an immensely frustrating character. Emily Berrington struggles to find much of interest - there is quite a demanding early speech which didn't come off at all.
So - it looked great' the set changes (except for the annoying blinding lights - I took to closing my eyes for those) were impressive and the opening was stunning. And it's only 90 minutes long.
P.S. Some theatre trivia for you: Clark Gable made his Broadway debut as the Man in this.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Jun 12, 2018 11:47:03 GMT
Reviews are coming out for this. 3* Whatsonstage, ES, Arts Desk. 4* Independent, Time Out, Stage.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jun 13, 2018 17:22:15 GMT
Reviews are coming out for this. 3* Whatsonstage, ES, Arts Desk. 4* Independent, Time Out, Stage. 4* Guardian, Libby Purves, Radio Times (Exeunt is also 4-ish but, as usual, no star rating given). 3* Shenton, Times, Telegraph.
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Jun 15, 2018 7:31:33 GMT
I can see the terrible view from the cheap side stall seats has been discussed, but another issue for me is that a lot of the action seems to happen stage right, so if you're sitting in the left side stall seats you miss considerably more than if you were on the other side. A bit like the stage left of The Ferryman. I would say in the Honeymoon, Maternal, and Domestic episodes I couldn't see 70% of what was going on. You also miss the reflections in the mirror which at least from the press images look really good for certain scenes. I really wish they would price these seats differently or inform people of this, because although I could only afford the cheapest seats I would have definitely chosen the right side. What made this even more infuriating is that because there were empty seats in the centre they moved everybody in the right stalls to better seats even though we in the left had the worse view. Leaving empty seats with a better view.
I liked what I saw although the modern touches were a huge misstep in my opinion. The play is anachronistic with the modern relevance I felt being more about the meatgrinder of the big city, being made less than human, which works just as well in an entirely 1920s setting. In fact as a Londoner certain scenes such as the office, bar and hospital with the drilling really resonated with me but hearing her talk about not wanting to divorce with a Fox News reporter there really jarred. The ending should have been a lot more harrowing, I was hoping for something more like Dancer in the Dark (why just shave off a few strands hair?) but it was fairly tame and over far too quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 9:21:39 GMT
To avoid humiliation when collecting tickets - should I be pronouncing this Mashinal or Makkinal??
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 9:26:27 GMT
There's only one auditorium, just say "hello, collecting ticket for [your name here]".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 9:55:14 GMT
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 19, 2018 9:57:45 GMT
I thought it was Mack - but article suggests author wanted Mash.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 10:02:32 GMT
There's only one auditorium, just say "hello, collecting ticket for [your name here]". Tricks of the trade!
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jun 19, 2018 11:10:07 GMT
The word is partly the hard Mack of 'Deus ex Machina' and the soft Mash of 'Machine', both of which Treadwell seems to have been referencing. Then there's the question of emphasis - first, second or third syllable? Each has been used at different times. Treadwell appears to have preferred the softer version but historically the harder version has taken preference so take your pick!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 19:55:22 GMT
We enter a darker than usual auditorium so the blinding lights which punctuate each of the nine ‘episodes’ of this piece come as a shock, I suppose to remind us of the shocks of electricity that will pass through the young woman’s body in the final moments of the play.
It’s a shocking story it’s based on really, and reminded me of the Edith Thompson case which preceeded it, becoming a cause celebre in England, and the Alma Rattenbury case a few years after it which was to form the basis of Rattigan’s Cause Celebre much later.
I agree that the play’s structure is uneven: one minute she has taken a lover, the next the husband is gone, and in this production (I didn’t see the NT version back in the 90s) the court scene seems rushed. But overall it is well staged, particularly the earlier scenes in which we are introduced to the idea of machines and how we are all part of them. Cogs in a wheel... The tap, shuffle, ring in the office, played over and over and under the dialogue sets the scene and sets the young woman apart. Very cleverly done. I wasn’t convinced about the gradual move towards the present day with music, props and costumes- I’d have liked the play to stay back in the 20s which would have shocked us even more.
I enjoy spotting the occasional TV personality from yesteryear in a cast, so I was particularly pleased to see Corrie’s Denise Black as the mother. With one scene to play she certainly made the most of it; we see her again, speechless and wide mouthed in the courtroom, hardly able to believe she’s watching her daughter’s downfall, and the moments where she covers her grand-daughter’s ears are poignant and... well... shocking again.
An incredible, intricate, atmospheric sound design, something we often overlook in a show, add to the atmosphere of this intriguing piece.
Glad I saw it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 9:17:45 GMT
Thought this was a perfectly good production but my main problem was that I had no patience for the central character at all and more or else felt that she got what she deserved by the end. She basically gets married because she can't be bothered to work (she literally talks about wanting to lie in bed till noon); she's not frustrated or oppressed, she's just bloody lazy. My sympathy was all with the husband who perfectly reasonably expected the woman who agreed to marry him of her own free will to give some slight evidence of liking him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 9:36:16 GMT
Thought this was a perfectly good production but my main problem was that I had no patience for the central character at all and more or else felt that she got what she deserved by the end. She basically gets married because she can't be bothered to work (she literally talks about wanting to lie in bed till noon); she's not frustrated or oppressed, she's just bloody lazy. My sympathy was all with the husband who perfectly reasonably expected the woman who agreed to marry him of her own free will to give some slight evidence of liking him. Well that's @abby off Germaine Greer's Christmas card list this year.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 23, 2018 12:40:02 GMT
Thought this was a perfectly good production but my main problem was that I had no patience for the central character at all and more or else felt that she got what she deserved by the end. She basically gets married because she can't be bothered to work (she literally talks about wanting to lie in bed till noon); she's not frustrated or oppressed, she's just bloody lazy. My sympathy was all with the husband who perfectly reasonably expected the woman who agreed to marry him of her own free will to give some slight evidence of liking him.
I liked Emily Berrington as the Young Woman and thought she was credibly lost and vulnerable but I agree she couldn't ultimately muster much sympathy for her character. I think the problem is the wrong-headed updating of the production. What's powerful and courageous and prescient in the 1920s is simply banal when dragged up into the present day. The play desperately needs its context.
When the Prosecutor asks the woman why she didn't simply get a divorce she has no answer and, in this setting, neither does the play.
|
|
723 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jun 23, 2018 13:32:23 GMT
Thought this was a perfectly good production but my main problem was that I had no patience for the central character at all and more or else felt that she got what she deserved by the end. She basically gets married because she can't be bothered to work (she literally talks about wanting to lie in bed till noon); she's not frustrated or oppressed, she's just bloody lazy. My sympathy was all with the husband who perfectly reasonably expected the woman who agreed to marry him of her own free will to give some slight evidence of liking him.
I liked Emily Berrington as the Young Woman and thought she was credibly lost and vulnerable but I agree she couldn't ultimately muster much sympathy for her character. I think the problem is the wrong-headed updating of the production. What's powerful and courageous and prescient in the 1920s is simply banal when dragged up into the present day. The play desperately needs its context.
When the Prosecutor asks the woman why she didn't simply get a divorce she has no answer and, in this setting, neither does the play.
I disagree...(respectfully of course!) The point of the play is that she is so mentally oppressed by her situation that she cannot see a way of escape...even in this day and age people stay with abusive partners, even when logically the sensible thing to do is leave and divorce, as they have been so traumatised that they cannot decide the logical course of action. It is a bit like when someone commits suicide....they often think they are doing their family a favour as they will be "better off without them", even though this is not how the family think at all. Also the "wanting to lie in bed all day" is a classic symptom of depression....you cease to be able to function, so I think this is a symptom of her deep despair at life, rather than laziness! I loved the opening, on the tube train and I really enjoyed Emily Berrington's perfomance. I think it's probably quite apt that some of the audience feel little sympathy for the character as that is partly the point of the story....the same happened then as well....and still happens today.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 19:10:45 GMT
Thought this was a perfectly good production but my main problem was that I had no patience for the central character at all and more or else felt that she got what she deserved by the end. She basically gets married because she can't be bothered to work (she literally talks about wanting to lie in bed till noon); she's not frustrated or oppressed, she's just bloody lazy. My sympathy was all with the husband who perfectly reasonably expected the woman who agreed to marry him of her own free will to give some slight evidence of liking him. Well that's @abby off Germaine Greer's Christmas card list this year. Ha! I actually did think "oh sh*t, do I sound like Germaine 'rapists shouldn't go to jail' Greer but I pressed post anyway...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 19:16:21 GMT
Latecomer Perhaps it got me on a bad day because I'm sick to death of working for a living but I still sodding well have to... I didn't get any sense of the husband being abusive. She just came across as flakey and entitled. Seriously love, none of us like our jobs, that's why it's called work not fun - suck it up or, if you don't want to, accept that you've signed up to suck something else. At least you have the choice - the husband has to turn up to work every day to pay for everyone and I bet he doesn't particularly enjoy it either.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 19:18:04 GMT
Oh my God, have I turned into Sarah Vine???
|
|
17 posts
|
Post by theplayer on Jun 23, 2018 21:55:21 GMT
I enjoyed this. It was well performed and the American accents were decent.
I got to meet Emily Berrington afterwards and she was kind enough to let me take a photo with her.
I'm a big fan of her in Humans as well. She is by far the best Synth.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 23, 2018 23:34:25 GMT
Just came out of tonight's performance, and I'm not really sure quite what I thought of it.
I agree with some of the comments here: Rather than being lazy, my feeling was that the main character was someone with limited freedom or agency (controlled by the males in her life [boss, husband, doctor, lawyer, priest] as well as the expectations of her mother), feelings that were amplified by suffering from serious depression /mental problems.
Its interesting to see the comments about domestic abuse, both here and in the programme. I didn't see anything that definitively screamed '(physical) abuse' from the husband. He was certainly someone full of himself, and taking full advantage of his position in society, but I wasn't entirely sure if he was just too stupid to see his wife's problems, or if he saw them and didn't care. There was a line that I half-caught (something about him liking to see her shake when he went to touch her(?)), which might suggest the latter, but given that the play seemed to be entirely from her subjective experience, I wasn't clear if this was supposed to be an objective truth.
For me, I found the visuals hit and miss. The style appeared to aim for Terry Gilliam's Brazil or Orson Welles' The Trial, especially in the second scene in an office, but I'm not sure it ever really achieved those heights. Cinema can be so good at placing the viewer in the mind of a character, in large part because it has complete control over point of view, effects and sound. Here though, it didn't quite work for me. The background sounds in particular (drills, rain, trains, etc) didn't seem to overwhelm and oppress in the way that she clearly experienced it. The overall result felt like you were distanced from, rather than immersed in, the protagonists viewpoint.
The acting also seemed hit and miss. The main lady was great, as was her lover, but some others didn't quite ring true for me. In particular, the scene in the bar seemed to have some fairly iffy accents.
All in all, probably only 3 stars for me, but it was certainly a thought-provoking trip to the theatre. I probably preferred Belleville at the Donmar though, which had similar themes.
Incidentally, a question for those that know the play well. Was the script unchanged from its original? Some of it felt very modern, e.g. the overlapping dialogue during the trial. Similarly, was the couple to the left at the bar written as two males? I know there was a reference to Oscar Wilde, but it felt slightly strange to suddenly have two males in a play almost entirely revolving around male-female dynamics.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2018 16:53:23 GMT
Anyone know what the aircon situation in the Almeida is like?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2018 20:48:15 GMT
Anyone know what the aircon situation in the Almeida is like? Negligible, in case anyone was wondering.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 19:42:33 GMT
I really struggled with this. We were in D3/4 so couldn’t see any of the reflection, but I am not sure a bold staging could save this for me.
I found it staccato, grating and pitchy. Hard to watch, but not for the right reasons. I felt myself get further away from it, the closer it got to our period. I think it’s possibly a successful staging of the text, but I am not sure it’s a successful piece of theatre.
I thought it lacked humanity, overall, but my husband made a compelling argument for it being a four star play so maybe it will grow on me overtime. I have been thinking about it today...just not fondly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 21:21:24 GMT
Well. There was a moment in the office sequence where I thought they were all going to burst into 'Forget About The Boy' from 'Thoroughly Modern Millie'. Alas, they did not. More's the pity as it would have pepped up the play no end. It really would have benefited from a tap routine too.
On the plus side, the visuals are really rather wonderful - the first quick scene on the train is tinglingly good and I do love a letterbox curtain. You also get Vince's mum from 'Queer as Folk' with some comedy efforts around a potato to lighten the mood, some lovely arm action from Dwane Walcott and some gayers having fun over a sherry which seems wonderfully modern for such an old play.
I thought it lost a bit of steam once it started going all modern but it was rather a clever trick nonetheless and like many others, I couldn't really be faffed to muster up much of a fondness for Ms Jones, however, the original play back in 1928 must have been a real sensation though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 18:20:03 GMT
^@ryan I am squirrelling the term “letterbox curtain” away for future use. Never seen or heard that before.
Am I alone in wishing it had closed smoothly? Or should I just go back to watching videos of soap being sliced up on Insta?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2018 9:29:33 GMT
This was dreadful
And it’s interesting that the matinee I attended
Was so empty
Given it received good reviews
What an awful and weirdly written play
|
|
1,316 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Jun 30, 2018 17:15:04 GMT
I arrived early at the Almeida and was treated to seeing Denise Black arrive in the foyer with her (folded) Brompton Bike. She then came and sat at the next table to me in the cafe bit and started talking very loudly into her phone. She kept saying 'Don't be blue!' And was talking about the necessity of moving a mattress up from the basement, all of which suggested she was dealing with tenants. All this was done fortissimo as if she was already on stage. She then received a huge bowl of pasta and scarpered with it back stage.
Anyway I think I'd rather waffle on about her than the play which I didn't enjoy at all. I get that it's historically significant and ahead of its time but frankly it bored the arse off me.
I quite liked the production though, which reminded me of The Red Barn at NT.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 7, 2018 11:54:44 GMT
Coming out last night seemed to be a bit of a marmite production, people who loved it, others who loathed it. That said my views weren't so strong. I really enjoyed the staging, was in centre block so got the benefit of that mirror ceiling, rather enjoyed enforced squinting at change of every scene, liked music use and the acting. I didn't find the unsympathetic nature of the lead an issue, rather felt like she was made up of a succession of woman/fragments of women rather than necessarily one fully fledged whole and this fitted with changes in time. I did feel sympathy for her, had no issue with her response to her marriage even if you couldn't necessarily identify exactly what the issue was. Her trapped/suffocating/flinching translated. And not just as the people behind me chatted throughout and galloping them with my water bottle seemed more and more reasonable! Not sure how long it will stay with me but it was an easy enough hour and a bit and I know even though a potential way to pronounce it though suspect won't try explain that one to my bemused work colleagues.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 12, 2018 11:10:54 GMT
Just a general question - which of the £10 or £20 Almeida seats do you recommend? The reviews on seatplan are rather contradictory. I have sat in one of the £20 seats before, for Ink, but I can't remember which it was! I was thinking of booking for Dance Nation but as you can't return tickets and transport in August is dodgy I didn't want to go for a pricier one.
|
|