980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 2, 2019 9:21:25 GMT
Only 1 hour 15 mins long. Wahooooooooo Is that a problem? I prefer 75 tightly scripted minutes to 3 hours of hot air any day. "Wahooooo" is a celebration, not a disappointment. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jun 2, 2019 11:32:13 GMT
I'm going to put this out there becasue it caused my internal klaxton to sound: Two extremely young people (in this case 12 and 14) - grief-stricken and wracked with guilt - consummate their relationship in tragic circumstances while their world is at war? Couldn't help but be reminded of this "These times of woe afford no time to woo." Probably just me on a goose chase, or maybe a fun/ironic ref from the writers. Thing is, if intentional, are there other references from the same author .. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 22:59:16 GMT
I’m a sucker for a spoiler tag. I even read them about things I have no plans to see. So it is excruciating for me to resist clicking on them as I am not seeing this until Thursday.
I might have to just throw my phone in the bin.
|
|
32 posts
|
Post by deadyankee on Jun 3, 2019 6:40:15 GMT
Seriously, don’t look at any spoilers or you will lose an awful lot
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jun 3, 2019 13:56:41 GMT
I wanted to write something about this partly becasue Billington was such an arse in his review, and becasue, well, it works well and ... also it doesn't. Imo. For example, I have issues with the overt dramatic premise. But anyway, I'm hoping to see it again on a day ticket so holding fire. Anyone who uses Billington and arse in the same sentence gets a heart from me
I think what got my goat was this is a new production and people will have put their heart, soul and reputation into this. When reviewing, imo it should be encumbant to be thoughtful about what you say becasue you are contributing to the establishment of a narrative about the new work. It's always difficult to dislodge the first narrative.
So not overly impressed with Billington knocking out 4-5 dismissive paragraphs before drawing a pompous conclusion and opening another bottle.
Actually, it's also why I'm throwing one or two ideas in the hat here.
|
|
2,345 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jun 3, 2019 19:34:38 GMT
Was great! Came to just over an hour, zipped past and was super intense. Acting is ace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 22:11:58 GMT
Headphones and internal thoughts, separation, small intimate sounds etc.? Not employed to the same ends but the reviews did put me in mind of it. Having now seem this, I agree with TM. No audience involvement. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 22:20:00 GMT
I’m not sure what the ‘no spoilers’ actually adds and I am tempted to think it’s very clever marketing as it references Cursed Child. I think it sets up the idea of some sort of twist, like a Sixth Sense.
That said, I really enjoyed the staging, the technology and the performances. It’s clever, pulls you in and it’s unlike anything else that’s on at the moment. Even though the technology is the same as The Encounter, it’s completely different.
But, the plot is gossamer thin. ‘No spoilers’, I think, allows them to get away with this because the story does not stand up to much scrutiny. I’m very glad I saw it.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jun 6, 2019 23:43:24 GMT
I thought that was a device really - to reinforce the conspiratorial reveal; we were in on it, even if we didn't know what 'it' was until the end. Not sure it worked. Would be interesting to know who's idea it was.
|
|
2,955 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 7, 2019 9:06:09 GMT
I didn't mean it's exactly the same thing - I meant both plays seem to be using a similar device, individual headsets for the audience altering the way the theatre space and interactions between characters are experienced. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jun 7, 2019 11:31:47 GMT
quick - £18 flip up seats for 6.30 tonight!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 12:57:30 GMT
I thought that was a device really - to reinforce the conspiratorial reveal; we were in on it, even if we didn't know what 'it' was until the end. Not sure it worked. Would be interesting to know who's idea it was.
Oooooh. Now that I like. A lot. Am going to noodle on what language you’d use to better get that across. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jun 7, 2019 20:16:22 GMT
Saw this a second time. Ignore anything I said about potentially doubting aspects of the overt narrative - it does all hang together very well, imo. A lot more there the second get go as well, naturally I suppose. This, though, is not going away for me: the Romeo and Juliet mashup just can't be a coincidence. IMO! |
|
776 posts
|
Post by latefortheoverture on Jun 8, 2019 19:45:44 GMT
Managed to catch this on Thursday and really enjoyed it.
The story worked well and the last 20 minutes had me guessing with it. I didn't see the twist coming, although can see why people could see it a mile off!
The sound design is what makes this show and I really loved the final scene when we're 'in on it', if you know what I mean. I do think the sound designers and playwright deserve a nod as the whole idea really did prove to be an enjoyable play. All of the roles were acted well, especially Anna, she really did well.
Would be interested to know if this play would stand up without the 'gimmicky' sound design though.
|
|
776 posts
|
Post by latefortheoverture on Jun 8, 2019 19:49:14 GMT
Really did enjoy this story!
{Spoiler - click to view}
Loved when she puts the headphones on and California Dreaming played; as she was being 'shown' the West!
|
|
776 posts
|
Post by latefortheoverture on Jun 8, 2019 19:50:18 GMT
Hope the National programme another play with this sound design and I'd be interested as to where it can go from a psychological thriller-esque type of play.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jun 8, 2019 22:08:54 GMT
One thing I've tried to do is circle this and see it from various angles. So, for example, I've wondered about it as a R4 afternoon play - what would/could be gained/lost without the visual dimension. It's quite a fun exercise
|
|
541 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2019 13:11:38 GMT
Any dayseat info on this? How early people are queuing, what seats do they give etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jun 10, 2019 14:10:13 GMT
I believe the day seats are the £18 flip ups. Not many available, perhaps 8 or so per performance - worth remembering there are 2 performances a night.
Currently £35 seats available for tonight and tomorrow.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 10, 2019 22:46:13 GMT
Finally had a chance to see this!
Wow, the sound design here, combined with clever staging and direction was fantastic. Moments in this play were as exhilarating as any I’ve had in the theatre this year, and for that at least, I’m glad to have gone.
However, I can’t help but wish that the wonderful production was in service of a smarter, more interesting and coherent story. This play crammed in far too many subplots and shifting character relationships into its short running time, making it hard to stay interested at times. And the plot relied on enough silly coincidences and unlikely character motivations to make even the most convoluted James Bond villain’s plans seem probable. Most annoying of all to me however, was the combining of such a grim narrative with what was ultimately a lightweight thriller. If this play had only just stuck with one approach it could’ve been so much more satisfying; silly thriller or serious meditation on life in East Berlin. Instead it didn’t quite meet the high bar set by the first few minutes.
|
|
478 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Jun 11, 2019 8:57:43 GMT
Any dayseat info on this? How early people are queuing, what seats do they give etc. Day seated this morning, arrived at 8:30 and was 12th in line. Was still tickets for both performances by the time I got my turn, few people were there for Small Island. Forgot to ask how many they put aside, sorry! |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jun 11, 2019 9:18:13 GMT
However, I can’t help but wish that the wonderful production was in service of a smarter, more interesting and coherent story. This play crammed in far too many subplots and shifting character relationships into its short running time, making it hard to stay interested at times. And the plot relied on enough silly coincidences and unlikely character motivations to make even the most convoluted James Bond villain’s plans seem probable. Most annoying of all to me however, was the combining of such a grim narrative with what was ultimately a lightweight thriller. If this play had only just stuck with one approach it could’ve been so much more satisfying; silly thriller or serious meditation on life in East Berlin. Instead it didn’t quite meet the high bar set by the first few minutes. I was a unsure the first time, there is a lot to take in. After the second visit the overt narrative made complete sense, and it is a clever work on that level. However, there is deeper laying architecture, some or much of which I certainly missed, and I rather needed a round table-type discussion to tease more out i.e. a decent session in the pub. For example, you could spend quite a long time discussing one word 'DISSENT'. This is absolutely smarter than your average bear.
|
|
541 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jun 11, 2019 9:48:26 GMT
Any dayseat info on this? How early people are queuing, what seats do they give etc. Day seated this morning, arrived at 8:30 and was 12th in line. Was still tickets for both performances by the time I got my turn, few people were there for Small Island. Forgot to ask how many they put aside, sorry! Thanks a lot for the info! I managed to get a £15 front row ticket on the website around 10.00 for tonight. There were 3-4 in total, so might be unsold dayseats. |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 11, 2019 14:08:48 GMT
However, I can’t help but wish that the wonderful production was in service of a smarter, more interesting and coherent story. This play crammed in far too many subplots and shifting character relationships into its short running time, making it hard to stay interested at times. And the plot relied on enough silly coincidences and unlikely character motivations to make even the most convoluted James Bond villain’s plans seem probable. Most annoying of all to me however, was the combining of such a grim narrative with what was ultimately a lightweight thriller. If this play had only just stuck with one approach it could’ve been so much more satisfying; silly thriller or serious meditation on life in East Berlin. Instead it didn’t quite meet the high bar set by the first few minutes. I was a unsure the first time, there is a lot to take in. After the second visit the overt narrative made complete sense, and it is a clever work on that level. However, there is deeper laying architecture, some or much of which I certainly missed, and I rather needed a round table-type discussion to tease more out i.e. a decent session in the pub. For example, you could spend quite a long time discussing one word 'DISSENT'. This is absolutely smarter than your average bear. The moments where the play touched on serious issues, like the balance of power and the relationships that people form under these sorts of regimes, were where I felt it was at its best. And the way that the play covered meta issues around the fallibility of the way we perceive things and what the ‘audience’ represent, were also interesting, if somewhat obvious given the setting. Unfortunately though, the play seemed to regularly bring to mind better films. The Lives of Others and Goodfellas for instance but, most annoyingly, the way that a key line of dialogue was set up & delivered seemed to be lifted straight from the central trick of 70s classic The Conversation. To some extent, modern media will always sit in the shadow of what came before, so that’s not necessarily a deal breaker, but for me the parts just didn’t all fit together well enough. Perhaps it was just trying to do too much; touching on so many serious topics, within a (in my opinion quite silly) thriller narrative, and all in just over an hour. Ultimately, my feeling is that the was an okay play with a stellar production. In that respect the play it reminded me most of was The Red Barn also at the National a few years ago. |
|
541 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jun 11, 2019 22:00:25 GMT
I really enjoyed this, even though I felt that in terms of narrative and plot it could've been much better if it was expanded a little, the ending felt a little rushed. I wouldn't mind it being a 2-hour play at all. I do have a question {Spoiler - click to view}
What were the signs that the actors were holding during the curtain call saying? I saw the first one was 'keep us safe' but I couldn't properly read the other one from where I was sitting. |
|
2,521 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jun 11, 2019 22:06:08 GMT
NO SPOILERS (Somewhat ironic given this post!) |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jun 13, 2019 15:53:58 GMT
I was a unsure the first time, there is a lot to take in. After the second visit the overt narrative made complete sense, and it is a clever work on that level. However, there is deeper laying architecture, some or much of which I certainly missed, and I rather needed a round table-type discussion to tease more out i.e. a decent session in the pub. For example, you could spend quite a long time discussing one word 'DISSENT'. This is absolutely smarter than your average bear. The moments where the play touched on serious issues, like the balance of power and the relationships that people form under these sorts of regimes, were where I felt it was at its best. And the way that the play covered meta issues around the fallibility of the way we perceive things and what the ‘audience’ represent, were also interesting, if somewhat obvious given the setting. Unfortunately though, the play seemed to regularly bring to mind better films. The Lives of Others and Goodfellas for instance but, most annoyingly, the way that a key line of dialogue was set up & delivered seemed to be lifted straight from the central trick of 70s classic The Conversation. To some extent, modern media will always sit in the shadow of what came before, so that’s not necessarily a deal breaker, but for me the parts just didn’t all fit together well enough. Perhaps it was just trying to do too much; touching on so many serious topics, within a (in my opinion quite silly) thriller narrative, and all in just over an hour. Ultimately, my feeling is that the was an okay play with a stellar production. In that respect the play it reminded me most of was The Red Barn also at the National a few years ago.
Appreciate the comments. I was summerising my summation earlier (don't ask!) and thought I'd respond with where I got to. Three main themes:
1. Looking at dissent and surveillance - and through that control - and drawing parallels between the East German Stasi-police state and today (Assange, Snowden, et al)
2. A consideration of personal relationships affected by national politics (as widely experienced that in the era of Brexit and Trump!): under pressure, put these in order of most precious: marriage, friendships, career, core beliefs?
3. A look at how a searing childhood trauma can disfigure the adult – but which adult; his stalking of her is probably longing, and a (heartfelt) desire to put matters right. She is blinded by loyalty to the Party and an ideology understood as ideal and utopian
I also have, maybe a 14-point step-by-step outline structure of the narrative, though I doubt too many will wrestle me to the ground to paste that up  |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 13, 2019 19:50:45 GMT
She is blinded by loyalty to the Party and an ideology understood as ideal and utopian
I also have, maybe a 14-point step-by-step outline structure of the narrative, though I doubt too many will wrestle me to the ground to paste that up [/div][/quote] Thanks for the thoughtful response. Yes, I definitely agree on the broad themes you mention. One thing I would say, however about your third point is that We can’t really ‘trust’ anything she has done or said throughout the play. Unlike the others, she always knew that she was being recorded, and so has been playing a part for the audience/the stasi. It’s of course possible that she believed everything she said but we can’t really know, as pointed out by the husband at the end. The only part where she was (presumably) being truly honest was when she cut the mic and we could no longer hear her I for one would be interested to read any additional thoughts/points. |
|
