18 posts
|
Post by claireyfairy1 on May 29, 2017 13:13:01 GMT
Is showing them how to be chavvy abusers a good plan though? Seems to underestimate female capabilities just as badly as those outdated sexist plays... IMO theatre is not instructional, nor should it be a moraliser. It's because we see so few plays about young women and girls and the realities of their lives that one that shows some of the dark issues they grapple with and how they do so causes such contention. It doesn't underestimate their capabilities - teenage girls talk about sex, have sex, swear, drink, smoke, take risks and obsess over losing their virginity. There's nothing wrong with that phase of experimentation as a young person. It doesn't make them bad girls, incapable girls, girls that won't achieve things or girls that won't have a positive impact on society. Rather it is societies high expectation of how girls should conform and behave to be appropriate that causes damage and suggests that girls who do not fit this confining role don't deserve things...such as to have their stories told on stage. But if you look beyond those prejudices, the play has a lot of heart and a lot of truth and a lot of sadness and above all beautiful female solidarity. So I really hope we see more of this kind of approach in the west end because I am sick to the teeth of what I'm seeing there these days. This is a nice shake-up.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 13:17:38 GMT
@clairefairy1
I agree- I haven't seen the play itself but we don't expect every man on stage to be aspirational/a role model so why should it be the same for women? From what I gather about this piece nobody is holding the characters up as the model of society/young girls. But I'd always rather see a range of women represented on stage, and for other women/girls to see them 'warts and all'
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 14:12:46 GMT
Is showing them how to be chavvy abusers a good plan though? Seems to underestimate female capabilities just as badly as those outdated sexist plays... IMO theatre is not instructional, nor should it be a moraliser. It's because we see so few plays about young women and girls and the realities of their lives that one that shows some of the dark issues they grapple with and how they do so causes such contention. It doesn't underestimate their capabilities - teenage girls talk about sex, have sex, swear, drink, smoke, take risks and obsess over losing their virginity. There's nothing wrong with that phase of experimentation as a young person. It doesn't make them bad girls, incapable girls, girls that won't achieve things or girls that won't have a positive impact on society. Rather it is societies high expectation of how girls should conform and behave to be appropriate that causes damage and suggests that girls who do not fit this confining role don't deserve things...such as to have their stories told on stage. But if you look beyond those prejudices, the play has a lot of heart and a lot of truth and a lot of sadness and above all beautiful female solidarity. So I really hope we see more of this kind of approach in the west end because I am sick to the teeth of what I'm seeing there these days. This is a nice shake-up. It doesn't really look at the long term implications Of their behaviour Just presents it as japes Doesn't show the consequences on their career and life prospects
|
|
721 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on May 29, 2017 15:30:55 GMT
I have to agree with Parsley here...they did present things like a badge of honour and the hospital scene is unsettling, plus we are supposed to laugh at this stuff? I think the problem is also that the audience, instead of being shocked by these things, just tends to laugh at things these days that are really not funny. I have noticed it before and once had to leave a play where the audience were laughing at someone with a disability and thought it was ok.... I much preferred Glasgow Girls that I saw around the same time as this...that had a story and showed consequences and had more heart. In my view this one is a bit superficial... The songs are very good, mind you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 15:39:51 GMT
I have to agree with Parsley here...they did present things like a badge of honour and the hospital scene is unsettling, plus we are supposed to laugh at this stuff? I think the problem is also that the audience, instead of being shocked by these things, just tends to laugh at things these days that are really not funny. I have noticed it before and once had to leave a play where the audience were laughing at someone with a disability and thought it was ok.... I much preferred Glasgow Girls that I saw around the same time as this...that had a story and showed consequences and had more heart. In my view this one is a bit superficial... The songs are very good, mind you. That's a fair commentary (as I said above I haven't seen the play in question) and from your description I'd agree that portyal-regardless of gender of the people shown- isn't a useful story to tell. And it is indeed one thing to show 'different types' of people/girls than just something that laughs at rather than thinks about. If I saw it I might disagree but that seems a fair assesment. It's just a bit easier to get that point than through Parsley's 'unique' way of describing things Still though, plays that showcase women, in all their imperfections, and as rounded characters are something I'd like to see a hell of a lot more of. Singing or not too
|
|
1,315 posts
|
Post by tmesis on May 29, 2017 15:44:03 GMT
I hated this at the National. Everyone seemed to find it hilariously funny but I didn't laugh once. In the past few years at NT only Cleansed was more annoying and tedious. I remain amazed at the generally ecstatic reviews.
|
|
18 posts
|
Post by claireyfairy1 on May 29, 2017 18:21:15 GMT
I think the points about not exploring consequences are fair enough if that is important to you. I personally believe that isn’t the point at all and that it successfully and purposefully doesn’t moralise or judge these girls from a future with hindsight. Use of the word consequences implies an inevitability or a forgone conclusion that girls like these, who want to drink, go on escapades, have sex, explore their sexuality or indeed who react to tragic circumstances inelegantly or in ways that are shocking will have a future that is undesirable and thus should present them as people as undesirable. The world is a lot more complicated than that and assuming it’s inevitable and thus necessary to explore is just the kind of idea the play sticks two fingers up at. There's no Catholic guilt. No regrets.
That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of excellent plays that do explore those issues and they’re worthwhile too. But fundamentally this show is about friendship and dealing with the painful things that happen when you’re a teenager and trying to figure out who you are together, as a collective force of women that support and love each other, instead of tearing each other down (as women are so often portrayed in media).
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on May 29, 2017 19:46:31 GMT
Drama hasn't been the arbiter of morality for most of its long life and when it has it's been pretty dull and reactionary. Religion may have become less important in people's lives and politics somehow unimportant to them but those are the places to go if you want to be instructed in morality.
Theatre is a terrible hobby for perfectionists, aesthetic or moral.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 20:54:56 GMT
I hated this at the National. Everyone seemed to find it hilariously funny but I didn't laugh once. In the past few years at NT only Cleansed was more annoying and tedious. I remain amazed at the generally ecstatic reviews. I LOVED Cleansed
|
|
642 posts
|
Post by greeny11 on May 29, 2017 21:33:09 GMT
I saw this tonight - best bits by far were the songs. Great singing and great harmonies. The rest of it left me a bit baffled. For something that won Best New Comedy at the Oliviers, it was remarkably unfunny. The bits that were meant to be serious were fine, but the rest of it was just not to my tastes. I also got lost as to whether they were portraying their main characters, or other characters. Overall, I was a bit disappointed, especially considering the rave reviews it's been getting.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 21:42:28 GMT
I saw this tonight - best bits by far were the songs. Great singing and great harmonies. The rest of it left me a bit baffled. For something that won Best New Comedy at the Oliviers, it was remarkably unfunny. The bits that were meant to be serious were fine, but the rest of it was just not to my tastes. I also got lost as to whether they were portraying their main characters, or other characters. Overall, I was a bit disappointed, especially considering the rave reviews it's been getting. It's the only show the director will ever have on in the WE Let her have her 2 seconds of fame And I must say She hasn't directed many of the RC Hits Under her tenure to date Has she? She is like a glorified caretaker
|
|
196 posts
|
Post by rockinrobin on May 29, 2017 23:43:40 GMT
Oh no. I'm flying to London in 2 days and planned to see it on Saturday afternoon because of rave reviews but having read this thread, I'm not so convinced anymore... What do I see instead? (Feeling tempted to return to the Young Vic and embark on a journey through galaxies with Brendan Cowell, but...). Or should I still go?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on May 30, 2017 0:00:10 GMT
Oh no. I'm flying to London in 2 days and planned to see it on Saturday afternoon because of rave reviews but having read this thread, I'm not so convinced anymore... What do I see instead? (Feeling tempted to return to the Young Vic and embark on a journey through galaxies with Brendan Cowell, but...). Or should I still go? Rule of thumb on the internet - don't listen to anyone who you don't know, haven't got a history with or who writes in a professional capacity so that you can research the same. Such opinions are utterly worthless to somebody else. Every single time. You may as well just go with your instincts.
|
|
2,763 posts
|
Post by daniel on May 30, 2017 2:16:02 GMT
Oh no. I'm flying to London in 2 days and planned to see it on Saturday afternoon because of rave reviews but having read this thread, I'm not so convinced anymore... What do I see instead? (Feeling tempted to return to the Young Vic and embark on a journey through galaxies with Brendan Cowell, but...). Or should I still go? if it helps, I bloody loved it. Yes it's rude and crude, and doesn't take itself too seriously, but if that's your type of humour too then you'll have nae bother. It's great to take note of the opinions of others, but never let anyone put you off seeing a show if it's one your instincts tell you that you'll enjoy!
|
|
3,470 posts
|
Post by showgirl on May 30, 2017 3:50:46 GMT
Finding this discussion interesting since, as I had to cancel my ticket for the NT run, I'm still undecided about making another attempt to see the play. I take the point about showing a range of young women, though when I was that age, neither I nor any of my friends behaved in the way claireyfairy1 describes. We certainly knew others who did do those things but obviously we looked on aghast from a safe distance, almost as though it might be contagious. I suppose the trouble is that a play about good, sensible girls (or boys), who do their homework, take their exams seriously and try to plan for the future, would be considered boring.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 8:13:41 GMT
Oh no. I'm flying to London in 2 days and planned to see it on Saturday afternoon because of rave reviews but having read this thread, I'm not so convinced anymore... What do I see instead? (Feeling tempted to return to the Young Vic and embark on a journey through galaxies with Brendan Cowell, but...). Or should I still go? Go with your instinct- if you liked the sound of it enough to want to book, go and see it!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 8:18:58 GMT
Plus if your expectations are lowered, as they will have been by this thread, you may end up enjoying it far more than if your expectations were sky-high.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 8:55:33 GMT
I take the point about showing a range of young women, though when I was that age, neither I nor any of my friends behaved in the way claireyfairy1 describes. We certainly knew others who did do those things but obviously we looked on aghast from a safe distance, almost as though it might be contagious. I suppose the trouble is that a play about good, sensible girls (or boys), who do their homework, take their exams seriously and try to plan for the future, would be considered boring. [ That's my problem with this play - the ladette stereotype is outdated and just as insulting towards women as some of the 'old, white, male' plays. And it put me off seeing this. I didn't know anyone like that growing up, and my impression of young folk these days is that they've rejected that approach to life, being less likely to drink and have casual sex, and far more concerned with social justice? But if it's a good laugh, fair enough!
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on May 30, 2017 9:39:40 GMT
I suppose the trouble is that a play about good, sensible girls (or boys), who do their homework, take their exams seriously and try to plan for the future, would be considered boring. Harry Potter and the Cursed Child? Matilda?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 9:41:54 GMT
Have you even seen Cursed Child or Matilda? Both heavily feature rebellious children who take matters into their own hands instead of buckling down and quietly doing what they're told.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on May 30, 2017 9:50:33 GMT
Have you even seen Cursed Child or Matilda? Both heavily feature rebellious children who take matters into their own hands instead of buckling down and quietly doing what they're told. Matilda is studious and intellectual and you can"t fault Scorpius and Albus for planning for their future, so much so that they create a number of different futures.
|
|
4,950 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on May 30, 2017 13:34:26 GMT
Finding this discussion interesting since, as I had to cancel my ticket for the NT run, I'm still undecided about making another attempt to see the play. I take the point about showing a range of young women, though when I was that age, neither I nor any of my friends behaved in the way claireyfairy1 describes. We certainly knew others who did do those things but obviously we looked on aghast from a safe distance, almost as though it might be contagious. I suppose the trouble is that a play about good, sensible girls (or boys), who do their homework, take their exams seriously and try to plan for the future, would be considered boring. The History Boys?
|
|
3,470 posts
|
Post by showgirl on May 30, 2017 18:47:22 GMT
Interesting points, Cardinal Pirelli and pdc1. I've never read/seen anything Harry Potter-related; ditto Matilda, but I've certainly seen - though obviously not remembered - The History Boys. All the plays featuring teenagers which I do recall seeing - e.g.Jumpy - depicted them as bolshy and rebellious, so apparently very cliched.
|
|
|
Post by stagebyte on May 30, 2017 23:10:57 GMT
Is there any way to instigate an intervention via the internet? When I saw this show I was sickened Not only by what was on stage But at the audience who seemed to find Promiscuity and profanity casual social abuse of alcohol Depicted by under age characters So hysterical Having worked on the other end of this And seen the consequences There is nothing empowering or funny about it To then try and dress it up for middle class audiences As an alternative and stylish night out Is laughable The characters depicted in the show Need a stern telling off And a social worker And I found the description of having sex with a dying person After removing his catheter Particularly deplorable And perverted And likely it would be a criminal matter for the hospital Rather than entertainment The two people I went with left before the end and didn't speak with me again Have to agree with Parsley - with one exception - no hysterical laughing on the night I went - the hysteria replaced, in the circle at least, by stony silence - with the exception of a small group who laughed at literally every line, to the extent we began to think they'd been planted tthere to drum up enthusiasm. The story was paper thin, the play populated with stereotypical cardboard characters: tough one with heart of gold, large funny one, A star student gone bad etc. Nothing new or empowering to be found here. The dialogue at times was cringeworthy... the 'poignant' monologues awkward iand unbelievable. It reminded me of an overlong sketch in search of a cohesive plot, like a half finished improvised student revue. Crude story topped by a cruder story all seemingly having very little point except to shock became very tedious very quickly. Anyone who can drink the amount they were supposed to be drinking onstage in the period supposedly covered wouldn't be drunk and having a wild time... they'd be dead. A night with Our Ladies was like being trapped stone cold sober on day two of a hen party bender - everyone working too hard at having a WILD TIME, slightly amusing things becoming hysterically funny, the pseudo 'intellectual' insights, the boring tearful ramblings after one too many. The actresses themselves were plainly talented and had beautiful voices - the songs being the saving grace - but they had so very little in the way of real dialogue and character development to work with that any empathy or interest in their lives was completely lost. A few people left. Confusingly this seems to have been marketed as a musical and the leaflet gives ticket offers for schools. Be interested to hear what age they would expect this to be suitable for.
|
|
2,763 posts
|
Post by daniel on May 31, 2017 2:51:51 GMT
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Jun 1, 2017 22:05:22 GMT
I thought it was a fantastic and thought provoking play, and both the singing and acting of a very high standard.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jun 2, 2017 11:59:53 GMT
I hadn't realised the National is doing Friday Rush seats for this, near the front of the stalls.
|
|
357 posts
|
Post by JJShaw on Jun 8, 2017 11:56:55 GMT
Having read the mixed reviews here I went with trepidation yesterday but thoroughly enjoyed it! The comparisons to The History Boys are easy and obvious but it felt fresh and new and incredibly well acted and put together.
I do agree that they could have dropped slightly less swear words but thats probably just my inner prude talking, and I suppose it is capturing naturalistic dialogue of that age and location category?
|
|
4,950 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Jun 8, 2017 12:38:57 GMT
I was amused at a comment on Londontheatredirect's website, that a lady "couldn't understand the Irish accents." One would never find such an idiotic comment on theatremonkey.com!
|
|
4,950 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Jun 8, 2017 13:09:07 GMT
^Only because we edit what appears, LOL. It's all coming out now. One simply doesn't know what, or who, to believe anymore. The world has been turned on its head!
|
|