Dancing at Lughnasa - National Theatre (Olivier)

That's so interesting.  I love Thomas Kilroy's writing too.  Yes, horrible to remember Cardboard City in the vile rotunda that is now the Imax.  Literally dozens of people living in cardboard boxes there.  I remember (and I wish I'd noted the date) an evening sometime in the early to mid 2000s when I realised I hadn't seen a homeless person that night in London.  We've slid right back now though, based on the strand and adjoining streets with tents etc.

Saw this tonight and LOVED it. If you prefer a big action driven plot, it may not be up your street, and if you prefer one of Friel's clever innovative ideas to drive the play, this might not be up your street. But if you are satisfied with well-defined human beings occupying a time and place in an exquisite and evocative memory type play, then, for me, you can't do better than this.

Some spoilers follow. . .

I've seen 4 Friel plays now, and this is the least clever: "Philadelphia Here I Come" had two actors playing the same part (clever); "Translations" had people speaking different languages, though on stage they all spoke English, so the audience could bridge gaps the characters couldn't (clever) and "Faith Healer" has multiple accounts of the same story, forming a Rashomon-style puzzle (clever).

This isn't clever. It's an explosion of memory and feeling, a capturing of a time and a place, an exploration of different character-types and the preciousness of a moment in time where they all exist together. It's like Shakespeare's "The Tempest," where 5 sisters and a brother live on an island of time together, but you know that once that time is over, and they leave that island, nothing will ever be the same. It's about how precious those experiences in a moment of time can be, a celebration of people coming together in that time, their quirks, their relationships, their lives. For me, it was wonderful.

Tom Stoppard's "Leopoldstadt" was a bit like this for me: every play I'd seen by him some sort of display of cleverness, and then "Leopoldstadt" came along and it was an explosion of feelings and family relationships, with no pretenses: the heart unfiltered, and I loved it.

My only experience of this material previously was seeing the film back in the day. Although time has faded my memories of it, I prefer tonight's theatre production. That's partly because life lived in front of your eyes by living actors is more encapsulating of the living of life in the precious moment (each night being slightly different, rather than some edited frozen thing).

But it's also because I prefer some things about this production than what I remember of the film:

(1) Ardal O'Hanlon's brother/priest, returning from Africa changed by the culture there, is so much more vibrant and alive than Michael Gambon's film counterpart, who seemed like a ghost that never really came back at all. Consequently, the sisters really have to face up to him and deal with his newfound strangeness, rather than simply dismiss him as a dead man walking;

(2) As great as Kathy Burke's portrayal of the vibrant sister, Maggie, was in the film (the moment I realised Burke could really act and wasn't just a broad comedy expert), she was marginalised (maybe everyone always gets sidelined if Meryl Streep is cast as another character lol). Here, Siobhan McSweeney's Maggie is magnificently centred as the focus of the whole play, always on stage, always reacting, the only pure guide we have to the reality of everything. She's vibrantly alive dancing, hilariously alive when teasing the others and painfully alive when confronted by whatmighthavebeens, but she's ever present and inspires (for me) complete trust as an interpreter of the other characters' actions;

(3) Cos the other sisters really can't be fully trusted as bellwethers of the others' actions: Louisa Harland's Agnes is such a poignant portrait of regret that we ache for her but can't trust her insights; Justine Mitchell's overbearing yet heartbreakingly compassionate Kate has had to play mother to the others for far too long to be trusted fully in her vision of them; Alison Oliver's Chris is too wonderfully romantic to see the world as it is: and being obviously neurodiverse and an eternal child, Blaithin Mac Gabhann's Rose can only be trusted not to be trusted;

(4) all wonderful performances I felt, but having McSweeney's trustworthy filter, of an objective reality, being so omnipresent and alive, was illuminating and invaluable for me;

(5) the only thing I much preferred in the film was the portrayal of Chris's love interest, the Welsh fairy-like father of her child: in the film, Rhys Ifans was evidently Welsh and ethereal, charming and magically captivating while being frustratingly unreachable and evanescent; here, Tom Riley's Gerry, by contrast, appears more upper crust Sandhurst than Welsh, and comes across as an obvious bounder and cad, albeit with soft edges - this whole interpretation makes him a bit incomprehensible as a character and it makes Chris seem more foolish than she should for falling for his shower of recklessness and irresponsibility.

All in all though, I was captivated by this production, and felt very moved. Obviously, you might not be, especially if you prefer more of a plot and maybe more cleverness. But for me, 5 stars.

Jon - there was a flurry of posts yesterday so you may not have seen that some of my post (about 6 above here) talks about the same kind of things as your spoiler comment.

More generally, probably not going to make a list of points - it's tempting - though I think the way Friel gently but pointedly holds the omnipresent Catholic Church to account for what it did is so powerful.

I had open arms for this, and was left only half-met by the production. Performances were decent enough, particularly Louisa Harland as Agnes, but somehow the whimsy just didn't draw me in as much as I hoped it would. The foreshadowing that the narrator provides is really where all the drama resides - meaning that not much actually happens on stage. I'm all for small moments and missed connections but I was really struggling to find much to hold onto here.

This was my issue too.

Immaculately directed and acted (at least by the sisters), the dancing especially is a huge highlight. I understand why the play is structured like it is but it feels more like a book structure. What I mean is, if you read a novel that utilises first person narration and has the main character narrating from the present day, but most of the book is his memories of the past, that works well since it's all just text that you're reading. Performance has to be show not tell, but all the plot is literally told. Tons of plot jammed into extremely plot-tense short bursts of narration, while nothing actually happens during the scenes themselves. You can have elegiac character-driven plays where nothing really happens or you can have plot plot plot. It's poignant sometimes to watch the women enjoying their summer already knowing what ends up happening to them in the future, but I needed more of a link between the dire future narrated by the adult Michael, and the summer-set scenes.

I was flummoxed they made such a big deal in the first half about going to the Harvest Dance then it wasn't mentioned again.

I realise it's in the original script but seeing actors doing "bending over addressing an imaginary character" acting is so deeply cringe.

I thought this was absolutely spectacular. I cried more times than I can remember. I felt the need to thank the cast after the show. Not common. This is the kind of work anyone who does theatre wants to do with their life... Phenomenal piece, direction, acting, set, music and choreography…. The fact that those chairs were brought from Ireland and that radio was lent by someone… there is such heart in this show. Made this Californian weep even days after.

I liked a line in the 'Why Now' review by James Harvey:  "one of those plays in which nothing happens, and everything changes"

whynow.co.uk/read/dancing-at-lughnasa-at-the-national-theatre-review-joyous-revival-of-a-melancholic-classic

I went to matinee yesterday. I already posted in the thread that I was a but weary to see this as I wasn’t sure if I would like the play itself however I am a big Derry Girls fan and decided to give it a go. I have never seen a Friel live but found the BBC documentary about him very interesting. 

I have to say I would describe this play as quietly devastating. For me I rarely see pieces that haunt me and I would say this I see one of them. By haunt me I mean that it was only as I was walking down the South Bank that it was hitting me and these characters were still on my mind long after the play. I had a similar experience watching After Sun and I would say there’s are actually quite a few links between this and that film about remembering your youth.   

The cast were all universally great great but I particularly loved Alison Oliver as Chris. She has such a naturalist and realistic way of acting that I couldn’t take my eyes off, I can’t wait to see her in other things. The production as a whole worked well even though there were some things I think were a bit unclear.

I thought this production was really beautiful. It doesn't eclipse the glorious Abbey Theatre original but has so much to recommend it. I thought the girls were totally convincing as a real family of sisters. All were great and their interpretations of each character were fresh. I particularly loved Justine Mitchell and Siobhán McSweeney but Louisa Harland was a superb Agnes and both Bláthín Mac Gabhann and Alison Oliver are going to be big stars. The set is beautiful and while quite literal is really captures the golden haze of Michael's memories. It also fills the Olivier stage well while keeping the kitchen and garden intimate. I didn't care for the projections on the drapes. When we entered the theatre we thought the drapes were gorgeous and represented the Irish rain in their unlit state - I wished they'd left them as they were. Overall though it is a treat.

I had seen the original both in the Lyttleton and later on Broadway and thought at that time that this play was a modern classic. I'm not sure why I gave the Old Vic production in 2009 a miss, but I did. That said, I think this production is as glorious as the play can be. Josie Rourke and her designers and actors are all serving the play itself, the consequence of which is that it works it is allowed to simply work its magic. There is no directorial "fixing" of the play ( Framing devices, back stage video, ridiculous Gooldian ( Herrin-like) movements etc.) It's just a great play superbly performed in a sumptuous production.

Well, this was rather good. 4 and a bit stars from me.

On paper, Brian Friel’s plays don’t really spark that much interest for me. It turns out though that I have seen a few - Faith Healer and Philadelphia, Here I Come at the Donmar and Aristocrats and Translations at the National. All were fine, but some of these didn’t make much of an impression on me for whatever reason.

Perhaps it was the perfect interaction between the cast, the languid pace, the intimacy of the piece (was in second row) but somehow commanding the Olivier, but also where I am in life looking back at memories of childhood and the past more these days, but this really hit home. I suppose my only criticism would be the slow start (but this yields dividends as the play settles into its stride), and could the plot points crammed into the penultimate monologue be fleshed out more?

Can’t really say more than the reviews of Steve, jek and Latecomer, nottobe and dlevi.

I suspect it doesn’t matter and probably isn’t the point of the play, but I do have spoiler questions for posters who are more familiar with the play.