Rock 'n' Roll - Hampstead

I saw the original production and can remember nothing about it. That doesn't happen often!

I don't have a single memory good or bad of it.

The original Rock 'n' Roll was at the Royal Court in 2006 as part of the celebrations for the 50th anniversary of the English Stage Company. Some Royal Court writers, well Caryl Churchill, did not think that Stoppard was right for the Royal Court given his politics which are both too conservative and perhaps too liberal for her. The artistic director at the same, though, Ian Rickson I think described it as a perfect fit for the theatre. Trevor Nunn directed, again another non-Royal Court figure. Brian Cox played the Eric Hobsbawn-type academic, Sinead Cusack had two roles, Rufus Sewell played a Czech dissident. It takes place between the 60s and 1990 and music plays an important role - there's something about Syd Barrett in there and then the Rolling Stones are there at the end (I'm not sure that by 1990 they mean quite what Stoppard wants them to mean, though perhaps they did exemplify a certain Western freedom to those Czechs who'd been denied it). The Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia is central and the subsequent occupation, and a rock group The Plastic People of the Universe are part of the mix. It's a fascinating play, often funny of course, but full of many of Stoppard's usual concerns about freedom and the individual, dictatorship and how we should react to it.

I saw this on Wednesday night. The pacing of the first half is a bit too slow,the second half is better. It's better than most plays related to USSR or Russia I've seen in the UK textwise.

It isn’t by a long chalk, his best play. Why don’t they revive The Invention of Love?

Same as others really - Stoppard has a go at his pet hates (which I can understand given his background but it does not make good drama). And seemingly the 1960s never ends even in 1989... Shame, decent cast.

Last night Rufus Sewell, who originated the role of Jan in the 2006 production, was in the audience.

I saw the original production and thought then it was a rare dud from Stoppard. The joy of his work is that it hits amazing heights but you do get lows. I wish someone would bring back the Invention of Love, only to judge it now, if nothing else. But I remember being very moved by this play.

Most Excellent.

Thought this was one of the best plays I have seen for a while.

The juxtaposition of music and politics worked really well, may have to do that the musical choices were more or less what I grew up listening to, mirrored my political journey and even referenced Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, how could I not like it.

Had no issue following the timelines as the year of release of the songs selected aligned with the years being played out.

A slight touch on mind body duality hinted at the Hard Problem to come, for me it is all about the power of music and its ability to mobilise the young, something Trump most probably underestimates when the Swifties become mobilised in Nov.

Stoppard's plays always seem to be a triumph of the playwright showing off some semi-intellectual arguments of his own rather than writing real and believable characters. That's particularly true here. Despite some excellent performances, I couldn't say I particularly cared for any of them. They never have voices of their own; only Stoppard's.

Those operating under threat of internment or worse appear remarkably unfazed in their white, seemingly middle-class environs. Whether musical agitprop was as important as implied -- it's elevated, albeit perhaps metaphorically, to the title -- I don't know, but the evidence here remains unconvincing.

Two stars.

Act 1: 14:32-15:46
Act 2: 16:08-17:11
(Saturday 13 January)

Interesting comments bordeaux

With "white" and "middle-class", I was trying to suggest it felt like we were in a 1980s tv sitcom or maybe an Ayckbourn play. This was perhaps the fault of the director and set designer rather than Stoppard.

I deliberately picked "semi" over "pseudo" because I didn't want to imply there was no merit in arguments advanced, only that they were half-formed here. (Sorry I can't give specific examples. I am remiss for not posting sooner when it was fresh in my memory.)

Stoppard can do pseudo-intellectual though. I remember science/maths discussed in other Stoppard plays that left me wondering if the playwright had fully grasped the subject, and my psychiatrist husband was particularly scathing of some Stoppard scenes -- I forget which play; maybe The Hard Problem? -- that covered his area of expertise.

None of which means I avoid Stoppard. He always has interesting things to say, but his plays have never exceeded four stars for me. (I didn't care much for Leopoldstadt that everyone else raved over.)

I really enjoyed this, but it's a play I knew on the page quite well (though hadn't seen the original production), and I can see that some more signposting of timescale would help, and any time someone's made to feel they should have researched before watching then it's a play that's not quite working right (if you want people to go and see plays!). Put out a free sheet with some core info, or some pre-show multi-media video or audio to cue the audience in. There are ways.

But I really enjoyed it.  I don't think it's making a point about rock'n'roll as "musical agitprop" protest  - it's more about another part of pop music: simply standing outside, baffling the established culture through style and stance (something shared by a number of characters).  One speech talks about how the Czech group The Plastic People Of The Universe weren't overtly political but (like Dada) challenged by refusing to play the battles of dialectic (usually of Left and Right). It would help to hear some of their music in the play to be clear about what they are and what they're not; an article in The Independent says:
"Many generations of western protest singers and rock subversives have never come close to the political impact of these art rock Bohemians who just wanted to be allowed onto a stage to play “Venus in Furs”"
Faced with that the authorities are catatonic and powerless to kick against what refuses to be tangible and firm. Well, for a while anyway.

Syd Barrett is the ultimate outsider (in flux and ethereal enough to be mistaken for Pan, with the aid of weed admittedly); he's outside of Pink Floyd, a wandering distracted minstrel; Jan has outsider status in England which he tries to hold onto when home in Czechoslavakia but can only evade it for so long, hiding for comfort in his beloved record collection; Eleanor feels she is not her body but exists somewhere outside or beyond it, as cutting out the Cancer hasn't diminished her - so where is she?
 
I'm quite wedded to positions and oppositions, and I think to function or be political we often need to be: 'pick a side'; but academic Max has taken that to extremes. In an act of love (from an annoying irascible man) he privately admits to these areas of grey and the ineffable when Eleanor (feeling physically unloveable) begs him to see she's not her body, and he does this even before he's let go of his dogmatic attachment to the rational tenets Communism. The lengthy run time worked for me because it forced me to dwell for a while in the things that sit outside of the explainable, the physical certainty, and binary oppositions.

I think, on the page, the scenes that really attracted me (and I'd hope would bring the warmth and connection that many have found lacking) were those between Jan and his friend in Czechoslovakia Ferdinand. In the production though they were my only disappointment - I couldn't see the rapport. I never felt the back story of two lads who love their LP records. I wanted one of them to lie on that table with a beer, slouchy bedsit boys; but it all felt upright for delivering the debate, and too stiff. Also, though good elsewhere, I felt the actor playing Jan was sometimes careful and reverent with the albums (correct!) and then other times just shoved them in the rack any old how. These scenes didn't seem well thought out by the director. The emotional centre was underpowered.

Sidenote: the first West End play I ever saw was the revival of Stoppard's 'Jumpers' (1985) with Paul Eddington, Felicity Kendall, and Andrew Sachs. I'd written a school essay on it beforehand, and loved finding all the cleverness.  To feel it collapse on stage, and come away reckoning it was better as an academic exercise on the page was a real disappointment, and a lesson in itself.  I think one of the reasons I like 'Rock 'n' Roll' is that it's still 'tough stuff' but with pop culture references, very funny moments, a music score, and the Jan/Ferdinand friendship to latch onto from all of our teenages. Perhaps it doesn't do that as much as I thought, and/or this production just didn't quite get there - or not enough to convert and convince some audiences.