Complicite's Mnemonic- National Theatre

Khalid Abdalla plays the role originated by the director, Simon McBurney. His role is to explain the play to us, to get us to relate to it. One of the things McBurney evidently believes is that we are united by nakedness, as we're all born that way. Clothes divide us.

Consequently, Abdalla is required to be full frontal naked, standing and talking, for significant portions of the running time, and also naked from behind in an almost impossibly athletic pose for equally significant portions of time.

There is nothing suggestive or remarkable about the scenes. Its just nudity.

Abdalla also wears a blue shirt, which he uses mnemonic tricks to get us to remember the colour, whereupon he immediately changes into a gold shirt (which I remembered in case it was a trick to ask us what colour shirt he was wearing - it wasn't a trick lol).

Ultimately, the nudity is not offensive in any way. Its just an aspect to get us to feel common bonds as humans.

For the person who asked about seating, I was in the Ninth row (Row C), usually the third row, and felt it offered a very good view of the production, as it's raked, and the action on the stage is expansive, with stuff often going on on both sides of the stage.

I also liked the look of the front stalls seats that were raked, maybe Row 4, as that Row also looked raked over Row 3, and offers a more expansive view than Row 1, which might give you a bit of tennis neck, looking left and right constantly, although the stage height looked to me like it would be perfectly reasonable from Row 1.

Steve, thank you so much for taking time to explain it!

I saw this last night and while I liked it, I have to say I felt underwhelmed. 

I think I've only seen one Complicite show before but of course when this was announced and having heard so much acclaim from the original run I was interested in seeing it. So maybe I went in with certain expectations and there may be slight spoilers. 

For me this play was not really about memory at all and I was prepared to watch a piece that would make me grapple with the idea of memory and age, however the idea of memory only seems to really be in the opening monologue. The rest of the play isn't actually about memory but more facts and finding the truth of someone through facts, like the ice mummy or who Alice's dad really was. She doesn't ever actually remember him and maybe this is the point but I thought the play would be more cathartic. 

Expectations aside the acting here is all very strong and obviously the staging is clever but story wise I can't really see the need to bring thus back 25 years later. There are many other current shows I would say that warrant viewing. I did enjoy it enough and am glad I have seen it but it did not do anything for me.

I was about to book a trip from Canada just to see this, as back in the day it was described by many as one of the biggest triumphs to ever grace a stage.

These opinions are now giving me second thoughts. Maybe just cross my fingers it's released on NT Live?

Five stars in the Financial Times from Sarah Hemming who describes it as 'a luminous piece of theatre, witty, elusive, intensely beautiful and humane'. Although even she says that 'it is a little long and some points about climate and the current wars feel clunky'. Given it's a relatively short run I wonder if there are plans to tour it.

I wouldn't...

I've returned my ticket based on reviews and comments here. I was interested when it was announced but it seems a bit of a letdown.

Sounds like it, thanks for the feedback!

I also was expecting it to be more about personal memory - and the introductory monologue reinforces that a bit, but it was more interesting to me that it was about collective memory, what makes us cohere as a culture, how we relate to the past and who we exclude from our cultural identities. I liked how there were so many little points where different stories collide, through minor characters like the taxi driver.

I had high expectations which weren't entirely fulfilled, and it felt very dated in some respects. But I'm glad I saw it and I enjoyed thinking about it afterwards as much as watching it.

Saw this on Friday and, until the scene with the bed and the revolving cycle of actors, I completely forgot I saw this in 2001! So much for my memory. I thought it was fine and if it comes back in another 23 years will probably have forgotten all about it again.

I really, really didn’t get this.

I was expecting something great, given the promo mentioning it being a standout theatrical experience for many from 25 years ago etc.

I was just bored? It didn’t make much sense.
Can anyone explain how any of it is relevant? What point were they trying to make?

I kept waiting and waiting for it all to wrap together with something groundbreaking at the end, thinking my jaw would drop.

I wasn’t sure about the opening monologue at the time, but it turned out to be the best part of the show. I expected that theme to be carried throughout