The River - Greenwich Theatre

I saw the Court producion and its definitely more "low key" Jez but very haunting and it stayed with me.

£33.50 was a lot cheaper than I was expecting.

Just bought tickets for this! Thank goodness I found out about it only this morning, no idea how I missed it but then I have no idea how I missed the original after my Jerusalem rhapsodies. A strangely (to me) elusive play.

Yes. It eluded me too at the Royal Court because you couldn't book it in advance, but on the day only, and when I had a free day, I missed every time lol.

I booked in advance this time as soon as Dave opened the thread, although I'm aware there really is no need with this theatre.

I'd have thought this was a bit of a coup for Greenwich. But there seem to be tons of tickets available. Somebody needs to get on with marketing it. The first major revival in London since its acclaimed, impossible to get tickets for, RC premiere, and a bit of a name in the lead role. I'm surprised. Not complaining though. Two front row seats on a Friday night for £26 each! Bargain.

Saw this at today's matinee and enjoyed it, glad to finally see it after missing out on tickets 12 years ago.

On the other hand, reading Billington's review, flagged by aspieandy in the post above, I'm pretty sure that new director, James Haddrell has imposed a meaning on the play that it did not have 12 years ago.

The new mystery is now whether this is the meaning that Jez Butterworth intended, and that this iteration was approved by him, or whether Butterworth simply isn't possessive of his work, and allowed for Haddrell to do whatever he liked.

I love a feeling of resolution but also appreciate a tantalising unresolved mystery, so I don't mind one way or another.

I will say that either way, this is more of a mood piece than the other Butterworth plays I've seen, with less dynamic plot and more atmospheric mystery, and my taste veers to preferring his other plays.

Some spoilers follow. . .

This production opens with a little boy on stage. You can't unsee this, and it shapes your every supposition about what is going on for the rest of the play. From Billington's review, that boy was likely not in the original production of this play.

The obvious possibilities are that the boy is McGann's character himself at the Riverside Property sometime in the past, or the boy is McGann's son. Whether either of these obvious possibilities prove true is answered in the production's resolution, at least at the preview I saw.

McGann is, as rumbledoll suggested, "properly charismatic" and he kept me on tenterhooks as to what was going on with this pragmatic, lonely, dreamy fisherman, who has or has had at least two girlfriends at the property.

As the girlfriends, Amanda Ryan was winningly contrarian and Kerri McLean was winningly playful.

The performance by the "black stone" that McGann keeps wrapping and unwrapping was suitably enigmatic.

For me, 3 and a half stars of mysterious goings on.

This has sold badly so far, and will be utterly dependent on reviews. The majority of people there were seat-filling, so I felt no guilt whatsoever about moving from a £25 seat to a £33 seat (there were plenty spare, and I moved from Row D side to Row D centre just before the 80 minutes without an interval commenced), as I was in the minority who paid. I was very grateful for the seatfillers who provided a proper theatre atmosphere in what would otherwise have been an embarrassingly empty situation.

The answer to your specific question is that the £25 seats are a bit more side-on than I would like, and I would prefer the £33 block of seats, as you don't have to see the back of one character's head half the time.

The Greenwich Theatre is like the old Trafalgar 1 theatre, if that helps.

Butterworth is involved and has updated the text which may or may not contribute here.

Going tomorrow!

I liked this a lot. Thought the cast were great, I had seen McGann here in one of their post-covid openings and was not one bit taken so a bit of trepidation about this but boy was I wrong. Such a presence and such charisma with both of the women. A clear case of showing and not telling about the relationships.

I don't think the prologue and epilogue make as much clear, I'm still left pondering it. A real folk tale with a haunting, literal or perhaps metaphorical.

Stunning set, would not have been out of place in Almeida or similar. Deserves to be a big success for all at Greenwich.

Agreed. Saw an earlier fringe production which didn't make much of a mark, but I found this production both gripping and subsequently haunting. Haven't stopped thinking about it, and if I don't entirely understand it, it's because it's about things which can't be understood. Having said that I'm not sure that new new prologue and epilogue particularly help - perhaps at once a bit too elliptical and a bit too explicit?? Dunno. (If anyone cares to risk a spoiler and offer an explanation I'd be interested to hear?) Meanwhile if I can will try to see this a second time.