The Real Thing - Old Vic

Saw the second preview tonight, and was completely bowled over by this romantic comedy.

I was struck not by the "clever wordplay," but by the heartfelt emotions.

I've seen other versions, but I had forgotten quite how good this is.

I particularly love this production for the chemistry of the performances, and for the most joyous (rather than didactic) use of a Brechtian device I've seen.

Some spoilers follow. . .

Before "Leopoldstadt," this was for me the Stoppard play most about feeling, as opposed to thinking, though there is lots of thinking about feelings lol.

This version isolates Henry, the lead character, for me, more than previous versions because everyone BUT he comes across as "The Real Thing."

By that I mean, all the characters feel like they are authentically expressing their "real" emotions all the time, except for James McArdle's Henry, who is a writer, and interested in being creative and witty. When he says the line "I feel superior," I felt it was more true of this Henry than other's I've seen. McArdle's Henry is puffed up: sardonic and playful and pleased with himself, and consequently, he's very funny, either when unrestrainedly letting his superiority go to town on those he considers inferior, or when getting his swollen balloon ego humiliatingly punctured by the authenticity of all the others. Even Charlotte, a composed person, who came across to me as immensely "superior" when Fenella Woolgar played her at the Old Vic a decade ago, comes across here as just plain authentic and truthful in Susan Wokoma's open and expressive performance.

McArdle is marvellous going on this journey from impervious and superior towards vulnerability and realness, and I found his journey immensely moving.

The most "real" performance on stage, the biggest catalyst of "realness," for me, was Bel Powley's Annie. I couldn't see any acting at all, just spontaneity. I knew she was good from her Royal Court plays (especially "Jumpy") and her Hampstead plays (especially "Raving") but I felt this was a league up again: flowing moment-to-moment passionate realness, butting heads with all the other characters, especially challenging McArdle's Henry's veneer of sophistication, resulting in moments of extreme comedy and moments of extreme emotion (Powley's tears were authentic and infectious, as experienced from PWC Stalls Row E).

There is alot of Brechtian playfulness from stage hands setting scenes, getting involved in scenes, dancing to Henry's music, reacting to the action. I didn't find any of it annoying, but rather joyful, magnifying the emotions of the scenes rather than cornering them or didactically reducing them.

Karise Yansen, as a younger character, is magnificent playing opposite McArdle, bringing so much depth from him; and as a potential romantic interest, Rilwan Abiola Owokoniran lights a sizzling spark up in his shared scenes with Powley, which flame Powley carries through marvellously into all her remaining scenes.

All in all, yes, this is just a many charactered romance, so if you don't like romance as a subject, maybe this is a no, but for me, this production is brilliant, for Stoppard's heart ruling his head, for McArdle continuing to be a compelling enigmatic comic and emotive stage presence and for Powley exploding with emotive "realness" from first to last.

5 stars from me.

Well I went to see this tonight as I managed the get a £10 ticket and had not really seen any Stoppard before and I really disliked it. Annoying and unlikeable characters, a plot I didn't care for, performances that were all a bit too much and miscast in my opinion and a play that just went on and on. Why should we give a stuff about these characters and their love affairs? I definitely don't need to see another Stoppard.

There tonight as well.

Evening seemed endless and quite dull. Not a Stoppard fan aside from LEOPOLDSTADT and this didn't move the needle in the slightest.

And what was with the dancing tech crew?

I guess it needed a gimmick to keep folks awake.

This is two-and-a-half hours of Stoppard riffing on fidelity and authenticity, yet managing to show not one iota of insight into the subject.

I'm reminded of the social media videos that do the rounds where characters' faces have been replaced by Trump or Musk or Putin or some such for comic effect. As with any Stoppard play, it's as if every face is Stoppard. Has Stoppard ever written a character with authentic lines? Here though, you can't help but admire his bravura in having two authors criticise another for not being able to write. Look in the mirror man!

Of course, writing unreal characters is fine if it serves a purpose; here there is none. Any "wit" and "jokes" in the dialogue are pseudo-intellectual, for which read unfunny.

The leads struggle to find any chemistry, unsurprising given the material, and the less said about the acting in some of the minor roles, the better. Powley does best; McArdle occasionally seems to be channeling James Dreyfus.

The scene changes, presumably meant to be fun, are pretentiously tiresome.

This was an evening of much (silent) sighing and eye rolling for me. The more I see of Stoppard's oeuvre, the more I realise he's a clear frontrunner for the nation's most overrated playwright.

One star.

Act 1: 19:32-20:25
Act 2: 20:45-22:04

Sorry nothing to contribute but this made me cackle 🤣 

Can't really understand at all where the one star reviews comes from but I guess we all like different things (just surprised having seen it tonight is all)

This is somewhere between a 3 and a 4 for me - with the main issue being I didn't think Bel Powley was particularly strong and that unbalanced the whole thing.

Thought McArdle carried the piece incredibly well in what is actually a really great role for a great actor (a joy to see him back on stage too) and particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma in the supporting cast.

Really liked the design choices - and for what it's worth I thought the stage crew integration was fun (and I nearly always hate stuff like that)

3 stars for me I think because I didn't vibe with Powley, but if you did it's 4 for me.
It's a good play (one of Stoppards better pieces I think) and it has something to say still which was surprising.

I normally like Stoppard but i found this one to be a bit dull and ploding

How is this normally cast? As generally the cast looked young for their roles. Also how is the play in the play normally stagged ?

I adored the blue of the set. The neon sign is very instagramable - be warned, if only i had brought my Kodak.


Undecided on this one, im looking forward to watching the thread develop and reviews come out.

I saw this in New York with Ewan McGregor and Maggie Gyllenhaal about 10 years ago and thought it was ok. Didn't love it. That's generally my feeling about Stoppard plays, other than Rosencrantz which I really love. And I did also love Travesties at the Menier. Intrigued about this version of the Real Thing, I love James McCardle and he can usually carry me through anything (apart from Peter Gynt), but I wasn't sure about Bel Powley when I saw her on stage previously...seeing it on Saturday so will see.

Henry is 40-ish, Charlotte 35-ish and Annie 30-ish.  First UK cast was Roger Rees and Felicity Kendall as Henry and Annie.  First Broadway was Jeremy Irons and Glenn Close, 1983.  Then in 1999 Stephen Dillane and Jennifer Ehle.  I think the fact that Charlotte, Henry's wife, has a 17 year old daughter and she is mid-30s (and Henry 40ish) is odd.  These days middle-class women in their mid 30s are more likely to have babies than teenagers.  

I wonder if Heller was simply making a joke in response to an impudent question rather than being arrogant, particularly as his book received a mauling from some critics.

Opinions on art are far from absolute, and to assert something a masterpiece that has attracted a range of reviews seems like wishful thinking.

I know R&GAD only from the 2011 and 2017 London productions. Based on those, I am unpersuaded as to the merits of your opinion. Maybe I need to see a better version. Far too much trying to be clever to little dramatic effect. The discussion of probability theory alone at the start had me cringing as it was pitched at the level of a maths teacher talking to twelve-year olds.

Well I saw the NT live of R and G are Dead and found it a little challenging. Stoppard is known to be a very challenging writer and cater to a specific audience who know about 'intellectual' themes. If this is meant to be one of his more accessible plays and I found it too trying and clever for itself then why would I bother with his more hard work plays?