|
|
Post by chameleon1 on Oct 7, 2024 22:44:47 GMT
Found this very disappointing. John Lithgow is great, but the play itself is literal, wordy and dramatically inert. And, given the ongoing genocide, this may not be the moment for suggesting that condemnation of Israel's hyper-violent colonialism might be fueled by anti-semitism (as this play implicitly does by focusing on a character for whom that is the case).
|
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Oct 7, 2024 23:14:12 GMT
I found this very moving tonight for all sorts of reasons. Obviously the subject matter is uncomfortable at best and sadly still relevant today, but on a personal level Dahl's books were a great love of mine as a child and having them read to me by my parents are some of my happiest memories. When Romola Garai's character talked about their meaning to her son and their relationship I shed a tear. Some excellent performances and a lot to think about.
|
|
643 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by aspieandy on Oct 7, 2024 23:20:57 GMT
yup, downvoting has virtually nothing to do with the play and everything to do with events in the region. To reiterate from earlier; imo, Dahl crosses the Rubicon when he chooses - in the phone call - to move from a position of active anti-Zionist to racism. That was a discussion then (in 1983, after Sabra and Shatila) and is again now. What we seem to be left with: Does being racist delegitimise your position when you judge the other side is being racist ... and who decides.
... and from an aspie pattern recognition pov: it is possible this play has got only 5 * on every day - other than the Mondays?
|
|
|
|
Post by blamerobots on Oct 8, 2024 0:20:01 GMT
I gave it 5* on Monday because I thought it was great. If people give it 1* I'd just like to hear about their opinion so I can understand them really. It's trolls really, so paying it no mind is the best way.
|
|
668 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by alessia on Oct 8, 2024 5:57:56 GMT
I saw this last night, nothing really to add to the comments already posted. It's a well written piece of work, the actors are all brilliant and the subject matter incredibly topical. I was in the middle of the front row and it is a restricted view due to the table, but for the price it was still a great seat. Uncomfortable dialogue aplenty, and Dahl comes across as quite unpleasant not just in his anti semitic remarks but also in how he behaves towards the American publisher (aside from her being Jewish), the obvious mocking tone and attitude of an old powerful man towards a younger woman, at least in the recent past. The power games and making her feel small etc (but then reminding us that he can also be a decent human being when they talk about the disabled son and his own children).
The dialogue between Dahl and the gardener confirms the old boys club mentality and I disagree with someone above that said the gardener bit wasn't needed. I think it is definitely needed as Dahl talks to this guy and it's only after he gets his support to stick to his beliefs and not to get sidetracked, that he does what he does at the end. that phone call was truly chilling.
I have already recommended to friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by chameleon1 on Oct 8, 2024 7:01:40 GMT
yup, downvoting has virtually nothing to do with the play and everything to do with events in the region. To reiterate from earlier; imo, Dahl crosses the Rubicon when he chooses - in the phone call - to move from a position of active anti-Zionist to racism. That was a discussion then (in 1983, after Sabra and Shatila) and is again now. What we seem to be left with: Does being racist delegitimise your position when you judge the other side is being racist ... and who decides.
... and from an aspie pattern recognition pov: it is possible this play has got only 5 * on every day - other than the Mondays?
My 2* is entirely driven by the play, not the politics. The problem is, the Dahl character doesn't move, or learn, or do anything other than double down for the entire play. And he never looks like he might. So they're all playing essentially the same dramatic beat over and over - with a set of very familiar arguments. The writer never really drills down into the causes or internal logic of Dahl's antisemitism - other than personal pain and anger at Israel - the nearest we get is a claim that all Jews are complicit - and because he's so blatantly anti-semitic, rather than a devil-may-care truth teller, it undermines moments that might be interesting - like his digging into Tom's apparent hypocrisy. And the odd moments of empathy that Dahl is made to display don't make us care enough about this aggressive, stubborn, unpleasant character to want to know how he'll act. If a character is aggressive, stubborn, and right, that might make for an interesting play. But it's only Lithgow's brilliant performance that makes this aggressive, stubborn, unpleasant and wrong character actually watchable. With a lesser actor, the play's repetitiveness and stasis would be far more apparent. (Would be interesting, though, to see the same episode written from the point of view of the Tom Maschler character - or from the point of view of the character played by Romola Garai - because these characters are genuinely attempting to grapple with difficult choices.. ) |
|
1,475 posts
|
Post by Steve on Oct 8, 2024 9:20:38 GMT
Would be interesting, though, to see the same episode written from the point of view of the Tom Maschler character - or from the point of view of the character played by Romola Garai - because these characters are genuinely attempting to grapple with difficult choices.. ) But it IS written from Maschler's point of view, and from all the other characters' points of view, as it is an ensemble piece.
I never perceived Dahl, specifically, as presented as the protagonist (which is the role of everyone else, the way it's written) but the antagonist, primarily. And as an antagonist, he's brilliant and ferocious at teasing and testing all the weak-points of all the protagonists and their world views.
And those characters are not dramatically inert, but they fight for their senses of self, and redetermine those senses of self throughout the course of the play.
Vis a vis the politics you mentioned above, surely this is an important play precisely because it focuses on the inflection point where righteous resistance to the Israeli Government's actions (recognised and opposed by other characters in the play, including Jewish ones) becomes antisemitism. A messianic violent racist Government minister like today's Itamar Ben G'Vir could not win elections if voters weren't terrified of antisemitism. Any play, that unblurs so precisely and concisely the line of what is and is not antisemitism (deliberately blurred by bad actors like Ben G'Vir), makes antisemitism less likely, which then would make Itamar Ben G'Vir and his like unelectable, or at least totally isolated.
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Oct 12, 2024 0:57:09 GMT
Saw this tonight and enjoyed it. It's a play which seems sadly relevant due to current events and a fascinating insight into Roald Dahl. John Lithgow plays Dahl incredibly well, I've only ever seen archive footage of the real Dahl and Lithgow's mannerism and voice is very similar in the way he portrays both the darker and venomous side and the lighter and caring side is remarkable. Rachael Stirling as Felicity Crossland is also good, she plays a conflicted woman who clearly loves her partner but is uncomfortable with some of his personality traits and I liked how she confronts him in Act 2. Romola Garai and Elliot Levey as Jessica Stone and Tom Maschler are fantastic especially Romola Garai in Act 1 but Elliot Levey also gets to shine in Act 2. I found the ending interesting because
Dahl thinks he has won the battle between himself, his publishers and Liccy but the phone call to the New Statesman where he reveals his true colours is an act of self sabotage, the human boobytrap as Maschler described him in the play in all its glory and the fact the housekeeper leaves after hearing that phone call is quite telling as well because she is somewhat neutral throughout the play but it's that call that makes her leave
I think it will have a further run after the RC run. |
|
24 posts
|
Post by scotty8692 on Oct 12, 2024 14:16:10 GMT
Have a ticket for next Saturday's matinee (19th October) available for this over on the Noticeboard.
|
|
24 posts
|
Post by scotty8692 on Oct 12, 2024 17:48:14 GMT
Have a ticket for next Saturday's matinee (19th October) available for this over on the Noticeboard. Ticket has now sold. |
|
643 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by aspieandy on Oct 14, 2024 19:00:58 GMT
In theory, it's downvote night at the RC ..
|
|
|
|
Post by robs on Oct 15, 2024 8:45:00 GMT
In theory, it's downvote night at the RC .. Does Monday night know it's downvote night? |
|
3,528 posts
|
Post by Rory on Oct 15, 2024 9:17:14 GMT
What's downvote night?
|
|
|
|
Post by happysooz2 on Oct 15, 2024 18:49:34 GMT
I think someone spotted that Monday night reviews bring the overall ratings down. It might be the only night when people haven’t given it five stars.
|
|
643 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by aspieandy on Oct 15, 2024 21:18:02 GMT
Yes, I thought there was a pattern for Monday scores-on-the-door. Inevitably, once you say it, whether it was accurate or not, it ceases.
Interesting to note this week on the £15 jolly night, a 1* disappeared, two 5* were added, as well as one 4* - and even moi can’t see a pattern in that (though it's possible the 1* was uprated).
|
|
668 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by alessia on Oct 16, 2024 6:12:47 GMT
I am still wondering what you're all talking about re downvote night at the Royal Court.
|
|
|
|
Post by khiar on Oct 16, 2024 8:55:20 GMT
I thought it was an established fact that it's the editor who awards the star rating from the tone of the presented copy not the critic therefore it doesn't matter what night the aforementioned critic attends a performance? Aren't people talking about the poll in this thread? |
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Oct 16, 2024 9:10:39 GMT
I thought it was an established fact that it's the editor who awards the star rating from the tone of the presented copy not the critic therefore it doesn't matter what night the aforementioned critic attends a performance? Aren't people talking about the poll in this thread? Yes I think there was a Monday a week or two ago where Giant had all 5* on the poll (possibly one or two 4*) and then after the show it had two 1* and a 2* rating added the poll. One of those 1* has since gone so maybe someone changed their mind on reflection? Also the thing about critics not giving their own star ratings isn’t true or certainly not universally so (although that’s something I had also heard in the past) as I once sat on a train opposite a critic from a national broadsheet returning after an out of town press night and we got chatting about the play and he said he’d just filed his review and “it’s very positive, four stars” so he certainly had given the star rating himself. He did also say critics don’t like the star system because it means fewer people actually read the words, but theatres/producers want it because when they have lots of 4/5 star reviews they can stick it all over posters and social media without even having to pull quotes. |
|
643 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by aspieandy on Oct 16, 2024 11:18:38 GMT
In theory, it's downvote night at the RC ..
yikes ... the above is just a wry descriper for a perceived pattern of behaviour (relating to the £15, book-on-the-morning, performances).
It's a bit like Eurovision when country A always votes for country B disregarding the musical content (if they still do that).
|
|
3,528 posts
|
Post by Rory on Oct 17, 2024 21:42:30 GMT
Simply wonderful.
What a pleasure to see such an intelligently written play, a piece for our times, sadly.
John Lithgow was marvellous but, to be fair, they all were.
You could have heard a pin drop.
Absolutely loved this. Will be surprised if it doesn't take the Olivier for Best Play. 5*
|
|
|
|
Post by lizbiz on Oct 21, 2024 8:05:15 GMT
I was number 40 in the queue, there was 2 seats left that I couldn’t select  |
|
|
|
Post by blamerobots on Oct 21, 2024 9:05:43 GMT
Unlucky, I clicked on a whim and got in immediately somehow but then realised I wouldn't be able to make tonight's performance.
|
|
19,651 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 23, 2024 9:40:18 GMT
Ticket on the Noticeboard for tonight 23rd Oct
|
|
3,301 posts
|
Post by david on Oct 24, 2024 16:13:25 GMT
When people ask why I love going to the theatre so much, my answer is simple - to experience 5⭐️ shows like this one this afternoon. A 2hr 20 minute masterpiece of theatre from the pen of Mark Rosenblatt brought brilliantly to the Royal Court stage by Director Nick Hytner, his wonderful team and stellar cast. There have been few shows this year where all the pieces that make a great trip to the theatre come together nicely for me, but this has been one of them. Having thought I would miss out on seeing this as I didn’t book early on, a single ticket appeared late on in row L of the stalls and quite honestly I think this maybe be the bargain ticket of the year. £22 for what was a fantastic view and to watch top talent on stage led by a tour de force performance from John Lithgow. Though all the cast should get a mention, all playing their part here. If there is any justice in the world, this play should be getting a fair few awards at the next awards season.
A really thought provoking and challenging play sprinkled nicely with some lovely moments of humour that really earned the standing ovation at the end. Whether it be script, set, lighting or casting, all hit the bullseye here. I haven’t been a regular at the RC like other members and the stuff I have seen has been ok but nothing that I thought wow, that was special until today. Well if this one is a sign of things to come, then I’ll happily sign up for more visits to the RC.
|
|
|
|
Post by andbingowashisname on Oct 24, 2024 21:53:04 GMT
Well if this one is a sign of things to come, then I’ll happily sign up for more visits to the RC. I suspect the problem for the Royal Court in programming plays like Giant is that they haven't really been part of the Court's design principle since Dominic Cooke left. And even this was a play forged at the Bridge, and which slid over to the Royal Court by dint of contacts, good fortune and an open slot. It was a similar situation when Hangmen ended up at the Court almost a decade ago. Maybe David Byrne will welcome more traditional plays and playwrights over the course of his tenure, but I wouldn't expect to see that many. I enjoyed Giant but didn't fall under its spell in the same way many seem to have done. Lithgow was excellent, and the dialogue was crisp and funny and full of colour - but a person/character like Dahl, who is just so indefatigable, sort of leaves you nowhere to go as I never believed he would relent from his position, so it was a fait accompli from minute one really. |
|
