|
|
Post by nancycunard on Sept 21, 2024 22:26:41 GMT
Saw the first preview of Roots last week, and the second of Look Back in Anger tonight. The second is in drastically better shape than the former — it’s still shocking, sexy, funny…all those fantastic turns of phrase are put over wonderfully.
Roots is just nowhere near as strong a text and I’d say it suffers in comparison, but I was just as nonplussed about it last week as I am now. Morfydd Clark gives a very fine performance but it’s hard not to see it as a deeply dated play — the plights of Alison and Jimmy still ring true, mired as they are in an awful relationship and class barriers that have yet to still quite resolve, whilst not being very bright but having a boyfriend who is doesn’t quite drive a drama the same way it maybe once did. I found it all a little bit trite, while Look Back in Anger feels just as intense as ever (albeit clearly taking cues from the Streetcar production).
|
|
|
|
Post by thattheatreman on Sept 23, 2024 6:38:13 GMT
Was good seeing LBIA last week. Really excellent play that has not aged like I feared it might have.
|
|
174 posts
|
Post by dillan on Sept 23, 2024 9:59:56 GMT
Your positive reviews have made me book a ticket for a LBIA! Managed to find a front row seat in November, despite it being quite sold out.
|
|
|
|
Post by parsley1 on Sept 25, 2024 20:07:32 GMT
What a horrid revival of Look Back In Anger
A truly dated play
Hindered by leaden and inexperienced direction
Ugly set
And dire acting
The whole thing stinks of A level am dram
|
|
|
|
Post by henry12345 on Sept 26, 2024 11:13:14 GMT
I have now seen both Roots and LBIA. I caught Roots on its second preview, and as a frequenter of the Almeida, I have never been more disappointed by one of their plays. It was truly a mess. The script was yes, dated, but there were no attempts to modernise or find relevance in it. Utterly stale and extraordinarily boring. The accents were completely all over the place and on the way out everyone I spoke to couldn't get their head around what we had seen - shockingly bad.
LBIA on the other hand I thought was excellent. The direction brought a stale play to live, and there wee multiple moments that felt genuinely beautiful and raw. The two leads were phenomenal, and I felt strangely engrossed for the whole 2h45min. I was lucky to be sat in the front row which always helps at the Almeida, but I felt the intelligent direction was among the best I've seen there recently - made me think of Frecknell's Summer and Smoke.
Roots 1*, LBIA 4*
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Sept 28, 2024 23:35:26 GMT
I saw both Look Back in Anger and Roots as a two show day and have a few thoughts on it. Look Back in Anger by John Osborne is a play that broke new grounds when it debuted in 1956 and this production showcases how the play still resonates even today. Billy Howle is excellent as Jimmy and he's not just toxic, he's nuclear and his behaviour affects those around him, Ellora Torchia gives a great performance as Alison as does Iwan Davies as Cliff. Morfydd Clark is good as Helena but it's more of a supporting role. The set is the same for both productions but LBIA uses a trap door as its centrepiece which is very effective. Roots by Arnold Wesker is a very different play to LBIA, it's got a lot more humour in it for one but the themes are different as well. Whereas Jimmy Porter in LBIA is the archetype of the angry young men, Beattie Bryant in Roots is the naive young woman who swept away by socialist ideals by her boyfriend in London tries to convince her traditional country family in Norfolk only to find they're not interested. Morfydd Clark as Beattie captures that zeal of being swept away by rhetoric and wanting change and also being annoyed that those around her are a bit stuck in their ways, Sophie Stanton and Deka Walmsey as Beattie's parents are very good and they have some great scenes with both each other and Beattie. Interestingly, Billy Howle, Ellora Torchia and Iwan Davies have more of a supporting role in Roots which is probably more of a breather after the intensity of LBIA. I did find it interesting that None of the characters in LBIA when together wore shoes and that the dirt on stage could be seen as cigarette ash in LBIA whereas the same dirt in Roots could be seen as in soil for roots LBIA is the stronger play of the two but it was a great experience to see two very different plays at the Almeida with the same cast. |
|
1,475 posts
|
Post by Steve on Sept 29, 2024 0:24:10 GMT
Saw these two productions today, "Look Back in Anger" at the matinee and "Roots" in the evening, and they are really good, and deserve their own thread, I feel.
They are clearly being presented together, with all the "Look Back in Anger" actors also appearing in "Roots," to encourage discussion of common themes and differences, and I think it's useful to group them together in the same thread.
The first play is the "angry young man" play, the second is the "angry young woman" play, and I felt both were terrific!
Some spoilers follow. . .
The first and most obvious thing that struck me is that Billy Howles's Jimmy Porter and Morfydd Ckark's Beatie Bryant are like a match made in heaven, reaching across the two plays towards each other, almost seeming to pine for each other lol:
In one of Porter's best and most anguished speeches, he says all he longs for is "a little ordinary human enthusiam," and of course, Bryant is the most ordinary, most enthusiastic character that has ever appeared in a play. Even Bryant's stoic literal undemonstrative mother is carried away by her daughter's endless enthusiasm, exclaiming of her singing daughter: "Thank God you come home sometimes. . . you do bring a little life with you anyway." Porter, in another of his great sad tirades says of his wife, Alison, that she writes "great long letters to Mummy, and never mentions me at all, because I'm just a dirty word to her." Meanwhile, all Beattie Bryant does all play long is shout the name of her putative boyfriend again and again and again to her family! She truly is the woman of Porter's dreams.
Looking at it the other way, Bryant wants socialist political roots so bad but no member of her family even reads the paper or cares to, while in the other play Porter does nothing but read the damn papers and make socialist political pronouncements about them. Further, Bryant wishes for a musical culture that's deeper than her mother's old pop, while in the other play, Porter plays jazz on his trumpet and improvises satirical lyrics to songs.
Seeing the two plays back to back, it's like the characters are crying out for each other!
Of course, Porter is a miserable depressed abusive plonker and Bryant is a delightful effervescent soul, so maybe she can do better, but there is always the chance that she is the cure to his disease, and it feels almost romantic to have the plays in rep together.
Billy Howle's Jimmy Porter is also nowhere near as abusive as Richard Burton's Porter in the film version. Where Burton seemed to be firing machine gun snarling shots at his wife in the film, Howle seems to be more raging despairingly into the ether. Part of it is that Howle is not as emotionally violent in his delivery, but part of it also is that Ellora Torchia's Alison Porter is a much more powerful presence than the film's Mary Ure, Midge's Aunty, who originated the role at the Royal Court. She was a fragile fly waiting for her wings to be torn off, whereas Torchia is more teflon, shrugging off Howle's howling like a child's tantrum, profoundly annoying but mostly ineffectual. Howle's Porter is so childlike, in fact, that when he spoke poignantly of his perceiving his dying father as "a small frightened boy," it was impossible to not also see Howle's Jimmy as equivalently a "small frightened boy," and I got quite emotional.
If ever there was a production to get you to empathise with the politically adrift and disillusioned, this is it.
In "Roots," Morfydd Clark is magnificent as a joyous political caterpillar turning before our eyes into a socialist political butterfly. That this character might one day morph into a Minister in a Labour Government felt as inevitable as Gina McKee's character becoming a political titan in "our Friends in the North." Clark is a force of nature in this production, and her performance has a delightfully uplifting fizzing quality, while also being forceful and determined.
I recall seeing "Roots" at the Donmar, and that production was chalk and cheese with this one, though both were successful, for me. In that one, Linda Bassett was everything as Beatie's conservative mother, so rooted to land and culture and family that politics seemed almost churlish, and Jessica Raine's socialist ingenue Beatie Bryant felt pushy and desperate by comparison. Part of the genius of the Donmar production was the ancient working farm kitchen, with working sink, which felt like an extension of the unalterable never-changing amiable but rock solid Bassett.
This current production returns to the socialist Wesker's, original conception, with Sophie Stanton's mother's conservative character more of an obstacle to Clark's Bryant's socialist aspirations, rather than a rock she can rely on. To emphasise this production's leanings, every time Morfydd Clark's Beatie gets inspired by her newly found socialist aspirations, she gets spotlit and everyone else freezes. She's like a radiant angel of the north (Norfolk is north of London, anyway lol), but more sparkly and more fun.
Anyhow, I felt that as an analysis of political paralysis (LBIA) vs political activism (Roots), of the masculine (LBIA) vs the feminine (Roots), of depair (LBIA) vs hope (Roots), this is a really great and useful matchup. It's like the play's are yin and yang, and like their main characters are being magnetically attracted towards each other.
And Howle in LBIA and Clark in Roots are really really good, I felt.
My ratings would be: LBIA - 4 stars Roots - 4 stars Both seen together - 4 and a half stars. 
PS: Could BurlyBeaR please add earlier posts about these plays above mine in this thread, if possible. Thanks. |
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Sept 29, 2024 9:42:41 GMT
As a completist I'd love to see plays by these two which haven't been revived for years and years. Missing "Not Quite Jerusalem" by Wesker and lots by Osborne - West of Suez, The End of Me Old Cigar, Very Like A Whale, Watch It Come Down... even Luther.
I do appreciate why these two are regularly revived - the major work by each of them - so new generations can see them but a little less depth and more width would suit me better.
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Oct 1, 2024 16:20:37 GMT
Well, the press day matinee of ROOTS today was outstanding, and if LOOK BACK is even better, then it will be quite an achievement. There was lots of chat in the rain afterwards about Morfydd Clark's incredibly powerful Beatie. The standing ovation by the way was led by the director of LOOK BACK, which was quite sweet.
|
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Oct 3, 2024 20:12:04 GMT
Ahhhh...
I found look back in Anger really obnoxious as a play. Jimmy porter is such an abusive piece of crap, I couldn't find any enjoyment from it. Compared to streetcar, the script isn't as interesting either.
The acting is great, so hearing roots has more likeable characters is good. I might enjoy that more!
|
|
|
|
Post by greatauntedna on Oct 3, 2024 22:32:03 GMT
I preferred Roots to Look Back in Anger, I found Jimmy very one note.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Oct 8, 2024 8:47:28 GMT
I thought this was extraordinary and revelatory. As a statement on Britain’s (England’s) post-colonial identity crisis it’s surely more powerful and relevant now than in 1956.
In fact it feels surprising that just 11 years after World War Two Osborne had Jimmy Porter be so unfairly tough on England, expecting so much to be resolved in a Britain still scarred by bomb sites. Yet what’s the excuse now? Here we are 58 years on and England’s inability to be at ease with its identity and find its post colonial purpose seems as fresh (rancid) as ever.
Alison says her dad is wracked with pain that in post-war post-colonies Britain “everything’s changed”, whereas Jimmy’s rage is that despite all that change “everything’s the same”. Witness today’s papers still harping on Churchill, the Blitz spirit, and stories like the one Jimmy reads out about depraved sexual deeds going on in the Midlands. When Jimmy disdains Alison seeking ‘some peace’ or her aspiration to be down in the potting shed it’s a rage about settling for such a small reset when there was a chance for more. Today’s equivalent is to seek solace in the fetish of ‘Countryfile’ and ‘Downton Abbey’.
The play’s intensely political - but not in a Left/Right way. That rage for ‘more’ from Jimmy could be answered by Far Left or Far Right, just as long as it was ‘enough’ at last: a total solution, a bold gesture, a grand narrative. That big narrative may turn out to have few practical gains, but it’s a big story for people like Jimmy Porter to live in. It's the populism we see springing up all around the world now, and the huge danger of a Biden/Starmer-like managerial incremental change being bulldozed by a desire for that decisive "one violent day" (Trump) when things get sorted.
I’ve no doubt that today Jimmy Porter would be a YouTuber, sounding off. When Osborne baptised him Jimmy Porter, he gave him the boyish diminutive of James and a self-pitying surname that suggests he’s carrying the world. I think Stephen Yaxley Lennon had similar ideas when he traded on the image of the lowly British infantryman and created himself as ‘Tommy Robinson’.
Osborne’s script hardly stops giving when it comes to jaw dropping relevance. Jimmy’s friend Hugh shipped out to China (“‘some God forsaken place”) - well Hugh will be doing pretty well now! Unlike Hugh, Jimmy didn't give up on England, but gave up on himself by tying himself to her. After the recent radical ‘Cherry Orchard’ I couldn’t help noticing the similarity between the arrested development of Gayev in that play (with his sweets - chupa chups in pocket), and Jimmy’s emasculating job running a sweetshop - set up in the job by…. his friend’s mum.
Perhaps some newspaper reviewers didn’t see (or want to allow) much of this because Jimmy’s vile treatment of women gets in front and it feels proper to not reward that, and instead make it negate all other points. I think that’s a mistake, as it’s all of a piece. In the absence of a grand ennobling narrative, with the big stories/sacrifices already done in the world wars, Women are the war that’s available for men (and some women) like Jimmy to fight. From social media voices like Calvin Robinson, Laurence Fox and Andrew Tate to politicians like Trump it’s absolutely everywhere today.
Anything practical to be gained from the play now? Just a huge warning to middle-manager style politicians that it’s not enough to gradually aim to do a bit of good. Without the grand narrative you’ll be swept away.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Oct 8, 2024 21:31:32 GMT
LOOK BACK IN ANGER (post above)
...................................................
ROOTS
It took me a long time to get into this, perhaps not helped by having some very fidgety bored people in their mid to late twenties sitting around me. It is ultimately moving and rewards the wait - but just as well they didn’t put an interval in. Tbf - even likely interval-leavers seemed somewhat invested by the end.
Were the Norfolk accents accurate? I’m no expert - I just felt that within the same performer the vowel sounds seemed inconsistent, let alone amongst the family (even taking account of different generations). I felt I could hear the actors’ phonetic coaching and got distracted noticing and measuring, rather than getting deeply into the story.
Brilliant though I found it, ‘Look Back In Anger’ is a set of competing position statements - well suited to playing out on the Almeida’s empty set. I think ‘Roots’ would have benefited from being more rooted; not necessarily absolute naturalism, but things to lean on, fussy cupboards, and a window for mum to concernedly and pointlessly bustle over to every time anything passed by. I loved that aspect - people run by the seasons, and buses, or drovers carts passing by; garnering some excitement and scandal from anything being slightly off, or great comfort when all’s right with the world. In contrast, Beaty’s looked over the horizon to a world where she’s invited to run herself, but horribly new to the whole game.
Anyone who’s flown the nest a decent distance recognises what it is to go home and be the observing third party, and envoy between two people who are perpetually (and really quite happily) in a war that’s usually just between the two of them!
Did Wesker have a Norfolk side to his family? Though it’s written in dialect, it’s not particularly rich in local phrases; nowhere near as deep into celebrating syntax and just how good people are with language as Shelagh Delaney was in ‘A Taste Of Honey’ the year before. I didn’t love the writing.
Acting wise, though in 1959 the censor wouldn’t have allowed the swear words we’re told are ten-a-penny amongst the family, performances could have been bigger/more rough; I wanted to feel they were exploding and swearing even if they weren’t.
An interesting programming double.
Look Back In Anger 5 Stars
Roots 3 Stars (just)
|
|
4,778 posts
|
Post by Mark on Oct 14, 2024 17:16:09 GMT
This has just extended a week, I’ve booked Look Back in Anger final performance, but think I will give Roots a miss.
|
|
3,301 posts
|
Post by david on Oct 25, 2024 8:24:39 GMT
I didn’t have the diary space in my London trip to see both shows so opted for LBIA. That was certainly an intense and emotionally draining but ultimately rewarding watch last night. A really powerful production thanks to the efforts of Billy Howle and Ellora Torchia in bringing John Osborne’s 1950’s kitchen sink drama to the Almeida stage.
As a character Jimmy Porter is a completely unlikeable human being. A bully and misogynistic individual who projects his anger and frustrations in his life on all those around him as he is unable to find his place in a post WW2 society as well as the class divide impacting on his marriage to Alison. Certainly on my viewing there were audible gasps of shocks from the audience in some of the scenes as he belittles and attacks everyone.
Thankfully there are some moments of humour to break up the harder hitting moments to give the audience a chance to take a break from the more intense scenes. Naomi Dawson’s basic set serves its purpose in creating a home setting and the lighting design from Lee Curran helps to crank up the emotional intensity. However I did find the sound design from Peter Rice to be less effective in helping to provide an emotional impact.
It would be interesting to read reviews from productions closer to the time it was written set to gauge public opinion on the writing. The themes and ideas the play presents however are sadly still very relevant in a 2024 world.
Rating - 4 ⭐️
|
|
41 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by jake on Oct 30, 2024 13:32:01 GMT
I saw Roots last night. It was a toss-up between that and a seat near the back of the Royal Circle for Waiting for Godot. I went for the Almeida because I know their stalls and was more confident of a decent view. I wish I'd gone for the Haymarket. I found this new Roots inferior in every way to the last production I saw (the Bassett/Raine mentioned above). Whether it was the amateurish set, the rather poor diction of some cast members (it wasn't my hearing or the unfamiliar dialect because other cast members came across very clearly) or just a plodding pace I can't say, but this simply didn't draw me in in anything like the same way as the Donmar production did. I'm usually a fan of the interval-free format but this seemed an occasion where it was inappropriate. The Almeida's 100 minutes seemed to drag on where the much longer Donmar running time gave the action and dialogue room to breathe rather than suffocating it - which was the impression I had last night. I've made a bet with myself that the 3 hours of tonight's The Wild Duck will fly by in comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by parsley1 on Oct 30, 2024 14:17:46 GMT
I saw Roots last night. It was a toss-up between that and a seat near the back of the Royal Circle for Waiting for Godot. I went for the Almeida because I know their stalls and was more confident of a decent view. I wish I'd gone for the Haymarket. I found this new Roots inferior in every way to the last production I saw (the Bassett/Raine mentioned above). Whether it was the amateurish set, the rather poor diction of some cast members (it wasn't my hearing or the unfamiliar dialect because other cast members came across very clearly) or just a plodding pace I can't say, but this simply didn't draw me in in anything like the same way as the Donmar production did. I'm usually a fan of the interval-free format but this seemed an occasion where it was inappropriate. The Almeida's 100 minutes seemed to drag on where the much longer Donmar running time gave the action and dialogue room to breathe rather than suffocating it - which was the impression I had last night. I've made a bet with myself that the 3 hours of tonight's The Wild Duck will fly by in comparison. The Donmar Roots was a triumph indeed Lovely set also This little cheap and tacky little rep season was an error and better forgotten |
|
