A Pacifists Guide To The War On Cancer - Home MCR and NT

It was in Tuesday's show so I presume this is permanent. It is certainly a show of two halves, but at the same time I did wonder whether they needed it and whether it would be more impactful to go straight through into the second half while you've still got the audience's attention.

Very powerful and important piece indeed though which had me in tears at the end.

Yes, just read a blog review mentioning the interval whereas as Andrew says, as recently as Saturday there was none. Probably just as well for me since though it was a bit long to sit through without the chance to stretch my legs, I might not have returned had there been an interval!

I agree re the singing, which, as I originally, said, was the best part for me. I am however puzzled by references to the second half being different, as some of the reviews have said the same. I know I saw the show without the "benefit" of the interval so had there been one, the distinction might have been clearer, but I honestly couldn't say I noticed any obvious shift in mood, tone, treatment, etc. Wondering what I missed...

So many of the positive reviews say how "moving" or even "deeply moving" this was. I simply don't agree. Obviously I can't dispute the personal responses of others, but to make such a claim as if it was a fact is wrong.

So in your opinion when one could say that something is "moving"? When 100% of the audience cries? Of course saying that the show was 'moving' reflects a subjective response, and in this case it is mostly based on personal experiences and connections with people with cancer.

Sounds as if you thought it was finished at the interval and so left then and missed the second half!

I found this wonderful, thought provoking and emotional, this does what theatre does best and goes into that No Man's Land of taboo subjects? This reminded me in lots of ways of Love Story, which I also got very moved by.

2 words got me in the end and that was 'Jade Goody', a person time has managed to expunge from my memory. It reminded me how she was open-season for the press because she was deemed to be vacuous, she had the most nasty and reprehensible attacks made on her, because she thought Cambridge was somewhere in London for example. Before her untimely death, she made the most of her precious time, by raising as much money possible to bring her children up, when she went to join the Angels. I found her inspirational despite her lack of depth, which wasn't helped by a grim childhood. Reading her Wiki page in the interval, I had a tear or two run down my cheek, as it reminded me how cynical and nasty the press were.

As much as I loved the premise of this musical, I found the music to be very pedestrian and they over egged the sympathy aspect at times, however if the ushers were handing tissues out in the end, I am sure a few would have been taken.

4 stars

I hated this too I'm afraid. I was thankful for the unnecessary interval and took the opportunity to escape.

Didn't help that I was sitting in the terrible side seats in the gallery, a useful reminder never to book them. Crazy they spent so long refurbishing the theatre and ended up with a huge bunch of seats that can literally see half the stage. (I know they are sold as restricted view but even so!)

Yes, I totally agree about the Gallery, which was where I was seated for The Flick. When you sat down properly in your seat (not leaning far forwards) you literally lost half of the stage. As a lot of the action took place on that side of the stage it was impossible to tell what was happening. In fact if the people next to me had leant forwards at all I would not have seen anything. 

I actually remonstrated with one of the staff in the interval (something I would never normally do as of course you expect a poorer quality view for a lower price) and she admitted that it was a problem, particularly with that production, and moved me downstairs. I got the impression that I was not the first person to have complained. 

I don't mind a bit of restricted view (I don't actually remember those seats being advertised as restricted view, although I may just have missed the warning), but this was extraordinary. What were they thinking? Or maybe they don't venture up there themselves. 

The only other place as bad as this is the upstairs of the Sam Wanamaker, and I have sworn a sacred oath to myself never to go upstairs there again.

To be fair, at the Dorfman if you select one of the gallery seats it says "GALLERY - RESTRICTED VIEW. You may need to lean forward throughout - there is a bar in front for you to lean on"

So they do warn you, but I wouldn't expect that warning to imply you can only see half the stage. Plus they charge £25 for them!

Kimmings' Twitter feuds with critics are certainly entertaining, whatever you think of her work.

I thought the first half was stronger than the second.

I didn't appreciate the attempt to hit you over the head with sentiment. I felt like there was no subtlety, just an attempt at pulling on the heart strings with every tool possible.

Having said that, the waterworks were well and truly on by the end. During the 'audience participation' section one member of the audience sat directly in front of me said 'my son ...[name]'. I don't think there were any dry eyes in the stalls.

But as I said, I could make a show that created this effect too with a combination of starving children, dying kittens, natural disasters, children living in warzones etc. - it doesn't make it a good piece of theatre.