|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 11:12:54 GMT
I don't see The Ferryman going down in the annals in quite the same way Jerusalem did. I'm quite happy to accept Jerusalem as a modern classic, though it felt very low-key in the way it went about achieving this. I don't even remember why I booked it at the Royal Court, but it built on itself and built on itself and still stands up eight years later. There was hype, but not right at the beginning. Maybe some excitement, but the hype also built itself and was well-earned. I don't entirely agree with crowblack's assessments of The Ferryman, but I can entirely see where she's coming from with her opinions. Where Jerusalem feels like it was just written and then became more than itself, it does feel like there was always more in mind for The Ferryman from the get-go. The hype may or may not be deserved (and that's all down to individual opinion I'm afraid), but it's been there since the initial announcement, and hype can kill a play for an audience member. It's like blowing on a fire; if the flame has caught, then a bit of blowing will help the fire grow, but if you start too soon, you could easily end up with no fire at all. So... is The Ferryman good? Sure. Is it five star good? I'm less sure. Are you missing a modern classic if you don't see it? Only time will tell here, but I suspect not. If you do choose to see it, are you going in with the full weight of hype on your shoulders? Yes, sorry. Will the hype kill it for you? Again, sorry, but that's personal and although we could make educated guesses based on your likes and dislikes, we could still end up wrongly guessing your actual response. On the bright side, with the extension you now have even longer to decide if the FOMO is stronger than your apathy!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 11:18:08 GMT
Unlike you Baemax FOMO doesn't really bother me (I miss out on a great deal and couldn't give a toss!) but I think I'm with you on the combination of hype/predecessor. I guess from what I know I see/get how Jerusalem is a modern classic (though I'm loathe to label things SO early on) but Ferryman for me never quite felt like it was going to be the same thing.
Basically I'm not basing and entire trip to London around this then is the short term conclusion. I'll re-asses dates again and if things align then they align if they don't I shall go on with my life fairly happily.
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jun 30, 2017 12:17:47 GMT
I gobbled up The Ferryman in the way one does when one knows one is really enjoying a show and doesn't want it to stop! Is it in the same league as Jerusalem? Hmmm....I think that's hard to say. I saw Jerusalem at the beginning of my theatre-going and it was just like "WOW" and because it was about a different sort of person, a different sort of attitude to life, almost like Trainspotting...showing us a radical way to live and yet mixing it with concepts of England and myths...so it's impossible to compare. I will say Ferryman has stayed with me and with all the recent publicity about the DUP in the news it takes on another level of interest. I just sat there and enjoyed and will go and see again quite happily!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 12:26:45 GMT
Agree Latecomer. I can see the points those who were less than enthusiastic are making but they make no difference to how much I enjoyed it. I had a splendid few hours transported elsewhere and was totally involved in the people onstage. I loved the experience of listening to the language and watching a large age varied cast and came out with that "I'm so glad I saw that" feeling.
I too could happily watch it again. Alas, my budget won't allow it but I had a great seat at the Royal Court so feel I am very lucky to have had such a close view.
Oh, and the baby was so cute as well, not to mention the goose and rabbit.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 30, 2017 12:42:56 GMT
I'm not basing and entire trip to London around this I travel down from Liverpool for plays and exhibitions so I'm probably in a similar situation assessing worthwhileness: I saw it along with Nuclear War and I'm glad I went to get a taste of both those playwrights - I was too skint at the time to see Jerusalem - but it's not something I'd have been annoyed about forever if I'd missed (I'm still peed off about missing The Dazzle). Then again, if I had missed it I might have been wondering forever if I really had missed the 'play of the decade'! I've found it interesting dissecting why it didn't work for me, so in that way I have got something out of it, but other people clearly love it. If it's helpful, I generally like studio theatre / off-West End stuff, and The Ferryman felt tailored for a West End audience rather than somewhere like the Royal Court. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jun 30, 2017 15:12:27 GMT
I hate Jerusalem (despite being very English) and loved Ferryman.
My understanding is the Ferryman was created for the West End originally, and Jez intervened to request a short run at the Court as a way to try out the material first, and also to thank the Court for developing his career up to that point. It wasn't a Court commission.
|
|
3 posts
|
Post by otty on Jul 3, 2017 10:27:39 GMT
Hello everyone, sorry to bother you: I'm a long-time reader/lurker, but today I decided to join the board, since I would like to ask you for an advice, if possibile.
I'm Italian, and next August I'll spend few days of vacation in London (as I do at least once a year) so I'm planning some theatre's visits: among others, I am interested in "The Ferryman", but I'm wondering if it will be understandable for me. Until now, I've always seen plays/musicals of which I've previously read the text, or based on movies: the first exception will be "The Book of Mormon", but a couple of friends talked me about it extensively and they also passed me the recording, so I think I'll be okay with that. This one, instead, would be a complete jump in the dark, since there's no text and I don't want to read spoilers anyway.
So, to all the previous viewers: in general, did you found the play's language (and/or accents) particularly difficult? do you think a foreigner "medium english speaker" could understand it?
Thank you in advance, have a nice day
|
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Jul 3, 2017 11:18:20 GMT
Hello everyone, sorry to bother you: I'm a long-time reader/lurker, but today I decided to join the board, since I would like to ask you for an advice, if possibile. I'm Italian, and next August I'll spend few days of vacation in London (as I do at least once a year) so I'm planning some theatre's visits: among others, I am interested in "The Ferryman", but I'm wondering if it will be understandable for me. Until now, I've always seen plays/musicals of which I've previously read the text, or based on movies: the first exception will be "The Book of Mormon", but a couple of friends talked me about it extensively and they also passed me the recording, so I think I'll be okay with that. This one, instead, would be a complete jump in the dark, since there's no text and I don't want to read spoilers anyway. So, to all the previous viewers: in general, did you found the play's language (and/or accents) particularly difficult? do you think a foreigner "medium english speaker" could understand it? Thank you in advance, have a nice day Hi Otty, I am Italian too (but I have been living here for ten years). The text of 'The ferryman' is available so you could read it. The accents in the play are quite thick (probably not the easiest play to understand) but even if you don't get all what it is said, you should be able to follow what happens. |
|
95 posts
|
Post by herculesmulligan on Jul 3, 2017 11:19:00 GMT
It's a very wordy play with strong Irish and Northern Irish accents and is quite dense. My guess is you'd probably follow it but miss a lot of the subtlety and might find it more of a struggle than you might want for a relaxing night at the theatre.
|
|
3 posts
|
Post by otty on Jul 3, 2017 15:34:18 GMT
Hi Otty, I am Italian too (but I have been living here for ten years). The text of 'The ferryman' is available so you could read it. The accents in the play are quite thick (probably not the easiest play to understand) but even if you don't get all what it is said, you should be able to follow what happens. My bad, I didn't know about the text, thank you! (e beato te che vivi a Londra!!) Thanks to both you and herculesmulligan for the feedback, I'm gonna think about it |
|
3 posts
|
Post by otty on Jul 4, 2017 13:15:03 GMT
Welcome to the board otty . I think I agree with other posters. You will need to understand thick Irish accents. I think you will also need to understand the dialect - the way the Irish speak in this play is quite different. Words will be unfamiliar, and they will use them in a different order to that which you would expect. I would also say that you will need to know your Irish history, mostly that of the "troubles" of the 1970s. I had an American woman sitting two seats away from me when I went, and she asked me a lot of questions at the first interval, as she really struggled with the background that is essential to understand a lot of the action. Thank you very much! I see... it's a "pity" (for me, obviously), it seems a great play, and I usually love Sam Mendes' works... but, with few days and a lot of great choices, maybe it'll be better to pass this one. Thank you again for your advices!! |
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Jul 4, 2017 13:32:09 GMT
Don't forget otty that native English speakers often don't understand English plays performed in English - Tom Stoppard, for example. |
|
902 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Jul 4, 2017 18:35:02 GMT
Welcome to the board otty . I think I agree with other posters. You will need to understand thick Irish accents. I think you will also need to understand the dialect - the way the Irish speak in this play is quite different. Words will be unfamiliar, and they will use them in a different order to that which you would expect. I would also say that you will need to know your Irish history, mostly that of the "troubles" of the 1970s. I had an American woman sitting two seats away from me when I went, and she asked me a lot of questions at the first interval, as she really struggled with the background that is essential to understand a lot of the action. Thank you very much! I see... it's a "pity" (for me, obviously), it seems a great play, and I usually love Sam Mendes' works... but, with few days and a lot of great choices, maybe it'll be better to pass this one. Thank you again for your advices!! No! Go! It's the best new play in years. Get there half an hour early, read the opening of the play to get into the rhythm of the language. Read a bit on Wikipedia beforehand about the troubles and why a Northern Irish Catholic family might have members who hate the British in 1981 as the hunger-strikers are dying and why the IRA might kill a Catholic. It's a fantastic night in the theatre. |
|
369 posts
|
Post by Jonnyboy on Jul 10, 2017 18:21:18 GMT
Theatremonkey website shows day seats as being rows B and C but C is on sale for full price??
Wondering whether to plump for front stalls at full price or risk day-seating? Is the day-seating as crazy as Jerusalem was?!
|
|
60 posts
|
Post by skullion on Jul 10, 2017 19:22:04 GMT
I saw this on Saturday and thought it was excellent, the time flew by. I do have a question for anyone who has seen this before: {Spoiler - click to view}
At the start when they are playing Connect Four, Quinn gives Caitlin a tea towel to blindfold herself, on Saturday she seemed to be struggling to get the thing round her head so Paddy asked if she'd like a bigger blindfold. They both started laughing like it was a bit of a blooper rather than something that was supposed to happen. Is that something they have done on other performances or was this a one off blunder? |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 10, 2017 20:16:09 GMT
Don't remember that from when I went skullion
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 11, 2017 4:45:43 GMT
I didn't see that either time I went.
|
|
60 posts
|
Post by skullion on Jul 11, 2017 19:40:18 GMT
Thanks all, it was my feeling it wasn't supposed to happen from their and the audience reactions but just wanted to satisfy my curiousity!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 22:22:42 GMT
I didn't see that either time I went. I don't think the blindfold sequence requires audience participation . . . |
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Jul 11, 2017 22:41:35 GMT
I have studiously avoided looking at this thread and reading any reviews so as to try and see it without preconceptions or any kind of information, I didn't even know it was about "the Troubles". Now I've seen it and can indulge.
Ok so this isn't Jerusalem (it may not even be as good as Mojo) - but then I've yet to see a play written in the last forty years or so which compares to Jerusalem - but it's a damn decent play which was what I needed tonight.
It is overlong; I know Butterworth is a fan of Pinter's, he might have been a bit more economical with language on some of the exposition - especially in the latter half. It takes time to get going, a lot of characters to work out relationships and so forth. The ending might be seen as slightly melodramatic. But it is entertaining, engaging and tackles serious emotional and political subjects with confidence and style.
I thought at first this was going to be a pastiche of an Irish play by Sean O'Synge, but it's cleverer than that. He gets away with having Irish dancing on stage without making it feel twee. It's believable the characters will break into song and dance because the characters and the situation are believable. In fact, especially in the way it builds towards the denouement, there is more than a touch of Ibsen in this work.
The balance between "family saga" and political play, and the theme of loss - there are at least three types of loss in the play - end up working. Butterworth wears his learning lightly, there is evidence of plenty of research here beyond the basic historical and social aspects of the play, and he never preaches or shows off. Just tells it as he sees it.
A final point about the relationship between this play and its predecessor: the next surviving play we have by Shakespeare after the masterpiece that is The Tempest was.... Henry VIII. Even the greatest of writers can struggle in delivering masterpiece after masterpiece. This is no dud, Butterworth confirms, if it needed confirmation, with The Ferryman that he is an important writer.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 12, 2017 9:52:07 GMT
Ok so this isn't Jerusalem (it may not even be as good as Mojo) I think my issue is that critics who are normally far more measured in their judgement are all reviewing it as though it was - five stars across the board. They seem starstruck, all of them, which surprised me. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 12, 2017 21:02:45 GMT
Ok so this isn't Jerusalem I missed Jerusalem first time round (not in London and skint), but saw in Time Out that it may have an anniversary revival, possibly with Mark Rylance. I'd like to see it, though maybe with someone else in the role - I wondered what degree the original's success was due to the play or that particular actor. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 21:55:40 GMT
I've since seen an amateur production which both improved my opinion of Mark Rylance's performance and confirmed that the writing itself will ensure the play is remembered as a modern classic.
|
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 12, 2017 22:04:31 GMT
Ok so this isn't Jerusalem (it may not even be as good as Mojo) I think my issue is that critics who are normally far more measured in their judgement are all reviewing it as though it was - five stars across the board. They seem starstruck, all of them, which surprised me. What is it that makes you believe they are not being as measured as usual, rather than them just loving the play? |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 12, 2017 22:43:31 GMT
What is it that makes you believe they are not being as measured as usual Because it didn't strike me as being a five star play, and because reviews from those outside the London theatre critic circle have chimed more with my feelings about it (ditto, those of the audience members sitting next to me with whom I discussed it afterwards). You can love something but still be aware of the flaws: five stars is for perfection, and it wasn't. Btw, given the powerful names of the writer, director and producer I expected very high production values, and it had them: you do with a Harry Potter film, too. I think this is Harry Potter and the Cursed Child for adults. |
|
