81 posts
|
Post by addictedtotheatre on Apr 27, 2017 16:14:49 GMT
Based on the ecstatic reviews on here, I've now booked a stalls seat at the Gielgud. I'm trusting in you guys...
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Apr 27, 2017 22:46:05 GMT
I saw it on Wednesday and I don't share your enthusiasm. It was sprawling, even verging on kitsch, trying to take in everything in in so doing losing coherence, any menace and tension. It reminded me of Ridley Scott's Prometheus or the later J K Rowling or Philip Pullman books, where you feel they're so famous no one's telling them to hone it down - there was a good story in there somewhere but it was lost with the cast of thousands and the enormous word count. Take a look at The Searchers or Hitchcock's sHadow of a Doubt for how to portray a warm family setting menaced, but doing so with economy and ever-heightening tension, not puncturing it with repetition and folksy cliche (and cute bunnies). I had been really looking forward to this - I travelled rom Liverpool and had a front row circle seat - so no sightline or audibility issues - and after the promising start I was so disappointed.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Apr 27, 2017 23:41:03 GMT
I see press night's next Wednesday - be interesting to see what the running time is by then. Standing ovation on the night I went, btw..
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Apr 28, 2017 10:11:41 GMT
Question - and can someone please put a spoiler bracket on this upcoming thought? I don't know how! - there's something that happens in the opening scene which I thought was a major and dangerous prop malfunction. It immediately pulled me our of the drams and instead had me thinking, oh sh*t, are we going to have to evacuate the theatre? Is this potentially dangerous? The way the hazard was dealt with made me think perhaps it was deliberate but I can't imagine many Irish farmhouse kitchens of the period had a large fire extinguisher to hand! I saw afterwards that it was in fact in the script, but it seems unnecessary plot or characterwise and I think extremely distracting. Even with the fire out I found myself thinking I hope that still-glowing ember doesn't set the rug on fire and I hope the actress doesn't get zapped by the electric cable she's handling. They're not thoughts you want at the outset of a play.
|
|
483 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Apr 28, 2017 12:16:52 GMT
Couple more have just appeared - got 1 for tomorrow's matinee.
|
|
367 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Apr 28, 2017 12:24:48 GMT
I saw it last night and I really liked it. Very good and solid play with an impressive big cast (the children were all excellent). A lot is packed in three hours and a half but that gives a chance to most characters to get some depth and shine. I particularly loved Brid Brennan and the style that as usual for Butterworth combines poetic tones, menace and realism. I would give four and a half starts to the production. I am sure it will be a big success (Olivier nomination?). The only downside is that it finished at 11 pm so I cannot exclude that a tiny part of the tension wasn't derived by my fear to miss my train...
|
|
1,187 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Apr 28, 2017 20:16:27 GMT
Couple of circle tickets on the RC website for tomorrow matinee. Grab 'em
|
|
34 posts
|
Post by Jasmine on Apr 30, 2017 10:33:19 GMT
Loved this yesterday! There were moments of (intentional, I assume) confusion, but everything came together tenderly, and tragically at the end. I must say, after all the publicity, I was expecting the cast to be even bigger than it was! But everyone was pitch perfect and the kids were wonderful (I feel it's a bit of a disservice to call them 'extras' as they were all fully fledged characters - except maybe the baby ) On top of the likeness to Friel and McDonagh mentioned previously, I also found it reminiscent of some of Seamus Heaney's poetry, especially his bog poems, which I suppose enhances the poetics of Butterworth's language - saying that, he's always ready with a crude joke or two to level the tone, haha! As someone who was a bit nervous about the violence - {Spoiler - click to view} it's gun shots for me, I can't stand them, I find myself not able to concentrate on the dialogue the whole time a gun is onstage! - I didn't find this too bad. The end is so fast and a bit confusing at first as to what has happened, that it's all over before I really had a chance to get worked up over it. And, while the stage directions in the script are a lot more graphic concerning the amount of blood (spurting 2 feet and so forth), at the performance we saw it was barely a scratch, not gory at all really.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Apr 30, 2017 11:15:30 GMT
The end is so fast and a bit confusing at first as to what has happened, that it's all over before I really had a chance to get worked up over it. I felt more gut-wrenching tension watching Dean heat up a tin of soup in Wish List on my last trip to the Royal Court than I did in this. I found the whole play, after the promising menace of the start, saggy. At times I felt I was watching The Waltons. I didn't feel that drumbeat of nausea I remember from the time -I'm Butterworth's age, and while I too wanted to marry Adam Ant, I was conscious of the horror of the hunger strike too, and the ever-preset threat of violence (bomb scare evacuations became normality, we had a school drill for them) - and I was a child in Liverpool, not Ireland. There's an expression from the Troubles, that "the dogs in the street" know, yet this sprawling family seemed weirdly insulated.
|
|
1,199 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 3, 2017 22:52:31 GMT
This is indeed the Waltons in the shadow of the Troubles, and I loved it. Some spoilers follow. . . Like in the movie Jaws, we open with a scene that sets up a threat which must become relevant later. Like in Jaws, the suspense created by the impending threat allows us to wallow in family scenes, while maintaining tension concerning what's to come. But while this set-up is effective story-telling, at it's core this is a wonderful portrait of a family that has been living with the Troubles forever. The Carney family are introduced like a chart of a human evolution, with the youngest and smallest introduced first, a baby, utterly unspoiled by the shadow of the Troubles, through multiple children of ascending age, through their parents, and onto the generation of grandparents. How sectarianism has infected (or not infected) the thinking of each child, middle-aged, and older person is delineated with loving precision by Butterworth. Mercifully, the pattern of infection is not overly simplified, so that Brid Brennan's elderly dementia sufferer, Aunt Maggie Far Away, who drifts affectingly in and out of coherency, remains as unspoiled by prejudice as the baby, whereas Dearbhla Molloy's Aunt Pat is utterly poisoned by hatred of the other, the English. Her hatred translates even into her view of the sole Englishman in the play, John Hodgkinson's mentally impaired, but physically able, Tom Kettle, who has been in and about the family for 30 years. What happens in the play I won't reveal (I'll leave that to the critics), but I found that I fell in love with this family and all it's members, so it all mattered. I particularly loved the energetic, instinctive Shane Corcoran, charged with an elemental electricity by the wonderful actor, Tom Glynn-Carney, and the vibrant Caitlin Carney, played with moment to moment vivaciousness and humour by Laura Donnelly. But this is a cast filled with well-drawn characterisations, beautifully realised, by the whole ensemble, from Brid Brennan's Aunt Maggie to Paddy Considine's lynchpin lead character, Quinn Carney, to Genevieve O'Reilly's ever-so-delicate Mary Carney (how she manages to look so weak and frail in every scene is a miracle of acting). For humour, Butterworth puts Daniel-Kitson-style-original-curse-words into the mouths of babes, a strategy that always wins laughs, and does so again here. I got a vicarious kick at seeing how much the smallest kids enjoyed getting the biggest laughs from their very adult audience, with each minor minorly corpsing at the roar of laughter following their use of expletives. Anyhow, it is perhaps true that this show weights too much to family shenanigans, and too far from the Troubles for much of the running time, but there are so many well-observed and amusing heartfelt moments, that I was always entertained. And within each portrait of each person, and in each action also, Butterworth hides a treasure trove of insightful commentary on how we become who we are, so that, while, for me, this is not as perfect a thing as last year's "Hangmen," it is certainly one of the best shows of the year. 4 and a half stars
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on May 4, 2017 8:02:20 GMT
The reviews are in. Lots of 5 stars !
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 4, 2017 11:55:22 GMT
Does anyone know how the Circle slips seats work for this? I didn't get a ticket in the initial rush, so didn't think I'd be able to see it, but a £12 ticket randomly popped online in February so I decided to give it a go.
It's listed as "Circle Slips: slip 3" and noted as a partially restriced seat side on to the stage which I'm fine with given the price. However, both the Theatre Monkey and Seat Plan websites list the Circle slips as being seats 4 to 19.
Am I right in thinking that the slips have been re-assigned to being 1-16, or are there 3 seats beyond those listed on the TM and SP sites? I've tried to recheck the RC website, but it (or my connection) seems to be struggling at the moment. If the seat numbers have been re-assigned, this might explain the reason that Circle slips seat 11 is shown as being on the right hand side on both the TM and SP sites, but the photo of the view from the seat (on Seatplan) is taken from the left hand side.
Edit: I've managed to get through to the RC site (for a different Downstairs show), and the seat plan does list the slips as being 1-16 instead of 4-19. Assuming that this is a straight forward renumbering of the seats, rather than a change in the layout, this presmably means that the views are simply shifted by 3; 'seat 1' now is the same as seat 4 as listed on TM/SP, seat 7 now is the one listed as seat 10 on TM/SP and so on.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 4, 2017 11:58:09 GMT
I was into it for the first half hour or so - though as I commented earlier I thought the opening pyrotechnics were misjudged as it had me worrying that we might have to evacuate the theatre, and broke the fourth wall - but as the family and then the cute animals etc. started to pile in I found myself thinking about the structure, about the references to other playwrights (particularly when the Symbolic dead white bird appeared, and Chekhov's gun), wondering if the goose might sh-t or bite, whether the rabbit was scared or the baby would cry, and realised I was doing that because I wasn't finding myself immersed in the drama. When something interesting looked like it was starting to happen it was interrupted, or characters went offstage, or, in the case of the ill wife, only seemed to become flesh in the last minutes. The set is the image of my relatives' farmhouse kitchen where three generations of a mixed part-Irish family live but for me that comparison underlined the staginess of the uninterrupted speeches and the often too-literal action - at one point a character actually walks on with a book to explain the play's title. Given the generous running time I'd have liked more space, pauses, darkness, for the audience to create its own imagery and for threads to sink in. I wanted tension, but I felt the writer and director were so in love with the family they had created on stage that they kept losing sight of it.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 5, 2017 0:24:31 GMT
Saw this last night, and found it spectacular.
|
|
5,588 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 5, 2017 11:49:02 GMT
Anyone know about the transfer so I can book earlylike...? Ta
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on May 5, 2017 11:51:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on May 5, 2017 12:00:37 GMT
I didn't love it quite as much as the critics but it's an entertaining evening, no question. It also does to some extent capture the fear and tension of the time. It's strongly reminiscent of Jerusalem in many ways (children, animals, nature, people living (or living formerly) on the edge) but lacks the bravura central role, good as Considine is in a much less showy role. But an excellent evening.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on May 5, 2017 12:08:05 GMT
Anyone know about the transfer so I can book earlylike...? Ta Are you an anonymous woman?
|
|
5,588 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 5, 2017 20:34:09 GMT
Thanks. Managed to negotiate the whole forgot password saga by being someone else so yes I am the anonymous woman. Two tix for near end of run which is always a risk as cast might expire, I might expire or the world might expire. One of those days.
|
|
443 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on May 6, 2017 9:03:23 GMT
Saw this last week and loved it as much as his other plays. There's a pulsing heart at the centre of it and an ending as great as Jerusalem. Cast at the top of their game, as well.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 6, 2017 19:08:10 GMT
Wow! spent most the play in state of some fear of the red stuff which on top of the oddles of tension that build up meant i did spent quite a lot of it slowly disappearing inside my jumper and then ovated at end in relief and some wonder. But yes how do you say much without ruining it for others so i'll stick to saying i thought there were shades of Jerusalem in this, stories and belonging to country and then a whole lot extra. Beautifully acted by a great ensemble cast, great set, there aren't enough bagpusses on stage, tension, laughter, weeping. I think Jez Butterworth has rather done it again, one of those plays when it ends and you don't feel that speaking immediately is the appropriate response.
Right can now go back and read the thread i'd been avoiding in case i found out spoilers.
In other news theatremonkey i missed you again?!
|
|
723 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on May 7, 2017 9:45:46 GMT
Enjoyed this yesterday. You really are in the hands of an accomplished end confident playwright with Butterworth. He uses language and storytelling in a lovely way. And you just sit there as he unfolds the relationships before you. Only one small reservation....he makes one of the very small children use a swear word to get laughs (I did laugh but at the same time was mentally thinking "she's a bit young to be told to do that as a child actor")....but otherwise thought it was great. On a practical note, stage quite high so you are looking up a bit from first row but not a problem, and there are characters sometimes sitting on extreme left and right of stage so slips seats/those at edges of cicle may miss a little....personally would choose seat on RHS looking at stage so you don't miss my favourite Aunty! And yes, theatremonkey....so near and yet so far!
|
|
723 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on May 7, 2017 9:48:45 GMT
Oh and forgot to say DO NOT READ PRESS REVIEWS! They give far too much away....why, oh why do they feel the need to tell you the plot?
|
|
|
Post by d'James on May 7, 2017 9:50:21 GMT
That's what Alexandra Burke said!
|
|
851 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on May 7, 2017 21:29:28 GMT
This is a great play and a wonderful evening in the theatre. Apart from the things other people have said it is thrilling to see a cast of 20 speaking parts all individually cast - when was the last time you saw a new play involving that number of characters? And the presence of children on stage did make me think that their absence from pretty much every play you see is rather artificial given that they are a central fact of so many people's lives. Do dramatic things not happen to people with children? Or do dramatic things only happen to people with children when they're not around?
The play did create a world that was unfamiliar to me (despite having seen a lot of Irish plays) and made me think of the era (which I remember well; I was 19 in 1981) in a new way. I took and take the view that the terrorists fighting a democratically elected government no more deserve political status than the Ku Klux Klan, but this play goes a long way to showing the other side of that debate - and the long history of repression and violence and hatred, and the terrible consequences for everyone.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on May 8, 2017 8:04:45 GMT
Anyone else a bit suspicious that the Royal Court has sold most/all of it's £12 Monday tickets in advance to members/patrons, and switches on its "Application Error" page to cover this fact?
Their hit shows never have the promised "half of available seats" left for joe-public anyway, and with this one it's two weeks in a row now that the "application error" page has appeared at 08:55am onwards...
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on May 8, 2017 8:13:23 GMT
Perhaps it's due to demand. Hopefully you'll get a ticket once it's sorted.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on May 8, 2017 8:23:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on May 8, 2017 10:15:06 GMT
Here's a tip: if a theatre website crashes and they tweet it, tweet them your issue immediately and follow them. They will often follow you back and send you a direct message offering to save tickets for you. You're welcome.
|
|
5,588 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 8, 2017 16:29:17 GMT
Ah, I got the error message too. I was trying to book more expensive tix at the Geilgud. I managed in the end to get last two in stalls Row N at the end for date towards end of run. It was not easy to use the site. Interestingly, I've just booked online for Antic Disposition which is a much smaller outfit. The website was a doddle, could choose seats and all for the church venue. They have checked it out I think to make sure punters can navigate it whereas the Royal Court hasn't. If only companies and theatres would test out their own websites with real people...like moi...and not think that everyone is a techie savvy teenager. Moan over.
|
|