2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 12, 2017 20:38:54 GMT
I do wonder though, how the play's ending would feel for people who haven't read Of Mice And Men. (Assuming that the stature of the actor was chosen in the script) the story strongly suggests Lennie, which kinda leaves you expecting the story beat that sets off the final few moments. Now I think i've read Of Mice and Men but rather like I think i've read Anna Karenina, i'm not sure if i have read it and forgotten it entirely or in fact just think i've read it, either way I don't know what you mean so what does it bring to it please? |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 12, 2017 20:50:22 GMT
I do wonder though, how the play's ending would feel for people who haven't read Of Mice And Men. (Assuming that the stature of the actor was chosen in the script) the story strongly suggests Lennie, which kinda leaves you expecting the story beat that sets off the final few moments . Now I think i've read Of Mice and Men but rather like I think i've read Anna Karenina, i'm not sure if i have read it and forgotten it entirely or in fact just think i've read it, either way I don't know what you mean so what does it bring to it please? I don't know how to do the spoilers formatting, so please don't read this if you've not seen the play:
In Of Mice And Men, one of the main characters is Lennie, a large, strong, caring guy, but is also mentally slow and doesn't know his own strength. He cares for animals (fairly sure that stroking rabbits is in the book too), and works on a farm/ranch. Physically, and in his speech patterns, I think that Tom Kettle strongly reflects Lennie.
The book builds to a tragedy, which is that Lennie accidentally/unintentionally kills the head rancher's wife, rather like the way that Tom Kettle kills Oisin.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 13, 2017 19:57:13 GMT
Oh. Quite glad I was unaware of any possible similarities then.
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on May 15, 2017 7:59:55 GMT
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on May 16, 2017 9:19:11 GMT
It got quite a dressing down on front row Comparing it to The Archers This is utter nonsense. 2 out of the 4 really liked it, 1 really wasn't taken by it and the other seemed pretty blase. How is that a dressing down? And the word 'Archers' was never said once, unless I'm mistaken. Just plain lying now, to try and back up your own opinion. Painful. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on May 16, 2017 9:20:49 GMT
Along with the fire extinguisher. The very unlikely fire extinguisher! Unlikely fire extinguisher in a farm  ok then... |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 16, 2017 9:49:18 GMT
Unlikely fire extinguisher in a farm ok then... A large fire extinguisher in a rural Irish farmhouse in 1981? Back then, if you had anything at all, you had an asbestos fire blanket - the more usual thing was to use a dishcloth and, outdoors, for grass fires, a large piece of leather on a pole. In municipal buildings, you'd see red buckets of sand! My relatives live in a farmhouse that, even now, looks like the one in the play - they don't have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen. We didn't, in our thatched house, even though next door's had burned down. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 16, 2017 13:48:31 GMT
And that's before you get to the unlikely adult 'Lennie'-type character with learning difficulties who has been mysteriously abandoned in another country as a child and has managed to retain an English accent despite having lived there for at least as long as it takes to grow an apple tree from a seed (rather than a grafted rootstock) to abundant fruiting.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 16, 2017 13:55:34 GMT
And that's before you get to the unlikely adult 'Lennie'-type character with learning difficulties who has been mysteriously abandoned in another country as a child and has managed to retain an English accent despite having lived there for at least as long as it takes to grow an apple tree from a seed (rather than a grafted rootstock) to abundant fruiting. I definitely agree with the issue of how closely he resembled Lennie. However, regarding Tom Kettle's backstory, I wondered if it wasn't supposed to be thought of as less of an objective truth, and more of a collectively-agreed-upon version of the truth; like the type of family stories we all have that are half truth, half myths. After all, much of the play dealt with questions about different versions of people's past, how much you can or can't escape your history, who we truly are vs who we present ourselves as, and so on. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 16, 2017 22:56:54 GMT
2 out of the 4 really liked it, 1 really wasn't taken by it and the other seemed pretty blase. The presenter and one of the guests liked it, but even Sutcliffe had reservations about the Aunt Maggie Far Away speech. The other two guests weren't wild about it, voicing the same feelings I had about the tick-box 'Oirishry' (one called it 'bog-ticking') and the lack of that sense of the political violence of the period - and as that critic was Gillian Slovo, she speaks from a place of experience. I've been clearing old (70s and 80s) newspapers from my Mum's garage this week and it's a sharp reminder of just how dark and grisly things were back then, something I felt the play failed to capture. Basically, I liked it but I didn't love it, it felt like a West End play, not really a Royal Court play, and I'm surprised at the cross-the-board five star reviews from critics who've given better plays three and four. It does feel a bit like collective hysteria. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 8:21:13 GMT
Well. I don't know if I'd pay this ferryman again. I don't think I'd even fix a price.
It's all entertaining enough in a very jolly Irish way. I don't think any of the characters said "Top of the mornin' to you" but I'm sure that was just an oversight and will be rectified quickly enough.
It's long though. I'd have gone at that script with a sharp pair of scissors myself and taken at least half an hour off.
Nice set. The house looks cosy. Good cast. Some of the kids have a touch of the Irish Strallen about them though. Cute baby. Cuter rabbits.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 17, 2017 8:50:17 GMT
I'd have gone at that script with a sharp pair of scissors myself and taken at least half an hour off. Yes - I'd have gone at it with a combine harvester. I saw an early preview and assumed there'd be cuts - as did the person next to me (I don't know if he was involved in it in any way) but evidently there haven't been - judging by reviews and running time the speeches (and they are speeches, not conversations) are still in there. I wasn't bored in it, but that's because the performances were all good and the set so very West-End plush. What it lacked, though, was tension and form and the sense that it was its own beast, rather than a pick n mix stew of too-obvious influences and crowd-pleasing pop cultural references and character turns. My feeling is that writer and director are at that J K Rowling / Ridley Scott stage in their career where no-one dares to suggest some serious editing might make it better. I can understand actors all tweeting their glowing approval - they probably want to work with them - but I was surprised the critics were all so uniformly ecstatic. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on May 17, 2017 10:32:22 GMT
I'd have gone at that script with a sharp pair of scissors myself and taken at least half an hour off. I was surprised the critics were all so uniformly ecstatic. You should have said... |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 17, 2017 11:30:31 GMT
I found myself standing next to Mr Butterworth in the near-empty bar the next day. I was tempted to ask him things about it (isn't that what preview / first look things are for?) but I'd spent the previous night sleepless on a sofa watching a fox dig eggs out of a windowbox so chickened out! |
|
2,740 posts
|
Post by n1david on May 18, 2017 6:46:56 GMT
Saw this last night and enjoyed it by the end, but took a bit of time to get there. Unlike some other posters, I really disliked the first act. For me it felt baggy, the multiple family members and sense of harvesting tradition rang out as cliché, and the endless parade of aw-making creatures (human and non-human) felt showy. At the interval I could have been persuaded to leave (two hours more of THIS?) but was instead persuaded to stay, and I started enjoying it more. Once the kids have gone to bed and the adults and teenagers start to talk that for me was when it came to life; questions of loyalty, belief, family and cause came to the fore. By the end I was rapt, the tension cranked up and wanting to know the outcome. I guess Butterworth was trying to lull people into the sense that this is a family drama first and foremost, which it is, but not in the way originally presented. I thought Considine was OK, but Laura Donnelly was the heart of the piece. The scene amongst the boys was excellent in the way it twisted and turned, from boorishness to bravado and points in between. Tom Glynn-Carnay was great. So I'd agree with the posters who would chop bits of this, but I'd lose some of the upfront stuff and try to keep the drumbeat of tension more consistent throughout the play. One thing I would say if you're squeamish, and contrary to what Jasmine experienced earlier in the run, the final scene was very bloody. I was in seat C8 (four rows back for this production) and I and my neighbours were splattered with blood. It was a very impressive spray and very realistic blood. Don't wear white. |
|
3,528 posts
|
Post by Rory on May 18, 2017 17:15:56 GMT
Saw it today and absolutely loved it.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 18, 2017 19:58:15 GMT
With reference to your spoiler n1david I wonder if your viewing was particularly impressive or mine a restrained one, I sat in front row and was quite safe.
|
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on May 18, 2017 22:11:20 GMT
This was excellent. Great cast, funny and moving. 3 hours flew by!
|
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on May 18, 2017 22:14:30 GMT
Saw this last night and enjoyed it by the end, but took a bit of time to get there. Unlike some other posters, I really disliked the first act. For me it felt baggy, the multiple family members and sense of harvesting tradition rang out as cliché, and the endless parade of aw-making creatures (human and non-human) felt showy. At the interval I could have been persuaded to leave (two hours more of THIS?) but was instead persuaded to stay, and I started enjoying it more. Once the kids have gone to bed and the adults and teenagers start to talk that for me was when it came to life; questions of loyalty, belief, family and cause came to the fore. By the end I was rapt, the tension cranked up and wanting to know the outcome. I guess Butterworth was trying to lull people into the sense that this is a family drama first and foremost, which it is, but not in the way originally presented. I thought Considine was OK, but Laura Donnelly was the heart of the piece. The scene amongst the boys was excellent in the way it twisted and turned, from boorishness to bravado and points in between. Tom Glynn-Carnay was great. So I'd agree with the posters who would chop bits of this, but I'd lose some of the upfront stuff and try to keep the drumbeat of tension more consistent throughout the play. One thing I would say if you're squeamish, and contrary to what Jasmine experienced earlier in the run, the final scene was very bloody. I was in seat C8 (four rows back for this production) and I and my neighbours were splattered with blood. It was a very impressive spray and very realistic blood. Don't wear white. I think the first act helps you care though. And i thought the humour worked very well and made the last act's drama work well. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 19, 2017 8:37:52 GMT
I think the first act helps you care though This could have been achieved without sacrificing tension, though. The first act is practically feature-length in itself. I know it's a very different medium, but films like The Searchers or Shadow of a Doubt established the feel of a warm, close family quickly and easily, without letting the thrust of the plot get lost. I also felt we spent too much time with the stereotypical characters at the expense of the more interesting ones. |
|
421 posts
|
Post by schuttep on May 19, 2017 8:39:21 GMT
This was the best play I've seen in years. The first Act sets the scene, then the next two develop it really well. The second act opened up the play so well by developing a number of themes that neither my partner nor I had any idea of where it was going to end - although we were keen to know. Rest assured the third act brings everything together.
Beautifully written, staged and acted in toto (not the dog: there is no dog!)
Our only concern was that the rabbit(s), goose and baby did not take a bow! But then the stage was chock-a-block with bona fide actors, I suppose!
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 20, 2017 15:19:40 GMT
I'm seeing this tonight. So looking forward to finally being able to read what's behind all the spoiler tags!
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on May 20, 2017 17:39:24 GMT
Hah, I'vetc been reading all the spoilers anyway though I'm yet to see this!
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 20, 2017 23:08:44 GMT
Well, this is quite something. It successfully lulled me into a false sense of security with its initial coziness.
They'd run out of playtexts tonight so had to make do with a cast list. Sam Mendes was in for the last RC night.
I'm going again with a friend when it transfers and I'm looking forward to picking up all the bits of foreshadowing I am sure I missed this time.
|
|
1,305 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on May 20, 2017 23:36:35 GMT
I enjoyed this a lot. The build of the characters, the sense of close family. Astonishing piece of drama, strong performances. Very glad I saw this.
John C Reilly in the audience too.
|
|
ok then...
