|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 11:31:04 GMT
To be honest, I got lost at Hadron Collider in the blurb. I don't mind admitting that I'm going for Olivia Colman. If it was announced that she was reading the Yellow Pages I'd go.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 27, 2017 11:36:46 GMT
We used to call it Reading the telephone directory! Some clever clogs out there could create an 'entertainment' based on the idea.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 27, 2017 11:50:24 GMT
I said elsewhere on this thread that I was worried that the play would be too similar to The Hard Problem but, thankfully, it wasn't as there is very little science in Mosquitoes. I think the critics have been spot on with their opinions as the play, though far from perfect, is a good one with some wonderful acting too. Maybe many people have seen how quickly this sold out and expected that to reflect that we were going to witness something amazing? Maybe some should adjust their expectations? Regulars like me going for the two gals, no? Parsley said the science was rubbish and I've read that elsewhere too. I'm not keen on science thrust at me so to speak as opposed to being embedded as in say, Copenhagen, which was I think really good and about more than science of course. So I'll see. Without spoiling anything, I think the thing that Parsley was mainly referring to, that's mentioned in the Daily Mail article also, is part of a character's background/motivations but is different from the LHC physics stuff that forms a bigger part of the play's context. It's been a long time since I saw Copenhagen and I haven't seen The Hard Problem but in my mind, the 'science' in Mosquitoes really provides the backdrop for the play rather than it's substance. Certainly my take away was that the play is mainly interested in the communication and trust in scientific knowledge, rather than specifically what that knowledge is. There are a few lines and an intentionally divisive & naff joke that might make more or less sense depending on what you know, but I don't think it would ruin anyone's experience of the play either way. There are a couple of longer monologues that might not be to everyone's taste but I'm not sure that understanding the details is necessary to get the implied reflections on the wider story. Ultimately, it felt to me the same as the way that a play might use history to tell a story about power and corruption; where knowledge about the true events might enrich the viewing experience, but isn't required to enjoy the play. Furthermore, I don't think it's simply a case that the play 'sides' with the scientist character. Over the course of the play it's pretty clear that she has serious character flaws, and she isn't simply someone that relies on an objective/rational view of the world. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 27, 2017 12:19:21 GMT
Thanks, interesting. The Hard Problem was a poor play regardless of the science.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jul 27, 2017 12:29:48 GMT
Science-wise I had more of a problem with the idea that {Spoiler - click to view}
scientists will one day "punch through" to a parallel universe and somehow create a new solar system and a new earth that exactly matches our own, but sped up so billions of years pass in minutes. And then presumably stops so we can hop go the Stargate and live on this new virgin earth without the sun going supernova a week later? It's quite a beautiful idea in its own way but the IVF metaphor was pushed home a bit hard.
I read Asimov's 'The Gods Themselves' which handles this stuff so well, and handles the science elements so well and in so much depth you practically need a Physics degree to understand it. The metaphorical science of Mosquitoes suffers by comparison. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 27, 2017 12:33:44 GMT
To be honest, I got lost at Hadron Collider in the blurb. I don't mind admitting that I'm going for Olivia Colman. If it was announced that she was reading the Yellow Pages I'd go. Having heard the early reviews I reminded myself that I too had said that regarding Olivia Colman and whilst it is somewhat mad and I'm not sure about all the science I think it's much more than just looking at her in awe, though I may well have done that too 
I think Lynette it's possibly some of it is a bit madder/unlikely than the Hard Problem but has more heart/meatier and I agree with jadnoop that understanding all the science isn't the point or necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 17:29:40 GMT
Having big read the spoilers, it sounds like knowing anything about science would be a positive disadvantage! I'm guessing it's more sci fi, is that right? Very much looking forward to seeing it for myself!
|
|
45 posts
|
Post by publius on Jul 27, 2017 17:34:38 GMT
Having big read the spoilers, it sounds like knowing anything about science would be a positive disadvantage! I'm guessing it's more sci fi, is that right? Very much looking forward to seeing it for myself! No, nothing like sci-fi either. It's essentially a play about a family one of whom works as a scientist. If you want to read a lot into it there are a lot of potential metaphors but you can watch the play without any interest in science or needing to dig deep to appreciate it. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 27, 2017 18:02:48 GMT
There's an interesting piece on the background to the play by the wonderfully named Tushna Commissariat in Physics World - just seen the link on Twitter. It's spoilery, though, so don't read it till you've seen it.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 27, 2017 23:12:51 GMT
The Olivias are going to be on Woman's Hour tomorrow - no, today, for it is now Friday!
|
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Jul 28, 2017 9:17:05 GMT
The Olivias are going to be on Woman's Hour tomorrow - no, today, for it is now Friday! Just listened, well worth catching. Murray calls them Willy and Colly to distinguish! |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 28, 2017 9:42:19 GMT
Yes, it was interesting. I didn't realise Colman had, well, I suppose stage fright or something - I assumed she didn't do stage work because she was so much in demand elsewhere. The Tom Stoppard point was a good one - ironically, when I read the synopsis a few weeks ago I worried that it might be a bit Tom Stoppard-y: I really don't like his work, 'aren't I clever?' but without much in the way of human warmth. Mosquitoes generally felt like the opposite. Btw, anyone who saw it in early previews. I saw it on Saturday and there's an event near the end which, in the playtext, is caused by one character but in the play I saw on Saturday by another, in a way which really changes the way you view a plot thread. the end of the world event, in Saturday's preview, was caused by Luke: in the text by a scientist called Gavriella. I wondered how late in the day the change was made? |
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Jul 28, 2017 10:05:57 GMT
I saw it last Thursday and it was Gavriella
|
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Jul 28, 2017 10:15:00 GMT
Yes, it was interesting. I didn't realise Colman had, well, I suppose stage fright or something - I assumed she didn't do stage work because she was so much in demand elsewhere. The Tom Stoppard point was a good one - ironically, when I read the synopsis a few weeks ago I worried that it might be a bit Tom Stoppard-y: I really don't like his work, 'aren't I clever?' but without much in the way of human warmth. Mosquitoes generally felt like the opposite. Btw, anyone who saw it in early previews. I saw it on Saturday and there's an event near the end which, in the playtext, is caused by one character but in the play I saw on Saturday by another, in a way which really changes the way you view a plot thread. the end of the world event, in Saturday's preview, was caused by Luke: in the text by a scientist called Gavriella. I wondered how late in the day the change was made? Haven't seen it yet - going on 23rd September (long wait!) I'm glad you think it's not too Stoppardy-clever-clever. I'm generally a fan Sir Tom but the recent Travesties tested my patience beyond endurance. Frankly I've never seen a play that was more up itself. re Colman - She often comes over quite vulnerable and self deprecating in interviews (as she did in this one) and I think that's why people warm to her. |
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Jul 28, 2017 10:23:19 GMT
Yes, it was interesting. I didn't realise Colman had, well, I suppose stage fright or something - I assumed she didn't do stage work because she was so much in demand elsewhere. The Tom Stoppard point was a good one - ironically, when I read the synopsis a few weeks ago I worried that it might be a bit Tom Stoppard-y: I really don't like his work, 'aren't I clever?' but without much in the way of human warmth. Mosquitoes generally felt like the opposite. Btw, anyone who saw it in early previews. I saw it on Saturday and there's an event near the end which, in the playtext, is caused by one character but in the play I saw on Saturday by another, in a way which really changes the way you view a plot thread. the end of the world event, in Saturday's preview, was caused by Luke: in the text by a scientist called Gavriella. I wondered how late in the day the change was made? Haven't seen it yet - going on 23rd September (long wait!) I'm glad you think it's not too Stoppardy-clever-clever. I'm generally a fan Sir Tom but the recent Travesties tested my patience beyond endurance. Frankly I've never seen a play that was more up itself. re Colman - She often comes over quite vulnerable and self deprecating in interviews (as she did in this one) and I think that's why people warm to her. It's quite a pedestrian and banal family drama. Nothing like Stoppard. I'd compare it to an episode of Eastenders - people with personality disorders who take it out on their equally messed up family members The science in the marketing is a misnomer and doesn't form an important part of the plot at all. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 28, 2017 16:28:38 GMT
Yes, it was interesting. I didn't realise Colman had, well, I suppose stage fright or something - I assumed she didn't do stage work because she was so much in demand elsewhere. The Tom Stoppard point was a good one - ironically, when I read the synopsis a few weeks ago I worried that it might be a bit Tom Stoppard-y: I really don't like his work, 'aren't I clever?' but without much in the way of human warmth. Mosquitoes generally felt like the opposite. Btw, anyone who saw it in early previews. I saw it on Saturday and there's an event near the end which, in the playtext, is caused by one character but in the play I saw on Saturday by another, in a way which really changes the way you view a plot thread. the end of the world event, in Saturday's preview, was caused by Luke: in the text by a scientist called Gavriella. I wondered how late in the day the change was made? Ok spell it out for me as I can only think of one thing but don't know if it's what you mean, what event? |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 28, 2017 16:38:35 GMT
Yes, it was interesting. I didn't realise Colman had, well, I suppose stage fright or something - I assumed she didn't do stage work because she was so much in demand elsewhere. The Tom Stoppard point was a good one - ironically, when I read the synopsis a few weeks ago I worried that it might be a bit Tom Stoppard-y: I really don't like his work, 'aren't I clever?' but without much in the way of human warmth. Mosquitoes generally felt like the opposite. Btw, anyone who saw it in early previews. I saw it on Saturday and there's an event near the end which, in the playtext, is caused by one character but in the play I saw on Saturday by another, in a way which really changes the way you view a plot thread. the end of the world event, in Saturday's preview, was caused by Luke: in the text by a scientist called Gavriella. I wondered how late in the day the change was made? That's really interesting actually. It was Gavriella when i saw it(25th), but i think it may have worked better the alternative route. That would have made the entire plot thread hold up better IMO |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 28, 2017 18:00:07 GMT
I can only think of one thing The scene nearly at the end of the play, with the end of the old world and the creation of a new one - IVF for a new planet, reminding me of the end of Kubrick's 2001 with its stargate / foetus. It seems to make more sense to have it as Luke's discovery, given the themes of the loss of an IVF child, Luke as a child who feels 'lost' and who gets his life back, sort of, through Jenny, Jenny pregnant again to round it off, the apple symbol used of Luke's head in the opening scene as by the Boson to describe the new world in this closing one, and the way Luke is introduced on stage - the son rising, as it were, in a halo like Christ in a medieval icon painting. Also the irony of Luke dying of cancer, given his attitude to Jenny's cigarettes etc. earlier in the play - he dies, but his discovery allows a rebirth, in the revised ending
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 28, 2017 18:05:53 GMT
i think it may have worked better the alternative route Yes, it's a much better fit with Luke though for a moment there I thought Joseph Quinn was actually going to get to play a character with a happy ending! Alas, not yet... - - it'll be interesting to see which they stick with. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 28, 2017 18:31:53 GMT
i think it may have worked better the alternative route Yes, it's a much better fit with Luke though for a moment there I thought Joseph Quinn was actually going to get to play a character with a happy ending! Alas, not yet... - - it'll be interesting to see which they stick with. Ohh not what I was thinking of at all, in fact for a moment I wondered if I had managed to miss a whole scene but now understand which bit you meant. I saw it a week ago and it was Luke, makes much more sense in my head that way. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jul 28, 2017 20:06:11 GMT
The Olivias are going to be on Woman's Hour tomorrow - no, today, for it is now Friday! Glad they pointed out the line nicked from Father Ted. (Insert laughing emoji here.) |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 29, 2017 17:12:45 GMT
I agree that there's too much going on, but there was so much in there that I liked and found interesting and enjoyable that it outweighed the parts I didn't. Dramatically, it's chaotic - maybe that's the idea, non-linear to reflect the subject matter, things pinging off in all directions, but it does mean there's too much in there for one play in one sitting, and some parts threaten to overwhelm others. Apparently she was writing it over many years and it really does feel as though she's had so many ideas she doesn't know what to jettison: another factor maybe the expense. The bits I thought could be cut are probably some of the most expensive to stage. I wasn't convinced by either the old mother's character or the boyfriend, and he and his entomologist subplot felt unnecessary, as did the TV launch and the spanking scene - wtf? - whilst the Life of Galileo/Escaped Alone cosmic bits could have been edited back ("but they took ages to design and cost a bomb!" I can imagine someone saying).
Mulling it over and flipping back through the text, though, what I really love was the characterisation of Jenny, Alice and Luke, the way they repel and then come together, the way the clash of sense and sensibility, science and instinct interweave, the cosmic, slightly Hamlety or Kubrick's 2001 bits with the ghostly father and the creation and falling apart of worlds - Personal or universal - and those wonderfully awkward, embarrassing scenes, sex with mobiles, Jenny saving Luke in its aftermath (two of my favourite actors, Colman and Quinn, in that one, so an absolute joy!). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 18:20:15 GMT
Lighting, sound, projection etc. will tend to be less expensive than making bespoke set and props, for which you have the cost of materials, people and time, the equipment is already in existence if you want a flashy light show (I haven't seen it yet, so don't know if there is much physical set) and it can be done by relatively few people.
The Follies set that people have seen serms like it's going to be pretty costly.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 29, 2017 18:41:31 GMT
I think the way some of it is designed it might be difficult to trim to fit a reorganised speech for which the visuals serve as an illustration, if you see what I mean.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 31, 2017 22:20:41 GMT
The scene with the boyfriend was staged like a farce I've just read the playtext and there's so much in there that I love, very dense and multilayered (I hope they change their mind and NT Live it, because it's too stuffed to take in in one evening). The two scenes before the interval really are a dog's dinner, though - the cafe scene with the boyfriend and the four way scene in the apartment afterwards with the sisters, mother and boyfriend (it's even more bizarre in the text). I saw it in Saturday preview and maybe they'll be rewritten or excised somewhere along the way because they do spoil it (did any of you like those two scenes?). |
|
