|
|
Post by floorshow on Jul 25, 2017 12:54:41 GMT
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jul 25, 2017 19:16:23 GMT
Tix currently (8.15 pm) available for next 3 evenings.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 25, 2017 23:45:33 GMT
Just got home from tonight's performance. While it was uneven and didn't quite live up to my expectations, all in all I enjoyed the play and am glad I went. For my eye, the first half -which seemed to meander plotless through a series of little vignettes, each slowly revealing a bit more of the interrelationships and histories of the different characters- was absolutely beautiful. So many wonderful mini scenes, with naturalistic dialogue (even the teen text chat felt surprisingly real), and brilliant acting. One scene in particular, which lets Olivia Colman shine was simply magnificent, and really illustrates the damage that people like Andrew Wakefield have done . The second half has more of a straight forward plot and, for me, is less enjoyable for it. Not least because some of the plot points ring false. However, after one 'where is this going?' monologue, I really loved the somewhat ambiguous ending. All in all, this was an interesting failure for me. It may not quite have met up to the high expectations I had going in, but it was well worth the three hours. I'm probably biased, since I'm a researcher in a technical field, but for my money the topic of the play -scientific communication in the modern day- is just about the most important current issue around. By putting this in context of strained family dynamics, I this is thought-provoking without being dull. |
|
|
|
Post by raiseitup on Jul 26, 2017 8:54:26 GMT
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 26, 2017 9:06:47 GMT
To anyone thinking of going and checking the reviews, I'd strongly suggest skipping the Daily Mail one. Quite aside from matters of taste (although IMO he seems to have missed the point of the play), the review gives away (indeed focuses on) what amounts to a signficant plot point. For what it's worth the other poor review so far (Evening Standard 2*) also gives away this plot point.
|
|
1,239 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2017 10:38:29 GMT
To anyone thinking of going and checking the reviews, I'd strongly suggest skipping the Daily Mail one. Quite aside from matters of taste (although IMO he seems to have missed the point of the play), the review gives away (indeed focuses on) what amounts to a signficant plot point. For what it's worth the other poor review so far (Evening Standard 2*) also gives away this plot point. Luckily it's the most implausible plot point out of a list of quite a few in this play, so not that much of a spoiler, especially as the issue is "resolved" alarmingly quickly early on in the evening. (Apparently it's massively inaccurate scientifically...) |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 26, 2017 11:11:49 GMT
To anyone thinking of going and checking the reviews, I'd strongly suggest skipping the Daily Mail one. Quite aside from matters of taste (although IMO he seems to have missed the point of the play), the review gives away (indeed focuses on) what amounts to a signficant plot point. For what it's worth the other poor review so far (Evening Standard 2*) also gives away this plot point. Luckily it's the most implausible plot point out of a list of quite a few in this play, so not that much of a spoiler, especially as the issue is "resolved" alarmingly quickly early on in the evening. (Apparently it's massively inaccurate scientifically...) Given the ending of the play, I'm not clear how you can honestly argue that the child's death is the 'most implausible' point in the play. In any case, focussing on how common or likely deaths from the anti-vax movement generally, or the MMR scandal specifically are misses the point IMO. The play felt to me about the propagation of information (and misinformation) in the modern age, the disconnect between 'experts' and the general public, and the different (and malleable) ways people view the world. Of course some artistic license has been taken throughout the script, but my feeling is that the likelihood that that specific set of circumstances might occur is less important than what the choice represents and how Alice and Jenny (and their mother) look back on that decision. After all, you could have a similar discussion about how likely it would be that Jenny's baby was okay after her behaviour during the pregnancy . The interesting thing wasn't the probability that this would actually happen, it was in the way that Jenny & Alice react to this happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2017 11:50:21 GMT
If an event is theoretically possible (which this is) then it is absolutely fine as part of a fictional work. Saying 'well it hasn't happened since....' is missing the point. If drama had to rely on a scale of probabilities then thousands of years of dramatic literature would be in the bin, from Sophocles, to Romeo & Juliet, to The Ferryman.
Reading about it, there is such an important issue at its heart as society progresses when decisions are taken by those with knowledge, if you have a system that prioritises feelings over facts the you are heading for chaos. We are currently being torn one way and the other, it is little less than a war to save rationality (see also Ink and Life of Galileo for important background).
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jul 26, 2017 11:56:17 GMT
Oh, I liked that subplot a lot; powerful (albeit overlooked from the sheer number of different plots). I thought the "implausible" plot point would be {Spoiler - click to view}
a teenage hacker single-handledly bringing down CERN/LHC and his aunt who can barely use email taking the fall for it, but everyone writing it off as an unexplained accident anyway, because people always just shrug and go "eh complicated s**t always goes wrong" when their globally significant €billion project crashes. And a boy criminally sabotaging his mum's work and entering into a conspiracy of silence with his aunt about it isn't a massive secret that's inevitably going to explode in their family at some point down the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2017 12:09:40 GMT
Anybody sat in the cheap circle seats for this? I'm in P15 (second row in one of the side blocks) - had bad experiences of dreadful restricted views in the Dorfman so would be interesting to know how the sightlines are for this.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 26, 2017 12:13:48 GMT
Anybody sat in the cheap circle seats for this? I'm in P15 (second row in one of the side blocks) - had bad experiences of dreadful restricted views in the Dorfman so would be interesting to know how the sightlines are for this. We were sat next to yours. View was perfect. Naturally there were a couple of moments where the staging was more skewed towards the front but overall it was a great view of the action. Given the way that some of the projections worked, all in all I suspect that the view from this sort of height & location may well have been better than the more expensive floor level seats. Enjoy. (one caveat: I've never been to the Dorfman before so don't have anything to compare it to. nevermind, apparently The Flick was there so I have been but that wasn't in the round.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2017 12:16:34 GMT
That's great, thanks!
I think the worst views I've had there have been from the upper circle, but it can be very variable depending on the staging.
|
|
5,906 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jul 26, 2017 12:35:30 GMT
How has this play got ANY decent reviews? It's dreadful. Colman aside it's a total waste of time and effort. Actually it's a total waste of HER time and effort more than anyone else's. Implausible, dull and overlong.
It felt like it had been written by a school kid.
|
|
183 posts
|
Post by caa on Jul 26, 2017 14:36:17 GMT
How has this play got ANY decent reviews? It's dreadful. Colman aside it's a total waste of time and effort. Actually it's a total waste of HER time and effort more than anyone else's. Implausible, dull and overlong. It felt like it had been written by a school kid. I agree I do feel that I must have seen a different play, as the one I saw was overlong and disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2017 14:45:35 GMT
4 stars Independent
4 stars FT
5 stars Theatrecat (Libby Purves)
EDIT: Where's Billington?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 26, 2017 15:10:27 GMT
|
|
1,239 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2017 16:44:32 GMT
Oh, I liked that subplot a lot; powerful (albeit overlooked from the sheer number of different plots). I thought the "implausible" plot point would be {Spoiler - click to view}
a teenage hacker single-handledly bringing down CERN/LHC and his aunt who can barely use email taking the fall for it, but everyone writing it off as an unexplained accident anyway, because people always just shrug and go "eh complicated s**t always goes wrong" when their globally significant €billion project crashes. And a boy criminally sabotaging his mum's work and entering into a conspiracy of silence with his aunt about it isn't a massive secret that's inevitably going to explode in their family at some point down the line.
Yes, it's quite disastrously handled by Kirkwood. Almost flippant. As she rushes on to cover all the subjects she wants to cram in. |
|
1,239 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2017 16:46:15 GMT
Anybody sat in the cheap circle seats for this? I'm in P15 (second row in one of the side blocks) - had bad experiences of dreadful restricted views in the Dorfman so would be interesting to know how the sightlines are for this. We were sat next to yours. View was perfect. Naturally there were a couple of moments where the staging was more skewed towards the front but overall it was a great view of the action. Given the way that some of the projections worked, all in all I suspect that the view from this sort of height & location may well have been better than the more expensive floor level seats. Enjoy. (one caveat: I've never been to the Dorfman before so don't have anything to compare it to. nevermind, apparently The Flick was there so I have been but that wasn't in the round.) Yes, even the views from up top aren't too bad as Norris has staged most of the evening centre-stage, as best he can. In fact the cheap seats ip top are a bit of a bargain in the in-round-round format. |
|
1,239 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2017 16:50:26 GMT
How has this play got ANY decent reviews? It's dreadful. Colman aside it's a total waste of time and effort. Actually it's a total waste of HER time and effort more than anyone else's. Implausible, dull and overlong. It felt like it had been written by a school kid. I totally agree. Maybe it's because the reviewers were coming off the back of CAT ON A... on Monday night, and were relieved to see some quality (in the design and Colman at least)? Maybe they felt bad for the run of Common & Salome reviews/NT generally? Maybe they felt the (bold) attempt at a science/humanity mash-up worthy of more stars than its content? It is a 2*/3* at best play. The 4*/5* reviews are only going to start baffling audiences once they've bought tickets and are inside. |
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Jul 26, 2017 17:34:37 GMT
Reviewers VERY generous with this
|
|
|
|
Post by floorshow on Jul 26, 2017 18:14:20 GMT
Seems the performances from the leads are going a long way to paper over the issues with some of the writing and pacing. I'm not sure that makes it a consistent 4* but its not dreadful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2017 18:19:54 GMT
I wonder if the critics are very generous with anything which is about science as they don't actually understand science so assume it's cleverer than it is. See also The Hard Problem.
|
|
45 posts
|
Post by publius on Jul 26, 2017 18:32:28 GMT
I wonder if the critics are very generous with anything which is about science as they don't actually understand science so assume it's cleverer than it is. See also The Hard Problem. 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? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2017 18:34:03 GMT
Some people liked something and some others didn't, that's all. The comments I'd heard from elsewhere were not in line with those in this thresd, maybe that explains why some are surprised.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 27, 2017 10:57:53 GMT
I wonder if the critics are very generous with anything which is about science as they don't actually understand science so assume it's cleverer than it is. See also The Hard Problem. 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. |
|
