316 posts
|
Post by martello736 on Apr 21, 2018 19:30:34 GMT
Not been a good week for me, theatre-wise, and this wasn't the happiest of endings to it. There's a very good 90 minutes staging the documentary of this affair. Then there is this wildly over-done two and a half hours. More on my site on Monday, probably. If I tell you that the best bit was a guest appearance by @baemax , that gives you some idea. Actually, even better was her face at the interval when I told her who I was.* There is a list of theatreboard members attending each night, and the profile pics are on there...** *We had a great natter, nice to put a face to a name. ** Only kidding. Or maybe not... Were you in this afternoon? Me too  Which game were you @baemax? Was it you that got the hoover price the closest? Mixed feelings about this show to be honest. It's quite good fun I guess, but it's also pretty dreadfully written. Chris Tarrant is the saving grace, although by the end you're willing him to stop twitching his eyebrow and just get on with it. This show seems to feel padded and like it's lagging, whilst simultaneously covering very little ground at all. The Ingram story is a really interesting one, yet this show moves at a snail's pace and by the end you feel like you've been given about 1% of the necessary information to make a decision. I voted not guilty followed by guilty because I was so irritated at how badly both sides put their arguments across that I wanted to give the opposite response to what they were obviously angling for. The scene with the defence lawyer talking about the heavily edited tape presented by Celador was tight, and effective, but sadly by that point the flimsy narrative was beyond saving. Had the whole play been of a similar quality it would have been vastly better. What was the point of the pub quiz exactly? And why did they have that weird pointless throwaway scene after Chris says that the winner gets a signed poster where he runs backstage and takes some pills? I got 11/12 in the quiz, quite depressingly I know the turnout of every election since the 70s, it was just Emmerdale that I wrongly pegged as Midsomer Murders, but I didn't feel like drawing attention to myself. Diana Ingram was a good actress, as was the defence lawyer. What's-his-face from Benidorm was okay too, it was just a dreadful interpretation of a good story. {Spoiler - click to view}
I wrote down the results of the last 10 shows at the end, we convicted the Ingrams 52-48.
I was surprised to see that no one decision has ever got more than 55% before.
Guilty vs. Not Guilty
13 - 49 vs 51
14 - 46 vs 54
15 - 50 vs 50
16 - 48 vs 52
17 - 46 vs 54
18 - 47 vs 53
19 - 55 vs 45
20 - 52 vs 48
21 - 49 vs 51
22 - 46 vs 54 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 8:19:45 GMT
I had a great time and I won't hear a single word against the production.
I mean, the play itself was just plain ol' bad, and I don't know that manipulating the audience in one direction for one act then in the opposite direction for the second act is the same thing as presenting an unbiased account, but the cast were great, and I got a free ice cream and a nice chat at the interval, so I've definitely had worse afternoons out.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Apr 23, 2018 8:51:34 GMT
Yes, I enjoyed it too. Of course it's not the greatest play ever written but it's entertaining and does make you think about media manipulation and how the public can be so easily influenced. I was astonished that 40% of the audience changed their minds at the end and how consistently close the audience vote was re guilty and not guilty. Sometimes is just good to kick back and enjoy something. I thought the staging and the cast were excellent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 15:37:03 GMT
I had a great time and I won't hear a single word against the production. I mean, the play itself was just plain ol' bad, and I don't know that manipulating the audience in one direction for one act then in the opposite direction for the second act is the same thing as presenting an unbiased account, but the cast were great, and I got a free ice cream and a nice chat at the interval, so I've definitely had worse afternoons out. 1. I'd forgive almost any play that placated me with Ice Cream. 2. I'm just sad I missed the chance to heckle you (loves you really) 3. They missed a trick not getting the Monkey on stage to prove even a (theatre) Monkey can win it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 17:18:28 GMT
Of course the audience is manipulated, that’s the whole point, to show how easy it is to be made to believe something.
I’m confused as to what those saying so mean as regards to the writing not being good (which the critics don’t seem to have noticed) What is this referring to?
Three things I particularly liked about the writing were the structure, the characterisation and the way it uses the tropes and digressions of popular culture. The structure with its non-linearity relentlessly circling around the actual event so that, whilst on the surface it appears to not progress chronologically, it actually does as understanding was deepened, clarified, confused and contradicted as manipulatively necessary, ,With the characterisation, how Graham had taken on board how selective editing of character is the manner in which reality TV or television involving real events works. As such we are given parts of a character which can be changed quickly by moving focus, Finally by marrying form to content, you get a quiz, a popular drama, a police/courtroom drama, and so on (as I suggested in my earlier comment, like a night watching ITV).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 21:45:39 GMT
They missed a trick not getting the Monkey on stage to prove even a (theatre) Monkey can win it. Not the pub quiz, it didn't. I failed miserably on that. Even the team name. "Quiz Team Aguilera" is too obvious and a cliché now, but my "Quiz Team A Bennington" was, on reflection, trying too hard as well. I did a quiz tonight. We were Agatha Quiztee I thank you. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Apr 23, 2018 22:15:37 GMT
I had a great time and I won't hear a single word against the production. I mean, the play itself was just plain ol' bad, and I don't know that manipulating the audience in one direction for one act then in the opposite direction for the second act is the same thing as presenting an unbiased account, but the cast were great, and I got a free ice cream and a nice chat at the interval, so I've definitely had worse afternoons out. I didn't get a free ice cream, but that's more or less exactly what I felt: a superb production of a rather shallow play. I had a good time, and it's superficially entertaining, but it takes a scenario that's more complex than it first appears and basically just spends two hours skimming the surface. Possibly in my case it wasn't helped by the fact that I saw it the day after I saw both parts of The Inheritance: at that production, there was almost too much to think about, and at this one, once you looked past the video monitors and the flashing lights, there was too little. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 11:43:33 GMT
Of course the audience is manipulated, that’s the whole point, to show how easy it is to be made to believe something. Yes, but it just felt so blunt. There was no sense that they were innocent right up until she started waving that tape around - and when she did that, it felt totally wrong to me - though at the time I couldn't put my finger on exactly why, so I just ignored what she was saying until I worked it out later. That mirrors the way it was portrayed in the media (and how people were actually manipulated) doesn't it? I remember just thinking 'oh, guilty' and not even bothering to read much about it at the time. I just thought it was mirroring the way that it had happened. It felt over-written, with a slight story stretched for an extra hour and the elements clashing somewhat. In particular the "warm up" was unnecessary, I thought, and the game show bits lacked detail and felt tacky in context of the rest of the play, to me. Maybe because I didn't follow it at back then but I felt it gave me a lot of information in a short space of time that I didn't otherwise know. On the TV warm up and game shows bit we do part company, I thought they were really entertaining digressions and reminded me of television of the past and how the use of 'ordinary people' has ballooned from things like them. I was watching some old Sunday Night at the London Palladiums recently in a Brucie homage and the people on 'Beat the Clock' reacted so differently to how people having their fifteen minutes do nowadays. |
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Apr 26, 2018 3:57:04 GMT
The play very much felt like let's throw a load of stuff at a wall and see what sticks. Some of it painfully bad like the karaoke (not least because there was never a WWTBAM music round), some of the court stuff excellent. Would have liked a proper examination of the evidence which I don't feel we got, but the audience seemed to like the naff showbiz stuff so what can you do.
I thought it was a big omission that there was never the distinction made between whether you thought them guilty of cheating or not, and whether if yes you thought that a crime. It was alluded to by the guy in the anachronistic Chelsea scarf (that wasn't their badge until 2005, how often plays gets sporting details wrong) but never expanded on as a serious point.
Couldn't help but think how rare it is to see a biographical play in which the main male and female leads are less good-looking than their real life counterparts.
|
|
1,249 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 28, 2018 21:52:52 GMT
James Graham is becoming a master at writing docudramas of this type. For me this was a very unpromising subject, I had no interest in this programme (beyond liking quizzes in general) and didn't follow the case. But Graham has become a must-see playwright for me, quite rare in that he is alive and his best work may still be yet to come, so I went. Love the boxes at this theatre, very helpful if you want to avoid the handshaking and high-fiving.
I don't think this will rank as a classic in years to come, it doesn't have the depth of his last two plays, but to say that it is not written is not to understand what the play is about. It is highly entertaining as a play, despite the rather humdrum narrative, and it does make us think about the nature of truth and how our concept of what the truth is has evolved.
Of course it is manipulative - it is not a documentary! But the manipulation is geared at making us understand how manipulation works, not at exonerating what the alleged cheats did.
Rock on, James Graham. Long may he continue.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Apr 28, 2018 23:23:04 GMT
I thought it was a big omission that there was never the distinction made between whether you thought them guilty of cheating or not, and whether if yes you thought that a crime. No distinction in the play, either, between whether you think they actually did it, and whether you think the prosecution proved their case against them. There's an enormous gulf between the two. |
|
1,249 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 28, 2018 23:47:15 GMT
I thought it was a big omission that there was never the distinction made between whether you thought them guilty of cheating or not, and whether if yes you thought that a crime. No distinction in the play, either, between whether you think they actually did it, and whether you think the prosecution proved their case against them. There's an enormous gulf between the two. I don't think the play has to make these distinctions, it is clear from the programme notes that Graham expects everyone to make up their own minds about what constitutes cheating and did they cheat or not. It also seems clear from the way the voting goes that many people do make up their minds during the course of the play that, regardless of their first impressions, the prosecution does not prove the case. If the action had been a civil one then it would have been decided on balance of probabilities but this was a criminal case and the prosecution is supposed to prove they were guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Not on the evidence provided here. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Apr 29, 2018 0:08:18 GMT
No distinction in the play, either, between whether you think they actually did it, and whether you think the prosecution proved their case against them. There's an enormous gulf between the two. I don't think the play has to make these distinctions, it is clear from the programme notes that Graham expects everyone to make up their own minds about what constitutes cheating and did they cheat or not. It also seems clear from the way the voting goes that many people do make up their minds during the course of the play that, regardless of their first impressions, the prosecution does not prove the case. If the action had been a civil one then it would have been decided on balance of probabilities but this was a criminal case and the prosecution is supposed to prove they were guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Not on the evidence provided here. I suppose my point is that the play was big on flashing lights and surface gloss, but provided very little actual depth. All the way through I felt there was a more interesting story somewhere in the source that the playwright wasn't telling. I might, I suppose, feel differently if I'd followed the story at the time - I was living abroad, and I see from the dates that I was sitting exams during the trial, so the whole thing passed me by, which meant I knew next to nothing about the story going in. I found the play superficially entertaining, but it seemed like a triumph of style over substance. |
|
1,249 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 29, 2018 0:35:16 GMT
I don't think the play has to make these distinctions, it is clear from the programme notes that Graham expects everyone to make up their own minds about what constitutes cheating and did they cheat or not. It also seems clear from the way the voting goes that many people do make up their minds during the course of the play that, regardless of their first impressions, the prosecution does not prove the case. If the action had been a civil one then it would have been decided on balance of probabilities but this was a criminal case and the prosecution is supposed to prove they were guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Not on the evidence provided here. I suppose my point is that the play was big on flashing lights and surface gloss, but provided very little actual depth. All the way through I felt there was a more interesting story somewhere in the source that the playwright wasn't telling. I might, I suppose, feel differently if I'd followed the story at the time - I was living abroad, and I see from the dates that I was sitting exams during the trial, so the whole thing passed me by, which meant I knew next to nothing about the story going in. I found the play superficially entertaining, but it seemed like a triumph of style over substance. Yes. I found this play to be primarily an entertainment and found it very entertaining, which given I had no interest in the story was no mean feat. |
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Apr 29, 2018 6:49:48 GMT
I really really liked this. I was particularly moved by the scenes addressing the dedication to each other of Charles and Diana.
|
|
7 posts
|
Post by plaskett on May 1, 2018 21:54:54 GMT
At the risk of annoying Theatreboard members still further, may I qua co-author of Bad Show - the book upon which QUIZ was based - be permitted a final contribution? Commentators query whether the prosecution made its case - sf said: No distinction in the play, either, between whether you think they actually did it, and whether you think the prosecution proved their case against them. There's an enormous gulf between the two. I don't think the play has to make these distinctions, it is clear from the programme notes that Graham expects everyone to make up their own minds about what constitutes cheating and did they cheat or not. It also seems clear from the way the voting goes that many people do make up their minds during the course of the play that, regardless of their first impressions, the prosecution does not prove the case. If the action had been a civil one then it would have been decided on balance of probabilities but this was a criminal case and the prosecution is supposed to prove they were guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Not on the evidence provided here. I suppose my point is that the play was big on flashing lights and surface gloss, but provided very little actual depth. All the way through I felt there was a more interesting story somewhere in the source that the playwright wasn't telling. There are two points which have not been included in Bad Show. These pertain to - a) Timing and acoustics and b) Legitimacy Essentially the trial was almost solely about timing and acoustics. a) Timing and acousticsI have now made this unpublished point to James Graham... but, and I am not meaning to be a tease - cannot divulge it further! Not yet.  b) LegitimacyMany had doubts: what exactly did they do to merit a criminal prosecution? Detective sergeant Ian Williamson said, “This trial is about protecting the integrity of the Millionaire format. Celador has sold it to over one hundred countries. Thousands of jobs depend on its success.” Celador too claim they called in the Police to “protect the integrity of the show and against the possibility of any wrongdoing”, and afterwards said they were "happy that the reputation and integrity of WWTBAM? remains intact." But they could have just refused to pay Ingram and settled their differences in a civil court. Prosecution witness, Larry Whitehurst, thought they ought to have done. Ray Mallon, former head of Middlesborough CID, also thought no charges should have been pressed. He drew a comparison with prosecuting a soccer player for diving in the penalty area and wrote, in his Northern Echo column, "I still feel there was no need for the case to come before the criminal courts at massive cost to the public in terms of money and police and court resources. I...repeat my call for Celador to donate an amount to cover the public costs." They have yet to. Mallon wondered whether Celador themselves were not also guilty - of greed? My second consideration re legitimacy I am afraid - once again - has to remain something I cannot yet reveal. Sorry.  And, as I have already posted here, this trial was not justice. It was more like theatre. Indeed, a farcical burlesque. That the denouement should fall to comedic theatricals to portray in the West End is almost preternaturally apposite. The two unpublished points have registered with the playwright. But, I must be wary about further public disclosure. Lastly, re innocence, please not to forget this trial left Ingram despondent and penniless. He then declined Piers Morgan´s offer of 675,000 pounds for a spill-the-beans exclusive for the Daily Mirror.  |
|
641 posts
|
Post by AddisonMizner on May 7, 2018 18:08:59 GMT
I saw this on Saturday evening, and absolutely LOVED it!
Firstly, I loved the whole-concept, and how theatrical the whole story had been made. The use of quizzes throughout the production, as well as the warm-up act at the start of both acts, made the audience feel like a real community experiencing this together, which is what theatre is all about. The audience participation added to the feeling that you were watching a “one-time-only” performance, and the use of voting whether Ingram was guilty or not guilty was a masterstroke.
The writing was excellent, and I loved how each act was framed for either the prosecution or defence. James Graham is proving to be quite the writer - I saw THIS HOUSE when it was on tour as well, but didn’t write about it at the time. I adored that as well, for how gripping, funny and entertaining it made a period of time of which I knew nothing about, and had not even been born. I’m really sad now that I missed both INK and LABOUR OF LOVE.
The performances and direction were equally as stunning.
JUST GO!
5 stars.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on May 7, 2018 18:28:58 GMT
Saw this on Tuesday last week but forgot to post, however seeing Addison Mizner's rave reminded me that I agree with every single word! Sat on stage and loved, loved, loved every second. Theatre was quite empty, though. On-stage seats practically full, stalls 3/4 and people dotted around the dress. No U/C or balcony.
|
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on May 10, 2018 10:20:55 GMT
This would do well in London, but the challenge may be finding the right theatre - the Minerva looks like the WWTBAM studio, and the staging of the TV show is referred to in the text. I’m not sure it would work in a traditional theatre. But it’s great fun and was a real tonic last night. Thoroughly enjoyed this when I saw it last year in Chichester, but sorry to say my concerns about staging (which others also expressed at the time) were proven right - this was lost on a West End stage, and the brio and energy I saw in Chichester dissipated in a half-empty theatre with an audience that didn't feel engaged in the same way as we did in the smaller Minerva. It just seemed to flow less well, with Kier Charles' Chris Tarrant playing a broader version, with more gurning and less subtlety. I'm sorry I saw it here as it's damaged the memory I had of the very fun night in Chichester... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 6:08:46 GMT
I had forgotten quite how big Millionaire was. And because of that, I am surprised that it hasn’t sold better. This is popular theatre and it should be packed to the rafters with people who don’t usually go.
Perfect starter theatre. What is their marketing team doing???
I quite liked this. It built up a head of steam during act one, from a slow start, but act two dragged on a bit for me. I didn’t love the “classic” quiz shows bit. I’m not sure that the impressions were that good. And it has nothing at all to do with me completely failing at Take Your Pick. Oh no!
It has made me want to read the book and watch the documentary. Husband and I disagreed on a piece of evidence. I am going to learn how to do spoiler tags before I post more.
|
|
5,158 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on May 12, 2018 13:04:37 GMT
I wonder if Millionaire being back on TV has led to an uptick in bookings over the last week, @theatremonkey ?
|
|
821 posts
|
Post by ensembleswings on May 12, 2018 14:01:29 GMT
Saw this on Thursday evening, I enjoyed it, as did those around me, it was a fun evening out for sure.
Shame to see the theatre so empty, balcony and upper were closed and dress was only half full but I don't feel the atmosphere suffered too much, it was an enthusiastic audience. Shame for the show but it worked well for me, lovely upgrade from the balcony down to central row c of the royal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 19:12:18 GMT
Saw this on Thursday evening, I enjoyed it, as did those around me, it was a fun evening out for sure. Shame to see the theatre so empty, balcony and upper were closed and dress was only half full but I don't feel the atmosphere suffered too much, it was an enthusiastic audience. Shame for the show but it worked well for me, lovely upgrade from the balcony down to central row c of the royal. I was there too! Were you a little sceptical that the ladies who got the Bullseye section completely wrong, then went on to win the pub quiz? Or am I just being very cynical? I was expecting them to be accused of cheating! |
|
3,349 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on May 12, 2018 20:29:15 GMT
At the risk of annoying Theatreboard members still further, may I qua co-author of Bad Show - the book upon which QUIZ was based - be permitted a final contribution? I'm finding your contributions interesting, so please do hang around and keep sharing. In the process of reading your book too. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on May 26, 2018 16:14:16 GMT
I went to today and bumped up from balcony to stalls and the stalls were pretty empty.
I think the quiz show interactive elements distract that this isn't a strong story or play. Personally I think the Ingrams did cheat, I think there route there was pretty suspect and they had notice/desperation for the money.
I think it has lost something from page to the stage, the entertainment value of the court room should work better, Keir Charles is a great imitator but his performance sums up my issue. It is very glossy, very keen to look at why audiences loved millionaire but seems afraid to go into the depths of the Ingrams as Graham finds himself distracted by the interactive elements and the political climate at the time.
A fun afternoon but not one of Graham's finest works.
|
|
Which game were you @baemax? Was it you that got the hoover price the closest?
