|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Oct 29, 2018 14:11:35 GMT
In future I will refer to this as
A very very very big pit of steaming dark matter. tm
I would like to declare that I am the sole author of the above and that I received no assistance from anyone else; not even another minority visiting from the future.
|
|
1,498 posts
|
Post by Steve on Oct 29, 2018 15:23:32 GMT
So... blog post, which I'm posting here because this show had an odd effect on me: the more I thought about it as I started to write, the more it fell apart. A very very very big missThough I tend to think the parts you praise are understated, and the parts you criticise are overstated, I think that's an excellent review.
In one part, however, you observe:
"Worse, there are several moments where we’re clearly supposed to laugh at some aspect of Andersen’s treatment of Marjory, and watching a tall, relatively strong, relatively well-off white man mistreat a short, physically-handicapped black woman (Marjory has only one foot, Andersen having apparently – we’re told – amputated the other one in return for once letting her out of her box) simply isn’t funny, although that didn’t stop some people laughing."
I don't think anyone can presume to know why anyone else is laughing.
Laughter is generated when two previously un-linked ideas are connected in a surprising way.
Some spoilers follow. . .
Here is a possible reason to laugh at the above scene:
Idea 1: Hans Christian Andersen is a hugely respected and lionised figure in Western history and storytelling Idea 2: Hans Christian Andersen is a petty dimwitted self-regarding violent Tw*t stealing ideas from an African slave. Result: These two dissonant ideas can result in laughter for many reasons, most of which are about recontextualising our own tendency to venerate our ancestors, despite their profiting from, and complicity in profiting from, the absolute evil of slavery.
In this very thread, there seems to be more anger at McDonagh for making fun of Dickens and Andersen than anything else. McDonagh is unfairly rewriting history.
Yet, how ironic, and intentionally provocative on McDonagh's part, because it is the rewriting of the history of slavery that allows us to live with it, to take pride as many do in aspects of the history of British Empire and whatnot.
Born in Bristol, I'm very much aware of how much blind pride there can be taken even now in an utterly evil past. My Mum went to Colston's Girls School, which refuses to take the name of a slave trader off the school. His giant statue stands proudly in the city centre (rather than the museum where it belongs), with a plaque praising his generosity, and no acknowledgement that all his wealth came from slave-trading. And most Bristolians want him to stay there, and don't want a second plaque explaining his slave trading past, either. It is this level of denial about who and what we were that ensures that who and what we are never improves.
And McDonagh's play uses Dickens and Andersen as avatars of our own societal blindness, like Bristol's blindness, to make fun of our sacred cows and reveal the sickness that generated our one-time wealth, and how we refuse to look at that sickness, and consequently remain sick.
The whole scenario of the play is comic genius, explicitly stating where our wealth really came from, showing us how much more we care about our sacred cows than acknowledging our past, and brazenly showing the callousness and blindness that existed in our ancestors to do everything they did to get us here in the first place.
In 2015, we, the British state, made our final payments on the debt accrued to slavemasters whose slaves the British state bought in order to free, which means that we alive today have been paying compensation to the Colstons of the world, yet have never ever deigned it worth paying one penny to the people we enslaved. Thats where we are. This play sees that.
The only character who isn't depicted in this play as an imbecilic cruel caricature is the enslaved woman. The enslavers, and those who profit from them, us, we are the butt of the joke we are laughing at in the above scene. We laugh at ourselves for the lies we tell ourselves. We laugh for the undue respect we automatically give our ancestors. We laugh at our realisation that all human history is one long parade of delusion to hide our own cruelty. That is what I meant in my non-spoiler review about this play needing it's audience to "tune in."
The reason I gave this play 4 stars, and no more, is that although the scenario and joke pressure-points are ingenious, and hilariously and darkly funny, in my opinion, the play is not laser-precision enough in it's meaning and intent to get everybody to tune in.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Oct 29, 2018 15:40:08 GMT
I don't think anyone can presume to know why anyone else is laughing. I didn't. I pointed out THAT they laughed. I thought about going further and decided I wasn't really very interested in writing a thousand words about an audience response I found vividly unpleasant. However... The reasons you suggest for WHY they laughed are plausible... up to a point, in that the laughter-response in the theatre usually happens so quickly that there isn't time for people to go through all those steps. And, sure, this is me being judgmental, but I was sitting in one of the gallery seats at the side, very near the stage, and I could turn my head and see the audience in the stalls, and there are different kinds of laughter. It IS, to an extent, possible to figure out why an audience is laughing; physical comedy generates a different kind of laugh from, say, a highbrow pun about structuralism ("I used to be a structuralist but now I'm not Saussure..."). There was, I'm afraid, certainly an element among the audience at the performance I saw who were laughing AT Hans's mistreatment of Marjory, rather than BECAUSE of what it implied. I agree McDonagh was clearly aiming for something along the lines you suggest, but to me he didn't come close to getting there. |
|
1,498 posts
|
Post by Steve on Oct 29, 2018 16:41:21 GMT
I don't think anyone can presume to know why anyone else is laughing. I didn't. I pointed out THAT they laughed. Maybe I'm wrong, but by asserting that the scene "simply isn't funny," yet saying "that didn’t stop some people laughing," your implication seemed to me to be that the laughers were laughing for the wrong reasons, which is a presumption on your part.
To your credit, you did not accuse them of being "racists," as others are doing on social media.
In comedy, once an author's method in mining laughs becomes apparent to an audience member, a whole vein of laughs typically opens up to that audience member. And this play really tunes in to hilarity once you start seeing the truth of how heinously our actual ancestors behaved.
I was thunderstruck with horror at the outset of this play, but once I "tuned in," all manner of things I previously would not have laughed at, I then did.
What I would have thought "simply isn't funny," at the beginning, changed, such that I was laughing at those same things by the end. It was a mordant black comedy horror show of revealing truth.
While it is possible that a racist could find this play funny, that same racist would get more laughs staying at home listening to Donald Trump on the news. Unlike the news, which shows both sides of an issue, this play's method is to expose our hypocrisies and blindness to our past, by explicitly critiquing our revered icons, so a racist would have a better chance of becoming less racist attending this, than watching unfiltered news.
Anyway, to each their own.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Oct 29, 2018 17:15:34 GMT
...this play's method is to expose our hypocrisies and blindness to our past, by explicitly critiquing our revered icons...
The point I fail to see is how are we critiquing Andersen by making him a possible Paedophile and a sadistic torturer who thinks nothing of maiming his muse? And a buffoon to boot. Dickens a foul mouthed irascible sex addict, why not? Does anyone think less of the works of Dickens and Andersen after seeing this play? Outside of this 80 mins will you ever link their immortal works to “the horror, the horror” of the colonialization in Africa that occurred after their deaths? Then there’s the nonsense about making the box smaller which makes more sense if you accept it as a fiction we make up about the man to make him ever more despicable for our own reasons. I realise I’m a gallery of one, but to me this makes more sense if you imagine McDonagh is poking fun at the lengths we go to rewrite history to reflect our current concerns. Our lack of true perspective. Something that has happened since plays were first performed. (NOTE I have edited the Quote from Steve's post and somehow I can't get sf's name dissociated form it. Sorry for any confusion). |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Oct 29, 2018 17:54:17 GMT
Maybe I'm wrong, but by asserting that the scene "simply isn't funny," yet saying "that didn’t stop some people laughing," your implication seemed to me to be that the laughers were laughing for the wrong reasons, which is a presumption on your part.
To your credit, you did not accuse them of being "racists," as others are doing on social media.
It's a judgment on my part, certainly, and it's subjective - but all criticism is based on subjective judgment. As for whether the response I noticed was racist - I would guess the people I saw laughing at things I found cringe-inducing would vehemently deny that they were racist. I would also guess at least some of them are not quite as woke as they might like to think. We live in a country in which there is - still - a great deal of ingrained racism. There are plenty of people in this country who would never in a million years consider themselves racist but who nevertheless have never quite managed to transcend a lifetime of conditioning about Britain's place in the world, and it's also, unfortunately, fair to say that a certain amount of flat-out racism and an at least equal amount of small-minded nationalist exceptionalism have recently infected the political mainstream. The fact that somebody would never, ever dream of, for example, making a racist remark in public does not necessarily mean they don't also carry around a certain amount of subconscious ingrained prejudice that might colour (sorry) their split-second response to a one-liner in a play, or to a piece of stage business. And I do think that McDonagh leaves the door open for a kind of laughter that he didn't intend, simply by giving us an unfocused, messy script - as I said, it played like an unedited first draft - in which the ideas underpinning his very, very, very dark brand of humour only occasionally come into focus. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Oct 29, 2018 22:29:23 GMT
So I didn't hate this but there is a good idea that got lost. Dickens and Andersen coming from dark places to influence their work is a great idea and you probably could have had a lot of fun with it. A short black woman hobbling around takes away a lot of the fun. Johnetta Ackles is great when she is allowed to have fun but McDonagh seems so keen not to offend black women (Good, we will come for you) when everyone from Belgium's to Gypsys are up for grabs.
I think McDonagh of old is braver than this but it feels rushed, unclear and despite the constant references to Congo doesn't seem very focused on why 21st audience should care now. It was an awful atrocity but imagine writing about the Holocaust as an isolated incident, that is what McDonagh did here.
I think Broadbent and Daniels did have a lot of fun with the characters and their scenes together brought this up from 2* to a 3* but it is problematic (both in attitudes and its story)but not enjoyable enough to overcome those issues.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Oct 29, 2018 22:32:14 GMT
I'm not even going to attempt the racial discourse route because I'm absolutely not clever enough. However. Does anyone else find that the tickets for this are crazily overpriced? Who the hell pays £60 to see Jim "playing himself again" Broadbent? I may be in the minority but I don't think he's any good... I dislike him too. I thought his make up made him look odd as well, which was distracting. |
|
|
|
Post by MrsCondomine on Oct 30, 2018 8:55:14 GMT
I'm not even going to attempt the racial discourse route because I'm absolutely not clever enough. However. Does anyone else find that the tickets for this are crazily overpriced? Who the hell pays £60 to see Jim "playing himself again" Broadbent? I may be in the minority but I don't think he's any good...
There are plenty of seats cheaper than £60. I paid a quarter of that. I didn't love the show, as it happens, but I think one of the things the Bridge gets right is that there's a wide range of ticket prices for every performance, and the view from the cheap seats is quite reasonable. Some of them are absolute bargains.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to level at this show - further up this thread there's a link to a blog post that's basically 900 words of me trashing everything but the performances and the set. The ticket prices are not one of them.
"Your comment is crap but please be sure to read my post!!" Ugh. |
|
423 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Oct 30, 2018 11:40:55 GMT
I saw this last night and thought it was a first draft piece of crap that McDonough dug out of a desk drawer and gave to Hytner. It's a premise more than a play and not a really logical one. I'm not faulting the creatives except McDonough who must know it's not good and Hytner/Starr for producing it. They're batting average at the Bridge this year isn't very good - with Julius Caesar being the exception. I bought tickets to everything this year to be supportive of their new enterprise but this coming season? I'm simply going to wait.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 13:42:52 GMT
I was wondering if it was supposed to be about Hergé but they realised his works are all in copyright. Anyway, agree with most of the above - this is a real mess. The internal logic of the plot holds up to no scrutiny at all ...
Are the two Congolese sisters from the future? If so why didn't they bring weapons with them and how did they end up imprisoned by Dickens and Anderson? Where the two Belgians ghosts? If so why did shooting them work? When she saw the ghost of her sister why was she not a similar height and why were all her limbs intact?
Interested to learn thanks to the link in SJ's blog that Andersen's five week visit to Dickens' house actually happened. I think the details of what really happened are funnier than McDonagh's version ... dickensmuseum.com/blogs/charles-dickens-museum/hans-christian-andersen-the-eccentric-guest |
|
376 posts
|
Post by sherriebythesea on Oct 30, 2018 23:13:48 GMT
Just came back from seeing this and I enjoyed it. I just relaxed and went with it. It was fun. I love 1950's sci-fi and Japanese monster movies so disconnecting from reality and not noticing the plot holes as I trip over them is easy for me. It was a fun ride
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Oct 31, 2018 5:50:24 GMT
Well that's a new perspective! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 9:04:48 GMT
Forgot to mention in my earlier diatribe that I sat in A2 and the view was fine. Actually had booked A1 but A2 was empty so shuffled up. I think A1 would be OK as well. You have unlimited leg room which is nice! As noted above the seat where the corner of the stage is would be annoying. Think this is about 3 seats from the central aisle.
You can't see the back of the stage, but all the action (as far as I could tell) happens on the thrust bit of the stage or near the front, so you're just missing seeing some of the set dressing. Only problem was during the dinner party scene, as the view of the far side of the table was blocked by the actors sitting at the near side. So you might be better off with the high numbered side as that's where Dickens and Andersen are sitting, although then you might miss the door of the attic set so swings and roundabouts.
Also discovered there is an extra door you can use to get out of the stalls, next to seats A1 and B1. Presume there's one on the other side as well. It's marked as an emergency exit, there was an usher standing there at the end and she confirmed it could be used as an exit. Not at all obvious and I think I was the only person who used it. Brings you out in the downstairs lobby bit where the loos are.
|
|
9 posts
|
Post by paulr on Nov 2, 2018 12:46:35 GMT
I’m glad to hear that they have started using these doors. Maybe it comes after I complained about how long it took to exit the stalls.
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on Nov 2, 2018 18:48:49 GMT
There are plenty of seats cheaper than £60. I paid a quarter of that. I didn't love the show, as it happens, but I think one of the things the Bridge gets right is that there's a wide range of ticket prices for every performance, and the view from the cheap seats is quite reasonable. Some of them are absolute bargains.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to level at this show - further up this thread there's a link to a blog post that's basically 900 words of me trashing everything but the performances and the set. The ticket prices are not one of them.
"Your comment is crap but please be sure to read my post!!" Ugh. Papering already. |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Nov 3, 2018 16:18:36 GMT
Ugh, this was awful. I wouldn't call it racist, or anything, just very juvenile. Like a panto written by a child who's just discovered the f-word. Full of lame puns and gurning, this was trying so hard to be controversial but was just cringe-inducing.
Sad to say it was my first walk out. I feel bad doing that, but life's just too short.
The set and lighting was good though. Seats were pretty comfy too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2018 16:49:10 GMT
"Your comment is crap but please be sure to read my post!!" Ugh. Papering already. This is a sh*t play no doubt But even The Inheritance is papering regularly Both parts And still not full Stories at the NT is also a massive box office flop Odd when it got quite good reviews And Consent was heavily sold |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 3, 2018 17:24:47 GMT
It’s almost as if this was 2 plays smushed together - the Anderson/Dickens scenes felt a lot tighter and more developed than the rest of the play. I really felt the cast floundering in the earlier scenes, it seemed like they really weren’t sure how to make it funny.
It certainly needed a re-write or 2, but fundamentally I am not sure that McDonagh knows what he is trying to get at himself. The plot mechanics were nonsensical, obviously, but I can’t think why he has come up with them at all. What is the connection that we are meant to draw?
Maybe it fails because it is trying to say that attempts to write the present/future into the past will always fail, but it’s really not clever enough to pull off that level of self-reflexiveness.
A frustrating watch.
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on Nov 3, 2018 17:44:38 GMT
This is a sh*t play no doubt But even The Inheritance is papering regularly Both parts And still not full Stories at the NT is also a massive box office flop Odd when it got quite good reviews And Consent was heavily sold True - but The Inheritance had a long-ish run at the YV (which sold quite well) before the transfer... |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Nov 3, 2018 18:16:04 GMT
With The Inheritance I wonder if it is attracting a new audience.
On here myself included we have talked primarily about the opportunity to see it again and believe that most people interested in seeing the play would have made the effort to see it at the Young Vic.
Will still go to see AVVVDM as I have a cheap ticket and intrigued to see what has made this a very lively thread.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 4, 2018 13:16:28 GMT
Time Out doing discounted tickets on this "up to 57% off"
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Nov 4, 2018 17:09:58 GMT
The Bridge toilets seemed a fairly good analogy for the play: Pretty but rather poorly thought out.
Why on earth did anyone decide to have exposed absorbent (but hopefully fire-retardent) sponge as the ceiling material in a room that's smelly, splashy, and needs to be easily cleaned? The pattern might look nice now, but within a year I suspect it will be damaged and fraying in places, smelly, blotchy and quite disgusting. And given that the toilets should be empty while the performances are going, I suspect that any sound absorbing properties aren't of much practical benefit either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Nov 5, 2018 11:17:44 GMT
It’s almost as if this was 2 plays smushed together - the Anderson/Dickens scenes felt a lot tighter and more developed than the rest of the play. I really felt the cast floundering in the earlier scenes, it seemed like they really weren’t sure how to make it funny. It certainly needed a re-write or 2, but fundamentally I am not sure that McDonagh knows what he is trying to get at himself. The plot mechanics were nonsensical, obviously, but I can’t think why he has come up with them at all. What is the connection that we are meant to draw? Maybe it fails because it is trying to say that attempts to write the present/future into the past will always fail, but it’s really not clever enough to pull off that level of self-reflexiveness. A frustrating watch. Agree with all of this. Very hard to know what he was trying to do, but I don't feel he was onboard for todays message about atoning for past misdeeds. |
|
77 posts
|
Post by avfan on Nov 5, 2018 11:49:24 GMT
WOW!!!! This was truly terrible. If I really hate a show I leave at the interval but as this didn't have one I was forced to sit through this utter utter drivel. At one point I genuinely thought I couldn't watch anymore and almost left but didn't want to disturb other theatre goers. I've seen 3 shows at the Bridge, one I left at the Interval, the second I adored and now this rubbish. I cannot recommend you avoid this enough!
|
|
