547 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Jun 11, 2019 8:57:43 GMT
Any dayseat info on this? How early people are queuing, what seats do they give etc. Day seated this morning, arrived at 8:30 and was 12th in line. Was still tickets for both performances by the time I got my turn, few people were there for Small Island. Forgot to ask how many they put aside, sorry! |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jun 11, 2019 9:18:13 GMT
However, I can’t help but wish that the wonderful production was in service of a smarter, more interesting and coherent story. This play crammed in far too many subplots and shifting character relationships into its short running time, making it hard to stay interested at times. And the plot relied on enough silly coincidences and unlikely character motivations to make even the most convoluted James Bond villain’s plans seem probable. Most annoying of all to me however, was the combining of such a grim narrative with what was ultimately a lightweight thriller. If this play had only just stuck with one approach it could’ve been so much more satisfying; silly thriller or serious meditation on life in East Berlin. Instead it didn’t quite meet the high bar set by the first few minutes. I was a unsure the first time, there is a lot to take in. After the second visit the overt narrative made complete sense, and it is a clever work on that level. However, there is deeper laying architecture, some or much of which I certainly missed, and I rather needed a round table-type discussion to tease more out i.e. a decent session in the pub. For example, you could spend quite a long time discussing one word 'DISSENT'. This is absolutely smarter than your average bear.
|
|
639 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jun 11, 2019 9:48:26 GMT
Any dayseat info on this? How early people are queuing, what seats do they give etc. Day seated this morning, arrived at 8:30 and was 12th in line. Was still tickets for both performances by the time I got my turn, few people were there for Small Island. Forgot to ask how many they put aside, sorry! Thanks a lot for the info! I managed to get a £15 front row ticket on the website around 10.00 for tonight. There were 3-4 in total, so might be unsold dayseats. |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 11, 2019 14:08:48 GMT
However, I can’t help but wish that the wonderful production was in service of a smarter, more interesting and coherent story. This play crammed in far too many subplots and shifting character relationships into its short running time, making it hard to stay interested at times. And the plot relied on enough silly coincidences and unlikely character motivations to make even the most convoluted James Bond villain’s plans seem probable. Most annoying of all to me however, was the combining of such a grim narrative with what was ultimately a lightweight thriller. If this play had only just stuck with one approach it could’ve been so much more satisfying; silly thriller or serious meditation on life in East Berlin. Instead it didn’t quite meet the high bar set by the first few minutes. I was a unsure the first time, there is a lot to take in. After the second visit the overt narrative made complete sense, and it is a clever work on that level. However, there is deeper laying architecture, some or much of which I certainly missed, and I rather needed a round table-type discussion to tease more out i.e. a decent session in the pub. For example, you could spend quite a long time discussing one word 'DISSENT'. This is absolutely smarter than your average bear. The moments where the play touched on serious issues, like the balance of power and the relationships that people form under these sorts of regimes, were where I felt it was at its best. And the way that the play covered meta issues around the fallibility of the way we perceive things and what the ‘audience’ represent, were also interesting, if somewhat obvious given the setting. Unfortunately though, the play seemed to regularly bring to mind better films. The Lives of Others and Goodfellas for instance but, most annoyingly, the way that a key line of dialogue was set up & delivered seemed to be lifted straight from the central trick of 70s classic The Conversation. To some extent, modern media will always sit in the shadow of what came before, so that’s not necessarily a deal breaker, but for me the parts just didn’t all fit together well enough. Perhaps it was just trying to do too much; touching on so many serious topics, within a (in my opinion quite silly) thriller narrative, and all in just over an hour. Ultimately, my feeling is that the was an okay play with a stellar production. In that respect the play it reminded me most of was The Red Barn also at the National a few years ago. |
|
639 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jun 11, 2019 22:00:25 GMT
I really enjoyed this, even though I felt that in terms of narrative and plot it could've been much better if it was expanded a little, the ending felt a little rushed. I wouldn't mind it being a 2-hour play at all. I do have a question {Spoiler - click to view}
What were the signs that the actors were holding during the curtain call saying? I saw the first one was 'keep us safe' but I couldn't properly read the other one from where I was sitting. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jun 11, 2019 22:06:08 GMT
NO SPOILERS (Somewhat ironic given this post!) |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jun 13, 2019 15:53:58 GMT
I was a unsure the first time, there is a lot to take in. After the second visit the overt narrative made complete sense, and it is a clever work on that level. However, there is deeper laying architecture, some or much of which I certainly missed, and I rather needed a round table-type discussion to tease more out i.e. a decent session in the pub. For example, you could spend quite a long time discussing one word 'DISSENT'. This is absolutely smarter than your average bear. The moments where the play touched on serious issues, like the balance of power and the relationships that people form under these sorts of regimes, were where I felt it was at its best. And the way that the play covered meta issues around the fallibility of the way we perceive things and what the ‘audience’ represent, were also interesting, if somewhat obvious given the setting. Unfortunately though, the play seemed to regularly bring to mind better films. The Lives of Others and Goodfellas for instance but, most annoyingly, the way that a key line of dialogue was set up & delivered seemed to be lifted straight from the central trick of 70s classic The Conversation. To some extent, modern media will always sit in the shadow of what came before, so that’s not necessarily a deal breaker, but for me the parts just didn’t all fit together well enough. Perhaps it was just trying to do too much; touching on so many serious topics, within a (in my opinion quite silly) thriller narrative, and all in just over an hour. Ultimately, my feeling is that the was an okay play with a stellar production. In that respect the play it reminded me most of was The Red Barn also at the National a few years ago.
Appreciate the comments. I was summerising my summation earlier (don't ask!) and thought I'd respond with where I got to. Three main themes:
1. Looking at dissent and surveillance - and through that control - and drawing parallels between the East German Stasi-police state and today (Assange, Snowden, et al)
2. A consideration of personal relationships affected by national politics (as widely experienced that in the era of Brexit and Trump!): under pressure, put these in order of most precious: marriage, friendships, career, core beliefs?
3. A look at how a searing childhood trauma can disfigure the adult – but which adult; his stalking of her is probably longing, and a (heartfelt) desire to put matters right. She is blinded by loyalty to the Party and an ideology understood as ideal and utopian
I also have, maybe a 14-point step-by-step outline structure of the narrative, though I doubt too many will wrestle me to the ground to paste that up  |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 13, 2019 19:50:45 GMT
She is blinded by loyalty to the Party and an ideology understood as ideal and utopian
I also have, maybe a 14-point step-by-step outline structure of the narrative, though I doubt too many will wrestle me to the ground to paste that up [/div][/quote] Thanks for the thoughtful response. Yes, I definitely agree on the broad themes you mention. One thing I would say, however about your third point is that We can’t really ‘trust’ anything she has done or said throughout the play. Unlike the others, she always knew that she was being recorded, and so has been playing a part for the audience/the stasi. It’s of course possible that she believed everything she said but we can’t really know, as pointed out by the husband at the end. The only part where she was (presumably) being truly honest was when she cut the mic and we could no longer hear her I for one would be interested to read any additional thoughts/points. |
|
