1,499 posts
|
Post by Steve on Sept 5, 2019 11:13:56 GMT
I enjoyed this a lot, for two marvelous actors slyly throwing cutting lines at each other, and for how it shows that politics never changes, but it's essentially "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf" with the drama excised ("Get the Guests" WITHOUT the Guests), and with a hefty dose of Heavily Signaled Didactic Compassionate Liberalism injected in the void where the drama should be. Consequently, it bears the hallmarks of a play preaching to the already converted, though those already converted will have a good time. Some spoilers follow. . . This play is an obvious homage to Edward Albee's "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf," even name-checking Virginia Woolf herself at one point, so that we know that the playwright knows we know, so that we don't think he's playing us for fools. But in Albee, the catalyst of the drama is the Guests, their interaction with the bitter arguing central couple, and how the central couple must adapt their games, insults and one-upmanship to include those guests. Without those Guests, the drama collapses, and what we are left with is the naked elements. Each of these elements will entertain different audiences to different degrees, and how much you enjoy them show depends on how receptive you are to each element:- (1) Almost universally entertaining is watching Alex Jennings and Lindsay Duncan go toe to toe: they are such adept and layered actors that Jennings has a way of seeming reasonable even when he isn't, and Duncan has a way of seeming unreasonable even when she is; (2) Preponderantly entertaining are the barbs that Simon Woods comes up with to weaponise his brilliant actors, with some real original zingers, through he does miss almost as many targets as he hits; (3) Entertaining for those with a long memory are the historical references: it's like you are constantly scoring points for remembering ghosts: a point for Margaret Thatcher, two points for Norman Tebbit, 4 for Cecil Parkinson, 7 for Norman St John-Stevas and a full 10 for Guardian Readers who recognise that Polly Toynbee is the only character mentioned in the whole show who hasn't changed a bit in 30 years; (4) Entertaining for those that like to hear their liberal values validated and championed, even in a didactic and obvious way that is unlikely to lure in and change the mind of the socially illiberal: I could almost feel myself wanting to pantomime boo every mention of the dreaded Section 28, which was fun for me, anyway. Anyway, despite the lack of drama, this has plenty of entertainment to provide a good night out, provided you are willing to forgo actual drama, and are not a fan of Ann Widdecombe. 3 and a half stars.  |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Sept 5, 2019 11:39:56 GMT
It is also set only 21 years from homosexuality becoming legal so anyone born in 1967 would have always know homosexuality to be legal and were hitting the homosexual age of consent themselves. As the play points out social attitudes towards homosexuality were as they were when it was a criminal offence. I barked laughing at Robin's ignorant comment about "Uncle John living a lonely life with just his china" but for many homosexual man they just didn't/couldn't settle down or if they did they did it very privately. {Spoiler - click to view}
There is also a bit that touches on transvestites/transgender (It isn't clear if their son wears Diana's dress for pleasure or due to his identity). Even the liberal Diana is repulsed by this and I thought it was an interesting comment on feminist attitudes to gender and gender expectations. |
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Sept 5, 2019 12:55:53 GMT
This play is an obvious homage to Edward Albee's "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf," Albee's play is, to some extent, an homage to Strindberg's The Dance of Death. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 5, 2019 14:56:30 GMT
Anyway, despite the lack of drama, this has plenty of entertainment to provide a good night out, provided you are willing to forgo actual drama Not sure I can quite agree with this, not least becasue I can still see Alex Jennings at the end with a combination of tears and snot running off his chin on to the floor.
@snicole
I did think the moment Diana entered her bedroom and saw her son would have been the first such experience of that nature in her life. Perhaps she was being unkind to herself by saying she was 'repulsed'. She would certainly have had the shock of her life. She was immediately physically sick so what conclusion would the son draw ... you can understand the guilt.
It's not stated but surely we presume her visit to London on the day of the vote - to tell her husband of the day their son came out to his mother - was intended to influence his vote on the S28 bill. As such Diana finally risked Robin accusing her of causing the death |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Sept 5, 2019 15:56:37 GMT
Alex Jennings as Britten in The Habit of Art (which was not a good play) was an emotional tour de force; I love a proper snotty crying performance. I am cheap. {Spoiler - click to view}
I think Diana saw herself as a very liberal and open woman. I expect she was just naive to the fact that could happen in her house. I found that aspect very moving. I think the son didn't care if his father accepted him (he brushes off the prostitute incident) but he must have been so hurt by his mother's reaction. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 5, 2019 16:10:58 GMT
I think the thing with the very posh is they are generationally used to ignoring odd behaviour, whether it's an entire second family, Uncle John's china collection or, indeed, his own wife tripping around in dress shoes and a dressing gown all morning. The son would barely register. Growing up, Simon Woods wouldn't be far from that.
|
|
1,499 posts
|
Post by Steve on Sept 5, 2019 17:28:18 GMT
Anyway, despite the lack of drama, this has plenty of entertainment to provide a good night out, provided you are willing to forgo actual drama Not sure I can quite agree with this, not least becasue I can still see Alex Jennings at the end with a combination of tears and snot running off his chin on to the floor.
@snicole
I did think the moment Diana entered her bedroom and saw her son would have been the first such experience of that nature in her life. Perhaps she was being unkind to herself by saying she was 'repulsed'. She would certainly have had the shock of her life. She was immediately physically sick so what conclusion would the son draw ... you can understand the guilt.
It's not stated but surely we presume her visit to London on the day of the vote - to tell her husband of the day their son came out to his mother - was intended to influence his vote on the S28 bill. As such Diana finally risked Robin accusing her of causing the death Oh, I agree with you about Jennings' tears. From the second row, I was very moved. I suspect our difference is merely semantic. If I sit and cry tears right now about something that happened ten years ago, I wouldn't describe my tears as a dramatic moment, merely the memory of a dramatic moment. There is ONE dramatic moment in the play, when someone tells someone something they didn't already know. Other than that, its all zingers and memories. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 5, 2019 18:08:04 GMT
My initial thoughts on shape are in the post immediately above longer post. I'll ponder this for some while and may buy the script.
|
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Sept 5, 2019 21:40:12 GMT
I think that there may have been something a little monotonous about this piece despite the witty jabs. I wonder how it would have worked with some shouting or some growling in midpoints of the text to accentuate the tension between the couple. The ending is certainly moving and hard-hitting, perhaps more so because the tone remains largely the same throughout the first 45mins. I certainly have questions about Simon Godwin's direction considering how differently Anthony & Cleopatra turned out.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 5, 2019 22:01:48 GMT
I did wonder how the first third of the audience must look from the back, almost like a Wimbledon rally, I imagine, with heads turning from side to side. After an early cheek kiss, my only memory of them almost touching was when he did up her dress zip, otherwise they only very occasionally crossed. On two occasions it felt like a trip to the kitchen signalled the next section of writing.
Difficult job though, how do you direct it ...
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 7, 2019 18:46:27 GMT
I haven't seen the play and doubt I will (not my kind of thing at all) but I've seen/heard a few reviews mentioning how 'resonant with today ' a line about Old Etonians is - but the Thatcher / Major era wasn't dominated by Old Etonians in the way current politics is.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 7, 2019 22:12:11 GMT
I haven't seen the play and doubt I will (not my kind of thing at all) but I've seen/heard a few reviews mentioning how 'resonant with today ' a line about Old Etonians is - but the Thatcher / Major era wasn't dominated by Old Etonians in the way current politics is.
Douglas Hurd was Home Sec but you're probably right. The Etonian reference come very early, at a point at which the audience assumes the play is contemporary. It would have been more accurate to say 'public schoolboys' but Etonians gets the bigger laugh. The intention, landing retrospectively, is to remind us how little changes.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 7, 2019 22:50:34 GMT
is to remind us how little changes. But it has, which is why I don't think that line rings true. Thatcher wasn't of that old boy network, nor Heath before her, and nor were many in her cabinet - the "more old Estonians than old Etonians" rather racist line from the time. Cameron, Osborne, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and co feel like a throwback to the 1950s before the grammar school children came through, or even further, to the braying Eton/Oxford types in early Evelyn Waugh. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 8, 2019 13:57:33 GMT
The couple in the play courted, married and he became an MP in the 50s. That is their experience.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 9, 2019 20:30:04 GMT
is to remind us how little changes. But it has, which is why I don't think that line rings true. Thatcher wasn't of that old boy network, nor Heath before her, and nor were many in her cabinet - the "more old Estonians than old Etonians" rather racist line from the time. Cameron, Osborne, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and co feel like a throwback to the 1950s before the grammar school children came through, or even further, to the braying Eton/Oxford types in early Evelyn Waugh. Interesting about grammar schools because I think they, the politicos from them, have now gone through and the closing of many, some having become fee paying independents, has meant fewer coming through in the younger generation. Hence now the political old class regaining ground with a few people from the real world popping up now and then. Another unseen consequence of the education system. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 12, 2019 15:26:36 GMT
I haven't seen the play and doubt I will (not my kind of thing at all) but I've seen/heard a few reviews mentioning how 'resonant with today ' a line about Old Etonians is - but the Thatcher / Major era wasn't dominated by Old Etonians in the way current politics is.
Douglas Hurd was Home Sec but you're probably right. The Etonian reference come very early, at a point at which the audience assumes the play is contemporary. It would have been more accurate to say 'public schoolboys' but Etonians gets the bigger laugh. The intention, landing retrospectively, is to remind us how little changes.
Of course Simon Woods, the author, is an Old Etonian too. And he had his first play produced at the NT. So what’s his point ? That he’s part of that same privileged cabal and it’s a bad thing ? |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 12, 2019 15:33:09 GMT
Yes, both are points I made first in this thread. He also grew up trying to be straight, is now married to a man, worked at the Guardian and has spent most of his adult life as a jobbing actor among the London liberal arts crowd. His whole life would seem to be in this play.
In the play, the Etonian line, is mildly amusing. It's topical. The we move on. There really is little value in pondering it when there is in so much else in this work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 13, 2019 7:35:15 GMT
In the play, the Etonian line, is mildly amusing. It's topical. The we move on. There really is little value in pondering it when there is in so much else in this work.
It's just lazy double-standards. It's OK for an Old Etonian playwright and a disproportionate number of Old Etonian actors to get work because they are selected on merit. However, it is not OK for a disproportionate number of politicians to be Old Etonians irrespective of their merit. The Old Etonian bit should be left out for both, or be included for both. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 13, 2019 8:33:43 GMT
I hope this becomes easier when more people have seen the play.
|
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Sept 14, 2019 15:33:46 GMT
I really enjoyed this at today's matinee. Two stonking performances from Duncan and Jennings. The first hour is very funny and then the whole thing turns emotionally at the end and was quietly devastating. A few lines sounded a tad anachronistic for the period but the main thing is they got the correct coloured logo on the Waitrose bag for the late eighties! I'm old enough to remember vividly all the events referenced in the play, including the lesbians chaining themselves to Sue Lawley's desk whilst reading the news.
|
|
4,806 posts
|
Post by Mark on Oct 2, 2019 9:58:48 GMT
Feeling rather lucky, went into NT website for a browse and there they were, two front row centre seats for tomorrow night, £15 each.
|
|
4,806 posts
|
Post by Mark on Oct 6, 2019 16:27:13 GMT
Liked this. It’s a bit of a slow burner but the performances are excellent with Lindsay Duncan and Alex Jennings clearly having a blast bouncing off each other for the short 80 minute runtime.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 6, 2019 22:27:19 GMT
Liked this. It’s a bit of a slow burner but the performances are excellent with Lindsay Duncan and Alex Jennings clearly having a blast bouncing off each other for the short 80 minute runtime. Well I hope I have a blast on Saturday because I will be paying about £1 a minute, not to mention the journey and the lack of decent food available and the toilets..... |
|
152 posts
|
Post by alnoor on Oct 7, 2019 19:50:37 GMT
Few £15 tickets on website for NT live night on 7th November.
Good luck!
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 12, 2019 21:03:10 GMT
Worth every penny. Masterclass.
|
|
