|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 2, 2019 6:47:02 GMT
I do think the corporate environment is an important theme; the ideas will of course be better if a profit-making concern pools together a selected group, and pressures until they produce something profit-making (not just Netflix but Amazon and several other new providers). It seems highly likely that there has never been a time in history when platforms have looked so hard for potential content.
Wasn't the ultimate result 'is someone getting this down' intentionally ridiculous - surely a serious writer wouldn't validate such a process and I don't think Baker does. She ridicules it in the nonsense sub-Greek myth tale.
So the most intriguing stories we hear involve the humanity of Chicken Danny, the real-life calamities of the head guy, as well as - if that's what it is - the idea from foxhead guy of the extraordinary being all around us.
Postulating ... maybe the audience being somewhat excluded from the event - the process - is part of the point. Not sure that' going to mollify people who paid up to £60.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 2, 2019 10:29:22 GMT
That rather begs the question - me or her ..which is where I am with this atm  The American reviews for this from 2017 are worth looking up (they're collected on show-score.com). They're more mixed than the mainstream UK ones. Several view it as a (possibly blocked) writer working through her own "difficult second album"-type process, rather than as something relating to the outside, which is rather how I felt. The Vulture and Entertainment Weekly ones chime with my feelings about it (especially the feeling that we've been given her working notes) - Variety is rather more blunt! |
|
1,499 posts
|
Post by Steve on Nov 2, 2019 11:46:14 GMT
I'd go further and suggest we are looking at how the bible was written. A group of sages sitting around editing an oral tradition into a code by which to organise civilisation and live. A prize for the Monkey, I think!
Speculation and Spoilers follow. . .
I mean:
(1) you've got the disembodied voice of Max (ie the Maximum Guy), aka God or Godot, dictating the rules from the up on high;
(2) you've got the apocalyptic outside threats (eg Egyptians/Wilderness) raging beyond the Boardroom (aka Mount Sinai);
(3) you've got Sandy, aka Moses, saying he learned EVERYTHING from Max in that hilarious speech where he states just how all-encompassing is Max's hold on his every thought and utterance, and then passing on his knowledge to his fellow (Covenant) writers;
(4) you've got Danny 2 getting the boot for his subversive thoughts;
(5) you've got the story of the banished woman (aka Eve), who broke all the rules;
(6) you've got Sinead Matthew's plaintive affectionate statement of how much she misses Danny 2, suggesting a general Eve-like female inclination toward the subversive;
(7) you've got the Scribe going fearfully apocalyptically feral with primitive worship (the Golden Calf) and then getting replaced;
(8) you've got the actual brainstorming of a nascent Genesis-style story of Creation
AND you've got that title: "The Antipodes," which means the other side of the Earth, literally, suggesting the Divine; but more than that, maybe it's a reference to Benny Shanon's work "Antipodes of the Mind," and Shanon's speculation that Moses composed the Covenants under the divine inspiration of plant-based hallucinogenics.
None of this means it's a great play, just because it references important and unsolvable human questions, but I do think it suggests why she is so unspecific about where this play is set and what exactly they are talking about. She wants the multiple meanings, and she is inserting this into her body of work as a kind of ORIGIN STORY for stories. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 2, 2019 11:59:27 GMT
Sandy, aka Moses, saying he learned EVERYTHING from Max His previous hit show was called 'Heathens'. I do think there's a better play in here but for me it's not the one I experienced on stage. I think the bit with the whiteboard was where I flipped from "is this good, or is this just a shedload of essay notes?". |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 2, 2019 22:14:51 GMT
I think perhaps I could have done with reading your ideas before I saw it as i'd have been actively thinking and i'm not reading your thoughts and thinking it couldn't have been that, it could well have been, variations and parts of this or that. My response would appear to be laughingly simplistic, regarding Conleth Hill's look I just thought 'ahh maybe he's enjoying being able to have hair against post GoT and isn't it luxuriant'.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Nov 3, 2019 1:52:00 GMT
This sounds pretty fascinating...
How do those who've seen it think the view from the 15 quid 2nd level side seats would be?
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 3, 2019 9:37:41 GMT
do think the corporate environment is an important theme Again, contrasting The Church - a worldwide corporate purveyor of stories for centuries, with Amazon and other publishing corporations, purveyor of stories for decades? The Church and Amazon seems an excellent idea to muse over. I'm not sure the bible itself works - or, say, Sandy as The Creator - because those stories were written over millennia and, while The Antipodes feels looong, perhaps not that long ..
Established religions do demonstrate the potential for empowering those who claim stories for their own.
Fwiw, I was actually thinking a little in terms of fake news/Facebook, and in particular Twitter's new ban on targeted political stories, sorry ads. Kind of interesting in a corporate brainstorming high stakes sense ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Boob on Nov 3, 2019 19:58:02 GMT
Can anyone confirm who voices Max? My theory... Rufus Norris!
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 3, 2019 20:20:35 GMT
Andrew Woodall.
|
|
53 posts
|
Post by amybenson on Nov 4, 2019 7:07:39 GMT
I do think the corporate environment is an important theme; the ideas will of course be better if a profit-making concern pools together a selected group, and pressures until they produce something profit-making (not just Netflix but Amazon and several other new providers). It seems highly likely that there has never been a time in history when platforms have looked so hard for potential content. Wasn't the ultimate result 'is someone getting this down' intentionally ridiculous - surely a serious writer wouldn't validate such a process and I don't think Baker does. She ridicules it in the nonsense sub-Greek myth tale. So the most intriguing stories we hear involve the humanity of Chicken Danny, the real-life calamities of the head guy, as well as - if that's what it is - the idea from foxhead guy of the extraordinary being all around us. Postulating ... maybe the audience being somewhat excluded from the event - the process - is part of the point. Not sure that' going to mollify people who paid up to £60. I thought there was a bit of an oversaturation of the storytelling market thing going on, with these people being given a carte blanche and not actually having anything to say, except channeling their mostly unremarkable lives and pointless idle fantasies into the story. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Nov 4, 2019 16:21:57 GMT
How do those who've seen it think the view from the 15 quid 2nd level side seats would be? OK. You just have to mentally filter out that you will be looking through the ceiling and big central light-fitting down on the action. You'll see faces better than those on lower levels for the first hour. So that's a no then lol So where would you recommend as the best place to sit? |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 4, 2019 17:21:24 GMT
So where would you recommend as the best place to sit? I don't know where I'd recommend, but there are some audience photos on Twitter that will give you an idea of how it looks from higher up. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Nov 4, 2019 18:07:27 GMT
So where would you recommend as the best place to sit? Sides of the first tier, fairly central or the ends furthest from the entrance. Cheers...thank you ! (and to the poster above as well x) |
|
|
|
Post by Forrest on Nov 5, 2019 22:35:02 GMT
I've been avoiding this thread because first I wanted to see the play without being influenced by your opinions, and then I wanted to review it and it didn't seem right to read other people's opinions before I put my own on paper, especially since I knew there would be some insights here so much more thorough and interesting than mine (and I didn't want to be tempted in any way to borrow those), but to be honest I could not wait to see what you were discussing. I found this to be the most mind-boggling experience I've had in the theatre this year, but I also absolutely loved it. To be honest, I'm still unsure what it was that she was trying to tell us, but I enjoyed every slow (and occasionally agonising) minute of it and found it absolutely brilliant. I'm struggling with the desire to buy another ticket and go see it again. That being said, again - I find myself thinking for almost a week now about it and I am still no smarter. The only thing I was pretty certain of is that there was criticism in there about our need to turn everything into a business, our obsession with corporate culture. I believe it was Steve who noted it that the stories happening around the characters all seemed to have so much potential (the storm, Doel's wardrobe...), and there they were sitting around the table completely uninspired, devastated that they cannot find anything to tell. I have just about a million ideas about what it could be that she wanted us to see on that stage, but am no closer to figuring out which answer is the right one. From the idea that the whole thing is a metaphor for a playwright struggling to produce a play, to outright criticism or our superficial treatment of stories and the need to glamourise and filter everything that has made us lost interest in the mundane, to the idea (which I believe @theatremonkey has also shared) that this is Baker going back to reconstruct the origin of the story of all stories, the creation of religion(s) - they could all be plausible explanations for what I've seen. An element that was also particularly interesting to me was the characters' intention to write a story that could be communicated beyond words, and I kept wondering if there was an exercise hidden in there that Baker was somehow trying out on us and if this was the reason that the lights in the auditorium were left on. I kept having a nagging feeling that observing the audience watching the play was the reason for this move; that we were all supposed to be part of the same event as the actors and were somehow invited to be part of the storytelling process through this. Although I'm no wiser as to the exact purpose of that either. So, yes, not really sure if I understood anything. But I loved how it made my mind literally fire up in all directions. Also, Steve , do you write reviews somewhere? If you do, I would love to read them. If you don't - you absolutely should. Your short reviews here are such a joy to read! There is, however, one tiny thing I disagree on in the whole long post you've written (and that has nothing to do with The Antipodes)... I found John quite heartwarming, as a play. While most reviewers seemed to strongly dislike the young couple, I found them - Elias in particular - quite likeable. I thought his insecurities were endearing, his determination to protect her from the side of himself he disliked (that YELLING scene, in capitals, broke my heart a little) quite gentle and his reluctance to let go, despite knowing that what they had was no longer genuine, quite sad. I also thought she had a sweet streak, although perhaps a bit less so - but her point of view of the relationship was different because she was the one wanting out, feeling stuck, and he was the one clinging to it more, afraid to move on. My impression was that the mismatch between them made them seem like the unlikeable, superficial people most reviews had concluded they are. To me they just seemed... Unhappy. And we tend to become less likeable versions of ourselves when we are unhappy. But I genuinely sympathised with them. And I didn't find the world they inhabited cold, simply... to me it all seemed to be one big mismatch of people and circumstances brought together in one place. As it often happens in life. By contrast to the above three works, I feel "John" and "The Antipodes" ditch the warmth, which is the reason I find them harder to warm to. In "John," the Set is a Motel filled with ghostly stories, of Gettysburg, and much besides. It is owned by a storytelling gossip, who seems to control the storytelling of the play, manipulating space and time by opening stage curtains and winding clocks, and her strange friend, so powerful in the realm of this story that she can even interrupt the audience's interval to spin us a story. The protagonists seek solace through telling each other stories, even as stories all around them consume them. The only genre warmth Baker offers us in this cold world is the bond between the Motel owner and her mysterious friend. For this reason, I didn't immediately like "John" as much as Baker's previous plays. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 8, 2019 19:07:29 GMT
Conleth Hill will be on Sunday Brunch on Sunday (obvs!). It's worth checking their line-up because they often have actors on talking about their current stage show - actors from The Son and Appropriate have been featured recently.
|
|
1,499 posts
|
Post by Steve on Nov 9, 2019 11:12:26 GMT
Sandy, aka Moses, saying he learned EVERYTHING from Max His previous hit show was called 'Heathens'. Ha ha, well spotted!
Also, if you were going to rename Moses, a guy who wandered the desert, "Sandy" would be a good name choice lol!
Steve , do you write reviews somewhere? I found John quite heartwarming, as a play. While most reviewers seemed to strongly dislike the young couple, I found them - Elias in particular - quite likeable No, just here. I find it turns a show from a rushed McDonald's snack into a three course meal, with all the anticipation preceding the show, then the aftermath of all the different flavours of appreciation following it.
And yes, I agree about Elias being three dimensional. It was heartwarming when he told her ghost stories in bed with the lights out. I suppose my point was that that play isn't redemptive in the way the previous plays arguably were.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2019 7:52:08 GMT
Really enjoyed this! This interview is worth a read ... www.standard.co.uk/go/london/theatre/annie-baker-chloe-lamford-interview-the-antipodes-national-theatre-a4271056.htmlwhich does make me think that at a strictly literal level, Baker is just writing plays about her past crappy jobs. I presume she is talking about working on "I Love Dick", an Amazon sitcom - she's credited as writer for one episode and as consulting producer. As I understand it in a writers' room situation they take turns in being credited on an episode. I sat in the circle, P17 (seat closest to the entrance on the side block). A pretty good view from here - only saw the back of Stuart McQuarrie's head most of the time but had a good view of everything else. I think this was better than the side seats in the pit would have been. Badly directed for the first hour though. No reason they couldn't have walked around a bit or swivelled round on their swivel chairs so people got to see faces! |
|
5,188 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Being Alive on Nov 16, 2019 16:57:09 GMT
Maybe it's just me - but this did NOTHING for me.
Maybe I wasn't clever enough to understand whatever Annie Baker was trying to tell us, but I literally haven't got a clue what happened AT ALL.
Maybe, just maybe, I'll one day work out how they made take away appear out of thin air...
|
|
3,320 posts
|
Post by david on Nov 16, 2019 17:37:19 GMT
After seeing this at today’s matinee, this was both one of the weirdest yet totally fascinating pieces of theatre I’ve seen this year. On the face of it, the play took on a really simple concept of a group of people just sat around a table (loved the colourful carpet) and telling stories to each other , but yet by the end for me it raises the question about what happens when you run of stories to tell.
As my first experience of a piece of writing by Annie Baker, it was certainly an interesting afternoon and a times mind boggling at what I was watching. Certainly, I would of liked more moving around and chair swapping of the cast so I could see their faces more rather than just the backs of their heads. I was sat in M8 and had a decent enough view of proceedings.
|
|
644 posts
|
Post by jek on Nov 17, 2019 8:03:22 GMT
I'm in the camp of people who loved John but were bored by this. Not that it dragged horribly - I was surprised when it ended feeling that I hadn't been in the threatre that long - but just that it didn't engage me. I enjoyed some of the acting - Conleth Hill in particular who was so good on TV recently in the Dublin Murders and Arthur Darvill who I had most recently seen on stage in Sweet Charity and on the telly in World on Fire. From my eyrie up in the cheap seats in the gallery of the Dorfman I enjoyed watching the responses of the audience members opposite, in fact during less compelling sections I enjoyed making up stories in my head about their lives - so maybe that was an acceptable response to Annie Baker's work too. I certainly wouldn't be put off seeing another Baker play - she is clearly very talented - but I wouldn't recommend this one to people as a good place to start with her work.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 17, 2019 9:57:21 GMT
Conleth Hill in particular Invisible from where I was sitting! Really p-d off by that. |
|
638 posts
|
Post by andrew on Nov 18, 2019 20:44:39 GMT
Can anyone advise me on which side of the pit is it better to sit at?
|
|
3,320 posts
|
Post by david on Nov 18, 2019 20:56:28 GMT
Can anyone advise me on which side of the pit is it better to sit at? I was sat in M8 in the pit area. It was one of the side high seats (£29). I thought it as a decent view of the cast sat around the table and I was able to see Conleth Hill fine. I got the impression that whatever side you picked, I don’t think you’d escape not seeing the back of heads without sitting in the main pit area and paying the higher prices. |
|
638 posts
|
Post by andrew on Nov 18, 2019 21:25:02 GMT
Can anyone advise me on which side of the pit is it better to sit at? I was sat in M8 in the pit area. It was one of the side high seats (£29). I thought it as a decent view of the cast sat around the table and I was able to see Conleth Hill fine. I got the impression that whatever side you picked, I don’t think you’d escape not seeing the back of heads without sitting in the main pit area and paying the higher prices. Thanks a lot! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 9:57:25 GMT
For the same price you might be better in row P of the circle - I sat in P17 (the back row of the circle, closest view to the entrance) and had a good view of just about everything - I only saw Stuart McQuarrie's back for most of the first hour, but he wasn't blocking my view of anything else.
|
|
