1,089 posts
|
Post by andrew on Sept 12, 2019 13:10:09 GMT
The third in Alexander Zeldins loose trilogy. This one's set in a community centre that's falling apart as two volunteers with their own problems try to help and bring together the people who turn up for the free lunch and choir. Supposedly this was extensively researched and comes from years of speaking to people who work in and rely upon these services, and Zeldin has centred the play vaguely around the story of a woman fighting to retain custody of her son.
I really admire what Zeldin is trying to do, I can only imagine how far removed from the genuine situations portrayed the majority of the National Theatre audience are. Whilst the play is fictional I absolutely believe the sorts of trials and tribulations described are very realistic and worthy of portrayal in a theatre with a mission like the National's. The actors inhabited their roles and it was all portrayed very impressively. Cecilia Noble is excellent.
With all that said, I didn't ultimately find it very enjoyable. There was a real lack of drama or interest, it isn't very entertaining, and I found it all a bit 'worthy' as opposed to interesting. I'm not asking for a musical number or more jokes, but some tension or a less obvious storyline or something wouldn't go amiss. There were comparisons written about the playwright to Ken Loach, but whereas something like 'I, Daniel Blake' is both moving as well as a stark painting of the difficulties people face when reliant on a stretched social service, this play didn't really engage me on any level other than general sympathy for the characters. Maybe there's more to get out of it if you have no familiarity of the world these characters live in and the difficulties they encounter, but for me there needed to be something more than what was on offer.
On a more specific point, I got very annoyed by one of the dramatic devices used. I was sat in the front of the side stalls. Some of these seats are purposefully not sold so that actors can sit in them as if they are seats around the edge of the community centre room the action takes place in. This is absolutely fine, if you're suggesting that the audience is also sitting in these seats alongside them. But that's not what the play intends, at points we're to believe that the actors are alone in the room, except one of them is sitting in a row beside 20 other people. It's just weird. One of the seats is specifically in the centre of the second row, they have to sort of sidle between the front row to get into it. I hated that. You can't be amongst the audience but also pretend they don't exist, it's not an easy bit of disbelief to suspend when you are in fact a part of it.
Just a bit of a disappointment really.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 12, 2019 14:58:46 GMT
I really admire what Zeldin is trying to do, I can only imagine how far removed from the genuine situations portrayed the majority of the National Theatre audience are. Whilst the play is fictional I absolutely believe the sorts of trials and tribulations described are very realistic and worthy of portrayal in a theatre with a mission like the National's. The actors inhabited their roles and it was all portrayed very impressively. Cecilia Noble is excellent. With all that said, I didn't ultimately find it very enjoyable. Were you there last night, as well?
I do agree with your first paragraph, and even complimented Zeldin on that point.
I said to him; From my daily work, I know these voices are completely authentic. That seemed like the most important thing to him. This was at the interval and I also said 'we now know Faith and Charity, will we meet hope next?', to which he and his co-person both said together in unison 'perhaps that's you'. So striking
It struggles as a conventional 3-act drama entertainment - frankly, it isn't even trying to be that. It's five sections with a timeline gap between each.
If you like rising tension in your drama before a dramatic twist, well, there is an issue as to whether sandwiches should be oblong or triangular.
Instead, we meet several seemingly real people, and share a hall with them. Each of them is there due to different personal circumstances but each is there becasue the social net has collapsed in the last decade. There is no one left to help those who need help.
It isn't just help in their daily lives - which they do so much - but they also need a pathway and support to get back to a place they can legitimately aspire to social integration, maybe even work eventually.
So hard to steer a route that doesn't become preachy or worthy. It worked for me but, as I say, I do know this world and these people. Perhaps others will now understand the cost of austerity - or plain 'class war' - a little better.
Cecilia Noble is stunning imo. I think it absolutely achieves what it set out to do but it is not a mainstream theatrical entertainment.
The absolutely important thing here is that he has given a very real voice to people who have none. This is not some middle-class BBC documentary team popping in to a community hall to find a few 'characters' for BBC2, this is their authentic struggle.
|
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by andrew on Sept 12, 2019 20:14:18 GMT
Were you there last night, as well?
I actually wasn't, I was there 2 nights ago now. Really interesting to hear your thoughts and perhaps (/hopefully) I'm in a minority, but the authenticity and naturalness of the experience didn't create an evening that I got much out of. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 12, 2019 21:48:56 GMT
It's a challenge, that's for sure. I guess they are assuming a fairly limited appeal - a 5-week run (before The Antipodes takes over).
p.s. apologies to anyone reading the earlier post. Came home pretty tired after a shift, not at my most coherent  |
|
|
|
Post by Forrest on Sept 13, 2019 9:30:42 GMT
Londonpostie and andrew, I really enjoyed reading your reviews, you've both raised some excellent points.
I was wondering whether I should go see this - on paper it seemed like something that would totally appeal to me (I like to see some good tackling of real-life issues on stage, not in the sense of relevance for the sake of it but really giving voices to those rarely heard) - but am none the wiser now, though. I fully appreciated both of your honest points about the worthiness and authenticity of the story as opposed to something being genuinely interesting in the dramatic sense. Goes to show how our enjoyment and appreciation of something is often influenced by personal experiences, doesn't it?
I also particularly liked andrew's comment on the use of the auditorium, because I am quite fascinated by the idea of interacting with/acknowledging the audience in the theatre: do you ignore them, pretend they are not there, or do you involve them, particularly like in this case, where you are literally entering their space? It seems like such a hard balance to strike. Perhaps had the play been more engaging, the whole idea would have seemed less intrusive?
(Prebble's "A Very Expensive Poison" gave me a lot to think about in this respect just recently, although I didn't much appreciate its way of recognising its audience as part of the production, but that was for a whole different set of reasons.)
Anyway, might wait for few more reviews to come in to decide...
|
|
1,243 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 13, 2019 9:34:22 GMT
Was there last night and agree with Andrew.
I think after the overwhelming power of LOVE, his second piece at the National, this one had a lot to live up to, which sounds odd to say about a theatre piece that's main job is to engage us in social awareness, but I too was disappointed with this.
LOVE genuinely felt like watching a documentary r eavesdropping on people struggling to deal with conditions society had locked them into.
With Faith, Hope, & Charity, Zeldin appears to be attempting to expanding this focus (certainly the running time, nearly 3hrs, with interval), but in doing so, especially with a longer running time, any tension is lost; drama absent.
It felt like he was trying to write a "play" (which I understand may sound ridiculous as it is, of course, aplay), but I mean that in terms of he seemed to be setting up situations that would very consciously be tefret d back to later.
I think that's it: it all felt very conscious of itself. And the "dramas" he had tried to create just weren't strong enough to sustain our interest. I mean real interest.
Several left at the interval last night.
I feel he did much better work in LOVE when it was more observational work, than this which feels like a dramaturgical attempt.
|
|
55 posts
|
Post by nialld on Sept 14, 2019 10:26:25 GMT
This was an interesting one for me - I wasn't sure what to make of it when I left the auditorium but I've found myself thinking about it a lot since seeing it and ultimately I really appreciate it as a piece of theatre. This really felt like realism and authenticity to the max - not a whole lot happened and it's definitely not for you if you like a lot of dramatic intensity in your theatre, but every single character and every single interaction/conversation they had felt real to an extent that is rarely seen in theatre. I guess that the whole point was that these characters and their lives would not usually be deemed noteworthy or dramatic enough to have a whole play around them - but if you're forced to stick with them for three hours the way you are here you really get a sense of the sadness that lurks beneath each one of them. I really liked the use of music and the choir as an outlet of expression for each of the characters - I found the first time we see them all sing on stage quite emotional, particularly as the fact that the choir rehearsals had all taken place offstage prior and you didn't realise that despite the characters genuinely appearing quite removed from one another in most scenes, the choir really allowed them to create a community. {Spoiler - click to view}
I also really liked how it ended - with Cecilia Noble's character humming after being the one who doesn't take part in the singing and constantly stating she 'hasn't sung in decades', finally allowing herself to engage in this outlet after always being there for everyone else. I'm not I agree with your interpretation of the device referenced in your final paragraph andrew - the play is clearly suggesting some sort of engagement between the characters on stage and the audience members, hence the characters often sitting in the audience as you mention, and also the fact that the house lights remained on the entire time (creating no separation between the world on the stage and the world of the audience) {Spoiler - click to view}
and the final scene in which Bernard directly addresses the audience and asks them to hum It was one of the aspects of the piece that I found really interesting - the mix between hyper realism and brechtian antitheatricality, the latter of which actually accentuated the realism in my opinion. The cast are all very strong - as mentioned, Cecilia Noble is really fantastic - particularly in the final scene! Overall - it's definitely not the type of theatre that will appeal to everyone and I can totally appreciate why it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I think if you're willing to give it the time of day there's a lot to be taken from it. |
|
1,499 posts
|
Post by Steve on Sept 14, 2019 10:31:43 GMT
I feel he did much better work in LOVE when it was more observational work, than this which feels like a dramaturgical attempt. Having seen Zeldin's three plays about marginalised struggling people, "Beyond Caring," (about zero hour contracts) "Love" (about temporary accommodation) and this one (about a community centre), I agree with Nash16 that "Love" was the one that felt perfect, a five star masterpiece of truthfulness and observation.
That said, I do like this one very much, as it's so beautifully observed and acted.
If it has a problem, it is length: double the length of the previous two plays, which seems to be in order to enlarge the canvas to fit more characters, and this is where it feels more effortful. It reminds me of the rule of comedy and stand-up, that there is an hour and a half limit to the magic, before the comedy runs out of steam as the punters see through the repetition and the techniques. I think the same rule may apply to this observational naturalistic genre.
Annie Baker's "The Flick" was equally lengthy, in it's depiction of the repetitious everyday routines of small town cinema workers, but she spiced up her observational style with a hoary old classic of real drama (the love triangle), and I think that's what kept audiences rapt.
By contrast, Zeldin rejects such overt dramatic plot constructions, that aren't specifically a reflection of people's everyday struggles, so the "plots" he interposes to keep the run time simmering aren't so much plots as life situations: man out of prison reintegrating into society, boy dealing with out-of-control mother, drug-taking mother with custody issues, old man dealing with loneliness, mentally challenged man without sufficient help, families and individuals who need to eat, while the overarching drama/reality presented is: community centre running out of money.
All these issues are worthy of inclusion, but by including them all, Zeldin bats our attention around so much that we end up focusing on the batter: on the constructor who saw fit to bat us around. And that takes us out of it a little bit, just like an over-elaborate comic play or stand-up set does.
Still, I think this is a great piece of work, and a fitting conclusion to the (loose) trilogy, in that it's focus on the importance of community, even if it risks dispelling some of the observational magic, points us further towards answers to the questions that the first two parts of the trilogy spelled out.
There is a speech that Cecilia Noble makes about salmon that absolutely broke my heart: in part because it sums up the themes, and in part because Cecilia Noble is a remarkable actress that can do no wrong. She is flawless in this show, unshowy and heartbreaking in her performance even as in "Nine Night" she was showy and hilarious, with both performances ranking foe me as among the very best awards-worthy performances of their respective years. Fabulous!
And among the rest of the universally wonderful ensemble, Alan Williams as a pernickety lonely but helpful old man, Nick Holder as a talkative reformed scally, Corey Peterson as a man putting on a smile, and Bobby Stallwood as a boy wrestling with caring for his mother: are all absolutely remarkable.
Although the least of the trilogy, this still gets 4 and a half stars from me! |
|
4,806 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Mark on Sept 24, 2019 21:19:39 GMT
Saw this tonight and enjoyed it for the most part. For all it’s quite slow in pace, I found it really engaging. Not quite up to par with “Love”, but if you enjoyed that I’m sure you will this one too.
Cecilia Noble, as expected, just wonderful.
|
|
3,321 posts
|
Post by david on Sept 26, 2019 23:13:25 GMT
As the final show of my London theatre week, it was certainly an interesting production to end on. An absolutely fantastic cast portraying what felt like real characters where the social net hasn’t caught them to give them the support that each of them needs. Cecilia Noble was just fantastic here as the community centre leader trying to support these different people best she can. Nice Holder as Mason and Alan Williams as Bernard for me were also particular standouts in the ensemble.
The staging choice here I thought was interesting. Having no clear divide between audience and cast and having the house lights on during the play I thought brought a sense of realism to proceedings as an audience member you inhabited that environment. Though I wasn’t entirely convinced by the use of the empty seats in the side blocks and the front two rows of the main seating area. I was sat bang in the middle of the front row of the main seating block, and having at different times the characters acting behind me or at the sides sat with other audience patrons just didn’t sit right with me unfortunately and just found it distracting.
I think the strongest part of the proceedings was in the choir section. In those few minutes, you had all these different characters from different walks of life through the music were able to find a sense of peace and belonging to a community that outside of that moment was missing in their own respective lives.
|
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Oct 14, 2019 14:54:06 GMT
Although not quite as impressive as LOVE I was not in any way disappointed by this. It starts in his in his usual hyper-naturalistic way and you are immediately drawn into the characters. Gradually the whole thing becomes more play-like and structured and I feel that's where it is a little less effective.
Although a 'device' I really liked the sitting amongst the audience element and this for me added to the realism.
|
|
23 posts
|
Post by westwaywanderer on Oct 16, 2019 0:02:38 GMT
Went last Wednesday with a group of Theatre undergrads! We enjoyed aspects of it but the general concensus seemed to be it wasn't gripping enough and certain elements didn't work (e.g the trabnsitions and the ending).
|
|
