4,806 posts
|
Post by Mark on Dec 10, 2019 22:14:42 GMT
Certainly different to my matinee of Goldilocks and the three bears.
This was great, even if I didn’t fully understand what was always going on after the play took on a different turn, it was very engaging and certainly made you think. It made me think - am I meant to think this or is it in my imagination. Can’t wait to read more about this and figure some of that out
Had £10 lucky dip, got seats at the side of stalls for a pretty good view!
|
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Dec 11, 2019 10:46:19 GMT
I was there last night as well. It is definitely an experience that I still need to process because it was really different and there are some elements that are not yet clear to me. I can see how the impact may have been different in the US but it was certainly interesting and stimulating.
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Dec 11, 2019 20:55:38 GMT
Went to the matinee. Don’t read anything about it. Loved it. Mad as a bunch of 🐸
Steve has summed it up brilliantly (as usual) above...but no spoilers until you’ve seen it!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Dec 11, 2019 21:46:28 GMT
I can’t decide what I think of it. Just finished watching this and whilst I thought the writing was consistently brilliant throughout (bought a playtext after too), I’m left unsure as to whether or not this felt progressive or divisive. Whenever a play like this comes around, it’s important to hit every mark and I definitely felt audience members around me getting frustrated with the show particularly in the second part. More worryingly, the “interactive ending” left me troubles with how pieces like this would fare white, upper-middle class audiences (over 80% of the London Theatre audiences probably). Was this an attack on white people? No. But did this leave me (a BAME individual) feeling uncomfortable? Yes. and I’m afraid many around me did too. What it did exceptionally well however was trigger a conversation which strangers around me all engaged in. I’m going to give this 4* for the writing and the good intentions but the delivery in this political climate left me a little uneasy..
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 22:42:58 GMT
Interestingly, a mixed race writer in the Telegraph felt similarly uncomfortable when attending this (though possibly for different reasons of course - I’m not making any assumptions).
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 12, 2019 0:09:28 GMT
Hmmmm...saw this this afternoon and thought it was ok. My problem was I already knew the 'twist' thanks to an American review I read earlier this year so I don't know how if it would've impacted me more not knowing what was coming. I was still quite shaken by what happened and how it was done, but I don't know, in the end I think this is more an American problem.
The acting was great and the writing was clever, but it just all felt a bit gimmicky.
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Dec 12, 2019 7:31:24 GMT
Hmmmm...saw this this afternoon and thought it was ok. My problem was I already knew the 'twist' thanks to an American review I read earlier this year so I don't know how if it would've impacted me more not knowing what was coming. I was still quite shaken by what happened and how it was done, but I don't know, in the end I think this is more an American problem. The acting was great and the writing was clever, but it just all felt a bit gimmicky. I don’t think it is more an American problem. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 12, 2019 9:36:57 GMT
Hmmmm...saw this this afternoon and thought it was ok. My problem was I already knew the 'twist' thanks to an American review I read earlier this year so I don't know how if it would've impacted me more not knowing what was coming. I was still quite shaken by what happened and how it was done, but I don't know, in the end I think this is more an American problem. The acting was great and the writing was clever, but it just all felt a bit gimmicky. I don’t think it is more an American problem. Of course you're right, the overarching message behind the play is 100% a problem pretty much everywhere but...
{Spoiler - click to view}it did feel a little odd sitting in a theatre seeing black performers ask for a 'fair viewing' when the only shows I had seen in that particular venue over the last 12 months have been almost exclusively black stories/performers. The National has also had many over the past 12 months. Now this may be a fairly recent thing and they have all been utterly amazing so I am not complaining in the slightest, but it did seem at odds with that particular argument in the show. In the US they had Hamilton and then things kinda of stopped. It appeared to be a new trend that went nowhere, whereas here I think representation and people's willingness to go and see productions about other races has definitely increased in popularity. Maybe it would've had more of an impact opening the season than of closing it IE we are recognising there is a problem here and are remedying it.
Anyways...beyond that it has certainly remained in my mind, I haven't stopped thinking about it since I saw it, so I guess it made a mark. |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 12, 2019 21:25:58 GMT
I had high hopes of this but found it increasingly tedious & couldn't wait to escape. Not helped by the fact that it started at least 10 minutes late with no explanation or apology, and then seemed interminable & far longer than 90 minutes.
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 13, 2019 4:44:15 GMT
So, to explain more about my negative reaction, I thought the first act was fine and very promising; the second started well and continued to be interesting for most of its duration but deteriorated rapidly towards the end with the introduction of a character whose comments I found a inexplicable and irrelevant to the action and foregoing dialogue; this person also swore a ludicrous amount, which didn't help.
As for the third act, suffice it to say that the downhill momentum became a landslide and for me, wrecked everything which had gone before. Undoubtedly a great idea but the treatment alienated me utterly and left me thinking not about the issue on which I was (presumably) intended to reflect but what a disaster the production had become.
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Dec 13, 2019 9:17:50 GMT
Let me explain my positive reaction. There was much about this play that was ok or boring or a bit annoying but it contained one of those rare moments where you suddenly work out what the hell is happening ...sort of BOOM! You know the one....the moment that makes the whole play worth it.
So don’t read anything about it.
Nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 13, 2019 15:51:45 GMT
So, to explain more about my negative reaction, I thought the first act was fine and very promising; the second started well and continued to be interesting for most of its duration but deteriorated rapidly towards the end with the introduction of a character whose comments I found a inexplicable and irrelevant to the action and foregoing dialogue; this person also swore a ludicrous amount, which didn't help. As for the third act, suffice it to say that the downhill momentum became a landslide and for me, wrecked everything which had gone before. Undoubtedly a great idea but the treatment alienated me utterly and left me thinking not about the issue on which I was (presumably) intended to reflect but what a disaster the production had become. You are meant to feel exactly as you felt so the play did its job. The fact you didn't like that feeling means the play did its job. The fact you didn't react in the way you should've means that you as a human being didn't do your job, but the play still did its job. |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 13, 2019 17:31:20 GMT
I'm really baffled by your comments, intoanewlife - obviously not disagreeing at this point but an explanation would be helpful, please. Firstly, how can you be so sure about how I (whether personally or as an audience member in general) am meant to react? Secondly your first sentence seems to conflict with your third: I am supposedly meant to feel exactly as I did yet apparently didn't react in the way I should have done? |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 13, 2019 19:53:22 GMT
I'm really baffled by your comments, intoanewlife - obviously not disagreeing at this point but an explanation would be helpful, please. Firstly, how can you be so sure about how I (whether personally or as an audience member in general) am meant to react? Secondly your first sentence seems to conflict with your third: I am supposedly meant to feel exactly as I did yet apparently didn't react in the way I should have done? {Spoiler - click to view}
The play is not really a play as such...it is a statement and a request.
It is asking you to listen to its statement and requests that you either change and help make a bad situation better or remain the same and change nothing.
The 1st Act (the one which you naturally enjoyed) features one of the typically cartoonish and 'white friendly' representations of black people that we are used to seeing represented in the media and in entertainment in general. (When we are not portraying them as criminals of course, because no doubt you would not have paid money to see that play...) For all intensive purposes however, we are watching black characters portray white people with a few of the black stereotypes 'we' accept from their culture thrown in for good measure.
The 2nd Act is how we judge a whole race based on that version of black people and then choose to appropriate the bits we like from an already incorrect representation and make it our own. This then further lampoons and distorts an already ludicrous ideal that never existed in the first place and further warps our perception of black people. We laugh at the white characters and their stupidity because we see them as impersonating black people, but we also feel shame and embarrassment that these people are white and we know most white people don't act that way. (the bit you didn't like and when it started to turn bad for you...) But that's ok, because they are playing black people...white people are not REALLY like that. IE...We don't judge them as idiotic white people acting inappropriately, we automatically turn the derision we feel towards them onto the race they are impersonating.
The 3rd Act is turning the spotlight of the false representation of white people we have just seen onto us...directly...putting us in the spotlight after seeing ourselves presented in such a way and being judged by black people in the same way we judge their race. We know white people are not like that, they know black people are not like they are represented and they ask us to give them a chance to make their real selves/stories heard the way white selves/stories are. Would we pay to go and see those REAL stories instead of a repacked 'white' friendly version of them designed for our entertainment, instead of learning their realities. Will we stop judging them based on fabricated versions of their race. Will we give their lives a 'fair viewing'.
If all you felt at this point was alienation and made the decision to judge the play instead of listening to its message and making a decision to change, then you didn't get the point and were judging based solely on it's entertainment value instead of listening to its message and agreeing to give them a seat at the table.
In the end it is not really a play, it is not even entertainment. It uses the facade of being a play to trap you to sit (or in this case stand) and listen to a message that you otherwise would've never listened to if you hadn't paid money to be entertained by stereotypical white peoples preferred version of black people. |
|
1,240 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 13, 2019 23:26:18 GMT
So, to explain more about my negative reaction, I thought the first act was fine and very promising; the second started well and continued to be interesting for most of its duration but deteriorated rapidly towards the end with the introduction of a character whose comments I found a inexplicable and irrelevant to the action and foregoing dialogue; this person also swore a ludicrous amount, which didn't help. As for the third act, suffice it to say that the downhill momentum became a landslide and for me, wrecked everything which had gone before. Undoubtedly a great idea but the treatment alienated me utterly and left me thinking not about the issue on which I was (presumably) intended to reflect but what a disaster the production had become. You are meant to feel exactly as you felt so the play did its job. The fact you didn't like that feeling means the play did its job. The fact you didn't react in the way you should've means that you as a human being didn't do your job, but the play still did its job. You okay hun? |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 13, 2019 23:27:54 GMT
You are meant to feel exactly as you felt so the play did its job. The fact you didn't like that feeling means the play did its job. The fact you didn't react in the way you should've means that you as a human being didn't do your job, but the play still did its job. You okay hun? Yup I'm fine, how are you? |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 14, 2019 5:24:17 GMT
Thank you for your very detailed explanation, intoanewlife - I can't quote your post as it already contains the maximum number of quotations. Oh well, even if I was a very stereotypical and target audience member, at least, as you say, the play did its job - and I mine, I reckon, in sitting through it despite feeling increasingly disappointed and fed up! (Mind you, had I been closer to the aisle I would probably have left sooner.) |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 14, 2019 6:20:42 GMT
could anyone explain in the spoiler tag what does audience partecipation involve? {Spoiler - click to view}
At the end of the play, the 4th wall is broken again and the youngest black performer enters the audience and requests/pleads that the white people in the audience leave their seats and go onto the stage so they can look out at how few black people are in the audience, and how white people unknowingly are oppressing black people by taking up such spaces in society.
You can choose to go up onstage or stay in your seats.
Her monologue continues for about 3-4minutes, after which she climbs the steps and leaves the space by the circle door.
The rest of the cast then leave.
There is no curtain call. They must've changed the monologue in previews because that is not what happened at the end of the performance I saw. |
|
|
|
Post by zanzibar on Dec 14, 2019 9:38:53 GMT
intoanewlife nash16I did some work on this show during previews and it didn’t change.You can read the script as well.At no point are white audiences asked to look into the audience to see how few black people there are or lambasted for taking up space in society.Its a question of what black stories could be without white interpretation.All that the white members of the audience are asked is to think about what they could do to make space for someone else for a minute if they could.Interesting that some people seemed to hear it differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 14, 2019 12:55:18 GMT
intoanewlife nash16 {Spoiler - click to view}
I did some work on this show during previews and it didn’t change.You can read the script as well.At no point are white audiences asked to look into the audience to see how few black people there are or lambasted for taking up space in society.Its a question of what black stories could be without white interpretation.All that the white members of the audience are asked is to think about what they could do to make space for someone else for a minute if they could.Interesting that some people seemed to hear it differently. I spoilered your comment and maybe you could do the same as it is a heading fairly close to very spoilerly territory. {Spoiler - click to view} {Spoiler - click to view}
I have to say I found the nash16 review a little shall we say 'theatre crowd uppity', blasé and flippant, especially considering the fact they all seemed to miss the entire point of the exercise. I did not feel his interpretation was correct at all and no one whatever their decision was to participate of not was meant to feel like a racist. Complicit perhaps, a little guilty maybe, but not racist. Making a mistake or being uneducated in what is considered racist or offensive does not make you a racist. Refusing to listen to the complaint however...
I guess in the age of extreme narcissism there is no such thing as learning from mistakes anymore. Maybe the 'theatre crowd' were too busy feeling so 'above it all', they failed to see that they actually were the people being addressed, instead of fobbing the problem off onto supposed 'lessers'. They may be even worse because they chose to not even hear the message and instead gave the play their own preconceived 'manipulation' stamp, instead of actually listening to what was being said. Showgirl appears to have done the same...oh well still the plays problem, not hers...I guess no 'fairview' coming from them...
The only manipulation involved was taking your money and getting you in the door. Choosing to go on the stage or not was a simple request to listen, to be a part of the experience you paid to see. It was not to judge anyone, it was meant to wake you up and include you in the conversation.
The daughters confusion during the dinner scene and what follows on stage is clearly because she is seeing both races being portrayed with no sense of reality what so ever. We were merely asked to step into the spotlight and see what it felt like to be scrutinised after the misinterpretation of 'us' we had just witnessed, as that is what happens to black people all the time. Then while we were there, we are asked if we will give them the space to tell their real stories and support that, instead of spending our money seeing them misrepresented all the time. That is where our guilt was supposed to lay, it had nothing to do with being racist or not.
True racists wouldn't be seen dead at a play featuring black actors in the first place. The ignorant however can sneer and choose to stay ignorant it seems. Frankly I don't know which is worse. |
|
3,578 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Dec 14, 2019 13:52:39 GMT
|
|
105 posts
|
Post by youngoffender on Dec 14, 2019 19:12:25 GMT
I managed to get a return for the matinee today, and for the first 85 minutes was glad I did. A hugely inventive and provocative piece, playing deftly with themes of race, artifice, watching and being watched like a cross between Get Out and The Truman Show. I particularly loved the way the voices slipped uncannily in and out of synch with the dumb show in part 2, and that dinner scene - the food laid out, and the guests who show up - has to be one of the most memorable of the year. The ending, though! {Spoiler - click to view}
When the play had done such a great job by needling and unsettling us, to then shame the white members of the audience into getting up on stage to be lectured by one of the cast on what it was all about, felt excruciatingly ill-judged.
As others have said, there's a great irony in this homily being delivered at the Young Vic under the current tenure, where staging (say) a Rattigan play with a white cast would constitute a radical act of diversity. And as it is, the bien-pensant metropolitan audience for this theatre seemed only too happy to abase themselves. What the reaction might have been at the Yvonne Arnaud in Guildford, or the Theatre Royal Bath, well that could have been interesting - here it was truly preaching to the choir.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 14, 2019 20:00:36 GMT
I am truly am not understanding the reactions to the ending, I did not take it as being insulting to or judgemental of the audience at all *shrugs
|
|
1,240 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 14, 2019 21:34:57 GMT
I managed to get a return for the matinee today, and for the first 85 minutes was glad I did. A hugely inventive and provocative piece, playing deftly with themes of race, artifice, watching and being watched like a cross between Get Out and The Truman Show. I particularly loved the way the voices slipped uncannily in and out of synch with the dumb show in part 2, and that dinner scene - the food laid out, and the guests who show up - has to be one of the most memorable of the year. The ending, though! {Spoiler - click to view}
When the play had done such a great job by needling and unsettling us, to then shame the white members of the audience into getting up on stage to be lectured by one of the cast on what it was all about, felt excruciatingly ill-judged.
As others have said, there's a great irony in this homily being delivered at the Young Vic under the current tenure, where staging (say) a Rattigan play with a white cast would constitute a radical act of diversity. And as it is, the bien-pensant metropolitan audience for this theatre seemed only too happy to abase themselves. What the reaction might have been at the Yvonne Arnaud in Guildford, or the Theatre Royal Bath, well that could have been interesting - here it was truly preaching to the choir.
Thank you for reassuring me I wasn't remembering it wrong! |
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Dec 14, 2019 23:46:41 GMT
That's interesting -- I don't think the ending is meant to shame or humiliate, it's to promote an awareness of the optics by which we operate as a society, which is a very different thing.
|
|
