3,307 posts
|
Post by david on Dec 2, 2021 23:18:58 GMT
Having been at today’s matinee, after watching the 3hr show, this one definitely left me pondering at what the overall message playwright Al Smith was trying to convey (a health vs wealth debate?). I bought the programme/play text so I’m hoping a read of it will help. Certainly the run time for me was too long for this play and with only one interval made it a struggle to stay focused on proceedings. Also, were the little dance segments between scenes really necessary? I’m not sure what the point if them was, On a positive I thought Arthur Darvill was great here and the projection at the end was terrific. Having booked for “The Glow” in Feb, I’m hoping this one will be a better watch.
|
|
423 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Dec 5, 2021 6:34:51 GMT
While there is a lot wrong with the play, I found myself engaged by it throughout the 3 hour + running time. The good: Arthur Darvill's engaging performance, and a lot of Mr Smith's twisting plotting throughout. Quite often his dialogue is funny, smart, and incisive. The second to the last scene between Mr Darvill and Ms O'Reilly was terrific. The other cast members were all good. The bad: Hamish Pirie's "look at me" direction and Moi Tran's misguided overly cumbersome set design. What's with the Enron dance interludes? Or the cumbersome and ineffective set changes? It's an ugly show at which to look and the overall effect was that it was simply trying too hard. The matinee was sparsely attended and there were a number of walkouts. Ultimately I think there are enough plots/sub plots/ underlying themes and performance opportunities within it that we're going to see a 4 part Netflix series very very soon. I'm very glad I saw it and given their level of business , if I was offered a ticket to see it again, I'd probably go.
|
|
83 posts
|
Post by G on Dec 5, 2021 12:42:45 GMT
While there is a lot wrong with the play, I found myself engaged by it throughout the 3 hour + running time. The good: Arthur Darvill's engaging performance, and a lot of Mr Smith's twisting plotting throughout. Quite often his dialogue is funny, smart, and incisive. The second to the last scene between Mr Darvill and Ms O'Reilly was terrific. The other cast members were all good. The bad: Hamish Pirie's "look at me" direction and Moi Tran's misguided overly cumbersome set design. What's with the Enron dance interludes? Or the cumbersome and ineffective set changes? It's an ugly show at which to look and the overall effect was that it was simply trying too hard. The matinee was sparsely attended and there were a number of walkouts. Ultimately I think there are enough plots/sub plots/ underlying themes and performance opportunities within it that we're going to see a 4 part Netflix series very very soon. I'm very glad I saw it and given their level of business , if I was offered a ticket to see it again, I'd probably go. The dances were so much fun! For me some drove home plot points, {Spoiler - click to view}e.g. the two doctors sparred, or before Henry offered an 'endowment' to the professor (!) some felt disjointed from the play (or I just didn't get them) but I liked that as a device to switch between scenes and break up a long play. I think I am rooting for the TV series at this point... |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Dec 5, 2021 12:54:48 GMT
Netflix would surely get two seasons and 16 hours out of this, at least. In relation to Elon Musk, they'd have to steer pretty clear of defamation but it seems very doable on this showing ..
I almost wonder if that was part of the appeal of this to the Royal Court - I'm sure they have a piece of any onward development.
|
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Dec 5, 2021 17:00:05 GMT
I'm also going to say that I liked this quite a lot. It wasn't really like anything I've seen before at the theatre, and I reckon it would be pretty hard to describe it in a way that makes it sound compelling or worthwhile. All I know is that for me personally it was laugh out loud funny, engaging and interesting, despite pretty obvious flaws in the writing characterisations, as well as some awkward direction at times. Quite liked the dancing though. But it was political without being preachy, dialectical without being dull, and relevant without being forced. At the same time I got Armando Iannucci/Chris Morris-esque razor satire vibes at times. A strange blend for sure. I thought that even with the lack of subtlety the characters were compelling, with the tropes being mostly surface level. Glad they didn't go too "mystical" with the Bolivian characters for sure. Overall I think this is the kind of thing I want to see at the Royal Court - something that strives for originality even if it doesn't absolutely pull it off. No need for an interval, there never is - just bang right through it, rattle it out, keep the pace up  The audience was sparse but at least appreciative, with no walk outs that I could see and a few standing ovations. ) I do wish people wouldn't use the scene changes and musical scenes to have inane loud conversations though. Annoying as f***. |
|
1,828 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Dec 7, 2021 9:03:34 GMT
We went last night. Stalls had a reasonable number of people, balcony appeared pretty empty... and that was on a Royal Court Monday. I enjoyed it, it is helped considerably by the performances and the at times very snappy dialogue. It doesn't feel it's length, I wasn't sitting waiting for it to end or drifting, It kept my engagement from the start. I do feel like it could have been trimmed even more or indeed as others have mentioned above more set for a longer Netflix series. I think dlevi above really captures it well and I'd agree entirely with their post. I do wonder what it must be like for a cast to do a long show to houses with a clear number of empty seats. The cast didn't return to the stage, from our seats we could see as they left most turned back as if to come back on but others just walked straight to the wings and the lights came on. Anyways, glad I saw it. I have been to the salt flats and been to the train as one of those 'unengaged tourists' so the poster had caught my interest from the original pre-covid schedule  |
|
|
|
Post by max on Dec 9, 2021 10:42:07 GMT
Plenty of good and engaging ideas in this. It was the interface of writing and staging that let it down very badly. It is possible to have physical action while dialogue happens, lol. Made it feel like an early draft, before a script editor or director might say to the writer "So....in the office scenes, and in the lab, what are they actually DOING that we can interlace, so it doesn't just look like a backdrop to lots of talking".
Sometimes a frame dropped in, and it was just horrible stagecraft to see some cast leave a scene into the wings, and others awkwardly step over the frame. If that step signified someone dissenting, or quitting, it would carry some meaning - I couldn't see any scheme to it. The little dance sequences in between scenes signified nothing to me, other than an attempt to sprinkle some 'this show's quirky' gloss. Shows a lack of faith in the writing, as I didn't find it that quirky - I was expecting it to be satirically cartoon / lampoonish, but that's not the overall tone - which is more sardonic/world weary, but fundamentally naturalistic/realistic. That's just fine.
Which is why it felt out of kilter when a story strand about doctoring research has the story jump the shark. At this point the acting style shifted extremely - and I didn't feel it was just the characters being aware of their ridiculousness, but the cast not believing it and demonstrating the ridiculousness of what they had to do. It's the kind of thing a happy cast might go with, and believe that a style shift has integrity as it indicates a paradigm shift in the story - the characters' machinations so crazy it's right that it all slips into a more cartoonish mode. How would I know, but I think this was a struggle for the cast. It was the Monday cheap night, so stalls full, yet they looked miserable as sin at the curtain call.
|
|
5,694 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 9, 2021 18:12:09 GMT
Just to say there is a story in media about donors withdrawing from TRC.
|
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Dec 11, 2021 21:27:16 GMT
I tried to forget about the controversy while I was watching this, though I still can't imagine how a group of (presumably) intelligent, well-informed people didn't realise Herschel Fink was a Jewish name. But I liked a lot about it. It's the kind of play I associate with the Royal Court - throws a lot of issues and questions at the audience, not always coherent, but plenty to think about, over-reaches itself a bit, but I like that they encourage writers to be ambitious, even if they end up with something that doesn't quite work. I want to go home having had my perceptions challenged and maybe changed a bit, and it achieved that.
I found it very funny, there were some good performances. I think everyone was a bit a a caracature, I'm not sure I believed any of them was sincere or genuine or fully realised, but maybe that was the point. I liked how it tried to link a lot of complex and worldwide issues. I think the NHS woman was the weakest part of the play. What kind of job involves devising new money-saving public health strategies for the UK govt but allows her to spend months moonlighting in Bolivia, providing at-home cancer care at her own expense?
I thought the dancing was ok, but it didn't really add anything. I quite liked the design and staging too, although some of the wheeled-about scenery seemed a bit superfluous.
So, it had some flaws, but was enjoyable, made me laugh and gave me a lot to think about - well worth the ticket price.
|
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 16, 2021 14:49:30 GMT
Closing early due to positive tests. Last performance today
|
|
899 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Dec 16, 2021 17:25:15 GMT
Closing early due to positive tests. Last performance today Oh no! Everything is going to close, isn't it? I'll be amazed if I get to see Cabaret in February! |
|
2,744 posts
|
Post by n1david on Mar 1, 2022 16:50:49 GMT
The Royal Court's report into Rare Earth Mettle has now been published: drive.google.com/file/d/17i-bOR3TNiouQ8v2W4YYGp1hqx_r7paO/viewEssentially, they accept that they messed up, context about the character was removed during drafting at which point the name no longer had relevance; and not enough people were involved in the development process who could have stepped in, and the concerns of those who did were ignored. |
|
1,828 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Mar 1, 2022 20:09:38 GMT
Without feeling qualified to comment on anything else in the report (I am a paid up member/friend of RC) ... this seems a stretch. There has been a lot of papering (upstairs and downstairs) for the Royal Court since re-opening post Covid. The only two shows that I am certain sold out (or even really well) were Maryland and Purple Snowflakes.... |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Mar 1, 2022 23:03:33 GMT
I follow a number of other Jewish artists on social media and there’s some anger over the report. From reading the report it appears the main point of contact between the Court and “Jewish artists” was one Jewish writer who was already under commission from the Court who first tipped off the Court about private conversations going on in a whatsapp group and volunteered to act as an intermediary, despite having a clear conflict of interest. I have read elsewhere that the writer in question also lives with REM’s director (accused of mishandling or ignoring complaints from Jewish workshop participants), which raises more questions about conflict of interest and ethics.
No one has come out of this looking great.
The Court need to talk to Jewish artists they don’t have pre-existing relationships with, or even to Jewish people who don’t work in new writing theatre and don’t have to worry about keeping in the Court’s good books.
|
|
296 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by fossil on Mar 2, 2022 14:27:38 GMT
What I find particularly depressing on reading the report, is the way that during the development process the RC was sensitive to the way the Bolivian character was presented. Yet even though the implication of giving another character a Jewish name was flagged up, this was not acted upon.
Whether choosing to ignore this was a conscious or unconscious decision, it does seem to infer a "Jews don't count" mindset.
|
|
