382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Mar 16, 2023 13:20:07 GMT
Can somebody unveil a bit of stage magic for me. People have remarked on the interruptions to change sets. How many sets would you say were used? I have no insight, but my guess is {Spoiler - click to view}
They are using both the side and rear stage to store sets as suggested, based off the fact you can see the ramp mechanism on stage left (the side with the massive store) and behind the glass. The glass piece on the revolve doesn't change, it's the inside of the set which is altered. One specific side of the glass cube has obvious doors and hinges on it, and when blackouts end it's usually facing either the rear or stage left side because that's where it's being facing during the unload/reload. I don't know how many bases they're working with, they could be redressing 1 or 2 bases when not in use or they could have them all pre-set (I suspect not just due to space constrictions).
The switches are well done but even from mid stalls I could hear them rolling things on or off, the doors creaking open and closed. It was nowhere near as impressive as Yerma which was similar in concept, where they could roll on or off into the YV Workshop area the base to redress, and had a bunch of crew with night vision goggles moving stuff and actors around in between, all of it a few feet in front of the audiences unseeing eyes, but obviously this is a more complex and versatile setup.
In this the actors are all individually mic'd up, and as discussed earlier hide in different parts of the set when they need to be inside the cube but aren't actually in the scene. It would make an interesting behind the scenes video from the NT as they like to do for their big set pieces, perhaps one will come. I thought this was good not great. Ultimately I didn't find the ending earned, JMcT does her best but I don't think her unravelling was believable or well paced enough. Still enjoyed it. For G, Andrew and others, there’s a video on Instagram about how they worked with the set. I can’t see it on NT website or NT YouTube though unless someone else can find it elsewhere. www.instagram.com/reel/Cp2VmQfogQF/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y= |
|
38 posts
|
Post by shakeel on Mar 22, 2023 22:35:29 GMT
Loved this. Best thing I’ve seen at the NT since Lehman in 2018, I think.
|
|
1,280 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Mar 23, 2023 0:39:24 GMT
I thought Janet McTeer was excellent but overall the production left me cold, too pretentious for my liking.
|
|
87 posts
|
Post by greenswan on Mar 23, 2023 7:35:19 GMT
Found myself mostly out of sync with the response - audience applauded wildly yesterday. I spent the first 45 minutes considering whether I should leave at the interval. Stuck it out and it picked up a bit towards the end but still not for me. Not a fan of the glass box concept, which didn't work for me from the circle- too alienating. The actors speaking over each other was frequently unintelligible, especially the first 20 minutes or so. The play is much too long, it takes way too much time to ramp up to the (better) second half. I didn't mind the other languagesI/surtitles concept but the transitions to accommodate the tech are annoying after about the third time. The music doesn't really add anything.
Plotwise - the ending was not believable even within a greek tragedy theme for me. The main character was always only centred on herself, so Sofiane didn't feel like a big enough trigger for that ending. And political scandals are mostly just brazened out in the UK these days.
|
|
74 posts
|
Post by ruperto on Mar 23, 2023 8:48:40 GMT
I caught this again on Tuesday night - I loved it as much as the first time. The opening scene, with everyone talking/shouting over each other, has got to be one of my favourite bits of theatre for a long time.
We had a rather dramatic show stop during the first half - the giant glass box malfunctioned, with one of the huge window panels coming away from the main casing (it happened when two of the characters bashed up against it as part of a scene). Suddenly a small army of stagehands/tech people were scurrying around the stage, including a couple of people who emerged out of what I think was a curtained shower stall or toilet in the bedroom part of the set. That prompted much audience amusement, as did a brief bit of onstage clowning around from Janet McTeer.
I thought that might be it for the evening’s entertainment, but they managed to get it fixed in 10-15 minutes or so, and the dramatic momentum was very quickly regained.
|
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Mar 26, 2023 7:53:22 GMT
Loved this! The first scene was so much fun…..and all the dialogue and acting top notch. Creative, a bit different, and came out of the theatre with that “what time is it, where have I just been” stunned feeling which I love to get with good theatre!
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by bee on Mar 26, 2023 10:27:09 GMT
I didn't really like this I'm afraid. By the end of the opening scene I hated everyone in the family. Maybe that was what the writer intended, but it made it difficult for me to get involved in the play. They were all pretentious and self-absorbed, and by the end only Hugo had won me over to his side. Sofiane initially came across as a real person, but as events transpired even he just became annoying.
Like others have mentioned, the mikes were a problem in some scenes when everyone was talking at the same time. It just became a bit of a garbled mess (possibly that was intentional I guess). The sur/subtitles didn't work well, being both too high and too low. The scene changes were just a bit too long, and I'm pretty sure the spoken sections were only there to cover up the racket. They didn't add anything to the play.
Having said all that, there were some genuinely funny moments, especially during the disastrous birthday dinner. Plus,all of the actors were really giving it everything, especially Janet McTeer, who looked exhausted at the end. I should also emphasise that most of the audience seemed to love it lots of people standing to applaud during the bows.
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Mar 26, 2023 13:39:08 GMT
Well, this had everything. Having read through this thread, I can see all the negatives: the long and clunky scene changes, the horribly self absorbed characters and in particular, the last scene hampered by the fast moving subtitles making it so difficult to follow the actual acting and content. I enjoyed the naturalistic overlapping dialogue in the family scenes and the crescendo of the restaurant as each character/firework exploded with perfect timing. I am not sure if we were meant to empathise with the characters, particularly as we observed them (as Gods) hemmed in and magnified like specimens by the glass case. The acting was great, and the cast are really in synch with each other. I particularly enjoyed Paul Chahidi’s performance whose character seemed to understand the absurdity of the situation, whilst doing nothing to alleviate it, before showing his vulnerabilities. Janet McTeer was wonderful (like a caged animal shrieking with pain in the restaurant and final scenes), but perhaps her inevitable demise seemed too sudden given the more extended set-up. There were some interesting (but undeveloped) ideas of colonialism, otherness of Hugo and Helen’s friend/chorus Omalara and respectively their Iranian/Nigerian heritage and more centrally, Sofiane revenging his father’s death or obeying the commands in the father’s voiceovers. Simon Stone sure as hell can be an infuriating director sometimes, but despite the blackouts, his on the point contemporary adaptation and eliciting such wonderful performances from a crack cast made this an intense and rewarding evening. Full house in terms of praise for me for the National’s Jan-March productions (Standing, Romeo & Julie and this). I also quite enjoyed the atmosphere in the audience (no bad behaviour) - laughter, gasps, shock… A solid 4 stars from me. {Question about one of the scenes near the end}
In the scene between Sofiane and his wife, whilst I can imagine the reasons, I didn’t catch the reason he gave to her as to why he said he had to leave for England. Can anyone enlighten me. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Mar 27, 2023 22:37:22 GMT
I can't remember exactly but will offer this in case it jogs a memory .. there was an exchange between Hugo and Sofaine, possibly in Arabic, that hinted at Hugo's dark past in Iran, and at Sofiane's knowledge of that world. Sofiane wasn't exiled but perhaps the political climate in Morocco was turning ..
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Mar 28, 2023 8:18:31 GMT
Thanks londonpostie. I had guessed that but also him pursuing his father’s and own memories.
I didn’t really catch the conversation between Hugo/Sofiane - particularly if it was within an English speaking scene when they went into Arabic, as one wasn’t expecting it and by the time you saw the subtitles, things had moved on!
|
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Mar 28, 2023 17:17:23 GMT
{Spoiler - click to view}
I thought she said that he was restless and felt hemmed in and just had to get away? Or something like that….just that life seemed too claustrophobic there…both in terms of being tied down to partner and place? We need a play script don’t we!!!! |
|
83 posts
|
Post by G on Mar 28, 2023 18:45:28 GMT
{Spoiler - click to view}
I thought she said that he was restless and felt hemmed in and just had to get away? Or something like that….just that life seemed too claustrophobic there…both in terms of being tied down to partner and place? We need a play script don’t we!!!! We absolutely need a play script! Does anyone know about developments on this? When I spoke to the NT bookshop team much earlier in the run, I believe they said that publishing the script was being considered but no decisions had been taken yet. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Mar 29, 2023 22:55:52 GMT
Well I'm glad I didn't listen to the reviews, my partner and I both thought this was absolutely fantastic!
After nearly 4 years of utter turds at the National, it was nice to finally leave the place satisfied again.
This is definitely the best thing I have seen there since Small Island.
It juuuuuust misses the brilliance and power of Yerma, but it was still fantastic.
The crowd seemed to love it too and it got an instant standing ovation.
4.5/5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 30, 2023 6:16:05 GMT
This is a good play and probably only got on at the National because it flies over Rufus Norris's head. But whilst acknowledging that, Simon Stone should have had the confidence to write his own work rather than leaning on the work of others which results in the very weak ending here. Not really leaning, more like standing at arm's length. It is a bit of a sleight of hand by Stone to call this Phaedra because even the very basic plot line has really nothing in common with the Euripides and Seneca versions and precious little with Racine either. If it hadn't been called Phaedra I doubt anyone could have guessed it was based on a specific single Greek tragedy. I think he's just signalling it's in the form of a Greek tragedy. 4* from me incidentally. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Mar 30, 2023 14:25:12 GMT
Looking back through some of the reviews here and surprised by a lot of the reactions to certain elements of the play. But firstly for anyone who hasn't seen it and is put off by some of the comments re the blackout sections. A fair chunk of them are literally no longer than 20 seconds, some are no longer than 10 seconds. I realise this probably changes every night based on how smoothly things run, but based on the comments here I was all set to break out the AirPods and a picnic lunch every time the lights went out and was shocked at how short they actually were. Yes there are longer breaks for the 5 major scenery changes, but they are still not THAT long and were certainly no longer or the music half as excruciating as that horrendous chanting and thrash metal in Yerma. The last one was a little longer last night, but you could tell something had gone awry as it was obvious when the music should've ended but continued. It's live theatre folks and sh*t happens, don't let that put you off seeing it! Secondly, do not 'zone out' during the Arabic text sections as they are crucial to understanding the concept of the play. Their timing and what is said is very important. As someone who isn't aware of the original story and just watched what was actually happening on the stage instead of trying to project my own prejudices and politics onto it, I probably took a slightly different view of the play than others here. I certainly didn't see it as some sort of acerbic attack on the Lefty Elite. Was it even explained where their politics laid or are we just meant to assume they were Lefties because they were intelligent, had posh accents and a nice home whereas most Tory politicians live in dilapidated council flats and talk like Peter Kay? I fail to see how the events that take place would've been handled any differently by a family with different socio economic or political views. Love (with a side order of trauma) makes people crazy no matter how much food you have in the fridge or if your fridge is in your kitchen or your bedroom. For me the central theme was truth. The actual truth Vs personal truth Vs perceived truth and how not recognizing and accepting the differences between the 3 eventually destroyed their lives. {Spoiler - click to view}
This is where an understanding of the Arabic sections is essential, as the Father's 'truth' is completely different to both Helen and Sofiane's perceived version of his life and their own version of events.
Helen believes he was happy and deeply in love with her and Sofiane believes he dumped the family to go live this wonderful carefree partying existence. In fact they were both wrong and he was miserable and guilt ridden for what he'd done.
His warning to his son is clearly to not to do what he did, as it would have dire consequences for all involved and he completely ignores him, dumps his wife and heads off to repeat the cycle.
I fail to see how some have perceived that everything that transpires is Helen's fault/doing. I take it this comes from the original story as it certainly was not on display here? She's a strong woman, but is that all it's supposed to take for me to not like her? If so it didn't work. And while I wouldn't say I 'liked' her, I understood her reactions to others actions. It was pretty clear the Father made his own decision to leave and owned it and that she loved him very deeply. It was also clear that Sofiane instigated the affair and seduced her, taking full advantage of her feelings for his Father. I actually didn't like or loathe anyone and thought all of their actions were completely believable and understandable and it just seemed like everyone and everything followed its pretty natural path to disaster.
You can tell from the very first scene that none of these people are very happy. While their passive aggressive humor makes them somewhat likable, they are all empty vessels who treat each other pretty appallingly and are focused on 'achievement' over everything else. Every one of them is desperately looking for something outside of themselves to help fill the empty void inside...enter Sofiane with a heavy dose of drama and intrigue.
I didn't even find Helen's fated phone call that shocking. He disappeared for 2 months. TWO MONTHS!!! I assume during that 2 months she'd have probably placed 100's of calls to him which he ignored and more than likely a few trips to Birmingham to no avail. She would've been pretty unstable by that point and for him to just waltz into HER party like that and announce he's shagging her daughter and she's pregnant. I don't know many women (or men for that matter) that wouldn't have at least reached for that phone and dialed that number, especially when blind drunk and delirious with pain and anger.
I do actually think it was to the detriment of the play that that scene was played for laughs instead of having a more serious tone (as enjoyable as it was) as it did kind of make light of a pretty emotionally devastating and serious situation for all involved. That along with the psychological warfare that was trying to read those subtitles (those translations could've easily been shortened and placed better) in the final scene were my only 2 complaints about the play. The only other thing which grated was the fact they had kinda set up the premise that Sofiane may have been doing all of this out of revenge at the end of Part 1 and then unfortunately didn't follow through with it in Part 2, leaving everything to fall into Helen's lap and leaving that concept hanging.
As for both characters demise...well...chances are if Sofiane wasn't sent home he'd have probably ended up leaving again anyways. It's in his nature and heritage...soooo...
As for Helen's fate...
She'd already suffered 2 months of emotional torture at the hands of Sofiane and then in the following 6 lost her husband and family, her career, most of her friends/work mates betrayed her without a thought and no doubt suffered some pretty horrendous public humiliation.
The fact she held out that long was pretty damned impressive to me!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 30, 2023 15:00:31 GMT
It was the phone call from A View From The Bridge wasn't it. On which topic, say you didn't know who had directed this and had to guess - you could equally well have thought it was Simona Stone, Robert Icke or Ivo van Hove, it was in the Toneelgroep Amsterdam house style. It doesn't reflect much credit on the UK subsidised sector that none of those three has a permanent role here. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Mar 30, 2023 15:14:48 GMT
I certainly didn't see it as some sort of acerbic attack on the Lefty Elite. Was it even explained where their politics laid or are we just meant to assume they were Lefties because they were intelligent, had posh accents and a nice home whereas most Tory politicians live in dilapidated council flats and talk like Peter Kay? I fail to see how the events that take place would've been handled any differently by a family with different socio economic or political views. Love (with a side order of trauma) makes people crazy no matter how much food you have in the fridge or if your fridge is in your kitchen or your bedroom. Events like these don't take place - it's a modern take on Greek parables (60 year old mother and daughter with same man, gets pregnant ... mother goes to Morocco to slit her own throat, etc, etc, etc)
As for their politics, there might be a clue in her job.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Mar 30, 2023 15:24:30 GMT
It was the phone call from A View From The Bridge wasn't it. On which topic, say you didn't know who had directed this and had to guess - you could equally well have thought it was Simona Stone, Robert Icke or Ivo van Hove, it was in the Toneelgroep Amsterdam house style. It doesn't reflect much credit on the UK subsidised sector that none of those three has a permanent role here. I don't know what you're quoting for the first line lol I think Stone and Ivo have similarities definitely, I have only seen 1984 from Icke, not so familiar with his work. I find Ivo a little patchy, some things I've loved and others not so much. I think Stone is a FAR better writer though and his adaptations are far more interesting. He also does not do all the bells and whistles Ivo does and the focus is more on the actors and their performances. I have loved everything I have seen by him. I don't think any of them would agree to doing that especially considering how things are here atm. Why would they limit themselves when they have the clout to do as they please anywhere in the world? |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Mar 30, 2023 15:25:23 GMT
I certainly didn't see it as some sort of acerbic attack on the Lefty Elite. Was it even explained where their politics laid or are we just meant to assume they were Lefties because they were intelligent, had posh accents and a nice home whereas most Tory politicians live in dilapidated council flats and talk like Peter Kay? I fail to see how the events that take place would've been handled any differently by a family with different socio economic or political views. Love (with a side order of trauma) makes people crazy no matter how much food you have in the fridge or if your fridge is in your kitchen or your bedroom. Events like these don't take place
You must live a very sheltered existence...you've never seen Jeremy Kyle or Jerry Springer? |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Mar 30, 2023 15:29:58 GMT
I certainly didn't see it as some sort of acerbic attack on the Lefty Elite. Was it even explained where their politics laid or are we just meant to assume they were Lefties because they were intelligent, had posh accents and a nice home whereas most Tory politicians live in dilapidated council flats and talk like Peter Kay? I fail to see how the events that take place would've been handled any differently by a family with different socio economic or political views. Love (with a side order of trauma) makes people crazy no matter how much food you have in the fridge or if your fridge is in your kitchen or your bedroom.
As for their politics, there might be a clue in her job.
I believe I must've missed this in the blind fury of the woman beside me texting for the first 15 mins. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Mar 30, 2023 15:31:59 GMT
Of course, that'll be it ..
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 30, 2023 15:32:11 GMT
It was the phone call from A View From The Bridge wasn't it. On which topic, say you didn't know who had directed this and had to guess - you could equally well have thought it was Simona Stone, Robert Icke or Ivo van Hove, it was in the Toneelgroep Amsterdam house style. It doesn't reflect much credit on the UK subsidised sector that none of those three has a permanent role here. I don't know what you're quoting for the first line lol .. I don't think any of them would agree to doing that especially considering how things are here atm. Why would they limit themselves when they have the clout to do as they please anywhere in the world? I was commenting on your spoilered comment about the phone call. It is exactly the same phone call with the same motivation as in A View... van Hove, Stone and Icke are all formally attached to the Toneelgroep Amsterdam so they are obviously prepared to limit themselves in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Mar 30, 2023 15:38:49 GMT
I don't know what you're quoting for the first line lol .. I don't think any of them would agree to doing that especially considering how things are here atm. Why would they limit themselves when they have the clout to do as they please anywhere in the world? I was commenting on your spoilered comment about the phone call. It is exactly the same phone call with the same motivation as in A View... van Hove, Stone and Icke are all formally attached to the Toneelgroep Amsterdam so they are obviously prepared to limit themselves in some way. Ah ok...I saw that about 10 years ago so don't really remember it. I think Stone does stuff in Australia as well and the company seems to tour a bit too. They certainly keep themselves busy. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Mar 30, 2023 15:40:31 GMT
Of course, that'll be it .. *shrugs It was literally the first thing I asked my other half on the way out and he didn't know either. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Mar 30, 2023 16:34:06 GMT
Of course, that'll be it .. *shrugs It was literally the first thing I asked my other half on the way out and he didn't know either. It sounds like you heard the phone call which, IIRC, comes after the interval (the tip off). That phone call is between a Shadow minister and her counterpart. There were numerous references to her job, and the family's political orientation, before and after the interval.
It's front and centre of the play. There is an entire, long, scene based solely on her forced resignation.
Fwiw, it's just a simple point. I am not going to engage with the rest of your original post.
|
|
