Dr Semmelweis - Bristol Old Vic / Harold Pinter

As funny as that review is, and it IS funny, this play is obviously not about "bleach."

It's about how knowledge is advanced when everyone thinks they already know what's up. It's about what happens when the scientific consensus is wrong.

I really enjoyed the play tonight, not only for Rylance, but also because it's an incredible story well told, through mystery, through music and dance, though I could have used more focus on Semmelweis himself (the play is named after him, after all) so that the focus on his work and discoveries would feel more personal and contextualised.

Some spoilers follow. . .

I loved the play "Oppenheimer," not only for it's fascinating portrait of the birth of a technology that could kill us all, and the tragedy of a man knowing he made that possible, but also for what happened before that: the stuff where John Heffernan's young Oppenheimer just hung out with his friends, the work rivalries, the romance, the humour - for me, the weight of the tragedy that later fell on his shoulders felt greater for knowing him apart from that tragedy.

"Farinelli and the King" had that foundational type character stuff, with Rylance's King and Farinelli both having their humorous character bits, separate and together, apart from their joint musical project.

This play, by contrast, is all business, jumping into process, and hoping to suggest characterisation along the way. It's like a Sherlock Holmes mystery - "The mystery of the Two Wards" (2 gynaecological hospital wards, where one has so much more death than the other) - in which Rylance's Semmelweis is the sparky, single-minded, obsessed and brilliant Holmes-type, solving the mystery, but he has no Watson to joke around with, no Mycroft to one-upmanship, no great and passionate love to light his fire (he has a wife, but she just worries about him - they don't really relate).

Luckily, the business at hand is brilliant, a fascinating and little known true story (that actually makes those antiseptic hand soaps we destroyed our hands with during the pandemic seem important and interesting lol), and the utilisation of music and dance in the telling is phenomenal - the moment when Rylance's principal patient, Chrissy Brooke's Lisa Elstein, who has died, does a death dance, wrapping herself around a perplexed Rylance is really terrific, and that's just one culmination of some fantastic ensemble dance, integrating onstage musicians.

The show has a worthy villain in Alan Williams's slow-speaking, ever-pontificating malign reactionary, Johann Klein, and Pauline McLynn even gets to use her precision comic timing a couple of times in an otherwise serious role of the key nurse that Semmelweis consults with.

Overall, the original story is important; Rylance is compelling, simultaneously a dynamic mystery solver and a toweringly tragic figure; and the music and dance linger in the memory. I just wish we'd got to know the characters a bit better before it all went down. A 4 star must-see from me.

Unfortunately this wasn't for me. I found much of it tediously dull, the humour out of place and the ballet too abstract. Also, I don't know if it was intentional, but there were times when Mark Rylance spoke so quickly I couldn't catch all of what he was sayimg. The only parts that moved me were when we saw Dr Semmelweis with a patient and then right at the very end. Otherwise I spent much of the time looking at my watch to see how long was left. 2* for me.

Does anyone know where the Rush tickets and the day tickets are located?

When I was having a look last week, on some days I got Row C stalls (right at the side) and on other days it was back of the stalls. Didn't end up buying, but the seats weren't selling instantly as a lot of the other Rush tickets do on TodayTix.

I got row M in the stalls last week.  Didn't seem to be a particular "rush" on the tickets either...

I saw this two nights ago and I found it to be an ego-driven mess of a play. The subject matter is compelling and timely but what's presented on the Pinter stage is a failed example of dramatic devising. What's with the dancers? Shabbily written- is there a narrator or not? And while there are supporting actors on the stage they all move in relation to Rylance's universe. It's as if what I imagine acting with Henry irving would've been like. Were Rylance not attached this script would still be in a sludge pile in Sonia Friedman's office.

I found it very impressive that the best stage actor in Britain leading a play about an interesting and true historical event could be quite so underwhelming. I’ve read every review on here again and there’s clearly a group that this completely works for and another where it doesn’t, I’m in the latter camp.

I really disliked the dancing and the constant string quartetting, there were several points where I just wanted a bit of peace and stillness. By the last half hour I was sick of the dissonant violin stuff, I’m able to watch a scene about sadness or the unravelling of a mind without it being musically shoved down my throat. I sat right at the end saying to myself “I hope it doesn’t end with some symbolic bit of movement” and oh dear, that’s exactly what I got. There are moments when both aspects were acceptable but they were rare, and I see it as a failure of direction to have just thrown so much at the stage in a way that, for me, removed intimacy and a focus on actors being allowed to act.

I had a lot of reservations about the cast as well. As I said, I adore Mark Rylance and whilst I agree that this is yet another role where he ends up being quirky and slightly off-key, I still liked it a lot. Jude Owusu and Felix Hayes were also good. Amanda Wilkin is only given one note to perform and does fine with it I suppose. Chrissy Brooke felt like she was being directed to overact as hard as she possibly could, and Pauline McLynn felt like she’d been sent in from a completely different play. It’s absolutely fine to mix comedy in, but she’s giving a pantomime performance next to Mark Rylance and it really jars.

There’s just a great unevenness that sums up the whole experience for me. The first act, which mainly deals with the machinations of his discovery, has a bit of motivation for him, a bit of fun along the way, and a great sense of problem solving and science in action. The second act is a lot slower and less engaging, it never drives you to sympathise with Semmelweis really because he becomes unlikeable, nor his wife because she just sort of appears every few minutes to moan at him. If the idea is to feel the injustice and the weight of all the dead women then I just didn’t feel it. I don’t think it’s in the text, and the director uses his ballet troupe to try and create it, unsuccessfully. The whole thing feels like a simplistic script already too stretched out, subjected to as much busyness on stage as could be crammed in, drowning out what could have been a decent play.

It’s a good idea, poorly executed. Not recommended.

Just when I thought I knew what a 5 star acting performance looked like I then go and see Mark Rylance on stage for the first time. He was outstanding this evening and I really enjoyed this production.

I would give the play 4 stars overall. I agree with the comments above regarding lack of character development. I was concerned the combination of acting, music and dancing would be a bit of a mess but I thought they all worked incredibly well together. It felt like a real period piece and I loved the use of lighting and humour. Having the ballet dancers to represent the mothers who had passed actually made so much sense and worked beautifully.

Well worth a watch.

Was offered Stalls C15 last week. A bargain!

Marmite.

At the interval I was convinced this was one of the best new plays of the year however by the end I was less convinced. The production is a strange mish-mash. I get the symbolism they're trying to go for with the violins and the ballet dancers, but it doesn't really work with the text in my eyes at all.

There's a very good and meaningful story here that is worth telling. I'd be very interested in how another production stages it in the future.

This was my first show of my London weekend and in all honesty it wasn’t a great start. Despite a lot of people around me in the stalls on their feet at the end, I wasn’t one of them. Having originally booked for 2 reasons, firstly a chance to see MR on stage again and in a play subject that interests me, though after the 2.5 hrs, the show just left me underwhelmed and frustrated mainly due the staging of it. The constant use of the Salome Quartet and ballet bits was just too much for me and a real distraction in the story telling by the actors. If the whole point of their inclusion was to make the situations more emotional, then they failed for me. 

The life story of Semmelweis is a really fascinating one and his work plays an important role in the history and understanding of medical science today, though despite the best efforts of the cast I’m not sure it translated well onto the stage alongside everything else that was thrown on with it. As a comparison, the BBC did a drama series in the 1970s entitled “Microbes and Men” in which the work of Semmelweis is brought to the screen. I watched it in DVD a few days ago and at 60 mins long it was a more focused and engaging piece than this play.

I will say that of the 2 Acts, Act 1 for me was by far the stronger Act and held my interest far longer than Act 2 which found my mind wandering at times. Mark’s performance was entertaining enough and generated plenty of laughs from this afternoons audience. I’m not quite sure what play Pauline McLynne was in as her performance seemed at odds to the rest of the cast. As for the other cast, they do their best with the material, though I can’t single anyone out for particular praise. 

Overall, of the stuff I’ve seen MR in, this goes to the bottom of the list sadly and certainly wouldn’t be worth a revisit in its current form.