The show is called "On The Third Day" and is indeed Jesus Woman's show - just in case the title didn't give it away.
Sonia Friedman got up at the beginning, thanking us for coming and so forth. She explained that there had been some major hiccups in the last few weeks of rehearsals, which we would see in the tv program (nice plug there). Basically the show we were seeing was the cast's dress rehearsal. Sonia herself admitted that she hadn't even seen the finished product, so apologised should anything go wrong and asked for our understanding. This didn't bother me, though I suppose it might have done had I paid full whack for a ticket.
My overall opinion: "Meh"
The play is not awful or a train wreck, but neither is it brilliant or inspiring.
We start with those lovely things called childhood flashbacks - which frankly I loathed. Not to do disservice to the children performing - they were brilliant - but the flashbacks were arty farty and at one point practically lifted dialogue from "Whistle Down The Wind" (the film, not that ass crappy musical). The set was a surpise to me - basically giant screens with images set most the scenes. Whilst probably hugely expensive, it's not my taste for sets - I like beautifully detailed built sets, but that's just my taste.
The whole play had a "fringe" feel to it - like I should have been watching it in some off West End theatre - to be honest I think it would carry off better there. Ultimately it felt like typical "new writing" - the stuff the West End winces from.
To give the writer credit (and God knows she probably deserves it as this process can't have been easy), there are some beautifully crafted scenes. Her naturalistic, conversational dialogue is great and builds each scene well, using humour and warmth to attach us to the characters. Unfortunately every scene is ruined by a sudden descent into melodrama. Cause oh Lord there's a lot of drama in this. And when the melodrama kicks in, everything that's good about the play kinda goes to shit. I can't help but wonder if the writer hadn't taken things so seriously whether we would have a better play. The "Jesus" character is perfect - he's a joy to watch and listen to. Only problem is - the play isn't about him. It's not about him or schizophrenia - it's about incest. Lots and lots of incest. "Jesus" is kind of irrelevant in some ways - he's the thing that brings the characters back together, but that's kind of it. Not that this makes him a bad character - but since he's the pitch the audience will probably be drawn in on, it's a bit disappointing. In addition to Jesus and incest, we also get that old lark self harm and suicide. Joy. The self harm scenes were irritatingly predictable - one minute the character is in a screaming rage tearing things up and holding a pair of scissors. Guess what she's doing minutes later when she's in the whimpering aftermath of hysterics? The scene attempts to be brutal with its audience as blood sachets pop all over the place, and it's certainly painful to watch. But rather than being emotionally affected I just felt irritated. Despite the randomly intense emotions, a lot of humour has been injected in this play, and most of the time it's handled just right - diffusing tension nicely. Although some of the Jesus references are way too heavy handed and you're rolling your eyes while laughing, but many were subtle enough to coax genuine laughter. The Elvis character in the final scene really misses the mark though. Initially he's very effective and funny but he is used inappropriately at times. What should have been an intense reunion scene was completely overshadowed by this device rather than intensified by it. It just didn't fit and seemed an attempt to stretch too much towards the surreal.
I know a lot of this sounds really negative, but I really think there were some brilliant parts in this play. Perhaps that's what makes it so frustrating - that it was nearly something brilliant.
I should say as well that the actors and the production value were flawless - some of the character work was brilliant - particularly from Claire and "Jesus" - which has to suggest that at least the cast saw something in the play. The background to the characters has also clearly been well thought out, though a little sledge hammered into place at time. The prose about the solar system and caving is lovely, but frequently goes on a bit and feels irrelevant. And the relationship dynamics work really well in the build up to the melodrama. I wish the writer had taken this somewhere not so obviously dark and tragic - something subtler with a stronger sense of humour would have made something far more worth seeing I think.
I think in Episode 1, Sonia asked the Kate if we find out whether the guy is Jesus by the end of the play. Kate said no and Sonia was happy with this. This isn't the case anymore. Events before the final scene make it blatantly obvious who he is. I won't say who, as I wouldn't want to spoil it for those who will watch and enjoy it (yes, I do think there will be people who will). I wish she'd decided to keep that mystery.
The audience seemed to enjoy it anyway - it certainly got a lengthy round of applause. There were certainly some raised eyebrows and confused questions on the way out from people around me, but I couldn't say for sure whether the play was loved or loathed.
pleased to hear you mention the performers. No one else has. All they go on about is their script - if you write a play you HAVE to negotiate who is going to perform it - at the end of the day THEY make or break it - does anyone agree with this view ( a bit) maybe??
mrs_rachie - apologies - thanks for your post, incredibly detailed. If you are "in the middle" then maybe it IS a success? ie: we will all dither one way or the other which I guess is what one wants??
Mrs R - you wrote so much wonderful detail about it, and I'm so grateful, and he asks you that! Jesus! (excuse the pun) What does that tell you about the love of writing for its own sake??
The theatre was pretty full - thankfully, as being a regular jaunter up to Edinburgh it can be damn awkward watching a play with a crappy audience number - you just feel embarrassed for the performers more than anything. It wasn't a sell out, though I think Wednesday would have been. The football is probably most to blame and also the fact that most people wouldn't be bothered to re-book.
Realised I kinda presumed people would know who the actors were. The main actress was Maxine Peak (love her), Jesus was played by Paul Hilton, the brother Robbie was played by Tom McKay and the children we had for our performance were Daniella Wilson and James Wilson (Jeez, I hope they weren't ACTUALLY brother and sister - otherwise I was just unwittingly exposed to something rather dodgy!).
Mrs R - that's a wonderful critique. Whether it's fair is almost irrelevant; it's obviously honest to you, and you obviously know something about theatre!
Incest, self-harm and suicide. Another play I can take the children to see!
Was Ms Betts present (I assume so) and did she get to speak?
Dark, tragic and melodramatic - I was told by a friend that, after comedy (which is hard to write because humour is subjective) ddeply emotional work was the hardest to write. I've been struggling with that ina tiny way in something I've been writing recently.
But my big question for you would be this - did it make a point? Did it inform you, or educate you, or make you come away with any kind of insight or knowledge or understanding or opinion of the issues - whatever they were - that you did not have when you went in?
BTW - Moonie - one of the last things a writer gets any say in is casting, unless he's also a producer or director! And similarly, may I venture to suggest that being 'in the middle' is also one of the last things a writer aims for!
Hi there, Mrs. Rachie. Love you. Love your posts. Love you and your posts! This forum needs smart women like you. Thank you very much for the thorough review. I think I may just have to go see it now.
I was interested in your comments about the self-harm.
One of the reasons my last play took five years to write was I wanted to get at very painful topics without losing the audience.
It is very difficult to keep an audience with you when you are expressing the raw self-loathing that leads to self - harm. I like you find that as an audience member, I am quickly put off by naked pain on stage. I find it overwhelming and therefore annoying when it takes over a play.
I had to keep rewriting my play so that the painful things showed up in flirtatious little glimpses. I ended up writing a play about mania and depression - bipolar -- where you see almost no mania and depression on stage.
In a way, as you also point out, I am sad the play isn't about Jesus. I think the time is right and that theatre is the right forum for a big, caustic direct attack on the religious dark ages our leaders seem to have dragged us into and I think taking on Jesus is taking on the jugular, maybe less so in a post-Christian nation like Britain but still . . . I was hoping . . . for messianic overtones.
So I am guessing Mrs. Rachie that you would have LOVED (maybe you saw it) The Odd Couple up at Edinburgh last year: one gorgeous, detailed built-up set, very indirect and humourous take on divorce.
The most gorgeous set I have seen recently is the Voysey Inheritance: set in an Edwardian mansion. Slick. Love the National. Love their money. Love the National and their money.
Did you see Hitchcock Blonde with the swimming pool and shower built into the set? That was pretty great.
And finally, I have to ask you Mrs. Rachie, any tips for Edinburgh this year?
For your information moontypething mrs_richie had posted previously that she was surprised that she could purchase a 'good' ticket at short notice and expressed concern about how many tickets had been sold.
I was actually epmhethising with the author and hoping that there was a good turnout.
'All we see and seem is but a dream within a dream' Poe
I can't say the play's subject appeals but i will try and get down to see it. Your very mixed reaction suggests that you did want to love it but couldn't - so no accusation of sour grapes in your appraisal.
'All we see and seem is but a dream within a dream' Poe
Originally posted by moonbird99: pleased to hear you mention the performers. No one else has. All they go on about is their script - if you write a play you HAVE to negotiate who is going to perform it - at the end of the day THEY make or break it - does anyone agree with this view ( a bit) maybe??
Bang on the nail moonbird, it matters not how brilliant the script may be, if the actors are not up to scratch the end product will be lousy. Actors make or break a production.
Thanks Adman – I think Ms Betts was present though I didn’t see her. But the cast directed applause at someone. I suppose it may have been Sonia Friedman, but I couldn’t see from the Circle. Thankfully, she didn’t speak or get brought up for applause – that would have been way too cringeworthy – though I reckon that’ll happen on the press night.
I’m not sure it really did make much of a point. I think the incest angle was well thought out and the development of the brother and sister’s relationship was realistic, but it didn’t exactly blow me away or give me any insight. Maybe somewhere deep down the play had a vital message but it was completely drowned out for me by all the melodrama – the overdone hysterics made it way too hard to relate to the characters. There are some nice thoughts about the way people are, brought in by the Jesus character – I truly think if this is where she’d focused her energy it really would be something worth watching.
And you’re right – though I disapprove of plays that purposefully try to be controversial so that they can provoke an extreme negative reaction, having a middling response to your play is not desirable. But what it means, I guess, is that your journey as a writer has further places to go – i.e. it’s not so bad she should give up writing, but she should expect to do better.
Thanks too, Swann *blushes*. I know what you mean about self harm – I too have treaded those waters and it’s really difficult to balance. Usually this kind of over dramatic self harm portrayal is reserved for students experimenting about – I suppose that reflects her inexperience.
Have only just got my fringe program for this year so have yet to pick out any early favourites – although if you like to catch some stand up comedy inbetween the theatrical stuff my annual recommendation is always Brendan Burns. Let me get back to you about previous things I have loved up there – don’t have enough time to get into it at the mo, and my memory is God awful so it always takes me time to remember what I saw when!
I do hope that this is going to a success for Kate.
I do have a number of concerns, but I can't really voice them without having seen the play myself. But from your review, this isn't my cup of tea and decents to melodrama from comedy can be exhausting on the audience - or indeed just plain uncomfortable.
I think I might have to see if I can arrange a meeting in London and see if I can see it to see what Kate has clearly got right and where there are diifculties between the emotional journey.
The best of luck with the play and thank you again for your review Mrs R!
I’m not sure it really did make much of a point. I think the incest angle was well thought out and the development of the brother and sister’s relationship was realistic, but it didn’t exactly blow me away or give me any insight. Maybe somewhere deep down the play had a vital message but it was completely drowned out for me by all the melodrama
Thanks MrsR - that's exactly what I'd feared.
Too often I've been to see/read/even acted in dramatic works which treat generally taboo subjects, and they've not given me anything. More than that - they feel little more than voyeuristic.
You said it yourself about the children; if they were genuine siblings "I was just unwittingly exposed to something rather dodgy". I suspect that it made you a tad uncomfortable even if they weren't siblings!
IF you're going to write something in that style/genre I feel you have a debt to the audience to have something very, very special to say about it; to force the audience, without them necessarily realising it, into considering a new opinion or even simply asking questions that they'd never thought of before. Otherwise, you're merely jumping onto a style/genre bandwagon, and it's likely that it won't even be convincing.
You said it yourself about the brutality; "it's certainly painful to watch. But rather than being emotionally affected I just felt irritated."
Do I need to see a play about incest, self-harm and suicide to know these things happen and are appalling? No.
Would I go to see one if someone said "You have to see this play, it made me realise something I'd never, never thought of before about the subject!" Yes, I probably would.
It sounds like a play ultimately written for Sonia to select and for the critics to love or hate - but certainly to cover! - rather than for the audience.
"A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (Macbeth Act 5 Scene 5).
Before anyone jumps on my head (I can sense our dear Swann looking for the asterisk key already!) I'm not saying Ms Betts is an idiot, it's just how I bashed down a quote I knew!
Interesting, though, that Mrs R says the 'prose' was good. Maybe Ms Betts is a poet?
Adman, you read my mind. I was about to start beating up on you (as the contracts I need to go through this morning are so boring I am losing the will to live and Jay's play hasn't arrived yet) and here's why:
In your manic commitment to baling hay from the bitter barn, you say you are looking for someone to say something really special about incest in order for it to be a proper topic for a play. Hmmm. What did you have in mind? What would be a special thing to say about incest?
The interesting thing about having a play - a story - about a taboo subject is just that the story is told. That people see and think about something that is normally off limits to see and think about. In this exposure, what may happen is that the audience empathises with the perpetrator and sees the common humanity where normally the audience would see a big perv. Why do they see that? Because of the story.
It's the same for everything. Does The Cherry Orchard really say anything special about losing all your money? Does Death of Salesman say anything special about suicide?
Not really. They are great plays because they are great stories.
I think that I have found the root of Jay's bitterness and anger: someone else got the incest play spot. Here I have been grousing all week that one of the finalists stole my mental illness/messianic overtones slot when all along, it was Denim that was robbed! Can't have two incest plays in the finals.
I used to go to church and someone once told me that if one thing stays with you from participating in a service, one idea or moment, then it was worth going. I kind of think the same thing about plays. If there are lovely moments to think about, get lost in, then it is a success even if on every macro and micro level everything isn't pulled together perfectly.
I think that I have found the root of Jay's bitterness and anger: someone else got the incest play spot. Here I have been grousing all week that one of the finalists stole my mental illness/messianic overtones slot when all along, it was Denim that was robbed! Can't have two incest plays in the finals.
Afraid not. The fear is my drive in the Denim, not the act. Mine is about the fears of adoptees when they enter adulthood.
But I can see how you thought that.
One hopes that the play will now be in your inbox now.
If the play HAD made Mrs R consider for the first time that the perpetrator is sometimes the victim, I'd agree 100%! But I deliberately asked if the play had given her ANY new thoughts, insights or understanding, and it didn't. All I was saying was that a play which dealt visually explicitly with the taboo subjects of incest, brutality, self-harm and suicide HAD to have a powerful message and a deeper justification, lest it be voyeurism or genre bandwagon jumping!
BTW - You're wrong about Jay's play; it's not about incest, it's partly about a particular facet of adoption - fearing to have sex with a girl, or even get emotionally involved, in case she IS your sister!. (Actually i think it's also about male/female attitudes, but we'll let that one pass.)
But I'm glad you mentioned it, because one of the reasons why like it is PRECISELY because I'd never thought of the issue of an adopted person having that fear! Apart from the fact that it is amusing and entertaining, it made me think something I'd never thought before, and view the subject from a new angle.
