Playfull - did you decide against going to the Q&A? I was looking forward to a full report on that from you.

Thank you, Playfull, for your greetings. Hello to you too. I'm not sure that the opinions of Mrs R and myself are opposing! I would say that there were many things about the play that she relished as much as I did.

To Mrs. R. No, no sarcasm intended. As I fellow idealist, I sincerely hope that you don't think that love and forgiveness are more religious than human! I think we could truce on them being linked to both! And yes the play erred on the side of the positive existence of Jesus, but he equally stands as a humanist metaphor surely?

I read your review with relish. It was very interesting, balanced and lively. Obviously different day, different audience reaction, but my experience was that the audience on Saturday loved the Elvis scene! The murmurs within the crowd were nothing but positive, and the reception at the end was loud and long in applause.

I do not think that I am the only person who was entertained by this play!! That is a little unrealistic to say the least. I have to say, that even though you have your criticisms, a certain enthusiasm surrounds your response. And certainly the play has resonated in your head or you wouldn't be so eloquent about it now?

I think that Kate has more than one supporter out there!

Hi Nikip,

Thanks - it is always hard to tell on forums what the tone is.

Don't worry - certainly wasn't implying that love and forgiveness are more religious than human - just that they are themes strongly associated with the "character" of Jesus - and that it took Jesus to bring out these traits in Rob and Claire.

And also, I realise you're not the only person who will have enjoyed the play - it was more of a philosophical question about whether just one person liking was enough.

I am enthusiastic about it all - mainly cause I have huge respect for the bravery of Kate Betts and sympathise with what an ordeal it all must have been. That said - I'm afraid I wouldn't watch the show again, or recommend someone to see it. But division of opinion is part of what theatre is all about. It's just a shame that there weren't enough supporters to keep it running.

Also - I find applause a weird indicator. Out of interest - has anyone actually been to a show where the audience didn't applaud at the end? Cause, man - that must have been a god-awful show.

I did witness that at a production at the fringe.

A company were up there performing the play with a view to getting picked up professionally. It's topic was interesting (Detective story set in a garden centre where three employees had been murdered - transpired that they were comitted by Pan and all the employees were members of his cult - could have worked if it had been done as a comedy, but these folks were serious).

I watched it agast. Come the bows, the audience just looked at each other - and onoone placed palm against palm.

The lead actor lost the plot and started screaming at the audience. As we left the theatre, he even tried to grab a few of people exiting. He was still screaming at us as we filed back to the Royal Mile as we went for a pint to obliterate the memory of the play.

That made me laugh! No, I haven't been to a non applauding production, but I have been to shows where people have walked out early or limply put their hands together! Can I ask? Did you read my bit about timetabling? What is your opinion on that? Also, has it been marketed successfully in your opinion? Anoraks like us may have stayed in touch, but I have spoken to so many people who knew nothing about it. The timings of the TV programme were a little odd too I thought.

Mrs R, I replied before I read Jaysplays response. That sounded like an interesting night! But it does show that audiences are not always shallow nodding dogs. And I didn't sense that people applauded Kate out of politeness!

Still dithering Mrs-rachie.

One big problem is getting a train back, i posted on the shows web site and also emailed asking if the Q&A followed the play, and if so, what time it would end? but got no reply. The time if finishes is important because, there is a train back to Nottingham at 11.15 which tales about 2h, and the next one at about 1.30am gets in about 6.45 am!!!
Otherwise it's a decent hotel at £200 or a flea pit at £50.

PS. I didn’t get a refund on the train ticket for my last aborted trip!

Will keep you ‘posted’ if I do go.

I've never seen or been in a non-applause show - but I did play in one where over one third of the audience walked out after about 15 minutes because of me!

I was in Humble Boy by Charlote Jones last year (an absolutely brilliant play, by the way - a must-see) and my character was George Pye - a quite odious self-made northern coach company owner who has a hate-hate relationship with another character.

George's language is, shall we say, quite ripe, even after we toned it down a tad. We took out the worst of the F words, but just about every other oath was used (apart from the one which we would all say was fairly unacceptable in ANY play).

Anyway - my society had a strong following from the local Old People's home, who would always turn out for a comedy, and on the opening night we had two coaches in - 60 people of a 170 audience. Do you get the drift?

Halfway through the first act there was such an exodus it was stooping room only in the box office. The squeaks from the wheelchairs and clanging from the zimmer frames banging together drowned out the diaogue (actually, we had no option other than to pause and go to the recorded Glenn Miller overture, which is an absolute killer for comedy when you get back on)!

Sadly, we also had a reviewer in from the local paper...

I would agree that the scheduling for the show was pretty unfortunate. The World Cup can't have helped - but then other shows have opened around the same time and done all right. But considering the fragile nature of the show - the fact that it was written by a complete unknown - it would have been better to give it the best possible slot. I also couldn't understand why they previewed the show before the series finished. It would have made more sense to give the show the proper TV exposure and then preview and do a followup show a week or so later (much like they did for Musicality). Hated the posters too. Just bland.

(Moan moan moan)

I agree with you entirely. As a "fragile" project and an experiment by Sonia with a new talent, I feel that the play should have been pushed forward far more than it has been. It was openly declared from the start that challenging the history and personality of The West End was a tall order. Surely with the inside knowledge of all those concerned, we could have expected a more professional delivery regarding publicity etc. I still say that Sonia and team should be fighting for this. It is hard to respect the "ho hum" approach and makes the original Sonia challenge seem more than a little superficial. I think she should count herself fortunate that she had such a great play to work with, or Sonia may well have found that she didn't make it beyond Critics' Night!!

And to Ad Man, I am sure someone in on a forum for the over eighties, celebrating your fine acting!

Sorry Ad Man, my aside made no sense at all. I meant someone over eighty IS celebrating your fine acting!

Nikip

My mother, maybe, but I've blotted my geriatric copybook in Cheltenham, I can tell you. I can't even go into charity shops any more for fear of having colostomy bags thrown at me...

Is that what they do in Cheltenham? Good heavens! I thought it was considered quite upmarket!! Better to have colostomy bags thrown at you than not being noticed at all Mr Ego!

My reply button is messing about again!

Is that what they do in Cheltenham? Good heavens! I thought it was considered quite upmarket!! Better to have colostomy bags thrown at you than not being noticed at all Mr Ego!

Thought I would say it twice for dramatic impact!

It was good that you posted it twice - my Ego could read it twice!

A happy ego then!

Who says no one reads this forum! Just noticed this reply to my earlier question on the web site.

Hi Playfull,

The Q & A night includes the play and the Q&A session afterwards - and of course, a glass of wine or soft drink.

The post show sessions tend to last aprox 30 minutes but I will get confirmation on this for you from the theatre.

As for the Ivy... I think a 6 month waiting list will come between us and their fancy fare. If you're mates are A-listers though you may stand a chance

Katie


Thanks - now i really need to make my mind up, anyone else going to the Q&A night?


Any 'A' listers that is........

You should go, Playfull. Would be fascinating to hear your report.

Booked for the Q&A night.


Now where did i put those timetables............

Hi nikip and welcome. It's great to hear from another person who has seen the play. I don't think many of the people that post here have seen it - a handful maybe? Perhaps there are more lurkers who have seen it? I enjoyed reading your review although I don't agree with you on some aspects. My lazy person's review (pretty much copied someone else) is here somewhere.

Playfull, I probably would have gone to the Q&A session if it had happened earlier. Then again, I was pleased that I only had to pay £10 to see the show when I did. Still, I think it will be really interesting and I'd like to hear your review on the show (and the Q&A)

Thank you CK. I will try and find your review. and get back to you.

Ck, I found it! Glad you made the effort to see it. I have read some interesting past notes that sound more like tomato throwing exercises and have little or nothing to do with the play!

Just a couple of points. I am not entirely certain that this was a play full of special effects? (Did you say that, or was it someone else?!) A backdrop of stars on a screen and a couple of ropes don't really constitute an abundance of special effects to cover up a "weak script in places" do they?

Also I wasn't sure about the comment about the emotion not being subtle? Is emotion supposed to be subtle? Is anger or pain or love or laughter necessarily only valid when it is subtle? I have to say that I thought Mike's emotions were frequently "subtle" in nature, whereas Robbie's were extreme. Both equally engaging though, and were in keeping with the characterisation.

Would be interested to hear about any other aspects of the play you either agree or disagree with me about?

Nikip thanks for taking the trouble to find it!

Yeah I do think there were too many special effects. I really didn't like seeing all the screens depicting the sea at the beginning or the stars. I wanted to be allowed to let my imagination do that work. I remember seeing The Weir at the Duke Of York's a few years back and it was a really simple set - a bar as far as I can remember - and yet I felt it was chilling, ghostly, foreboding. I really believe the words in a play can do a lot of the work for the audience. Then it's down to the actors etc...

Having said that I really liked the potholing scenes. I definitely got the sense of it being quite hellish.

As far as emotion being subtle, I think I was talking about Clare's character mainly. I wanted to see more light and shade in Maxine's performance. I felt that she played it one way for far too long and my sympathy for her started to wane. The female child actor got on my nerves as well.
As for Mike, I think Paul Hilton was brilliant and couldn't fault him!

Really interesting hearing your comments. Regarding the special effects, did you think they detracted from the script or did you think that the script would not stand alone without them?