quote:

Originally posted by playfull:
Booked for the Q&A night.


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

No then

Did we not have this conversation nikip?

LOL

Hi nikip,

If i get the chance do you want me to ask SF about the points you have made on your behalf?

In fact what questions would any of you ask?

BTW hate musicals but loved Moulin Rouge!

quote:

Originally posted by nikip:
Go ahead and watch it Mrs R. It's a great film. And I don't really think you disliked Kate's play so very much. Someone with such eloquent and thoughtful opinions must have thought it worthy of expression.

To me the whole event was important and that's why I took time and consideration over my review. Regardless of what I think of the actual play, my respect for Kate Betts is high and regardless of my personal taste I could never view the play in an entirely negative light. I only tend to make an effort with reviews (negative or positive) when I cared about it before I saw it. I really cared about how this production would turn out and I guess my disappointment is as driving a force of opinion as anything else. Ultimately, I think Betts is a good writer - but the play just didn't work for me.

Sorry Playfull. Was called away. And apologies. Yes you did tell me that you hadn't seen it earlier in the day. My error, your loss!

Fair enough, Mrs. R. Hopefully you will be able to enjoy her work on Radio 4 then.

And yes, Playfull. If you are in touch with SF I would be happy for you to pass on my views and questions. Thank you

Sorry Jaysplays, have only just seen your previous message. Are you suggested that Kate's play has been prejudiced against because of the treatment of another contestant?

Sorry, typing and tidying up after kids not easy to do! I meant "suggesting". Have you been prejudiced against it for these reasons? I have to say that I thought Father's Day looked good, but not as a West End play. Thought "On the First Day" fitted more into that category. But truly? I am keen to know. Are you talking about Forum prejudice, marketing prejudice or personal prejudice?

quote:

Originally posted by nikip:
And yes, Playfull. If you are in touch with SF I would be happy for you to pass on my views and questions. Thank you

I meant at the Q&A evening - if i dare put my hand up. I am not 'in touch with SF', though if she wants to drop me a line..........

nikip,

To some degree, I think I was against this play winning. I thought that Father's Day had the edge... But I don't think that was what put me off seeing it. That was down to the fact that I thought that it was addressing too many issues for one production.

But I am interested to know why you thought that Father's Day couldn't be a West End play?

quote:

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?

Very quick reply...I would hope that the script would stand alone without them. It should do and that's why I questioned the fact they were there. Maybe it was an over zealous production designer? Anyway, I'm always suspicious if a play has too many special effects. Far enough if it's a musical or something truly magical like His Dark Materials at the National.
Do you know if the text is available? I didn't get a chance to see if it was on sale at the theatre that night. If I read it I'll have a better idea if the script really needed the special effects.

Now there is a question for Kate...

I know she doesn't have an agent (they normally sort that area out) but she might have placed the MS with Sam French.

Hi Jaysplays.

Re: Father's Day. I thought it sounded like an excellent play and one I would definitely watch. The script (or the snapshots I got on TV of the script) sounded well written and engaging. I guess my views were that the task was to write a play for The West End. I certainly thought that Father's Day may well hold its own on the Fringe, but I thought that the winning play needed to be slightly more bizarre and unusual to compete in the market it was being thrust into. And Kate's play had those ingredients in bucketloads.

I am curious as to why you keep on with this line that "too many issues" have stopped you seeing the play? Yes, there are issues about dealing with loss in this play (self harming, Robbie and Clare's struggle to understand and negotiate with love etc) but they are what underpin the whole theme of forgiveness and resolution. The psychology of self-harming is not explored . Grief is played at the level of the bizarre behaviour it can create. (Not a criticism. That is why I say that I thought it was "understated" Mrs R). Did you ever consider that the people who criticised your play for "two many issues" may have just had a different opinion to others who may have seen it?!

To CK33. I am glad that you too thought the script would stand up. Thank you for your interesting response. It is my understanding that the script is not yet available. On the A and A, Kate says that she is trying to get it published.

I meant Q and A! And Playfull if you are reading this, that was a typo rather than me I having another thick moment!

Nikip (BTW - is that Niki P?); my take on the 'issues' is not just the number, but the nature of them: incest, rape, abuse, self-harm, suicide... these just aren't topics I'm remotely interested in, so I won't go to see the play any more than I'd go to see Shopping and F*cking!

I've been conducting a bit of a straw poll amongs colleagues, friends, acquaintances and my theatre people and so far - apart from those with an interest in TPTT - I haven't found anyone in my peer groups who would actively want to go see it.

May I dare to suggest that, perhaps, this has affected the box?

Ad Man, I think that is rather narrow of you and your friends, but especially you. You have shown a remarkable amount of interest in this play for someone who is not prepared to step up to the plate and see it!! Why?

love Nina Picketfence

Nikip - I am interested in the play for lots of reasons! But I'm also interested in my wife's bridge game; and I don't want to go and watch that either!

It's not a criticism that I don't want to go and see it. I've always recognised the effort, the hard work and committment put in by all three of the finalists (I don't say all thirty of the semifinalists only because, from what I saw, there was at least one that I thought didn't sweat blood and tears). But it's not 'my' kind of play, in exactly the same way and for the same reasons that Shopping and F*cking wasn't.

I can only base my purchase rationale on what others have said about it, on their comments about content, topic, genre and treatment of subject, as everyone does; and from what I've read, it's not for me. There's an argument to say that I should go to see it for research purposes; that if this really is the type of play which achieves national, professional production, I OUGHT to go see it.

But I don't think it IS the ONLY type of play which achieves national, professional production; so I'd reserve my disposable theatre dollar to go and see the type of play that I want to see, and that I want to write.

I do wonder, however, if the very public national coverage - which SF openly admitted would hopefully drive audiences to the theatre - may have also worked in reverse? That others may have come to the same conclusion as me - that incest, rape, abuse, self-harm, suicide (oh yes - and throw in schizophrenia and an openly sexual losing-my-virginity theme) - these just aren't for me. They don't push my buttons.

Because of the comp I know far more about this play in advance than (for instance) Chekov's Three Sisters, which I saw a couple of months ago and did not enjoy at all. But unlike Three Sisters, I could formulate the opinion that I was unlikely to enjoy The Third Day BEFORE I got to the theatre, and I just wondered if others had done the same. It's certainly true of many of my contacts.

Not a criticism. Just a purchasing choice.

I have said before that a purchasing choice is just that. But I have to say that given your dedication to the site, and it would it appear to writing in general, I fail to see why you rely so heavily on copy and other people's opinions rather than formulating one independently. Obviously if you believe some of the content doesn't "push your buttons" then you would see the play with an element of prejudice from the start. But surely what you dislike about a production is as important as what you applaud, especially as a writer?

If you are so heavily influenced by the opinion of others, be influenced by mine then!

Nikip,

The ‘issues’ thing draws back to many of the conversations we have held on this forum regarding supply and demand and marketing.

As advertised and marketed, this play has an array of themes running throughout. And the way it is presented makes it look like a lot is going on; potentially too much.

This is why I have asked what those that have seen the play think of how the marketing reflects the actual content of the play.

Is there one central theme running throughout and the areas of incest, rape, abuse, self-harm and suicide just incidentals to that central theme? Because at the moment the marketing and reviews implies that they all carry equal weight.

For me, if they are carrying equal weight, there would be too much going on for me to be entertained as the counterplots would be to the detriment of the overriding premise of the play.

Hence I keep harping back to the ‘issues’ line – as I cannot make an informed opinion on if it is worth me investing £100+ to see the play as marketed.

I would say Jaysplays, that the issues you itemise are fundamental to the plot, but the plot is never ever confused by them. And if you are going to see the play, see it for yourself! I'm sure that both you and Adam (I mean Ad Man!) are both intellectual men, and should therefore know that things are presented through marketing and media in a variety of "positioned" ways. The only voice that really counts in all of this is your own, surely!