I guess it depends on the age of the kids. Mine are all teen to 20's.

Teenagers would be fine - I'm sure they see worse on DVDs.

By the way, that earlier comment reminded me. After watching the TV programme I realised that the two kids WERE brother and sister! I feel dirtied.

Nikip - MrsR says that she finds scenes of suicide traumatic; me too, much less my kids, and that's all I meant by choosing my genre. And frankly, I also don't want to watch a brother and sister cast acting incest in... acting incest in whatever the brother and sister characters were doing that made MrsR feel 'dirtied'! And within my circle, non-writers, non-TPTT, non-theatre avids, I don't happen to know others who do.

It's not a criticism of Kate Betts or the play; if others are not put off by such they will go see it; but it's not only MrsR's review that has flagged up some of the scenes which I personally would not want to watch and, again, just to return to where we started - I wonder if it has put off other audiences?

Maybe, just maybe, the intellectual glitterati - who decide that this is what the wider public want - are wrong?

Am I talking to Mary Whitehouse?

quote:

Originally posted by nikip:
Am I talking to Mary Whitehouse?

LOL! Could be. I genuinely don't disregard the possibility that I - and obviously the circle of friends, acquaintances and colleagues I move in - are all prudes. But I don't think so.

If you read my earlier threads, I have acted in one play where my language was foul and the character had to get drunk, p1ss all over the stage and try and beat up the neighbour's (30 year old) son. (I made a prop for the p1ssing scene which consisted of colostomy bag taped beneath my armpit connected to a tube of fishtank aerator and a small tap stitched to the inside of my flies). But is was very, very tasteful, and even my eldest child came to see it.

I've also successfully written and performed stand-up, itself not exactly known for being Emily Post.

But do I want to go and watch suicide? Incest? Rape? Self-harm? Abuse? No. Do I need to go to the theatre to know that these things happen and are dreadful? No.

I, personally, go to the theatre to be entertained - and, it seems, so do most of the people I know, both in and out of theatre circles. Sorry, but that's my opinion.

It doesn't mean I believe the play to be a bad one, or Kate Betts a bad writer. But, as I say, something has gone awry with a West End production which only plays to some 7000 people before being pulled despite massive tv coverage.

And I merely wonder if the genre is not the menu the wider public want served, but one the chefs - those who guided Kate - enjoy cooking up?

"But perhaps this shouldn't have been a surprise. At a Channel 4 arts dinner weeks before the play opened, the producer Sonia Friedman (below) let slip to me that she thought the play "ropy", swiftly correcting herself and saying, "Any new play from a first-time writer is bound to be ropy." What, like Look Back in Anger? Harold Pinter's The Room? David Hare's Slag?"

New Statesman article, 24/7, on the close.

As I predicted would happen many weeks ago, the chef now blames the ingredients - and THAT'S not fair on Kate Betts.

Good chefs refuse to let food out of their kitchen if it's not up to their standard. Only bad chefs blame their kitchen staff.

I think the word I'm looking for here is 'betrayal'.

Is that another non criticism of a play you haven't seen Sadman....I mean Ad man?! Yes the contents of the play are brutal in places. But once again I say to you that without seeing it in the whole context you are not actually getting this in proportion.

Yes, maybe people have been put off by content. The Passion of the Christ certainly caused a stir! But is this play "over-sentimental" or "raw and over-violent?" Both critical voices have been expressed haven't they? I didn't think it existed on either of these extremes.

By the way, where is Playfull with his feedback? Any ideas?

I don't know where Playfull is Nitpicker - but I STILL haven't, nor will, criticise the play or Kate Betts!

Excuse me - I have a very, very childish bet on 'who can hold their booze for the night' planned with my neighbour. He can drink like a fish. But he drinks Guinness and I've already given my local 18 x 275ml botles of Strongbow filled with apple juice - so I have a bet to go win!

See you all on the flip side.

ADAM

Sorry I couldn’t reply earlier but, as you might imagine, things are a little hectic at the moment.

Nikip,

I know it might sound boring taking money into account. But it is a reality of life. If I were to go to see the play I would need to spend:

£40 – Two tickets (I’d take my wife kicking and screaming if I had to)
£50 – Rail tickets
£5 – Programme
£10 – Interval drinks
£30 – Babysitter

Giving a grand total of £135. And that is a little on the conservative side, as I haven’t included a coffee on the train, or anything to eat (but given rail food, I’d probably wait until I hit the capital before eating).

Given that I’m about to commence summer leave, have a holiday booked, a wedding to attend and two small children to entertain… If the marketing of the play doesn’t instantly tell me that this is something that I am going to treasure – is it really wise for me to pay that money to the detriment of my family?

Right up to the moment the programme aired, I was all too keen to see the play – indeed we had discussed it many times here on the forum (and too many comments were made about me turning up in uniform). But given the ‘issues’ that I have been presented, at this time I cannot justify the expense.

Nikip, I can tell your passion for this play! And it excites me more than you will ever know. Indeed, with passion such as yours, I would dearly love to read anything that you have written, as your dialogue must be compelling given what I have seen here.

Moreover, I cannot wait for Kate to post here again and tell us that Sam French/A N Other is going to publish her work – as I have stated before, the lady clearly has a comic talent and an inbuilt sense of timing. (And it’s easier to pay £8.50 for a script rather than £100+ for a London trip.)

Like AdMan, I am not critiquing the play itself. And over the last couple of days, and in no small part due to the dialogue I have enjoyed with you, I am realising that I critiquing the marketing for the play.

And it is that marketing that worries me.

If everything you say about the play is true, and I do not question your honesty or passion, could it be that the marketing is what has caused the audience figures and premature closure of the run – not what Kate Betts has to clearly worked so hard to create.

I dearly want Kate to secure another production and I would never wish ill of any fellow playwright (especially one with a comic talent, which is so rare in theatre today). And I cannot wait to find out if Radio 4 are going to air her work (as it would be exciting to compare against what I am going through, having received notification that they are considering a play of mine) and trust me, I’ll be listening, recording and downloading it!

PS. Adman (Adam) will come back complaining that his teeth itch! I've seen him attempt to drink and... He need educating before taking up such a challange!

Went to see ‘on the third day’ last night with an almost open mind, (due to reservations regarding the subject matter) followed by the Q&A session. So here for what it is worth is my opinion.

Firstly,

Did I enjoy it? Yes.

Would I recommend it to a friend? Yes.

Were there aspects of the play I was uncomfortable with? Yes.

Was it unpleasantly dark and overly graphic? No.

Would I mind my 16 year old daughter seeing the play? No. She has seen all this stuff and worse displayed on Eastenders, Hollyoaks, The OC………….etc.



I would estimate the theatre to have been between 2/3 to ¾ full. Only about a third of whom stayed for the Q&A.
Talking to the people around me before the play none of them had entered the competition and not many had even seen the TV program.

So the play.

The use of the large scale projection did not really work for me, or more accurately, might have worked better if used more sparingly. I also did not like the inclusion of children at all in the production,but that is just a personal thing. The play really got moving in the present day scenes and certainly in the first act was surprisingly light and funny, with a really impressive and nicely balanced performance from Maxine Peake. The audience laughed in the right places and most seamed to buy into the, is he, isn’t he, game. I didn’t initially like the casting of Paul Hilton as Mike, but he grew on me as his character became more charismatically Jesus like as the play progressed. Not sure if that was me warming to him, his technique, or Kate’s writing!

I do think knowing too much of the plot spoilt the affect a little for me, but certainly the people around me enjoyed the revelations and ‘Jesus reference jokes’


The oft quoted criticisms.

The self harm, incest, rape and gory suicide. All nowhere near as bad as I had expected.
The self harm is mentioned only.
The adult brother and sister struggle, confused and distraught, but I was not clear (as they were fully clothed and it was not gratuitous) if a rape was supposed to have taken place at all.
There was some blood used in the suicide scene but it wasn’t exactly Pythons ‘anyone for tennis’ Sketch.
I did however have a problem with the young Claire and young Robbie kissing (which they do once). It made me uncomfortable and not by way of ‘challenging my perceptions’ as it was almost certainly designed to do. I just think it was unnecessary, and could have been done more subtly to greater effect. In fact I think the incest is revealed far too early on in the play.

By the way the young siblings are played by 3 girls and 3 boys alternating - so I assume real life siblings don’t do this scene.

Will post about the Q&A later but have to go eat now!

F Me Playfull!

Thank you!

That was very insightful... I have to print it out and inwardly digest before saying any more!

But once again - thank you for that post!

Playfull,

Again, very many thank for that review and your comments.

If you would be so kind, would you answer a couple of questions for me?

From your review I take it that the marketing/press critiques did not reflect what was presented on the stage (such as the emphasis on rape, self-harm and abuse were inaccurate, more incidental to add weight to the characterisation)?

I was unsure if your comment about the projection was trying to imply that the play was more suited to a smaller venue. Is this the case? Of was there something else about it that you questioned?

Are you saying that the children kissed in full view of the audience(as that would make me decidedly uncomfortable)? Moreover, as we know from the programme that the first inclusion of the children’s scene was moved due to the director’s input – did you think that this was the playwright’s vision or blocking by the director that could have been better accomplished my inference?

I have the impression from what I have seen on the TV that Kate has a genuine talent for comic writing and timing, plus a gift for genuine and believable dialogue… Was that reflected in what you saw?

And… Did you ask any questions during the Q&A?

Playfull, thank you. So many points we agree upon. And as the Ad Man and I have been bickering about as he sees the "darkness" and dominant "issues" of the play (Jaysplays too) and I have been trying to explain to them that actually there is a lot of comedy and they have got it ever so slightly skewed, then I am absolutely delighted to hear you report.

And do you know what Jaysplays! Stuffed shirt or not, I actually really respect your mindshift about Kate's writing and the re focus on marketing very highly indeed. I too have absolutely loved the banter on this forum. But you are right, I am incredibly passionate about the play. Thank you for listening to what I had to say so very thoughtfully.

As for my own writing, not a hope in hells chance! I write! But I am too cowardly to stick my toe anywhere near the public arena! I leave that to talented, brave people like Mrs. Betts (and all you other budding writers on here). Your comments though, were extremely flattering, so thanks again.

Will be interested to read your "post digestion" response to Playfull.

Nikip,

I think you and I have had a major 'disconnect' here...

I have always stated that I have not seen the play. My comments have (supposed) to be focused around what I have been 'fed' about the play from the TV, Press and Marketing.

As for Kate, I have never questioned her as a writer (I cannot, as I have not read her work) but have complimented her for her humanity during the programme and her talent for knowing how to pitch a gag and knowing what realisic dialogue is.

Oh Nikip... I feel a big hug comming on!

Sorry Jaysplays, we obviously posted at the same time, so my comment about "post digestion" responses hangs a little curiously!

And yes, Playfull. I am also curious about the Q and A?

By the way, I was just practising how many times I could say curious in one post!! I must learn to proof read!

quote:

Reply

Nobody gets a hug when they start u turning! You have babbled on endlessly about the "issues" of the play! And I have no doubt Mr Jaysplays, that you will now say "Yes it was the fault of the marketing!" On that we may have agreement! But I am not letting you off the hook here! If you have avoided this play that you were so excited about seeing BECAUSE of the marketing, then you are just a great big....marketing junkie! All you have done is become a prisoner to that which you are now criticising. SEE THE PLAY JAYSPLAYS! We will send around a hat for you!

One hug retracted.

I don't question that I have questioned the 'issues' of the play. But how many times have I asked people that have seen the play how they feel they were 'actually' reflected in the play?

Marketing junkie or not... I bet you never owned a Betamax.

Oh dear. Did you fall into the Betamax trap?! And stop "asking people" and be a bit pro active! You don't want another Betamax disaster on your hands. While Playfull, Mrs R, Ck33, myself etc will be able to say that we were there when this play was first aired, you will still be removing the rusty batteries from your remote control!

Would you lend me £135?

If only you knew how tempting it is, but giving in doesn't make for an independent soul. So I will say to you, go work in a bar, busk on the street, write a play (!)It will do you good to get some independence from others I think Jaysplays. Something that is long overdue!!

Me again! A bit of a signing off actually. I am away this weekend. Off to a wedding (maybe the same one as you Jaysplays!). I fear I am going to be delayed in reading Playfull's feedback on the Q and A.

In my absence, I sincerely hope that Ad Man wins his drinking competition. He needs to win something today!!

Playfull, look forward to reading your report. I promise to remember who you are!

Jaysplays, I just know you will have booked a seat by the time I return. You have to. The Play is the Thing remember!!

Bye for now!

quote:

So I will say to you, go work in a bar, busk on the street, write a play (!)

I was a publican, homeless for 9 months, panhandled and played the guitar (badley) and have a couple of plays under my belt.

Now I’m a 37-year-old military officer with two kids sat behind my computer emailing my friends offering a ferry service to people escaping a hellish situation.

Independence…? That’s what my imagination is for.

Let’s call a truce. As I have said, you’ve seen it and love it with a passion I admire. I haven’t, and the ‘marketing’ to date hasn’t sold me… But Playfull’s and others’ comments may convince me to make my meeting in London a reality. You desperately want people to attend to keep the play open, as you loved it so much. Ying… Yang… But we can agree that we thing that Kate has something to be admired.