Comments on: 365 http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/365/ Group authored publication exploring theatre and the performing arts in London and beyond Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:22:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Matt Boothman http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/365/#comment-1162 Matt Boothman Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:21:17 +0000 http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/?p=491#comment-1162 I'm all for big, easy-to-interpret stage pictures - that kind of symbolism or Gestus or whatever term you fancy is something theatre does better than any other medium, for my money. And <i>365</i> really committed to some of them: the tilting room especially was arresting just in terms of its scale. It's just that it was also committed to being a series of mostly naturalistic monologues and scenes <i>à la</i> Cartwright's <i>Road</i> (albeit without the crippling pacing issues). So the stage pictures, however effective each one may have been in isolation, were just diversions or asides - like you said, not organically linked to the texture of the show. I’m all for big, easy-to-interpret stage pictures - that kind of symbolism or Gestus or whatever term you fancy is something theatre does better than any other medium, for my money. And 365 really committed to some of them: the tilting room especially was arresting just in terms of its scale. It’s just that it was also committed to being a series of mostly naturalistic monologues and scenes à la Cartwright’s Road (albeit without the crippling pacing issues). So the stage pictures, however effective each one may have been in isolation, were just diversions or asides - like you said, not organically linked to the texture of the show.

]]> By: Stephe Harrop http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/365/#comment-1151 Stephe Harrop Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:21:49 +0000 http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/?p=491#comment-1151 Whitelaws aside - I thought the style of the piece was, well, odd. for me, the glamour and slickness of it seemed to pull against the grittiness of the kids' stories. and when you did get the big symbolic moments - some of which were, in themselves, fantastic (I liked the tilting room) - I felt a bit as if someone were trying to compensate for a complicated and understated multi-strand narrative by offering big, easy-to-interpret stage-pictures, regardless of whether they were organically linked to the texture of the show. but then - maybe I'm just cynical. Whitelaws aside - I thought the style of the piece was, well, odd. for me, the glamour and slickness of it seemed to pull against the grittiness of the kids’ stories. and when you did get the big symbolic moments - some of which were, in themselves, fantastic (I liked the tilting room) - I felt a bit as if someone were trying to compensate for a complicated and understated multi-strand narrative by offering big, easy-to-interpret stage-pictures, regardless of whether they were organically linked to the texture of the show.

but then - maybe I’m just cynical.

]]> By: Steven McMahon http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/365/#comment-1142 Steven McMahon Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:24:11 +0000 http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/?p=491#comment-1142 Owen and Billie Whitelaw are not related. Owen and Billie Whitelaw are not related.

]]> By: TheatreGoer69 http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/365/#comment-1127 TheatreGoer69 Sat, 13 Sep 2008 12:22:04 +0000 http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/?p=491#comment-1127 Interesting...I noticed that a certain Owen Whitelaw was part of the cast and I'm curious to know whether he's related to Billie Whitelaw or not. Anyone have any idea? Thanks. Interesting…I noticed that a certain Owen Whitelaw was part of the cast and I’m curious to know whether he’s related to Billie Whitelaw or not. Anyone have any idea? Thanks.

]]> By: Matt Boothman http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/365/#comment-1126 Matt Boothman Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:45:06 +0000 http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/?p=491#comment-1126 <i>"...the show’s obvious social concern eventually provokes little more than a state of chilly, depressed voyeurism."</i> You're right, and I think the main reason for it is that the show draws attention to a lot of the problems with corporate parenting without suggesting any kind of alternative or manifesto for positive change. You feel sorry for the characters because they're being slowly crushed in a broken machine, instead of feeling outraged at the authorities that could fix it, but instead continue to turn the wheels regardless. "Chilly and depressed" is dead on. What did you think of the overall style of the piece? I was as impressed as you by the serial-numbered Ikea set - the many front doors, especially, were potent symbols for the barriers erected by the characters to keep the world at bay - and I've never seen so many set-pieces and performers flying in one show before, but I thought the mixture of naturalism and symbolism was at times a bit piecemeal. There were parts where I thought the style was leaning towards Gestus - struggling towards the light but constantly dragged backwards or left dangling by an unseen force? being forced back to the old hiding place under the table as the entire room tilts that way? - which was wonderful, but never integrated fully with the more static monologues and duologues. The two styles seemed to be taking turns, scene by scene, without ever melding into a coherent aesthetic. “…the show’s obvious social concern eventually provokes little more than a state of chilly, depressed voyeurism.”

You’re right, and I think the main reason for it is that the show draws attention to a lot of the problems with corporate parenting without suggesting any kind of alternative or manifesto for positive change. You feel sorry for the characters because they’re being slowly crushed in a broken machine, instead of feeling outraged at the authorities that could fix it, but instead continue to turn the wheels regardless. “Chilly and depressed” is dead on.

What did you think of the overall style of the piece? I was as impressed as you by the serial-numbered Ikea set - the many front doors, especially, were potent symbols for the barriers erected by the characters to keep the world at bay - and I’ve never seen so many set-pieces and performers flying in one show before, but I thought the mixture of naturalism and symbolism was at times a bit piecemeal. There were parts where I thought the style was leaning towards Gestus - struggling towards the light but constantly dragged backwards or left dangling by an unseen force? being forced back to the old hiding place under the table as the entire room tilts that way? - which was wonderful, but never integrated fully with the more static monologues and duologues. The two styles seemed to be taking turns, scene by scene, without ever melding into a coherent aesthetic.

]]>