Comments on: Stovepipe http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/stovepipe/ Group authored publication covering theatre and the performing arts in London and beyond Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:57:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Matt Boothman http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/stovepipe/#comment-3044 Matt Boothman Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:09:29 +0000 http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/?p=1227#comment-3044 Events aren't happening in different locations simultaneously in Stovepipe - sorry if I gave that impression in the review. It's nothing like a Punchdrunk show, where you can wander as you please (and is not conceived or advertised as such, so that isn't a criticism, just a clarification). You're shepherded to an area, the scene plays, you're herded to the next area, another scene plays. In that sense the plot is strictly linear. The problem I had was that when the play flashed back, it wasn't clear that's what had happened. It opens at a conference in Amman; there's a security alert, and Alan shepherds his VIP away. Then he's in a hotel room in Amman, with his mate Eddy, preparing for a mission in Baghdad. Then Alan, Eddy and Grif are on a mission in Baghdad, safeguarding a convoy along Route Irish. That seemed like a fairly logical plot progression to me, which is why I was a bit thrown to discover that the chronology runs in the exact opposite direction. Perhaps I was imposing my own sense on the scenes instead of letting them wash over me, but I don't think I can be blamed for thinking the mission-in-Baghdad scene comes after the preparing-for-the-mission-in-Baghdad scene. (It turns out Alan and Eddy are preparing for a completely different Baghdad mission. The fact that neither ever makes it back to Iraq seemed to reinforce my assumption that the Route Irish mission is the one being talked about in the hotel room. I hope I'm communicating my confusion effectively...) Events aren’t happening in different locations simultaneously in Stovepipe – sorry if I gave that impression in the review. It’s nothing like a Punchdrunk show, where you can wander as you please (and is not conceived or advertised as such, so that isn’t a criticism, just a clarification). You’re shepherded to an area, the scene plays, you’re herded to the next area, another scene plays. In that sense the plot is strictly linear.

The problem I had was that when the play flashed back, it wasn’t clear that’s what had happened. It opens at a conference in Amman; there’s a security alert, and Alan shepherds his VIP away. Then he’s in a hotel room in Amman, with his mate Eddy, preparing for a mission in Baghdad. Then Alan, Eddy and Grif are on a mission in Baghdad, safeguarding a convoy along Route Irish. That seemed like a fairly logical plot progression to me, which is why I was a bit thrown to discover that the chronology runs in the exact opposite direction. Perhaps I was imposing my own sense on the scenes instead of letting them wash over me, but I don’t think I can be blamed for thinking the mission-in-Baghdad scene comes after the preparing-for-the-mission-in-Baghdad scene. (It turns out Alan and Eddy are preparing for a completely different Baghdad mission. The fact that neither ever makes it back to Iraq seemed to reinforce my assumption that the Route Irish mission is the one being talked about in the hotel room. I hope I’m communicating my confusion effectively…)

]]> By: Katia Hilel http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/stovepipe/#comment-3039 Katia Hilel Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:25:27 +0000 http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/?p=1227#comment-3039 I sort of see your point about the complexity of the plot as a possible source of distraction, but aren't tight plots and detailed narratives the stuff of proscenium plays? How do you reconcile fragmented narrative and the real time nature of a promenade show where events are happening in different locations simultaneously? Perhaps it's not so much the complexity of the plot but more the clarity of each scene that determines the success of a promenade show? I don't know, but whenever I go to a promenade/participatory production I instinctively get into 'serendipity mode'. I dip in and out of things and expect a loose narrative, it then becomes the process of piecing things together rather than untangling the onslaught of information that your receive in a 'straight' play...(hate that term but you get the gist) I sort of see your point about the complexity of the plot as a possible source of distraction, but aren’t tight plots and detailed narratives the stuff of proscenium plays?

How do you reconcile fragmented narrative and the real time nature of a promenade show where events are happening in different locations simultaneously? Perhaps it’s not so much the complexity of the plot but more the clarity of each scene that determines the success of a promenade show?

I don’t know, but whenever I go to a promenade/participatory production I instinctively get into ’serendipity mode’. I dip in and out of things and expect a loose narrative, it then becomes the process of piecing things together rather than untangling the onslaught of information that your receive in a ’straight’ play…(hate that term but you get the gist)

]]> By: Matt Boothman http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/stovepipe/#comment-3038 Matt Boothman Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:44:11 +0000 http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/?p=1227#comment-3038 I actually thought the crowd management was top notch - they took advantage of herd mentality, ushered a few people and trusted the rest to follow, which worked without being too intrusive or interrupted my engagement with the story. I was lucky not to have any noticeably troublesome audience members, so that could just be good luck on my part (or bad luck on yours). My quarrel wasn't with the level of audience participation - the production was advertised as promenade, and to me that means moving from one area to another without being asked to interact or take part, which I was perfectly happy with. I'm a huge fan of total, immersive, environmental and participatory theatre experiences, but I wasn't expecting a Punchdrunk experience from Stovepipe, and I think to do so would be unfair to the production, which had no aspirations in that direction. What I do expect from promenade is to feel like I'm there - not necessarily part of the action, but located in the environment. The initial conference setup and the climactic face-off in the alley were the only times I really managed that, for a variety of reasons I've mentioned above. On a possibly related note, Adam Brace was apparently "borderline fucked off" when he heard his play was going to be staged as promenade - it seems he didn't write it that way. I actually thought the crowd management was top notch – they took advantage of herd mentality, ushered a few people and trusted the rest to follow, which worked without being too intrusive or interrupted my engagement with the story. I was lucky not to have any noticeably troublesome audience members, so that could just be good luck on my part (or bad luck on yours).

My quarrel wasn’t with the level of audience participation – the production was advertised as promenade, and to me that means moving from one area to another without being asked to interact or take part, which I was perfectly happy with. I’m a huge fan of total, immersive, environmental and participatory theatre experiences, but I wasn’t expecting a Punchdrunk experience from Stovepipe, and I think to do so would be unfair to the production, which had no aspirations in that direction.

What I do expect from promenade is to feel like I’m there – not necessarily part of the action, but located in the environment. The initial conference setup and the climactic face-off in the alley were the only times I really managed that, for a variety of reasons I’ve mentioned above.

On a possibly related note, Adam Brace was apparently “borderline fucked off” when he heard his play was going to be staged as promenade – it seems he didn’t write it that way.

]]> By: Phil Clark http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/stovepipe/#comment-3030 Phil Clark Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:52:56 +0000 http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/?p=1227#comment-3030 I saw it on Saturday night and would not want to be too critical. The writing and acting were exemplary. However I share a few of your misgivings about audience engagement. For me this was partly down to crowd management and to the audience itself, some of whom were pretty rude and objectionable. Shuffling from scene to scene became a bit of a headache, which obviously lessened the dramatic effect. Ideally there should have been less numbers but I understand they have to cover costs. It's hard not to compare this production with the work of the peerles Punchdrunk company http://www.punchdrunk.org.uk/. In this group's work you feel as if you become part of the performance rather than a spectator. Stovepipe succeeded on many levels, but not on this one. I saw it on Saturday night and would not want to be too critical. The writing and acting were exemplary. However I share a few of your misgivings about audience engagement. For me this was partly down to crowd management and to the audience itself, some of whom were pretty rude and objectionable. Shuffling from scene to scene became a bit of a headache, which obviously lessened the dramatic effect. Ideally there should have been less numbers but I understand they have to cover costs.
It’s hard not to compare this production with the work of the peerles Punchdrunk company http://www.punchdrunk.org.uk/. In this group’s work you feel as if you become part of the performance rather than a spectator. Stovepipe succeeded on many levels, but not on this one.

]]>