The Third Day
"The Third Day" is the winner of "The Play's the Thing", Channel 4's gimmick to get new writing on the West End stage. That is to say, it's supposedly the best of 2000 entries.
Oh dear.
This is possibly the worst "professional" play I have ever seen. I admit that I went in prepared to be scathing, yet after a few of the earlier scenes I was ready to be swayed. The dialogue had been funny and clever, the characters endearing and interesting, and Maxine Peake is a brilliant actress. And yet it feels as though the writer has been given a book called "101 Tips for Writing a Play" and followed it to the letter. For a start, she's gone for the shock factor not once, not twice, but three times. In the very first scene, Jesus wanders in. Fine. I'm not averse to a bit of God now and again. But then there's the incest, not implied but shown graphically as Robbie tries to rape his older sister. And THEN said older sister starts self-harming, and eventually kills herself, with blood capsules galore pouring over the stage. All of this is interspersed with full-blown fights and shattering wine glasses. Why??
The best plays I've seen tend to be the ones without any kind of high drama or shock factor. "The History Boys" is my top favourite at the moment, and the gist is, here are some kids applying to Oxbridge, there's a bit of implied kiddy-fiddling at one point, and Frances De La Tour gets to say "c**tstruck", but good writing doesn't need melodrama. When one of the teachers is killed in "The History Boys" you don't see the death in all its gory detail. If you're a truly brilliant writer (as opposed to just "good", and the dialogue shows here that, to be fair to her, Kate Betts obviously IS good) you can work with anything and don't need to rely on shock tactics.
Someone had obviously also told her about Shakespeare's gravedigger and the like, because she obviously saw the need to insert some light relief during the scene where Claire has apparently come back from the dead and is fighting with her brother at what is supposed to be an Italian-restaurant-that-looks-a-bit-like-Da-Vinci's-Last-Supper. The result? Elvis, eating a packet of Doritos and at one point singing Happy Birthday. Confused? I'll say. There's off the wall, then there's rape and suicide, followed by off the wall. It was quite funny, but mainly in a bizarre sort of way, and, basically, it just didn't work.
Throw into this a painfully cliched opening speech (just before Jesus shows up) where a little girl announces "I'm in a boat" (she isn't) while dodgy images of waves that look like they come from that BBC "Coast" progranme crash around her, and you have a very amusing evening. Amusing, but annoying. As "new writers" Rachel and I sat there feeling peeved. What does this tell the world about "new writing"? It's amateuriash and overly-melodramatic. Best steer clear of it and stick to what you know.
It's a shame, because there were flashes of almost-brilliance at certain points. The chemistry between "Jesus" (Mike) and Claire was beautifully written and well executed by the actors, with some very clever and funny dialogue. His character was wonderful - just as you'd like to imagine Jesus being were he to turn up in Streatham, though you kind of know he wouldn't be and feel as thouhg you shouldn't be thinking like that (spot the ex-Catholic.) I thought some of the Bible references seemed a bit forced and cliche - would your reaction to someone you've just met getting blisters be to wash their feet, Mary Magdalene-style? But some of the jokes were good, and, as I said, that one character truly engaging. Claire's interview sequence, where she is, one presumes, "auditioning" for a job at the Planaterium, is also engaging, giving you a bit of insight into the character whilst making her seem fairly isolated and alone when you first meet her, which fits in well with what follows, yet still giving the audience a bit of humour.
So I'm not going to be overly-scathing of the writer, who can cetainly write, but I have to say that, as a finished article, I wasn't all that taken with her first play.
My tube is rammed on the way home by red-and-white-clad drunk men shouting "2-Nil!" at the tops of their voices. Put in context, we had just beaten those giants of the football world, Trinidad and Tobago, over three hours before. Get over it.
Oh dear.
This is possibly the worst "professional" play I have ever seen. I admit that I went in prepared to be scathing, yet after a few of the earlier scenes I was ready to be swayed. The dialogue had been funny and clever, the characters endearing and interesting, and Maxine Peake is a brilliant actress. And yet it feels as though the writer has been given a book called "101 Tips for Writing a Play" and followed it to the letter. For a start, she's gone for the shock factor not once, not twice, but three times. In the very first scene, Jesus wanders in. Fine. I'm not averse to a bit of God now and again. But then there's the incest, not implied but shown graphically as Robbie tries to rape his older sister. And THEN said older sister starts self-harming, and eventually kills herself, with blood capsules galore pouring over the stage. All of this is interspersed with full-blown fights and shattering wine glasses. Why??
The best plays I've seen tend to be the ones without any kind of high drama or shock factor. "The History Boys" is my top favourite at the moment, and the gist is, here are some kids applying to Oxbridge, there's a bit of implied kiddy-fiddling at one point, and Frances De La Tour gets to say "c**tstruck", but good writing doesn't need melodrama. When one of the teachers is killed in "The History Boys" you don't see the death in all its gory detail. If you're a truly brilliant writer (as opposed to just "good", and the dialogue shows here that, to be fair to her, Kate Betts obviously IS good) you can work with anything and don't need to rely on shock tactics.
Someone had obviously also told her about Shakespeare's gravedigger and the like, because she obviously saw the need to insert some light relief during the scene where Claire has apparently come back from the dead and is fighting with her brother at what is supposed to be an Italian-restaurant-that-looks-a-bit-like-Da-Vinci's-Last-Supper. The result? Elvis, eating a packet of Doritos and at one point singing Happy Birthday. Confused? I'll say. There's off the wall, then there's rape and suicide, followed by off the wall. It was quite funny, but mainly in a bizarre sort of way, and, basically, it just didn't work.
Throw into this a painfully cliched opening speech (just before Jesus shows up) where a little girl announces "I'm in a boat" (she isn't) while dodgy images of waves that look like they come from that BBC "Coast" progranme crash around her, and you have a very amusing evening. Amusing, but annoying. As "new writers" Rachel and I sat there feeling peeved. What does this tell the world about "new writing"? It's amateuriash and overly-melodramatic. Best steer clear of it and stick to what you know.
It's a shame, because there were flashes of almost-brilliance at certain points. The chemistry between "Jesus" (Mike) and Claire was beautifully written and well executed by the actors, with some very clever and funny dialogue. His character was wonderful - just as you'd like to imagine Jesus being were he to turn up in Streatham, though you kind of know he wouldn't be and feel as thouhg you shouldn't be thinking like that (spot the ex-Catholic.) I thought some of the Bible references seemed a bit forced and cliche - would your reaction to someone you've just met getting blisters be to wash their feet, Mary Magdalene-style? But some of the jokes were good, and, as I said, that one character truly engaging. Claire's interview sequence, where she is, one presumes, "auditioning" for a job at the Planaterium, is also engaging, giving you a bit of insight into the character whilst making her seem fairly isolated and alone when you first meet her, which fits in well with what follows, yet still giving the audience a bit of humour.
So I'm not going to be overly-scathing of the writer, who can cetainly write, but I have to say that, as a finished article, I wasn't all that taken with her first play.
My tube is rammed on the way home by red-and-white-clad drunk men shouting "2-Nil!" at the tops of their voices. Put in context, we had just beaten those giants of the football world, Trinidad and Tobago, over three hours before. Get over it.
posted by RLS at 10:33 am
5 Comments:
Hey chickpea
Hope you don't mind but I put a link to your blog on "The Play's The Thing" forum - everyone's quite interested to know what people thought - so you may get some mystery visitors. Let me know if it;s a problem and I'll take it off but I figured you'd be game. Take a peak at the forum when you get the chance: http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/835603872
My reviews up on me blog
x
aw, i want to be a mystery visitor. damn.
there is a lot to be said for understated things. overcompensation is, after all, overcompensation. it's 7 in the morning, and i've been up since 6. hence, this post is undercompensation. oh, whatever. good morning.
Im so over the football myself. Not that I was ever much into it. But, there I was having an Indian with a friend on Thursday night. The restaurant was nice and quiet (a little too quiet perhaps; I felt the waiters were hearing every word we said). Then a huge group of drunken football fans descended. A pheumatic drill would have been quieter.
BTW, blog finally back in action...
i can see similarities between play and football. Both promised much. Both disappointed. Both saw me getting drunk.
Hello Kay
Nice to meet you. Have read your profile and I approve :-) (not that this will make any difference to you, I'm sure, but hey) being a big fan of tea and cats. Also I like your blog.
Thanks for dropping by.
Px
Post a Comment
<< Home