![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
smallhobbitYesterday I went to see Birdland at the Royal Court Theatre in Sloane Square in London. The journey was as might be expected. I congratulated myself on not going for the Train of Doom, because it was cancelled again. Then, when we got to Reading there was a fatality on the line, so we piled off the train and onto the train to Waterloo (I moved quickly at the announcement so got a seat, for which I was very grateful). The journey from Reading to Paddington takes 30 minutes, to Waterloo, because it stops everywhere, 1 hour 20 minutes. And it arrived late, probably due to having to push people onto the train which was crammed. I took a taxi from Waterloo and arrived just in time for when the theatre doors opened.
Anyway, enough of the Hobbit's trials with train travel. If you are intending to see the play and don't want any spoilers, read no further.
Andrew Scott, who had the lead part of Paul, was amazing. He was on stage for the whole of the 1 hour 50 minute performance. At times itdidn't seem as if he was even acting, he was so natural. There were moments when he would pause and look round the audience and everyone was mesmerized. As I have written before there are times when I've seen a play and been captured by it. In this case it wasn't so much the play, but the actor, so I shall definitely be going to see him again.
As for the rest of the play, I know the reviews have been mixed. Did it have something new to say, not really. Does it need to say something new because it is a new play, not necessarily. I thought it made it's point well, and was particularly taken by the moments when Paul was remembering what life had been like, and expressing regret. Yes, his behaviour was strange and unacceptable, but it was also plausible. A lot of that was to do with Scott's ability.
The stage directions at the beginning of the play text state that "the stage should be spare and abstract, rather than mimetic or naturalistic", which is fine and was well done. However, the play text also states very explicitly where each scene is taking place, and at times this was not made clear during the play, so seems rather unnecessary.
And Day 8 of 100 happy days, seeing Andrew Scott, and also the sticky toffee pudding I had afterwards.
Anyway, enough of the Hobbit's trials with train travel. If you are intending to see the play and don't want any spoilers, read no further.
Andrew Scott, who had the lead part of Paul, was amazing. He was on stage for the whole of the 1 hour 50 minute performance. At times itdidn't seem as if he was even acting, he was so natural. There were moments when he would pause and look round the audience and everyone was mesmerized. As I have written before there are times when I've seen a play and been captured by it. In this case it wasn't so much the play, but the actor, so I shall definitely be going to see him again.
As for the rest of the play, I know the reviews have been mixed. Did it have something new to say, not really. Does it need to say something new because it is a new play, not necessarily. I thought it made it's point well, and was particularly taken by the moments when Paul was remembering what life had been like, and expressing regret. Yes, his behaviour was strange and unacceptable, but it was also plausible. A lot of that was to do with Scott's ability.
The stage directions at the beginning of the play text state that "the stage should be spare and abstract, rather than mimetic or naturalistic", which is fine and was well done. However, the play text also states very explicitly where each scene is taking place, and at times this was not made clear during the play, so seems rather unnecessary.
And Day 8 of 100 happy days, seeing Andrew Scott, and also the sticky toffee pudding I had afterwards.
