The Nether at The Royal Court
I saw this play back in the summer at the wonderful Royal Court in Sloane Square, but as it’s about to get a fresh run in the West End, thought a good chance to comment on it.
I remember getting an email advertising this play that just grabbed my attention. First there was the amazing interactive website to explain what the Nether is;
And then there was the explanation of the play, a detective story set in a futuristic world where the internet was all consuming. Beyond that I had no idea what to expect but it grabbed me enough to quickly get tickets. With no real expectation, I went along to see what it was all about, and I can safely say, the one thing I wasn’t expecting was a play that at its very basic level was a world of pedophilia!
It starts out in what appears to be an interview room in a police station. This could be any town in any country, there is nothing to give it location or time frame. There is no explanation of what the crime being investigated is at this early stage, you join the interview not at the beginning but some way through, so there are many questions already hanging in the air. It’s a perfect start to a play, drawing you instantly in as you try to work out the context of the interview.
The interviews are of the two main suspects, and these are interspersed with flashbacks. The flashbacks take you into the Nether, the virtual reality world which is the internet of the future, no more sitting and typing, but rather one where you feel and touch and are part of it all. They slowly show you what the crime is supposed to be, but then the question starts to be, is there actually a crime at all, after all, this is the internet and virtual reality, how can you commit a crime there?
You soon learn that one of those being interviewed is the man who invented this particular realm, maybe consider it a chat room of the future, a room that is you see and feel as an idealistic old fashioned home, with the participants all dressed as if it’s the 18th century, not the near future. It’s an innocent feel, but an innocence that is shattered as you realise the purpose of the sweet young girl in the old fashioned dress smiling at the middle aged man she sees as her father. And she isn’t just there for the father, but the paying guests too. Yes, it is that sinister.
The play moves along at a fast pace, at only one hour and twenty minutes, it doesn’t have time to meander along too much. And maybe it’s this fast pace that adds to the tension that is generated as the story unfolds. The interviewer and interviewee even drag their own chairs away as the set changes from interview room to virtual reality world, the sound of scrapping chairs could almost be deliberate. There is some great lighting as well to add to the changing scenes that no doubt will be even more impressive when the play moves to the West End.
As the truth of what is happening in the virtual world unfolds it becomes very uncomfortable viewing. And slowly you realise the connections between the people in the real world and the virtual world, again, it becomes even more uncomfortable, but equally it’s compelling viewing.
It’s certainly not a play for the light-hearted. But for those who are willing to try it, it is worth eighty minutes of your life. And if like me, you enjoy something that leaves you questioning your perceptions and thoughts, this is clearly one for you. It doesn’t leave you asking whether pedophilia is right or wrong, that hopefully is a question we all know the answer too. Rather the questions are the rights and wrongs of what we think, how we play out our fantasies, and where the real world and the virtual world collide, and maybe how we will be using the internet in the future.
If you want to know more, check out the play’s own website at http://www.thenetherplay.com/
Urinetown, the musical
So I mentioned seeing Urinetown earlier this week, and as it’s still fresh in my mind, thought I would add something about it. Yes that name is right, yes it certainly grabs the attention doesn’t it, and yes, the name is fairly relevant to the show.
Was lucky enough to grab some cheap tickets to see this. Like most West End shows, face value tickets are expensive, but there are always offers to be found if you hunt around. I did get the impression on the evening that the discounted tickets had worked well, it was probably one of the younger audiences I’ve seen for some time at the theatre, which is never a bad thing. I was sitting behind a whole row of people who were probably not even 20 and I don’t think they would have been paying the normal sixty pounds those seats are. And they clearly were enjoying it, and adding to the great vibe in the audience on the night.
My initial comment on the show was that it was deliberately clichéd, corny and camp and very very funny. And I think that about sums up everything I’m going to say below, but do hope you will read on.
I’m sure somewhere out there must be a book entitled “How To Write A Musical”, setting out all the basic rules of any musical. I can imagine this book having chapters explaining the strict rules on what characters are needed, how the songs should be structured, just how much subtle campness is needed and of course explaining that every musical must have a happy ending.
And yes, the writers of Urinetown clearly read the book and mostly followed the rules precisely; so precisely that everything is completely over the top, and intentional so. It’s done so well it looks perfectly natural and so easy that you would think any fool could have written it.
The narrator, like the rule book must say, is both a character and an ethereal presence that at times steps out of the action to update the audience on what is happening, but does it in a very over the top way, almost explaining that things are happening simply because that is what happens in a musical.
Early on he berates a young girl for over-complicating things for the audience when she asks why the show is only concerned with water usage in toilets, the very central idea of the whole show, and not other things that would take more water. (I am hoping there will be a follow up show one day called Laundrytown.) While watching this I was strangely in mind of Stewart Lee (sorry for possibly a very obscure reference), a brilliant comedian who does very much the same in his stand up, following the rules of comedy so rigidly that at times he stops to explain why what he just said is in fact the best joke ever.
The campness comes in the most unexpected places; declarations of love between characters that just have no relevance to the scene; two thugs having a lustful embrace at the end of a fight scene for no real reason except that a musical needs to be slightly camp.
The music is as fun as would be expected, and of course as clichéd as required. There is the big opening number to set the scene, the romantic number when the love interests meet, the villains’ song to emphasise how evil he is, (don’t go if you are offended by suggestions of nasty things you can do to bunnys), the sad song when the love interests are unable to be together, and of course the required big number at the end of part one that sets the picture for what is coming in part two. And it’s all toe tapping fun.
Suddenly though as the second half progresses it slightly deviates from the rule book, again with absolute knowingness; the narrator explaining to the young girl that this isn’t a normal musical, after all it isn’t going to be happy with a name like Urinetown! But even with this turn, it just gets funnier.
As someone who rarely does musicals, this was certainly up my street. Everything was so tongue-in-cheek you just can’t help but laugh at it all. The clichéd nature was so intentional it just added to the humour. So provided you can handle the slight toilet humour of it all, it’s well worth an evening out.
As a slight aside, before the show and during the interval, was confused to see a number of young girls, (at my age, young is late teens/ early 20s) walking about shoeless. Now I know I said it’s great to see a younger audience, but I did think taking your shoes off at the theatre was just a little bit unnecessary and way too casual. So I was so relieved to find out afterwards that this was a charity thing, and that some brave soul was going the whole month of November shoeless for War On Want. If you want to help out, her Just Giving page is here;
https://www.justgiving.com/MTSNoShoesNov/
Please do give a few pounds if you can, remember how rainy it’s been this month, surely that deserves some support.
God Bless The Child
Been quite a contrast in what I’ve seen this week, on Wednesday evening I went to Urinetown, a musical as stupid as the name suggests, and then today I saw God Bless The Child, a play that questions what happens when we teach a “One size fits all” style; yes it was slightly more serious than Urinetown. Both brilliant in their own ways, both leaving me wanting more.
So for now, God Bless The Child, at the fantastic Royal Court in Sloane Square. This place is fast becoming my favourite venue. Three shows there this year and on each of those three occasions I’ve walked away in absolutely wonder at what I have just seen, and been left thinking about it for a long time afterwards. Also helps that it’s damn easy for me to get there from where I live.
So, back to the play then…
In short, it is a play about what happens when a school tests out a new teaching method called “Badger Do Best”. And what happens is that slowly the children rebel against the teaching, with one young child (a boy when I saw it, but I understand it’s a girl at other times) becoming the centre of everything, corrupting those around him and doing his best to bring down the system.
The casting is genius, seven young children form the classroom, and these are the real stars of the play, so young and yet so faultless in their parts. And add to this just four adults, including both Julie Hesmondhalgh, clearly enjoying life after Corrie as she plays a teaching assistant and the voice of reason amongst all the madness, and Amanda Abbington, the guru who designed “Badger Do Best” and is determined to see it succeed at all costs.
The play moves at a good pace, one hour and forty five without a break, but it flies by, each scene leading seamlessly into the next. As it develops it becomes more disturbing in how the central child manipulates those around him, all leading to a stunning end scene where members of the audience suddenly become supporting actors, and the children give their final verdict on what it all means.
And that final scene is probably what leaves you most disturbed, hearing such condemnation from the mouths of a group of young children who shouldn’t be giving such powerful speeches.
The writer clearly has a strong view on education, and some people will agree, others won’t. And at times there was a little uncertainty in my own mind on what it was getting at. But I still left with my mind full of thoughts, about how free thought can be suppressed, how a teaching method so rigid can destroy individuality.
What disturbed me most as I watched the play was not just the idea that we are destroying a child’s mind by the way we teach, but that the “one size fits all” method and the suppression of individual thought isn’t just one that could be creeping into our schools, but into other aspects of our lives too. I kept thinking of “The Emperors New Clothes”, everyone too scared to stand up against it. We have corporate work places who want everyone to be a drone, following their leaders blindly without questioning what they are being asked to do, and then we have the mass media force feeding us the same ideas of what we should like or dislike. And I’m sure there are many more examples that could be given. In every case it seems that dissenters aren’t welcomed.
Is this what the writer was aiming at? I don’t know, it’s just my interpretation of what was a thought provoking piece of work. It got my mind working overtime, and at the end of the day, that is what good theatre should all be about anyway.
My views and no one elses 
Recent Comments