Anybody seen this yet? Am going tomorrow night

Yes. I certainly wont be seeing it again. I don't see how it could even be improved. Some of the actors are clearly novices when it comes to theatre.

I cannot say how annoyed I am about the review of The Murder Game by Michael Coveny. To my mind, it has been written in a most unprofessional way.

All of the cast are acclaimed and experienced actors on TV, in the theatre and in musicals. No novices around. I've seen the play twice, and the audience had a lot of fun, judging by the shrieks of laughter. This comedy isn't meant to be taken seriously, it is entertaining with witty oneliners, twists and turns.

Gordina

Has to be the worst thing i have seen in years,the cast actually looked embarassed at the bows!

Lines..................When I saw it Josefina Gabrielle acted professionally throughout.................... Lines

This is my review, just in case it won't appear on the main site for reasons of space:

4 stars

This play about a divorcing couple, between whom - literally speaking - a bomb goes off, is full of witty lines, twists and turns and very funny moments, brought to the stage by brilliant comedy actors. Set in New Orleans, the characters' countries of origin are reflected in their various accents. Judging from the laughter coming from the audience, all those negative reviews in some papers seem completely out of line. But isn’t everybody a critic these days?

And to those people who think this is the "worst play they have seen in years" and so on and so forth: Go ahead, write your own plays, and if they are good enough to start with they may be accepted for performance onstage. Then let's see how you fare. Anybody thinking up a plot already?

I am not going to change my mind about this play. It was light-hearted with lots of laughs, nothing more and nothing less, and the actors had a lot of fun doing this onstage. I had a great time seeing it.

Gordina

I totally agree with Gordina!

I have also seen this hilariously funny play, twice. The cast were brilliant, some people are clearly novices at judging professional acting when they see it.

This play is meant to be fun, if you want Shakespear I suggest you go to "The Globe."

The audience on both occasions I was there thoroghly enjoyed every moment. The gales of laughter and rapturous applause were testament to that.

If you want entertainment to be fun, I highly recommend this wonderful play.

I would like to add that, contrary to some opinions, those video interludes were clevery done to bring America onto a British stage. I thought it was a good idea.

Gordina

I think we know where you are coming from Gordina. Perhaps you could see some other plays and post a few more reviews.

To get back to the play............

The dialogue is unconvincing - especially in Act 1. However Act 2 is truly hilarious - I almost injured myself laughing.

This remark, coming from a global moderator (!!!?), is intrusive, quite out of order, quite unbelievable and unprofessional. I am not "coming from" anywhere. If I thought TMG was a bad play I would certainly not hesitate to voice my opinion. I am neither English nor do I live in that country on a regular basis and will therefore not be able to keep posting reviews about other plays often. I don't see a reason to post a review if the general tendency of opinion coincides with mine. This site is about discussion with other theatre goers and that's what I'm doing.

In this case there seems to be a stark contrast between some critic's opinions and those of viewers. A lot of critics have brushed the play off while most viewers - including on other, perhaps more professional, sites - said they thought the play was funny.

Gordina

I was simply trying to imply that you were connected with the production because of your fierce defence of it. If I am wrong on this, then please accept my apology and I do hope you can go to other stuff in the UK and post reviews.

At least it's an explanation for your remark. Right, Lynette, you see, you don't know me and you are totally mistaken. In fact, I am simply a theatre goer from abroad and not linked to any UK productions whatsoever. I went to two plays and a musical last year during two visits to UK (and I voted for Summer Strallen on the Whatsonstage site which is the reason I keep getting newsletters now which ultimately lead me to this forum). Prompted by your remark, let me say the following: If I travel to another country and see a theatre play or a musical, there is one thing that comes with it: I don't know the actors and singers at all. Their names don't ring a bell, I don't know what they look like and I certainly haven't seen any of their previous work unless they were active internationally. I have never watched Emmerdale or Casualty and make that connection with the actors right there and then. I think they were great. And, rather than just saying I am a "guest" and then bomb-dropping a sarcastic or negative view without giving any reasons for it, I wanted to mention my name with my opinions.

Gordina

As has been said many times before Guest postings are taken with a pinch of Salt why not register and people will more likely take you seriously about your POV

You don't need to sound so combative. People should be free to voice their dislike of a play without being challenged to write and stage their own one! Just as you're free to post about how much you did like it. I'm glad to see people using the fringe/off-West End forum, it's sadly very under-populated, especially seeing as some off-West End productions have threads in the general Plays forum.

@ Backdrifter and Laughingmonster

Originally, I intented to simply say that I thought the critics' verdict was far too grim and submit my own positive review, which, however, never appeared on the main page so I posted in on the forum. But then somebody said "... the cast actually looked embarrassed at the bows". When I replied 'why don't you try to do better', I was, in fact, referring to such persons, and not to everybody in general who voices their reservations about the play. We all do have a right to our opinions. But why not get serious and really write a play of one's own? A critic may be a writer's dream gone bust. At least we would appreciate the courage it actually takes to come forward and put one's work onstage. What would you have done differently in TMG and why? This is the kind of feedback that will help authors improve their work. Comments such as "worst I've ever seen" without giving any specifics are simply regarded by authors for what they are: put downs by someone who doesn't know any better.

Ben Jones told me he actually likes his role with its twists and turns. And he does a wonderful Latin American accent. Josefina Gabrielle has found herself a new fan: Me! Nobody is embarrassed at the bows because the audiences have been far more positive about the play than many critics were.

And, yes, I could register. I didn't think about it because I thought this would be the only time I'd ever voice a POV on any UK play. And, yes, Lynette, I could write more reviews on other plays I have seen. I am just new to this forum.

Gordina

Well I guess the way to encourage people to register is to accuse them of being part of the production and slam their opinion, just because they liked a play.

Whether Guest opinions are taken with 'A pinch of salt' or not, doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people loved this play, and I am one of them.

Okay, so now I have registered, does that make my opinion more valid?

Laughingmonsta perhaps could have expressed it better, but what he was referring to was the fact that there have been problems with the tone of a great many guest postings, and also that in this forum particularly some of the guests have been people from productions acting like breathless fans. There's also been a track record of many guest posters taking a very combative stance with anyone who dislikes a production, which is why I flinched a little at the "you try writing a play" comment. But even that was mild compared to the truly unpleasant guest posts that have been a recurring feature.

But if you're saying that guest posters are innocent until proven guilty, then I agree with you. Yes, it's unfair to tar all guests with the same brush, but some members feel they have some reason to do so.

One advantage of registering, apart from making it easier to post, is being able to start threads as well. Joan, you may have registered just to argue a point but now that you have, I hope you feel you can carry on posting as a registered member.

Thanks for that response, you sound a lot calmer than in your previous posts! I'd still argue that just because someone has slated something without going into detail, it doesn't necessarily mean it's uninformed or that they don't know any better, any more than I'd say that about someone who just said "I loved it!" also without explaining why. But I do agree that it's at least always more interesting if someone backs up their loved-it-or-hated-it comments.

I'd also add that there could be many people on this board who are indeed writing their own plays, or have even had stuff performed, but opt to not mention it.

Regarding your comments on critics perhaps being failed writers. Did you get to see Plague Over England? It's written by Nicholas de Jong, the theatre critic of the London Evening Standard who has in fact now resigned from that job to write full-time.

Am delighted to welcome Gordina and Joan to the registered posters brigade.

No, backdrifter, I haven't seen Nicholas de Jong (yet) but it's good to hear that someone is following his dreams.
Actually, I was very calm when I bluntly said 'Why don't you do your own stuff'. I was just challenging what I perceived as two unfair and rude comments without substance and wanted to point out that it is, indeed, not easy to write a play in the first place. It is much easier to say 'Bah, didn't like it, good-bye'.
I think a person involved in the production of the play might have rather tried to influence public opinion at the beginning of the performances and not as they are nearing their end. Could I be right? Anyway, I am a (not so breathless) fan taking sides for the actors who, in my opinion, delivered a very good performance.

While there may be no reason to fall down on one's knees and gasp 'sheer genius', I think the play works quite well. The two main characters are intellectuals and public figures, and as Katherine Kelly gets angry about her adulterous husband, she would, of course, not take recourse to violence but try to ruin his reputation. This is perfectly in line with her character. Until the hitman-story comes in, that is. The plot, set in New Orleans and involving a legal peculiarity, is probably unique. There were many examples of witty one-liners and funny dialogue that a critic could have pointed out.

It may sound sacrilegious but I liked The Murder Game better than An Ideal Husband or Mousetrap (despite enjoying both). The reason for this is that these two plays are dated while The Murder Game is a modern, fresh play.
Actually, one line from Oscar Wilde mysteriously found it's way into the new play. Randall Kelly (M. Praed) says to Pito (B. Jones) at one point: "Do you always really understand what you are saying?" In 'Ideal Husband', it's Tony Britton who says it." Later, they sing 'My way'. Michael Praed is a dedicated Sinatra fan.

After the bomb hits Randall Kelly, he walks into his wife's office, all covered up in bandages with foam under his arms as it would be given to accident victims to keep their limbs in a certain position. Originally, Michael Praed was supposed to have sat in a wheelchair during this scene. However, the set was too small. Michael said to me: "If I'd been in a wheel chair, my feet would've been where you were sitting." Okay, not precisely where I was sitting but the first row would have definitely been in danger. Also, it had to be something he'd be able to take off quickly onstage. So the director and Michael decided on that compromise.

As Michael Coveny describes the scene, it becomes: "and the escaped prisoner (or is it?) who’s threatening Katherine for sending him down, breaks into her office covered in bandages like the Invisible Man, or perhaps the “A-bomb-inable” Snowman..." No, Mr. Coveny, it is indeed her husband that walks into her office and rails at her without saying a word to make it sound like he is so injured he cannot even speak properly. Actually, it was a scene that the audience found particularly hilarious. Katherine is alarmed only as he suddenly walks toward her pretending to attack her and suspects he may be Hostetter's man after all, but within seconds the situation is resolved as Randall takes the bandages off his face and laughs. It seems to be quite a natural reaction on Katherine's part, for who wouldn't be nervous easily if they were threatened to be killed?

It was nice of Mr. Coveny to mention that the participants in this play are actually acclaimed actors but I think his verdict is unnecessarily grim and keeps people from seing a fun play.

Gordina

Here's me double posting. Lynette, after this and my reviews on Ideal Husband and Mousetrap I may not have very much more to say because I still live in another country. Anyway, Hello Dolly and Sister Act will be next, and I might voice my opinions on those musicals, too.

I have seen that Whatsonstage recruits new critics. In my opinion, a good theatre critic has

- an excellent overview over the theatre and musicals landscape and the world of film
- knowledge about books and films that plays and musicals are based on and influenced by and
- knowledge about the career of actors, singers, directors, and authors and their previous work for comparison.

For a review to be professional, in my opinion, it contains

- a short synopsis without giving away the solution or any gags
- relevant remarks about the participant's previous work, prizes and, if applicable, comparison with other plays of the same genre or with a similar theme
- information on how the play/musical was staged that way and why, if applicable
- a verdict listing the pros and cons objectively.

Seemingly "ingenious" word plays such as "abom(b)inable" or quotes such as "Bin Laden bad" as a verdict just sound like the critic wants to bolster their ego or appear superior at the expense of those people onstage. Such comments do not contain any useful information at all (especially, if there is no snowman in the play ). So even if the critic thinks the play was really bad I'd want them to explain why.

Gordina

There is something else that has come to my mind that I would like to mention briefly: When I read the following in Time Out, I am not informed about the contents of the play at all to make a decision if I want to see it. Reviews like that irritate me enormously, not only with regard to TMG but in general. They are very low standard.

"The Murder Game ... Billed as a comedy, there is something unintentionally tragic about James Farewell's playwriting debut. Set in a New Orleans courthouse the clunky script, uninspired direction and horrendous video projection combine to make this, to borrow a quote, 'Bin Laden bad'." (Time Out, April 9-15, p. 122/123)

And now for this fictitious play:

'A Day Out in the Countryside' ... Billed as a comedy, there is something unintentionally tragic about James Smith's playwriting debut. Set in Cornwall, the clunky script, uninspired direction and horrendous light projection combine to make this, to borrow a quote, 'a place to get stung'.

Equally, of course: 'A Day Out in the Countryside' ... Set in Cornwall, this brilliant comedy about a family outing is full of surprises, twists and turns and witty dialogues. Don't miss it.

The review in Time Out about TMG doesn't do its job.

Gordina

Thank you, for the welcome, Lynette!



Thank you, Backdrifter, I will see what I can do.


I agree with Gordina! Michael Coveney's review is very one-sided and he seems to have left his sense of humour at home when he saw TMG.

I myself have seen this play twice. I found it fast paced, very witty, and extremely funny.
The whole cast worked so well together and there was certainly nothing 'local am dram society' about it.
'The Kings Head' is a very small intimate theatre, where the audience is right there with the actors.
If no one liked this play the actors would be the first to know, but this was not the case on the two occasions I was there.
Mr Coveney and his ilk seem to be the only ones to disagree.

There is one final thing I would like to post. More views from theatre goers who have seen The Murder Game are here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/theatre/show...e/showReview.do

I would definitely like to see reviews to be respectful and objective and not sarcastic and -God beware - non-sensical. This goes for every play, not just The Murder Game.
In the meantime, I have also posted reviews and opinions on other plays.

Gordina

I don't think that simply disagreeing with you constitutes being nonsensical.

I mean, can you point to any disrespectful or overly subjective lines in the reviews?

Hello "guest",

Yes, I can explain what I mean, just in case you are one of those critics.
After Time Out's review I am not informed what the play is about in the first place and am therefore unable to decide whether I want to see it or not, irrespective of the critic's opinion. I have to go elsewhere to find out. It merely consists of putdowns of a general nature that can be thrown in arbitrarily. In what way is the play "unintentionally tragic", the script "clunky", the direction "uninspired" and the video projection "horrendous"?

Coveney has applied the manipulative mechanism of deliberate misunderstanding and summarises a scene in a way it doesn't happen onstage. This is bad news for a review that is supposed to be objective and professional. Is the play therefore really "wilfully bizarre"? To the audience it was pretty clear who barged into the judge's office. A critic always needs to know more about a play than the general audience does, even if he/she doesn't mention everything in his/her review. In this case he couldn't be bothered to find out that the "abom(b)inable snowman" was in fact a compromise because the stage was too small for a wheel-chair.

And now for the fictitious play:

'A Day Out in the Countryside' ... This comedy, set in Cornwall, sends the Carpendale family on an outing they'll never forget as, unexpectedly, their uncle Richard passes away. The only problem is he dies before his fortieth birthday, the day on which he was supposed to inherit a large fortune from his excentric father. How do you organise a birthday party for a dead person and pretend he's still alive? Will they manage to deceive the notary? This play has a touch of Hitchcock's "The Trouble with Harry". Despite a few really funny complications, it doesn't develop its full potential due to commonplace jokes and a somewhat predictable story. Still, it's well suited for a day out with the family.

Okay, now I know what the play is going to be about. To me, it's not all that important. Still, I might go to a matinée and take a friend with me.

Gordina

Good thinking. Just in case I am. What if I'm just an interested theatregoer? What if I suggested that the only reason you care about the issue is because you're *obviously* a friend of the cast? It's just insulting.



To quote from that very review:
"Set in a New Orleans courthouse... centres around the trials and tribulations of a high-flying district attorney who fears his wife is trying to kill him, he hires a hitman to do her in before she can. They end up hiring the same man."

I think that's pretty clear.



To quote again:
"A clunky script lumbered with outdated cultural stereotypes (the Brazilian lothario, the dumpy English fool)"

There's your answer. He thinks the characters are lazy throwbacks that don't connect and are awkwardly executed.



I think you can combine that with the reviewer's line "on a too-small stage" to suggest that he feels the director hasn't delivered a production that utilises the space. Generally, "uninspired" just means that the production never lifts or takes flight: either that it isn't as funny as it might be, or as moving as it might be. That it's workmanlike.



Presumably he means the projections are either poorly put together or ineffectively used. Or both.



That's the difference between laughing *at* and laughing *with*.

I don't think there's anything below the belt in that review. I can't comment so much on Coveney's approach to particular scenes as I haven't seen the show, but with regard to the last part of your post, you don't seem to understand that everything you've complained about could be said of your fictional review:



One could say "oh really? In what way are the jokes commonplace? In what way is the story predictable?!" as your observations like "commonplace" and "predictable" are no more generic that "uninspired" or "clunky".

As you might have read in my earlier posts, I hadn't met any of the cast before, let alone do I know the author or anybody from the production team. That specific actor that I have seen before (and I am NOT in his circle of friends) has done a lot of very good work, and if I hadn't enjoyed the play I would have just walked home and thought to myself that they'll do better next time. Why would it be "insulting" to you that I enjoyed the play?

The fictitious review was an example of a synopsis that would enable me to decide if I want to see the play or not even if the points made by the critic were of a generic nature. I can see from Coveny's synopsis as you quoted it that he is setting out to give the play a negative review. There is more to the story than he says.

I have read two other examples of reviews for comparison. They were about "The Boat that Rocked". The review I read was in another language and covered a whole page of a magazine supplement to a newspaper (and I shall not provide a translation, you just have to believe me). The critic didn't speak of a "self-satisfied tribute" or an "overlong, poorly paced and slackly directed ... farrago" as Time Out's critic did. He gave a precise and positively formulated synopsis of the film (with a positive title), pointed out some positive points such as entertaining scenes and well compiled music and then went on to argue mainly that the film lacked substance because it didn't tell anything about the time back then but gets lost in arbitrary episodes onboard.
Although I had great fun watching that movie, I must admit he has a point there, and because he didn't brush the movie off completely, he sounds much more objective.

I have realised that Mr. Coveney is Whatsonstage's chief critic. Yet I do feel I have the right to voice my opinion that I disagree with his judgement and have enjoyed the play, alongside many other people. Other critics also have a right to give it a positive review as some, indeed, have done.

As promised in the synopsis by King's Head Theatre, I saw a play that I perceived as light-hearted and entertaining, nothing more and nothing less. I heard the laughter of the audience and saw smiles throughout, and to me it is totally irrelevant whether they were laughing with the actors or at them. Then I was totally taken aback at the spiteful, one-sided, "official" comments this play received. As, for this reason, I voiced my opinion on this forum, I was swiftly "accused" of being part of the production or friends with the cast and requested to register as otherwise my opinion would be "taken with a pinch of salt". I thought opinions in this thread would be more mixed. And you know what? Usually, I never rely on any reviews, I always form my own opinions and, based on that decision, I have hardly ever seen a bad play or movie. I just happened to buy Time Out because of my visit to London and I came across Mr Coveney's review because Whatsonstage keeps sending me those newsletters ever since I voted on their site.

The play is over now, and it remains to be hoped that Farewell's next project is more successful in meeting the critics' expectations. After all, several people were involved in TMG and decided to throw their coins in, and decisions were not made by one person only. I do believe that those people who put themselves onstage deserve more respect and objectivity.

Gordina

(last paragraph added to end this discussion)

*Some people at times really make me come out of hiding!*

Wow I think you have voiced that opinion very clear Gordina, but you fail to see the case that more people disliked this production than liked this production and it is their right to voice that opinion, everybody has critics that they like and dislike - it is not your job or my job to tell anybody how to do their Job.

If you dislike Michael Coveney as a reviewer don't read his reviews, as been said in the past - find a reviewer whose style, and way of writing sits best with you, but it looks like that seems to be a foreign film critic - I know what its like to review theatre - I do it!... and sometimes just sometimes you get a week of press nights of unoriginal diatribe and piss poor performances that it can jar and make things bad - yes try and be critical with an open eye but you can only do that if your critical eye hasn't been blunted by some of the rubbish that actually manages to find funding and find a home on the stage!

Oh and many times, I have been of the same opinion as some critics about what they have seen in the theatre, other times I have radically disagreed what they have said, that is the unfalable nature of being human...and on that note I leave, and say to Gordina - let is rest, Life is far to precious to get worked up over a theatre critic!

Oh boy.

*holds breath, dives in*



It wouldn't be. My point was that it would be insulting for me to suggest that the only way you could've enjoyed the play was if you were a friend of the cast, which is what you did when you wrote "just in case you're a critic" to me. My point is that we can have differing opinions without needing to accuse the other side of being a spy.



You're shifting the goal posts. First you say he didn't say anything about the plot. Now you're saying he did, but just not all of it.

Of course he doesn't give away the whole plot: he gives away the set up, the key characters and the key conflict. That's what he's meant to do! (And besides, it was the Time Out review I quoted, not Whatsonstage's).



Yes. Absolutely. 100% agreed. My point is that you don't seem to honour the connection between words and meaning and furthermore seem to believe that anything that differs with your opinion amounts to character assassination.

Guest said:
More to the point on whether one should register or not. I think it does require one to actually see a production before criticizing it. If only from the view of knowing what is being talked about. But then, perhaps that is just me.

JKR said:

You know more people disliked this production, than liked it, how? Did you take an exit poll or something?

Those who did dislike "The Murder Game" have every right to voice their opinion, but not as the only opinion that matters.

Those who found this play thoroughly entertaining have the same right to express their enjoyment. Without being held to account as to whether they are, part of the production, friends of the cast, or simply delusive, because their views do not fit in with preconceived ideas of what others think is a good play.

Yes, guest, I have quoted from both reviews but I have mentionend who I was quoting. As I was posting, my thoughts spread to the wording of reviews in general. I didn't think Coveny's synopsis was quite to the point but, as has been mentioned by somebody else on this site, one thing he has done, unfortunately, is to give away the play's surprises so that, had I read the review before seeing the play, it would have spoilt all the gags because I would have known what's coming up next beforehand.
Something else that you quoted from Coveney: "outdated cultural stereotypes (the Brazilian lothario ...)". It has just crossed my mind that this isn't strictly true as Pito only pretends to be that kind of a person, and as his true identity is revealed, the stereotype vanishes.

Thanks, JKR, for showing up. I really appreciate the opinions of somebody who actually works in that field.

"... you fail to see the case that more people disliked this production than liked this production and it is their right to voice that opinion, everybody has critics that they like and dislike..."

I might argue that you probably don't know how many people who have seen the play liked it and thought it was funny. Maybe it's more a case of critics giving it mainly bad reviews. The audience seemed to have been more positive as I see from their posts on the internet.

"It is not your job or my job to tell anybody how to do their Job."

However, I am certain that as people voice their opinions on the internet about what they have seen, they will also discuss in what way they agree/disagree with the critic and what they think about his/her review. With the internet, critics no longer have that absolute position of power of decision on whether a play is worthwhile or not, and they may see their views challenged.

"and sometimes just sometimes you get a week of press nights of unoriginal diatribe and piss poor performances that it can jar and make things bad "

Okay, I appreciate that sometimes things may get a little rough but it was you who chose this profession.

"yes try and be critical with an open eye but you can only do that if your critical eye hasn't been blunted by some of the rubbish that actually manages to find funding and find a home on the stage!"

I have seen lousy plays before, and I don't think this one was. It certainly contained a lot of humour.

Gordina