Reader Reviews
Playing with Fire (Olivier (National Theatre), West End)
Back to Show Details| Score | Comment | Date |
 | I'd like to suggest that Mikey's suggestion that people gave this bad reviews because they disagreed with its politics is ridiculous. People are giving it low ratings because, frankly, it's awful. This is the only production that I've seen, in about 16 years of theatregoing, where I felt unable to stay beyond the interval. The first act seemed to last about 8 hours. The auditorium was the emptiest I've ever seen the Olivier, that wondrous performing space. This production is ghastly, I pity the actors. And hate the writer for that hour and a half of my life I'll never get back! - 86.136.191.127) | 19 Oct 05 |
| I highly recommend you make an effort to see this before the run ends. When we saw it last Saturday afternoon there were many empty seats, so once again it looks as if the National have failed so sell one of their top productions to their potential audience. This is the best play about contemporary politics for a long time. It addresses current issues with fairness and thankfully avoids the cheap laughs and easy caricatures so common in the plays of David Hare and other current government-bashers. It also avoids cliched references to Iraq and is not a reworking of a Greek tragedy! Be thankful for an opportunity to see a new play which allows us to think for ourselves and provides considerable insight into current political matters. I would suggest that those who gave it low ratings below dislike it mainly for its political stance. - 82.35.188.77) | 11 Oct 05 |
| I was engrossed by the politics of the play and the way, all too seldom dealt with in any medium, the personal and political worlds interreact. I accept that there did not seem to be enough chemistry between the lovers, partly because of the size of the place (and I did not hear enough of the words to follow everything said) but otherwise, would there were more like this. - 195.93.21.101) | 04 Oct 05 |
| It's not too bad but it's too long, it's overcrowded and doesn't allow for any character development, and looks lost on the Olivier stage - as many NT productions do these days. And I didn't come away feeling I'd been told anything. It had promising moments, but didn't really follow up on them. There is mileage in the idea of old and new ideologies clashing, and what can happen when the important things aren't focused on, but this didn't manage to extract much of that mileage, and - disappointingly - I find myself again feeling grateful that tickets are only £10. - 194.80.238.40) | 03 Oct 05 |
| This was like cwatching two different plays, a cracking first half with easily identifed characters, but then it seemed in the second half he director went awol and left it to the writer to spout out unreconstructed ideas Good acting, relevant topics but ultimately uninvolving, a real pity - 81.77.144.220) | 01 Oct 05 |
| Truly bad. Tedious, wordy, undramatic, cliche characters, ranting performances. The mere fact that the subject matter of a play is something topical does not make it worth watching. Does no-one at the NT look at the text and say - this is below standard? Or watch a rehearsal and say "this will never do"? It would never have made the commercial stage because the management would have known that audiences would walk out in droves. We loyal National Theatre supporters who buy our tickets on the strength of the advance booking programme deserve better. There were plenty of walkouts last night - and many wise theatregoers clearly did not come back for the second half. - 194.203.31.235) | 30 Sep 05 |
| The title may subconciously imply an evening of polemic thrills and spills but what we infact get is a considered presentation of the nation four years ago. A government full of good, optimistic intentions but with solutions for a myriad of complex social issues poorly executed. What this play does is expose all of us - not just local or central government - to the notion of taking reponsibility. To look at ourselves first and foremost rather than to immeditately start looking at others for the problems we face. It is a piece of work that, yes, takes its time and may not always be successful in everything it attempts to address but it is an intelligent piece that challenges an audience; encourages us all to confront our prejudices - be they racial, political or religious. The biggest theatrical challenge David Edgar sets is perhaps to demand that a modern audience just sit and listen. As a piece of theatre it may not offer a thrilling drama but life is not always like that. Nor does theatre need to be. Pay a tenner and listen. It is performed wonderfully by a committed and true ensemble on a stage large enough to give full rein to its ideas. Reccommended. - 84.67.68.237) | 30 Sep 05 |
| Like watching paint dry: one star for Oliver Ford Davies who looked like he could have been in an actual play if given the chance. This is the writer who gave us Pentecost - or was I just young then? - 81.155.234.214) | 29 Sep 05 |
| I think many reviews are far too harsh. The second half does intitially lag with Tribunal coverage, seemingly changing the plays direction and drive, but the overall substance is truly exploratory and unwilling to cut corners or make easy assumptions. The issues are extremely complex and thus the play perhaps feels unresolved because, ultimately the subjects it addresses, remain equally so. Excellent acting throughout and dynamic stagecraft create a thoroughly enjoyable and debate-creating evening. - 62.255.32.15) | 28 Sep 05 |
| This is a confusing, wordy, and ultimately unsuccessful play that would have worked much better on radio than on stage. Long speeches given at breakneck speed, too little action and why on earth in the second act is the public enquiry before the events it is intended to examine? The actors seem aware of the shortcomings of the play and several seem uncomfortable and unconvincing. In my opinion, this season has not been successful with several poor plays. One can only hope that next season's choices are better, especially now as the South Bank is so much more interesting with the improvements to the ground floor of the RFH. - 217.36.28.3) | 23 Sep 05 |
| I think we're being a bit unfair here. OK, so it's not a great play, but it's good to see something at the RNT that's relevant to Britain in 2005 rather than 'museum theatre' like The Aristocrats. This puts real issues on stage and examines them reasonably objectively (unlike the dreadfully one-sided Stuff Happens). It held me for it's entire three hours. It contained enough humour to prevent it from becoming too ernest but not so much as to trivialise its subject matter. Cracking performances from David Troughton and Trevor Cooper, though Oliver Ford Davies is unbelievable and Emma Fielding is hopelessly mis-cast. A worthwhile night at the RNT, but after a year of mediocrity, we're still waiting for a return to excellence. - 81.157.178.43) | 23 Sep 05 |
| First half of this play was thought provoking with some great acting. The second half seemed to get lost, but its worth seeing. It highlights some of the unbalanced aspects of our society in Britain today. - 172.213.128.233) | 20 Sep 05 |
| Truly awful. A racist, unbalanced and reductive view of multiculturalism in Britain. Also without any theatrical merit; this could have been a radio play and nothing would have been lost. The script is so heavy-handed that the production comes across as little more than 'talking heads'. This was the first time in my life that I sat in my seat and refused to applaud during a curtain call. More inane than controversial, Playing With Fire is a work that few outside of the BNP could appreciate. - 81.152.184.132) | 14 Sep 05 |
