Just loved it. Beautifully observed. I'm so sorry my kids won't be able to see it - how about an extension? - Bazzathegooner
09 Jun 12
After the misfortunes of the previous abortive visit I was delighted that the Royal Court managed to schedule an additional matinee of Mike Bartlett's much praised play about the supposed financial selfishness of the baby boomer generation. So it was a major disappointment that it failed to live up to expectations or come close to Bartlett's other work. Surprisingly it feels under researched: the opening scene in 1969 is like a pilot for a sit-com and there is so little revealed about the characters that it is impossible to reconcile the scenes in 1991 and 2011. From a standard middle class home in Reading (which got the biggest laugh of the whole play), Kenneth settles into a prosperous post-divorce retirement with a highly implausible income of £60,000 pa. It does provide for the possibility of being able to afford to buy a house for their poorly paid daughter who has followed her dream of being a musician, but it strains credulity to the extreme. As in 13, Bartlett is even handed with the arguments for both generations, but although this provides admirable balance it does not help the drama. It also doesn't help that, although they give excellent performances throughout, only in the middle scene just two of the five actors are remotely believable as the right age for their characters. Love, Love, Love offers an excellent premise for a very good play but unfortunately Bartlett has failed to lift it above the level of a soap opera. - David Baxter
07 Jun 12
Our day in London was competely ruined by the cancellation of our much anticipated visit to see Love, Love, Love by Mike Bartlett, our favourite of the new generation of writers, which we did not find out about until arriving at the Royal Court. Whilst the reason for the cancellation was very sad, and we express our sympathies to Ben Miles, the Royal Court's handling of the situation was completely unprofessional. They are happy to accept a substantial subsidy from the taxpayer as well as lucrative sponsorship from Coutts, but are too penny-pinching to employ understudies for evetualities such as this. At no time have they asked if audiences would prefer to see an under-rehearsed understudy rather than no performance at all - I am pretty sure what most people who have bought tickets would choose, particularly if they have taken annual leave and incurred travel and other expenses to visit a theatre. What made things worse was the attitude of staff at the Royal Court who just informed us that our tickets had already been refunded with no discussion at all about possible alternatives - they even refunded less than the full amount until we chased them for a full reimbursement. There has often been a rather unattractive air of arrogance about the Royal Court, as if the common herd of any audience outside SW1 is very low on their list of priorities. Artistically it can be a very rewarding venue but beofre booking any tickets in the future we will need to remember that they have no contingency plans for problems and don't seem to care how much they inconvenience their customers. - Jackie & David Baxter
26 May 12
Despite being a little didactic in Act 3, this is one of my favourite productions of the year. I agree with DW that the play is morally complex and ambiguous. I've never felt so unduly fond of such incredibly selfish characters. The play explores the allure of indulgent behaviour, it's positive consequences as well as it's negative consequences. The issues dealt with in this play are some of the defining issues of our lives today. The balancing act of life, hinted at eons ago by Hillel ("If I am not for myself, who am I? If I am not for others, who am I? If not now, then when?") about who we live our lives for, is a difficult one, and Mike Bartlett explores all it's permutations wonderfully. Victoria Hamilton's Sandra wants to live her life to the fullest, and selfishly bulldozes her way through other people in the most breezy delightful way. This is a tragi-comic performance of immense dimensions, as Sandra never loses touch with her conscience, and the pain of her own selfish decisions come to haunt her over generations. Ben Miles is wonderful too as her life-partner, so good I didn't even know it was him in act 1. This is a much better play than Betrayal, which he was in recently. Like in Betrayal, characters in relationships betray each other, but here the focus is not on some fatalistic jigsaw of how it happens, but a loving portrayal of human beings, with all our flaws. The cast is flawless, and Claire Foy and Sam Troughton offer impeccable support. I love love love this production. - steveatplays
12 May 12
I loved this play (and the production) as much as Coveney seems to, but I actually think it's a good deal more complex than he gives it credit for. In Ben Miles' and Victoria Hamilton's performances, anyway, Kenneth and Sandra--selfish as they often are--emerged as characters whom the audience (my companions and I, anyway) found engaging, understandable, and funny. Far from the blame-the-boomers "act of revenge" that Mr. Coveney describes, I believe the play is morally complex and ambiguous, positively Chekhovian in its emotional appeal. - DW
