DEAD LANGUAGE
Dead Language: Institue of Contemporary Art, The Mall, London
This is a new play, whether radically different, breathtakingly original or pretentious, would-be avante garde flop or beyond. Audiences may take to this and this reviewer thinks that a sign that audiences will, is the fact that 50% left at the interval. That was lucky, because the second half is much weaker. The first half ends with a bang: The Andy Warhols are defeated by the Tracey Emins.
A very high level of interaction was one of the good ideas in this new play being premiered at the ICA. The material was both unbelievably pretentious and unbelievably bold. That boldness is where the play wins, on every level. The silly plot, turgid language, pretentiousness are understandable, since the play claims its own dynamic (meaning that it doesn’t wish to be taken seriously). That’s a good idea, because this material isn’t serious, but it may make a cultural impression.
That’s if people enjoy the style it maintains, the futurism it evokes, the level of enjoyment and energy it provokes. Maybe it is infested with gimmicks, the catch phrases of science fiction writing. It wasn’t important to follow the plot, which had something to do with cloning. The narrative and dialogue seemed to be utter, total crapulence, but delivered with boldness, energy and panache.
Paul Murphy, the ICA, London
This is a new play, whether radically different, breathtakingly original or pretentious, would-be avante garde flop or beyond. Audiences may take to this and this reviewer thinks that a sign that audiences will, is the fact that 50% left at the interval. That was lucky, because the second half is much weaker. The first half ends with a bang: The Andy Warhols are defeated by the Tracey Emins.
A very high level of interaction was one of the good ideas in this new play being premiered at the ICA. The material was both unbelievably pretentious and unbelievably bold. That boldness is where the play wins, on every level. The silly plot, turgid language, pretentiousness are understandable, since the play claims its own dynamic (meaning that it doesn’t wish to be taken seriously). That’s a good idea, because this material isn’t serious, but it may make a cultural impression.
That’s if people enjoy the style it maintains, the futurism it evokes, the level of enjoyment and energy it provokes. Maybe it is infested with gimmicks, the catch phrases of science fiction writing. It wasn’t important to follow the plot, which had something to do with cloning. The narrative and dialogue seemed to be utter, total crapulence, but delivered with boldness, energy and panache.
Paul Murphy, the ICA, London
Comments