I realize Rock N' Roll is no longer on Broadway, yet there's a production of it in Toronto and I wanted to check with you folks about it. I've read reviews and a synopsis of the show - I'd like to see it, yet it feels a bit daunting. I tried to learn about Czechoslovakia and Prague, but I find it confusing. I'd like to think I'm not entirely dense, however I was wondering if the play can be enjoyed regardless of if the viewer understands the history. Or, would you have recommendations of how to prep for the show? Thanks...
It doesn't require cliffs notes, but it DOES require you to take LOADS of caffeine pills just to stay awake. Most overrated play of the 2007-2008 season, in my opinion.
The playbill did include notes but what it didn't include was a packet of NoDoz and a pillow. This was without a doubt the most boring play I've ever had to sit through. Don't ask me what it was about because all I can tell you was it was about three hours too long. Tom Stoppard proved to me with this play that he writes just to hear himself talk. I always thought so even before heading to see ROCK, but as I fled the theater after Act 1, I knew I was right. Updated On: 10/10/09 at 11:49 PM
bjh, I agree with you! I fell asleep halfway through act 1, woke up for intermission, bought a coke, and fell asleep 10 minutes into act 2. The only thing that woke me up periodically was them blaring the rock music in between scenes.
I was also bored to pieces at this play. Truly a long, dreadful, evening, where it seemed nothing happened. A bunch of people just sitting around, talking.
I saw the San Francisco A.C.T. production and loved it. (Granted, I tend to like most Stoppard plays.) That production (as all A.C.T. productions do) provided a copious amount of background material but I didn't find I needed to be completely familiar with everything to feel involved. I certainly found it more interesting as well as moving than India Ink, but less than, say, Arcadia.
I think it helps to have a passing knowledge of some of the elements in the play, particularly who Syd Barrett was.
I agree that it helps to have some knowledge of the historical background but it isn't absolutely necessary. This play is also about the personal journeys of the people within it: the compromises some people make with themselves as they get older; the loss of idealism; the wisdom that comes with experience and the anguish of repression. Updated On: 10/12/09 at 05:57 PM
I knew nothing about the subject when I saw the Goodman production in Chicago, but I read the notes in the Playbill and had no trouble following the show. I loved the play and found it one of the most engaging productions I've seen at the Goodman. I'd almost given up on them after wasting my time and money with Desire Under the Elms.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
I saw the show on Broadway and then again at Studio Theatre in DC last season. While the show was stronger on Broadway, the material did hold up. While some knowledge of the turmoil in Eastern Europe at that time makes the show more compelling to an audience member, it is not necessary. The themes are pretty universal, but as a politics junkie, I found it more compelling on another level. I felt the Studio audience got the jokes more so than the Broadway audience, but then again this is DC and Studio has a pretty homogeneous subscription base.
"Why do you care what people might say? Why try to fit into their design?" (Side Show)
I was at opening night of the Toronto production referred to in the original post and yes you need to have knowledge of the subject. The script doesn't explain much and assumes you have a high level of knowledge going in as an audience member (I'd also brush up on your Sappho a bit). There is quite a bit of info in your program and in the lobby, so I suggest come early....but honestly if you haven't bought your tickets yet I'd save your cash. Most of my row cleared out at intermission, and I sort of wish I had done so too.