Ballyturk (WARNING: Spoiler Alert!) - Galway International Arts Festival 2014

gaelicyoda · 13-07-2014 12:38pm #1

Hi All,

Went to see Ballyturk last night with my wife (starring the brilliant cast of Cillian Murphy, Mikel Murfi and Stephen Rea), and given the fairly abstract nature of the storyline, I wanted to start a thread on getting people's interpretation of the story, and what it was actually all about.

What I would rather this post did not turn into though, is a running commentary on the content of the festival (comparing it with other plays from this year or indeed yesteryear, etc.) - I'd appreciate it a lot if comments related to that sort of stuff would be kept for another thread. Here, I just want to talk about this play only (unless other plays are somehow relevant, but I can't see how that would be), and it's story.

WARNING: Anyone who has not seen the play yet, you should stop reading this post now! Spoilers following!

gaelicyoda · 13-07-2014 12:40pm

So, my own interpretation is that these two lads were incarcerated in one of Ireland's (Catholic Church inspired) 20th century "institutions of shame" for want of a better term (e.g. Magdalene laundries, mother and baby homes, unfortunately this list probably goes on and on). One of these institutions that has not really been talked about a lot so far in the recent scandals, and what I think may be highlighted by this play, are the psychiatric "hospitals" in Ireland between the 30's and the 60's or 70's, for example in Ballinasloe in Co. Galway.

People were essentially branded crazy and just locked up there indefinitely. Some motives for these at the time could have been people who brought shame on the familiy for one reason or another, or relatives who may wanted them out of the way so they could take over the family farm and move in with a wife, or things like that. Anyway, the shadows on the walls of bars on the windows is a clear indication of some kind of internment I think. Also, the structured timetable of their lives may also have been an indication of this.

In our case, I think Cillian's character actually may have had psychiatric problems for real (he would experience a seizure shortly after hearing "voices" through the wall - probably to indicate schizophrenia, though I don't think seizures actually accompany that) and Mikel's character knew to restrain him once he started hearing voices.

Mikel's character I think may have been a gay man perhaps (I'm thinking of the yellow jumper story? though that might have just been an indication of someone who thought differently in general terms to the locals), which sadly would probably not have been tolerated by the relatives or locality in mid 20th century Ireland. There was the whole thing about the sister which I kind of tuned out for at the time which I think is a major part of the story and explains the end, but damned if I can remember what it was!

As they say themselves later, Ballyturk was their escape from the harsh realities of their confinement. But (quite) a few things I really didn't get:

Who was Stephen Rea's character? Cillian's character referred to him as being the one who took him to the institution and told him to "keep quiet". If he was a figment of one of their imaginations, why could they both see and talk to him? If he wasn't a figment of their imagination, why could he hear and respond to the "voices"? And why was it that going to meet him meant one of them was going to die? Grim reaper - surely not? Was Cillain's character a split personality of Mikel's - specifically Mikel as a child when he was initially brought to the institution? And he (Mikel) was actually there on his own? Maybe that was it?

Acting was amazing - manic at times, funny at times, poignant at times - but the story really was not that clear I have to say.

whatlliwear · 13-07-2014 2:51pm

gaelicyoda wrote: »

So, my own interpretation is that these two lads were incarcerated in one of Ireland's (Catholic Church inspired) 20th century "institutions of shame" for want of a better term (e.g. Magdalene laundries, mother and baby homes, unfortunately this list probably goes on and on). One of these institutions that has not really been talked about a lot so far in the recent scandals, and what I think may be highlighted by this play, are the psychiatric "hospitals" in Ireland between the 30's and the 60's or 70's, for example in Ballinasloe in Co. Galway.

People were essentially branded crazy and just locked up there indefinitely. Some motives for these at the time could have been people who brought shame on the familiy for one reason or another, or relatives who may wanted them out of the way so they could take over the family farm and move in with a wife, or things like that. Anyway, the shadows on the walls of bars on the windows is a clear indication of some kind of internment I think. Also, the structured timetable of their lives may also have been an indication of this.

In our case, I think Cillian's character actually may have had psychiatric problems for real (he would experience a seizure shortly after hearing "voices" through the wall - probably to indicate schizophrenia, though I don't think seizures actually accompany that) and Mikel's character knew to restrain him once he started hearing voices.

Mikel's character I think may have been a gay man perhaps (I'm thinking of the yellow jumper story? though that might have just been an indication of someone who thought differently in general terms to the locals), which sadly would probably not have been tolerated by the relatives or locality in mid 20th century Ireland. There was the whole thing about the sister which I kind of tuned out for at the time which I think is a major part of the story and explains the end, but damned if I can remember what it was!

I thought along these lines too but towards the end of the play I felt like they had been abducted as young children and locked away in a basement or something.

But a few things occurred to me like how did they get food into the place? The Stephen Rea character hadn't been to see them in years as he said that they had aged..

And also does anyone have any idea of what the Cuckoo Clock/ plant was about?

When the little girl walked in through the door a lady behind me shouted "Oh My God" and everyone just sat there in shock. It was a truly harrowing play. well deserved of the standing ovation. But I had to have a drink afterwards ha ha.

gaelicyoda · 13-07-2014 9:18pm

whatlliwear wrote: »

But a few things occurred to me like how did they get food into the place? The Stephen Rea character hadn't been to see them in years as he said that they had aged..

Yeah, that's what kind of made me think like he was a relative - or possibly a suitor to his mother? (I think he said he wasn't his father anyway) - that wanted him out of the way and dumped him in the institution. But in my mind, there's too may questions around who Stephen Rea actually was to say for sure. Also doesn't explain how he could hear and converse with the voices in Cilian's head.

whatlliwear wrote: »

And also does anyone have any idea of what the Cuckoo Clock/ plant was about?

I did note that at the start of one scene, a light lingered on the plant before the rest of the stage lit up, so it must have had some kind of significance... but damned if I know what :-)

whatlliwear wrote: »

When the little girl walked in through the door a lady behind me shouted "Oh My God" and everyone just sat there in shock. It was a truly harrowing play. well deserved of the standing ovation.

Maybe just someone who wanted to make people think that she got it? :-D
I shouldn't say that though - maybe I'm just slower than your average theater goer :-)

whatlliwear wrote: »

But I had to have a drink afterwards ha ha.

Yeah, fairly full-on in parts alright :-)

whatlliwear · 13-07-2014 9:40pm

gaelicyoda wrote: »

Yeah, that's what kind of made me think like he was a relative - or possibly a suitor to his mother? (I think he said he wasn't his father anyway) - that wanted him out of the way and dumped him in the institution. But in my mind, there's too may questions around who Stephen Rea actually was to say for sure. Also doesn't explain how he could hear and converse with the voices in Cilian's head.

Part of me thought he might be Death or the Grim Reaper or whatever..
Did he bring the fly back to life? The lads were very afraid of him.. And he told Mikel Murphys character that he told him he'd return....Or if they were abducted and trapped in this place maybe he was their abductor.. Maybe he snatched Cillians character when he was yougn from the beach..

gaelicyoda · 14-07-2014 3:07pm

whatlliwear wrote: »

Did he bring the fly back to life?

I don't think so, but I could be wrong - I think all three of them caught a fly, but each one dealt with it differently. Cillian's character held on to it and kept it in the clock, Mikel's character just killed it and Stephen's character let it go again. I know Cillian's and Mikel's were actually the same fly, but I think Stephen Rea caught another one? Could be wrong there though.

whatlliwear wrote: »

The lads were very afraid of him.. And he told Mikel Murphys character that he told him he'd return....Or if they were abducted and trapped in this place maybe he was their abductor.. Maybe he snatched Cillians character when he was young from the beach..

All possible indeed, but I suppose if that were the case, then your earlier point about how they get fed comes into play - if he left them there for years on end, they would probably be dead long ago.

One thing just occurred to me - was Stephen Rea character an embodiment of the Catholic Church? He caused them to be trapped where they were, he guided one of them to death, the possible resurrection of the fly? (if I'm wrong above)

Neil3030 · 17-07-2014 9:17am

But do you recommend it? The better seats in the Olympia cost about €100 for 2 so.......

gaelicyoda · 17-07-2014 11:56pm

Neil3030 wrote: »

But do you recommend it? The better seats in the Olympia cost about €100 for 2 so.......

I suppose that's the €100 question!

In my heart of hearts, I probably couldn't really recommend it, no.
But then I'm not a regular theater attendee, so this kind of thing could be par for the course and right up someone else's street, just not mine.

It really depends on what you're into - the acting was really good, I could recommend that, but the story just left me asking too many questions. If you're prepared to leave the theater without any kind of sense of closure on the story, then go see it. If like me, you like a story that's logical and you can follow, then there's probably better out there than this.

UDP · 20-07-2014 11:49am

To me the play was about either two people in a coma in the same ward/room - hence the dreamlike stage with cupboards etc up in the walls and why they could hear conversations now and again as people came into the room. Stephen Rea was death or even a type of god who came to take someone who was ready to go. Murfi's character wouldn't let go to die the last time Rea's character was there and again didn't want to go this time either.Actually scrap all this.

I think time, place etc doesn't matter. I think the show is supposed to be very abstract about life and death in general.

gaelicyoda wrote: »

I don't think so, but I could be wrong - I think all three of them caught a fly, but each one dealt with it differently. Cillian's character held on to it and kept it in the clock, Mikel's character just killed it and Stephen's character let it go again. I know Cillian's and Mikel's were actually the same fly, but I think Stephen Rea caught another one? Could be wrong there though.

Stephen Rea picked up the same fly on the floor and seemed to bring it back to life.

metroburgers · 23-07-2014 10:52am

Have to agree with abduction theme, the fly was significant to prove they had been abducted when they were very young. On the discovery of the fly CM states "I thought we knew everything there was to know." My take is Rea had grown tired of CM/MM and one of them had to leave and go on their "journey" as both had grown older, looked older and then Rea replaces CM with a young girl.

I don't see the institution angle... but interpretation is subjective.

I enjoyed Pauline McLynn/Enda Walsh's voices in the wall and possibly a distorted Stephen Rea voice as not to give away the fact he was living very close to his abductees?

Absolutely fantastic play, hopefully there's a soundtrack :pac:

FouxDaFaFa · 26-07-2014 11:00pm

I was hoping there would be a thread on this. I went through a lot of different scenarios.

They are roommates in a psychiatric ward and Rea is some kind of doctor, or just represents sanity. Cillian's character regains his sanity and leaves Murfi.
Rea is God. He gives life. He takes life.
Maybe it is as it looks and the two men were abducted by Rea and the little girl is his latest victim.

My own theory:

Murfi is the only "real" person. He is insane. The room and Ballyturk represent the comfort he finds in routine within this insanity. Murphy is a piece of his mind that has become aware of its insanity. Like people with dementia who have moments of horrifying clarity. He flits in and out of being, represented by his seizures when he realises something significant.

Murfi finds this extremely distressing so he keeps trying to convince Cillian that he's remembering things wrong, that there is no greater world out there. He doesn't want to leave the room because that means admitting that there is something wrong with him. He lets Cillian "go", lets his own doubt and fear go and gets a little girl in return. A young child who will play with him and won't grow to question things for a while longer. Something comfortable in the uncomfortable.

lukegriffen · 27-07-2014 12:51am

Personally, I think it would have been a much more satisfying play if there had just been a few more hints or some kind of consistent thread of what it was all about.
I enjoyed it up to a point, but by the end it just felt like madcap things were happening just for the sake of it.

I wonder what a London audience will make of it.

turnfan · 08-08-2014 5:46pm

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

I was hoping there would be a thread on this. I went through a lot of different scenarios.

My own theory:

Murfi is the only "real" person. He is insane. The room and Ballyturk represent the comfort he finds in routine within this insanity. Murphy is a piece of his mind that has become aware of its insanity. Like people with dementia who have moments of horrifying clarity. He flits in and out of being, represented by his seizures when he realises something significant.

Murfi finds this extremely distressing so he keeps trying to convince Cillian that he's remembering things wrong, that there is no greater world out there. He doesn't want to leave the room because that means admitting that there is something wrong with him. He lets Cillian "go", lets his own doubt and fear go and gets a little girl in return. A young child who will play with him and won't grow to question things for a while longer. Something comfortable in the uncomfortable.

This was my exact interpretation - figments of MM's imagination becoming almost self aware and they have to be expelled and replaced.

Hard to explain and therefore recommend, but if in doubt, I would recommend it.

chuckleberryfin · 09-08-2014 11:48pm

Just saw this and not sure what it was about.

Towards the end I was thinking Cillian and Murfi were two sides of the same person that had a traumatic experience during childhood. I thought the experience was the death of Murphy's younger sister that was, indirectly, his fault. I thought Stephen Rae's character represented death/a father figure. Ballyturk was something Cillian had invented in his mind to cope with his guilt and the play was about his coming to terms with his part in her death and moving past it (out of Ballyturk).

The little girl coming out of the compartment at the end made me think Cillian had compartmentalised the side of himself that couldn't deal with the guilt and left it with the memory of his sister.

Maybe I just didn't understand it at all, and I'm over simplifying it. Not sure about it.

Wouldn't recommend it really, but if you're going to see it in the Olympia it was about 10000 degrees while I was there. Very uncomfortable.

walshb · 10-08-2014 12:53pm

I went to see it last night. Interpreting what is about is futile. The writer was obviously high on something when he penned it. Absolute mind numbing drivel.

There wasn't one iota of normalcy in the 90 minutes. If you believe it was about two intellectually disabled people that is fine, but these two were acting and behaving like raving crazed lunatics. Just too difficult to believe.

The acting was very good, but then again, it was the same for the whole 90 minutes. Pure OTT intensity. I was still waiting for the play to start after 20 minutes, and then it dawned on me that this was as good as it gets.

90 minutes of two men ranting and raving pure garbage and drivel. And no, I don't want to stress my intellect any more into trying to figure it out. The writer doesn't want us to figure it out. He himself probably hasn't a notion as to what made him come up with such nonsense.

walshb · 10-08-2014 12:57pm

lukegriffen wrote: »

but by the end it just felt like madcap things were happening just for the sake of it.

You got it in one.

faceman · 10-08-2014 7:09pm

Split on this show. Performances were for the most part, Murphy was excellent in particular. However the story was too abstract.

There were a lot of walk outs during the show!

Hrududu · 10-08-2014 11:16pm

The acting was excellent but the play itself was a mess. A lot of the scenes with them running around with the music blaring just seemed to be thrown in for no reason. There was no real meat to hang all of the surrealism off.

Initially I interpreted it as the pair of boys had been abducted by Rea as children and kept in that room. But then:

Where did their food come from?
The yellow jumper was new, where did that come from?
They came up with a whole cast of characters to portray. If they were abducted as children how would they have any knowledge of how people behaved to flesh out so many different types of people?

I couldn't tell if both of them could hear the voices or if it was just Murphy. In the end I wasn't sure that the playwright had even decided what the real story was and was just throwing absurd bits at the page for the sake of it.

I'm surprised there were walkouts. Every single person sitting around me got up to give it a standing ovation, which was a little baffling.

walshb · 11-08-2014 8:47am

Hrududu wrote: »

I'm surprised there were walkouts. Every single person sitting around me got up to give it a standing ovation, which was a little baffling.

I didn't clap. That might sound harsh, because I respect anyone who can do what they did, but it was just such nonsense that I felt it didn't deserve clapping, and me clapping would have been really fake. I sat there and the whole auditorium were clapping and cheering.

metroburgers · 11-08-2014 11:00am

walshb wrote: »

I went to see it last night. Interpreting what is about is futile. The writer was obviously high on something when he penned it. Absolute mind numbing drivel.

There wasn't one iota of normalcy in the 90 minutes. If you believe it was about two intellectually disabled people that is fine, but these two were acting and behaving like raving crazed lunatics. Just too difficult to believe.

The acting was very good, but then again, it was the same for the whole 90 minutes. Pure OTT intensity. I was still waiting for the play to start after 20 minutes, and then it dawned on me that this was as good as it gets.

90 minutes of two men ranting and raving pure garbage and drivel. And no, I don't want to stress my intellect any more into trying to figure it out. The writer doesn't want us to figure it out. He himself probably hasn't a notion as to what made him come up with such nonsense.

walshb wrote: »

I didn't clap. That might sound harsh, because I respect anyone who can do what they did, but it was just such nonsense that I felt it didn't deserve clapping, and me clapping would have been really fake. I sat there and the whole auditorium were clapping and cheering.

walshb · 12-08-2014 1:14pm

metroburgers wrote: »

Sorry, Enda!:P

Cerveja69 · 13-08-2014 3:57pm

There's a fine line between abstract art and pure nonsense. This unfortunately walked that line for me.

There's no disputing the acting was excellent but there was no storyline and I got bored trying to interpret. I understand that an interval can interrupt the momentum of a play but I think this could really have done with one. 90 minutes of map-cap mayhem was too much for me to handle without a time out trip to the bar to mull things over!

Also, the Olympia was a sweat box!!

walshb · 13-08-2014 6:18pm

Why do folks think that the acting was excellent? I think acting that intense and crazy isn't all that difficult. It was the one dimension all the way. They acted it very well, but I wouldn't have thought that that type of acting would be difficult to pull off.

Cerveja69 · 14-08-2014 11:39am

walshb wrote: »

Why do folks think that the acting was excellent? I think acting that intense and crazy isn't all that difficult. It was the one dimension all the way. They acted it very well, but I wouldn't have thought that that type of acting would be difficult to pull off.

I agree that it was one dimension but remembering all those cues and lines and timing everything so precisely is a skill in itself. That level of intensity must have been pretty exhausting for the pair of them! Cillian Murphy has amazing stage presence too.

walshb · 14-08-2014 1:22pm

Cerveja69 wrote: »

I agree that it was one dimension but remembering all those cues and lines and timing everything so precisely is a skill in itself. That level of intensity must have been pretty exhausting for the pair of them! Cillian Murphy has amazing stage presence too.

Yes, they are quite talented people. I agree. But I wouldn't have thought that the type of characters they were playing would have been all that difficult. Serious mental stamina needed to pull that off for 90 minutes. Bit of physical too.

baldbear · 14-08-2014 10:49pm

I just saw Ballyturk there and found it tough going.

I'm thinking the characyer was had schizophrenia amd was in a menta or else Enda Walsh took too much mushrooms.

Winnietheshoe · 18-08-2014 9:48am

I loved it, halfway through I got a bit lost but then decided to enjoy it for that it was and not try too hard to analyse.

I think both men were dead and in some sort of purgatory, no food is needed. I think they were abducted and killed by Rea as kids, Cillian says he's in the back of the car and the man says 'BE QUIET' in a booming threatening voice. The characters they portray are from memory and the cabinets on the wall are so high up that kids can't reach. When they open the wardrobe to get dressed, toys and shoes have been stuffed in and fall out like as if from a kids' closet. Cillian says 'what else has wings that I didn't know had wings?' as if he was very young when he died and the older Mikel has taught him what he knows. The voices in the walls are memories or possibly through the door to the real world. They can't remember their names as they made themselves forget, such was the trauma. At the end when the little girl comes in, Mikel starts to cry as he knows it's another victim.

I'd love to see it again for the parts I missed. That's my tuppence worth.

walshb · 18-08-2014 10:00am

Winnietheshoe wrote: »

I loved it, halfway through I got a bit lost but then decided to enjoy it for that it was and not try too hard to analyse.

I think both men were dead and in some sort of purgatory, no food is needed. I think they were abducted and killed by Rea as kids, Cillian says he's in the back of the car and the man says 'BE QUIET' in a booming threatening voice. The characters they portray are from memory and the cabinets on the wall are so high up that kids can't reach. When they open the wardrobe to get dressed, toys and shoes have been stuffed in and fall out like as if from a kids' closet. Cillian says 'what else has wings that I didn't know had wings?' as if he was very young when he died and the older Mikel has taught him what he knows. The voices in the walls are memories or possibly through the door to the real world. They can't remember their names as they made themselves forget, such was the trauma. At the end when the little girl comes in, Mikel starts to cry as he knows it's another victim.

I'd love to see it again for the parts I missed. That's my tuppence worth.

That's quite plausible.

Hoggy_vegas · 20-08-2014 12:36pm

Went to see it last night, really enjoyed it. Today someone asked me what it was about, I found the easiest answer was "haven't a bloody clue." saved me a lot of hassle!

Thought FouxDaFaFa & Winnietheshoe posts above were excellent. No right or wrong answers at the end of it really though once you can make a reasonable case for your own interpretation.

I can see why some of the others wouldn't agree also though, it definitely wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea.

DazMarz · 23-08-2014 11:54pm

Saw it tonight on its final performance in the Olympia. My personal feeling about it was that it was akin to Waiting For Godot, mixed with Twin Peaks, with doses of abstract alternative comedy such as The Young Ones and Bottom thrown in. The 1980's music throughout leads me to include the final two, along with the insanity of it and the fact that it centres on two male leads for the most part.

In terms of what it's about: I haven't the faintest, foggiest clue. Is this the two lads' home? Is it an asylum? Is it a basement? Are they abductees? Are they inmates? Are they housemates? Is Stephen Rea 'Death'? Or is he God? Or even Satan?... There are more questions than answers, to be fair.

Intense, insane, full of metaphor, half-meaning and who knows what else. I do not know how I feel about it; it is one of those things that would need to be re-watched, but sadly I cannot. It's not like a film where I can stick it back on and have another look. I am left with my first and only viewing.

By the way, the seats in the Olympia are the most uncomfortable things going. Unless you're a dwarf. Me being 6' 3" does not bode well...

rocketed · 26-08-2014 12:16am

I found the play irritating from the start ..the opening music ...(the bad seat in the circle may have contributed also ).

I think most people did not have a clue what was happening but were happy to see Cilian murphy in the flesh and in the nip , a lot of "theatre" devices ..decent enough set ..manic acting.movement not particularly intresting...airs of a studenty production here to shock the middle class viewers ..was a bit tiresome.

There may be more substance but it was well hidden.

I have to admit that after 25 mins i was squirming and waiting for the break ....which never came.

A few things the play definitely delivers

(1) Good pay day for enda walsh and mikel murfi which might not be that common.
(2) Chance for Cilllian Murphy to go a bit ape **** and say i am still in touch with my "theatre" roots.
(3) Chance for Irish Women to oogle Cillian up Close ....and he is in good Shape.

From general reviews of the play it is obvious that most people did not get it but don't admit it ...that is how i read fintan o toole review also in many respects.So we get obtuse references ,challenging , mediatation in various people commentary.

I was thinking the play may be an exercise in putting on Drivel and seeing how hard people try to make it make sense because there are serious actors involved in it.

I am by no means a theatre expert but i have seen good theatre in Canada and Ireland and this was not it.

It is no more waiting for godot than the pepa pig is,actually pepa pig is a lot closer.

Should the title be "The Emperors new Clothers and the gob****es are discussing the design of the clothes"

woodchuck · 26-08-2014 7:40pm

By the end of this I was very confused... I'm quite a literal person so I took it to mean that they had been kidnapped as kids, then their captor returns to kill one and make room for the the little girl. My friends were confused too though, so when we started talking about it we thought that maybe it was just one guy in a mental institution and that the other were all just figments of his imaginations or representations of his split personality. I thought maybe the 'kidnapper' was his therapist and was giving him medication that forced him to 'kill' CM, but then it doesn't really explain why the little girl appeared at the end (maybe the medication just wasn't as effective as it was meant to be :P).

I know there are holes in all these theories though, and I think the whole point is just to make you think really! The fact that I'm still thinking about it now days later tells me that I actually enjoyed it :P

lukegriffen · 27-08-2014 12:50am

rocketed wrote: »

...but were happy to see Cilian murphy in the flesh and in the nip

I squirm when I see actors naked on stage, any "sexiness" disappears immediately, don't know how anyone would feel "happy" seeing someone naked on stage

A few things the play definitely delivers
(1) Good pay day for enda walsh and mikel murfi which might not be that common.
(2) Chance for Cilllian Murphy to go a bit ape **** and say i am still in touch with my "theatre" roots.
(3) Chance for Irish Women to ogle Cillian up Close ....and he is in good Shape.

1. Enda Walsh could make a tonne more money writing screenplays. He has written a script which might have got an initial lump sum (Galway-Dublin-London), but this play might never be performed again, so possibly no future royalties.

2. Re. Cillian - that's a very cynical comment

I really don't think any of the 3 actors would have appeared in the production if they thought it was a load of baloney. They've all got a lot of artistic integrity, & I'm sure they've all got a lot of other stuff they could be doing.

Should the title be "The Emperors new Clothes and the gob****es are discussing the design of the clothes"

Yes when I was watching it, the Emperors new clothes analogy did cross my mind.

Two things I'd add...
1. Enda Walsh also directed, and I wonder if it had been directed by someone else, would it have altered the production to make it more accessible, eg. would the director have forced some script changes,

2. I saw the script in a bookshop today, and opened a couple of pages and was surprised at how little dialog there was, it was all stage directions (now that was just a few random pages).
Enda Walsh is interesting in many ways : you'd think that as a playwright he would be keen to write as many lines as possible (to show how talented he is), but that's not the case. Similary with Hunger (screenplay), I think there was no dialogue for the opening 15-20 minutes.

Oh, and a third point, I think it's great that people are actually talking about a play. When was the last time that happened ? :pac:

inisboffin · 28-08-2014 12:22am

lukegriffen wrote: »

I squirm when I see actors naked on stage, any "sexiness" disappears immediately, don't know how anyone would feel "happy" seeing someone naked on stage

1. Enda Walsh could make a tonne more money writing screenplays. He has written a script which might have got an initial lump sum (Galway-Dublin-London), but this play might never be performed again, so possibly no future royalties.

2. Re. Cillian - that's a very cynical comment I really don't think any of the 3 actors would have appeared in the production if they thought it was a load of baloney. They've all got a lot of artistic integrity, & I'm sure they've all got a lot of other stuff they could be doing.

Yes when I was watching it, the Emperors new clothes analogy did cross my mind.

Two things I'd add...
1. Enda Walsh also directed, and I wonder if it had been directed by someone else, would it have altered the production to make it more accessible, eg. would the director have forced some script changes,

2. I saw the script in a bookshop today, and opened a couple of pages and was surprised at how little dialog there was, it was all stage directions (now that was just a few random pages).
Enda Walsh is interesting in many ways : you'd think that as a playwright he would be keen to write as many lines as possible (to show how talented he is), but that's not the case. Similary with Hunger (screenplay), I think there was no dialogue for the opening 15-20 minutes.

Oh, and a third point, I think it's great that people are actually talking about a play. When was the last time that happened ? :pac:

Publishing rights (as it was published) would be ongoing so that's a bit of dosh, but as you say, not as much as film.

Agree completely about people ogling actors in a stage play. Jaysus.

Writing lines does not necessarily equal a display of talent. A script of action may be challenging to a director but also shows displays just as much talent in playwrighting skills (IMO). Often with a play such as this though, the writer will direct so not so much is lost in translation. I agree Luke that chatting about a play is a great thing.
Saw it in Galway, wasn't mad about it as a script per se, but also liked a lot about it, including performance and design elements.

yeppydeppy · 29-08-2014 10:38am

I saw this last night in the Cork Opera House. I hadn't a clue what it was about at the end. So as I mulled it over having a pint, I looked up some of the reviews. I hadn't read any before hand as I didn't want to spoil it.
The best theory I've seen so far is that the Stephen Rea character is the play write himself. That's why he can answer the wall and they (the characters in the wall) can hear him and why he can bring the fly back to life - it help make sense of a few other things too.
However, it doesn't explain the abduction of Cillian's character or killing him and replacing him with the little girl.
I'm still at a loss.

HIB · 31-08-2014 9:59am

Not sure Enda Walsh himself even has a specific logical story in mind. He says in an interview that:
“People think playwriting is about story, about putting characters into certain situations, but it’s not. It’s never about that. Your first instinct is what is the atmosphere of it? What are you trying to make people feel? That’s enough to go on. Then the characters begin to form. You sense that there is something there to write, and you start writing. You’re writing about that feeling.”

So the play is about a "feeling" or "atmosphere". Not really my cup of tea to be honest ... I much prefer plays that tell stories or look at characters you could imagine being real. I must be in the minority though.... People seem to love it.

BlazingSaddler · 31-08-2014 9:08pm

I saw it in the Olympia recently and felt robbed when I came out, close to €130 I paid for 2 tickets and was bitterly disappointed! I wouldn't really be one of your arty types, I'd only go to the theatre a couple of times a year, a regular Joe soap I suppose but the abstract nature and randomness of this just annoyed me. The only pluses for me were the standard of the three actors which was clearly quite impressive and the set; the music was good as well! . Avoid if you like straightforward stories and don't like thinking and using your imagination too much!

Tallcarrie · 01-09-2014 6:34pm

[QUOTE
Oh, and a third point, I think it's great that people are actually talking about a play. When was the last time that happened ? :pac:[/QUOTE]

Absolutely - this is the main sign of the play's success

rocketed · 07-09-2014 11:13pm

To be clear ...i got no kick out of seeing Cillian in the flesh but i think a lot of the female audience did.

People talking about something does not make it good..i saw a fantastic production in the Abbey with tom vaughan Lawlor (Pre Love/hate days ) and it was brilliant ..incredible rise of arturo ui and it got less publicity that this.

I am sure Cillian does not need the money ..it is going back to his roots ..very few people would work in hollywoodat all if artistic integrity was the criteria surely ?

I am exagerrating to say they were duping us ..but if they were most us can't tell the difference..me included..

but maybe it was an exercise to show out obsession with celebrities etc ..rember the KLF/Pete doherty hoax

Maybe if i had a better seat i would have picked up more ...but i lost intrest and really felt i wasted an evening

fiachr_a · 22-09-2014 5:32pm

Getting mostly * review in the British papers.

rocketed · 22-09-2014 5:56pm

I was trying to post links to the UK reviews but i am not allowed as i have not posted enough but most of them are pretty accurate. Yes good actors , good set , good moments but a mess really and it will dissapear into the ether in the long term.

It shows a certain sycophancy of the Irish media and audience that nobody criticised what is quite weak overall. Even Fintan "the master of truth" can't bring himself to criticise directly a production by an irish experimental theatre darling.

HIB · 23-09-2014 9:05pm

rocketed wrote: »

I was trying to post links to the UK reviews but i am not allowed as i have not posted enough but most of them are pretty accurate. Yes good actors , good set , good moments but a mess really and it will dissapear into the ether in the long term.

It shows a certain sycophancy of the Irish media and audience that nobody criticised what is quite weak overall. Even Fintan "the master of truth" can't bring himself to criticise directly a production by an irish experimental theatre darling.

Here you go
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/11100453/Ballyturk-Nationals-Lyttelton-Theatre-review-hard-to-fathom.html
http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/sep/21/ballyturk-lyttelton-review-enda-walsh-frenzied-incessant-sententious

Glad to see I'm not the only one who didn't really enjoy it. All the standing ovations at the end made me feel a little like I'd missed something everyone else had got!

Stoneyfaced · 26-09-2014 8:46am

I have to agree with your comments.

I saw it in the Olympia and my back still hasn't recovered from the uncomfortable seats.

What stunned me most was the silence as we left the theatre - obviously people either didn't understand or didn't enjoy the play but no one was going to be brave enough to admit it.

Just as I was stepping outside I heard one young woman say "I suppose it's what you want it to be" - What a cop out!

Judes · 03-10-2014 4:20pm

"Ballywotdefook"

I also saw it at Cork Opera House, bought my tickets when they first went on sale. I'm an avid theatre goer in Cork and didn't see a familiar face at this sold out show, I really do think a lot of people were there to see the big names on stage vs. the actual play.

So I sat back waiting to be enthralled by this production. Unfortunately, as I was sitting 7 rows from the front I nearly choked on a mixture of talcum powder wafting through the air. I was almost deafened by the incredibly loud 80's music (and I'm a huge 80's fan). I was impressed by the energetic performances of the actors but seriously I left there saying "WOTDEFOOK"

I've enjoyed a lot of absurd productions over the years but I agree with a previous poster as it really was a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Shanna63 · 06-10-2014 1:43pm

Joining this party very late but I went to see this play in London last week (Sept 2014) with a group of people. Noone seemed to have any idea what was going on and we all came away with different opinion. I had a theory that noone else had - and it made perect sense to me! - so I have been googling and stumbled upon this forum.

The reviews have been equally unimpressed although everyone - reviewers and theatregoers - absolutely agree that the two stars are super brilliant.

I was fascinated to read the theories above and wanted to post mine for what it is worth.

I believe the characters are all one person - probably started with "2" and he either developed them when he became incarcerated in some institution of some kind, or had them before. I am no expert on multiple personality disorder but from what I know in times of trauma or whatever, the mind can respond by developing fantasy worlds, other characters, etc. as a coping mechanism. I think "3" was always there but not a dominant character. It was mainly "1" and "2". When "1" left - after "3"s reappearance (conflict?) - "2" created another character (little girl) as a coping mechanism.

It also bothered me about who or how they got fed, but as we only saw a very short period of their life in the play (1 day/2 days?), my assumption is that food was brought to them via another source/party, that was not relevant to the play - for example a weekly delivery by a warden or something?

Anyway, that's my thoughts!

sporina · 02-05-2018 11:16pm

wish I had seen this thread sooner - will have a good read of it tomorrow

just back from Kevin Barry's Autumn Royal - reminded me of Ballyturk slightly and so prompted me to check if there was a thread here on it

New Home · 06-05-2018 10:35pm

I haven't seen the play, yet, but just one thing about that yellow jumper sprang to mind: could that have been the sign of the characters' madness? I read somewhere that Van Gogh used so much yellow because of his being mentally ill, and that "mad" people tend to prefer yellow to other colours.

Ballyturk (WARNING: Spoiler Alert!) - Galway International Arts Festival 2014

Comments