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

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