Do3 - The Secret Grief

[Mobson7]

I like your review of the play Russ. You probably cannot have failed to notice that I'm a fan of this writer as well as some of the other young writers I mentioned in an earlier post! Theatre producers and directors seem very keen to embrace a litany of new writing from people like Eldridge, as this article in 2008 shows...

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/features/lessons-in-love-david-eldridge-is-back-with-a-play-about-the-tangled-sex-lives-of-teachers-869593.html

Russ, I'm sorry to hear that you're not able to visit the theatre as you would presumably like; here's a review of the Knot in today's FT.... http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/37fd06c8-5...#axzz1HGMYPkaz

[aeolium]

The reason why I thought he might not have done much radio was this reliance on narration. This is often hard to avoid when adapting a novel, but I can't really see much justification for it here. It wasn't as if this was interior monologue or wrestling within himself as to what he should do: it was straight telling us what had happened with some dramatisation in between. Presumably Eldridge had a reason for choosing that format but I've no idea what it was.

Yes, I found that aspect of the play tiresome - it almost made it sound like an adaptation of a novel rather than of a stage play.

I thought Russ summarised it very succinctly. I'm not sure though that the political aspirations and views of the characters, at least of Tony and Roger, were intended to be portrayed as 'trite'. The playwright seemed to be trying to create an atmosphere of mystery and menace about the 'project' that Nigel feared he was being drawn into, and which transpired more as something grotesque than either believable or sinister. I suppose it was a kind of Faustian bargain that Nigel was being offered. But I'm puzzled about the characterisation of Tony and Roger as 'champagne fascists'; the main bedrock of that sort of extreme right-wing xenophobia would be in the dispossessed, not wealthy businessmen (who are happy to use cheap immigrant labour).

And what were the motives for Tony and Liv 'adopting' Nigel? Was he just a surrogate son for Tony and a surrogate lover for Liv? Why was Kelly unable to leave their circle? The plot didn't seem to hang together particularly well, and there wasn't sufficient compensation in the quality of the writing and characterisation, for me.

On the other hand, I am glad that R3 is broadcasting drama that is attempting to reflect aspects of contemporary life. Far better that than next week's provision, an adaptation of Wuthering Heights - that seems the summit of pointlessness, and I shan't be listening.

[Eudaimonia]

Yes, I found that aspect of the play tiresome - it almost made it sound like an adaptation of a novel rather than of a stage play.

I interpreted that as a deliberate stylistic nod to The Great Gatsby.

But I'm puzzled about the characterisation of Tony and Roger as 'champagne fascists'; the main bedrock of that sort of extreme right-wing xenophobia would be in the dispossessed, not wealthy businessmen (who are happy to use cheap immigrant labour).

Well, he did make a point of giving Tony stereotypical "cartoon baddie" features like being a physical bully, hating the Guardian and not appreciating the arts, classical music, or liking to read. It would have been more interesting if he'd transcended any of the stereotypes associated with the xenophobic right-- but as it was, it was just so predictable it made me groan.

The drug use and mild promiscuity seemed like a tacked-on afterthought to underscore an effect of "Ooh! Icky bad people!" and didn't seem remotely plausible. I realise "small-potatoes banality and the evils of boredom" was part of the point, but I found it deeply unsatisfying. It's almost as if they were all play-acting at being degenerates.

I'm sure this was deliberate-- as was shown in the way he built up suspense around their horrified reaction to the secret dungeon-- but when he reveals it, you find it wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been. Likewise, the narrator goes on about how obsessed he is about having sex with Kelley, but when it finally comes around, he skips right over the whole scene. The only mention of it at all is how it's narrated to a third person--and in the end, it's all because he was enamoured of the idea of having a famous actress, nothing more. No deep insights into character, no nothing.

But hey--it made me care enough to write all this, so there must be something to it.

[french frank]

I interpreted that as a deliberate stylistic nod to The Great Gatsby.

He did actually refer to Nick Carraway and you can see something of a parallel in the outsider/narrator being drawn into this other society of rich people living life their own way. Not sure that Manchester high life has quite the same appeal.

[Mobson7]

Tell that to the Mancunians...I went there recently to visit an old client and was taken out on the town...Manchester has a smart high life, very similar to Leeds and Liverpool now.

http://www.restaurantsofmanchester.com/

[Mobson7]

Exactly, well talent will out!

[Russ]

Thanks for the FT review of The Knot of the Heart, Mobs, and it's good to read you upbeat about your enthusiasms, although it sounds like you'll be in for a really downbeat evening! (I'd love to be there, and do tell us what it was like in due course.) It's perfectly right that theatreland should be keen to hear Eldridge and other new writers, but I can see where french frank is coming from as well - on this showing, Eldridge's more natural habitat is the stage rather than the airwaves.

Also, it seems to me that worldly Politics is possibly not Eldridge's forte either, but I'm not familiar enough with his work to be certain of that rash opinion (I haven’t seen or heard Under the Blue Sky). I'm warming to aeolium's Faustian bargain idea, although I can't help thinking that's giving Eldridge a bit too much credit, because the theme isn't explored much - I saw the referenced external politics as very clunky (should I have used 'banal' instead of 'trite'?), with Nigel as the flotsam being picked up and toyed with by a distorted ante-Thatcherism. The implausibility of the plot and the lack of facility in handling real world events was as bad and naive as Poliakoff's. That being said, it's good that Do3 should grab the chance to commission him, even if in the particular instance of The Secret Grief it was something of a disappointment to most people here.

But as Euda notes, we do seem to be saying rather a lot about something we think we didn't like but maybe aren't entirely sure about… it took me two listens to mould my views.

[french frank]

Tell that to the Mancunians...I went there recently to visit an old client and was taken out on the town...Manchester has a smart high life, very similar to Leeds and Liverpool now.

http://www.restaurantsofmanchester.com/

I wasn't knocking Manchester - in speaking of its appeal, I was comparing it with the appeal Gatsby's Long Island/New York had, not only for the ultra wealthy Americans of the Roaring Twenties but also for us.


Edit: By the way, I've been trying to work out what 'a fascism of the mind' is referring to here. Clearly a parallel with the political fascism of Tony and Roger, and I presume the way Liv and Tony put pressure on him to do what he feebly tries to resist. He gets dragged into something which looks superficially attractive but lurking behind the appealing exterior is something horrible. That may be the area that was intended but Nigel's narrative style didn't convince.

[aeolium]

Also, it seems to me that worldly Politics is possibly not Eldridge's forte either, but I'm not familiar enough with his work to be certain of that rash opinion (I haven’t seen or heard Under the Blue Sky). I'm warming to aeolium's Faustian bargain idea, although I can't help thinking that's giving Eldridge a bit too much credit, because the theme isn't explored much

I agree, and Nigel is hardly a Faustian character. And this is what is again puzzling about Eldridge's theme (if it is one of the themes) here of associating capitalism with both vulgar hedonism and violent xenophobia - at least the second part doesn't ring true. A more plausible Faustian theme would be around that other capitalism, the financial 'masters of the universe', which was perhaps explored in Lucy Prebble's Enron. I'd like to hear a radio adaptation of that play.

Clearly Eldridge has many admirers and it's a shame that this play doesn't seem to be a great showcase for his talent. I'd like to hear some of his other work, and I'm glad I listened to this one - as others have said, it has brought out some interesting reactions even though not generally favourable ones.

[tony yyy]

I just about managed to get to the end of this but by then had decided that it was aimed at people who would know what a Paul Smith suit was without having to use Wikipedia. I was left puzzled by what Tony and Roger's business that Nigel wasn't supposed to ask about actually was. Was it that ridiculous "safe room"?