MERCURY FUR at The New Group — Page 3

it is killing me that i'm not going to be in NYC during the run of this show.

Definitely polarizing, offensive, violent, disturbing, and crazy f#$%ing beautiful. I'd be shocked if no one walked out.

I saw it a few years ago in LA on a 2nd hand friend's recommendation. Right before i went, i read an LA Times review that basically said it was vile and repellent and anyone who liked it was mentally ill. (something like that). When i got to the 99 seat theatre, there were NO house lights, ushers led you to a seat. You could see a little glow through the hanging plastic tarps obscuring the stage, and i started to worry that this was going to be like some torture porn horror movie.

What i saw was one of the most incredible pieces of theatre i've experienced. I'm a Philip Ridley fan for life, his books, plays, and films are strange and beautiful and art. Most people taking on the things he does would be making cheap thrills, shock for shock's sake... i think he is making poetry. 

those butterflies have moved into some primal dream place in my brain, and i don't think i'll ever get them out...

I dream of it extending into October, when i'll be back there. (or of a bootleg. not that i approve of such things. i don't. Except maybe now.)

I saw it last night and hated it. I'd been intirgued by an old review by Ben Brantley when he saw it in London, and that's why I gave up on a usual jazz night out to take advantage of a $4.50 ticket (mezz) and still feel I overpaid. There's no intermission for this two-plus hour play. I don't know if this is part of the script, but I suspect if there had been, many people (myself included) would not have returned. There were several walkouts. The Playbill was distributed when we left the theater instead of when we went in. I did like the stage set very much.

"It can't be that bad," I said to myself, but wow these reviews hit the nail right on the head. The New Group has managed to an assemble the most uncharacteristic ensemble of actors I have ever seen on New York stage. The performance last night sounded more like a first read through than an actual performance. This was supposed to be post-apocalyptic, but there was no sense of urgency or world. Just a swing and miss on all counts. Also, the play I saw last night was set in NYC, but lines where definitely written for a play set in Britain. I just don't know.    

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? 

Absolutely if you enjoy seeing plays where the characters do things like connect, and have emotional stakes, these characters are supposed to be siblings and lovers after all. Every other word is script is "Bro" and "F*ck" and at no point did I feel actors earned those words.  

You can't mean that, no matter what you thought of it.

Wouldn't have said it if I didn't think it. 

Do you have a pulse? 

I do and being up on the upper balcony last night I watched as the audience twiddled their thumbs, and stared up at the ceiling. 

I was huge champion of Mr. Burns on this board, so I have no problem with post-apocalyptic plays, and I think that there is an interesting play here, but this production acting and direction wise just miss mark. 

Lavieboheme3090, I agree 100% on your points. Sorry, Hogans, but the acting was pretty terrible. The only two that seemed to actually be living in this world and create real, living characters were the Party Guest (the older male) and the Dutchess. Which, upon getting the Playbill after leaving, they both had the most experience, so I guess that's that. 

The two problems were terrible. There was no sense of connection or family. The older brother is suppose to be the smart one, but he says "****" every two words, and, like was said, he doesn't own those curses. They don't feel like they belong to him. Which could have been an interesting layer for the character, but that's never treaded upon, so I guess not. He was very low energy and low stakes. I mean, considering the circumstances, c'mon. While the younger brother was so manic and so over the top I thought I was watching children's theater. It was just a bad pairing of actors and chemistry and energy. 

The kid from Budapest Hotel was fine. He wasn't good, but he wasn't terrible. Lola... I mean, he was fine. There was just no sense of WHY DOES THIS CHARACTER BELONG IN THIS PLAY. There was no real journey for these characters, which is what I felt was maddening. We know they're going to throw a party. But then they do, I suppose, and it all goes terrible wrong, duh. "Yes, this lighting will work." "Oh, we're doing it in there?" Oh, so then why did we spend the first 45mins of the play setting up a room that ultimately won't be used for the actual party? Why is there so much attention paid to cleaning up the room and making it look nice - like stacking wood planks against a street sign HUH?! - and yet there's maybe one line about "oh it looks fine." Huh? 

I think the script is an interesting idea, but when the ending happened, I just didn't care about the characters, so it didn't leave any sort of impact on me. It was nicely directed, I suppose, and designed, although some of it felt like old white people trying to do "urban." 

And theatretrash, I'm not sure where you were sitting, but I was trying to figure out the problem seats? I was on the floor on one of the sides. It was a fine view, but we had a lot of people leaving mid-way through, and a few walk outs. 

"The only two that seemed to actually be living in this world and create real, living characters..."

Is the show set in this world and inhabited by real, living characters, though?

Ripped, 

You didn't see what some of us did. It happens, and no reason really to beat a dead horse. I'll leave you with one question (What did the older brother have at stake that would justify energetic line readings?) and one observation (you sound like a director who gives an actor notes that are ignored.)

What was the snark? That was certainly not my intention! If it was the director comment, I simply meant that you wanted one tone and that's not the tone the director and actor were going for. No snark in that. I've been saying this is a different strokes show since the get go. (And regarding the "stakes" the question is linked to whether that requires an energetic performance or one more in line with what would expect of someone depressed and desperate, which it seems to me is how I would be if I was looking at my options in the midst of dystopia. Oh well. We can and do disagree (as do others on both sides of this polarizing show).

This was a tough one. I wasn't liking it and then all of a sudden, as it was playing out, I thought to myself- they aren't going to do what I think they're going to do- and I was even more uncomfortable but then the last scene did it for me and the whole afternoon came together and I found myself quite devastated and moved.

I can see how others were having problems with the seating. I was upstairs as well in the "Mezz"- in quotes because they have really torn that space apart. I was in the 1st row so you are looking down on the action. You either had to look through the railing and wall- sort of letter-boxed- or sit forward a bit to see over the railing. There was no one in back of me so you could sit forward. If there were others behind you, you really couldn't do that. I got used to the view as the play went on.

Now, I'm really asking- what does the title Mercury Fur mean? What is it referring to? I read some reviews of other productions and couldn't find any critic that mentioned this. I couldn't find any answer in the play itself. Really curious since I wound up liking the show. Thx.

Updated On: 8/16/15 at 11:10 AM

Regarding the title... i'm no expert but:

1.

There is an essay at the start of his 2nd book of collected plays, it definitely not an introduction in the commonly meant sense of the word - but then again, it's kind of a perfect introduction.

You can read a lot of it here, on the sample that Amazon lets you see.

http://www.amazon.com/Ridley-Plays-Vincent-Contemporary-Dramatists-ebook/dp/B00D1Z58YE/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439788219&sr=1-2&keywords=philip+ridley

It's all childhood memories, and on 2nd page or so, he's talking with his dad as he looks through horse racing lists, and his dad mentions names like Shrapnel Midnight, Flamingo Crush, Cactus Snow, etc which he daydreams stories about... (and considering he has plays called THE PITCHFORK DISNEY, TENDER NAPALM, SPARKLESHARK among others, it feels his titles are sort of poetic riffs on the subject matter from a writer in love with the power of words)

2.

Mercury was historically used to remove fur from animal pelts to make felt for use in in hat-making,  but caused mental instability.(thus mad as a hatter)

From the American Chemical Society's website: Commonly referred to as quicksilver, mercury is liquid metal at room temperature. Exposure to mercury affects the skin, kidney, eye, and nervous system, and the respiratory system if inhaled. Telltale signs of mercury poisoning also included those often seen in hatters: emotional instability, cognitive and memory loss, shyness, speech problems, and ataxia. 

That's all i havefor now. Wish i could see this SO MUCH.

A glowing rave in the times which echoes my own thoughts. We'll just have to agree to disagree cause I thought the play was freaking brilliant! 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/theater/in-philip-ridleys-mercury-fur-its-the-worlds-end-and-the-partys-here.html?_r=0

For balance (vis a vis the Times review), another review: (plus photos)

The horrific future conjured in “Mercury Fur” – a world piled high with atrocities ranging from the killing of zoo animals to random decapitations to child torture – is clearly meant to shock. But what is unexpected in the New Group’s revival of Philip Ridley’s 2005 dystopian fantasy is how tedious it is.