Scan barcode
A review by ellysreads
Bull by Mike Bartlett
3.0
I’m a 2 star reviewer in response to reading the play, potentially up to 4 star for production value of this play.
I think Mike Bartlett is a good playwright and knows how to create good theatre. Some of his plays lend themselves really well to psychological realism/ naturalism, whatever you personally like to call it. I don’t think this one does. I think he could have made it work that way if he wanted, but a director highlighted that the value of this work is actually in the idea of it being a parable, a reflection of the extremes we would go to in our capitalist world. I prefer it that way.
If the production team can get past the lack of surprise and do their own character development, this has great value to escalate into something provoking, wild, aggressive and political, which is a great achievement for a play. Without this interpretation, you’re left wondering how any of this would be allowed in their workplace, questioning why the language is so childish and left feeling like the end of the play is a bit MEH. So it would then be 2 star.
With this though, the end, which I won’t reveal, becomes an incredible spectacle and challenge for 2 actors (it is written as a great challenge for 1), and could leave the audience buzzing and questioning the moral of the play.
There is no why if you read it truthfully, but it becomes glaringly obvious as an extreme of what we can feel forced to do when money is low and work tensions are high if you let your imagination get increasingly wilder with every page.
I think Mike Bartlett is a good playwright and knows how to create good theatre. Some of his plays lend themselves really well to psychological realism/ naturalism, whatever you personally like to call it. I don’t think this one does. I think he could have made it work that way if he wanted, but a director highlighted that the value of this work is actually in the idea of it being a parable, a reflection of the extremes we would go to in our capitalist world. I prefer it that way.
If the production team can get past the lack of surprise and do their own character development, this has great value to escalate into something provoking, wild, aggressive and political, which is a great achievement for a play. Without this interpretation, you’re left wondering how any of this would be allowed in their workplace, questioning why the language is so childish and left feeling like the end of the play is a bit MEH. So it would then be 2 star.
With this though, the end, which I won’t reveal, becomes an incredible spectacle and challenge for 2 actors (it is written as a great challenge for 1), and could leave the audience buzzing and questioning the moral of the play.
There is no why if you read it truthfully, but it becomes glaringly obvious as an extreme of what we can feel forced to do when money is low and work tensions are high if you let your imagination get increasingly wilder with every page.