The Royal Ballet: Woolf Works, Spring 2015

[Beryl H]

Saw last night's and agree with the comments raised about Ferri and Watson, they are a dream couple with similar dramatic strengths but I do wonder what the ballet would look like without them, sounds as if there won't be a second cast for the first ballet , they are simply too good. I can hardly bear to watch that duet for Watson and Dyer, for me this has to be Wayne Macgregor's finest piece of dance so far, obviously inspired by all the WW1 memories around. 

 

I was able to see more of Orlando, whether because the lighting had actually increased or because I knew what to expect I don't know, really need opera glasses though, at one point I thought I was watching Matthew Ball and it turned out to be Gary Avis!

 

After only one viewing I'm not so sure about Tuesday, apart from the first limpid pdd for Ferri and Bonelli (like Ferri and Watson, a natural partnership) I became bored by the corps de ballet of waves, although it did feel as though they were drowning the life out of Ferri the music just went on and on and I was glad when it finished. In general I like the music very much, especially I Now I Then.

 

Lots of questions still in my mind but suppose that's a good sign, hope to see it twice more but the 26th under threat from the rail strike, really would like to see any second casting.

[aileen]

I didn't love this as much as many other people seem to have done. All the pieces were about 5 minutes too long imo. Sitting in the amphitheatre I felt too far away from the action for I Now, I Then but, conversely, was in a better position to appreciate the lasers and lighting effects in Becomings.

 

Having done a little bit of preparation, it was clear to me who the characters (and their relationships with each other) in I Now, I Then were. The sets and visual effects were evocative (the Big Ben chimes were a clever touch) and the choreography generally interesting but it did seem to run out of ideas choreographically towards the end.

 

Becomings started terrifically and I was actually enjoying this more than the first piece for about the first half but it became rather repetitive after that apart from the lasers. Apart from the 'gender-bending' costumes which changed during the course of the performance I didn't feel that the piece told the story in any way. Osipova was outstanding in this.

 

I found Tuesday the least interesting piece of the three apart from the wonderful pdd for Ferri and Bonelli at the beginning. Was there any reason for the wire head pieces?

 

I will be seeing this programme from the stalls next week and it will be interesting to see whether my views change after a second viewing from a different position.

 

Edited to correct the names of the pieces!

Edited May 16, 2015 by aileen

[aileen]

I should have added that when I was at Northern Ballet's performance at the Linbury I talked to a woman who was a member (possibly on the committee) of the Virginia Woolf Society and she was absolutely enchanted by Woolf Works. She was so delighted that a ballet had been created on the works of what was obviously a favourite author.

[bangorballetboy]

The dissimilarity between "Woolf"/Ferri and her "younger version"/Stix-Brunell" was not just the angle of the camera. It puzzles me too why, when they have a dancer who looks physically much more similar to Ferri, was not used. It would have made a real visual difference, "I now, I then" would have looked more realistic and the dancer easily identifiable as the "younger Woolf".

I imagine the dancer was chosen with reference to quality of dance over physical attributes.

[ElleC]

I saw Woolf Works for the first time last night and, having had one foot in the “I’m not sure if I can take a whole evening of Wayne McGregor” camp, I must put my hands up and say that I really, really enjoyed it.  For me, definitely his best yet.  I loved “I Now, I Then” and I think it helped that I’d read Mrs Dalloway (the only one of the three books I managed in time).  It really does capture the essence of the book, I think, and of that time, aided by some lovely, subtle costumes with a 20’s flavour.  It was engrossing and moving.  Every single member of the cast (1^st cast) was wonderful.  "Becomings", although I could see the obvious references with the cross-dressing and androgynous look, felt more like standard McGregor and less Virginia Woolf.  That said, as a piece, I still enjoyed it – such energy – and I particularly loved Osipova, Lamb, McRae and Matthew Ball!  This was the only piece that felt slightly too long for me.   I thought "Tuesday" was simply gorgeous – intelligent, mesmerising and definitely moving. The pdd between Ferri and Bonelli was stunning, but so too was the corps, swirling and flowing, surging and receding, beautiful but always powerful, just like waves. 

 

 

It feels like a real privilege to be seeing Alessandra Ferri at this stage in her career.  She has huge stage presence and gives off so much emotion even (as others have said) when she’s still.  Obviously, at the same time of course, she’s still a fabulous dancer.

 

 

 

This work, to me, seems like a huge step forward for Wayne McGregor in his journey with the Royal Ballet.   I feel as though, little by little, whilst they are taking his challenging style/choreography on board, they are also rubbing off on him so that it is becoming more classical and (dare I say it) lyrical, and, of course, he only needs to give them a hint of a storyline for them to grab it, run with it, and turn it into something amazing - it’s in the company’s blood after all, to tell stories!  Personally, I think this process started with “Raven Girl” which I know has its critics but, whilst not perfect, certainly (for me) had some beautiful parts – e.g. the ravens in flight, the final pdd, as well as a wonderful score – and WMcG was stepping outside his comfort zone to try to create something new and different (for him), and I’m rather looking forward to seeing it come back in its new, “tweaked” form.  (Sorry – I’ve gone a bit waffly and rather off topic, but I think I’m trying to say that, as a collaborative process, these things can take time and, if Woolf Works is anything to go by, the WMcG/RB relationship is progressing and really starting to benefit both sides.   I hope this makes sense …)

[Josephine]

Belated thoughts after two viewings (both first cast). Much gratitude for seeing Ferri dance again, and for her luminous stage presence. Loved Watson's extraordinary solo, and stunning McGregor moves by Osipova, Lamb, McRae et al in part 2.

 

But much disappointment at the work's failure to convince and cohere, for me. Probably my hopes were set too high, especially after the compelling Insight discussion. I was expecting a more experimental vision of Woolf's work interpreted through movement. 'Woolf Works' seems fatally limited by over emphatic conflation of Woolf's life and texts, with the result that neither is truly illuminated. Parts 1 and 3 are trapped in a groove of elegaic angst (however beautifully danced). McGregor's focus on a retrospective view precludes attempts to convey choreographically the here and now, the colour, texture and vibrancy of Woolf's words. Maybe the overblown score also limits choreographic expression.

 

Part 2 gives the thrill of the here and now, but underwhelms in using costume changes, not choreography, to give impressions of Orlando. Similarly the over-literal visual projections in parts 1 and 3 (garden and waves) hijack the space for imaginative response by both choreographer and viewer.

 

Rant over - the work is superbly danced and if titled 'McGregor Works' I wouldn't be so perplexed! Food for thought, anyway.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Josephine

[Nina G.]

I imagine the dancer was chosen with reference to quality of dance over physical attributes.

 

I am afraid I have to disagree. Both possess quality of dance in their own way. Several dancers from the other cast have not joined in so I suppose they simply ran out of time to properly rehearse the entire other cast. 

[Kate]

I quite liked the fact that the younger Woolf was taller than Ferri, can't quite explain why, but I don't think it's a bad thing that the contrast between our younger and older selves was shown. 

[Nina G.]

I see what you mean Kate, I just didn't look at it the way you did. Thanks.

[Duck]

I went for a 2nd viewing last night following the premiere on Monday, and I think that the lighting for Orlando increased since Monday. I was able to see a lot more of the dancing and enjoyed it more although I still think it could be shortened after the central PDD. With identical hairstyles and variations of the same costumes, however, identifying individuals was not always easy. Yet with the concept of gender identity and change, this is maybe what McGregor intended? On a different note, there is a passage of fast footwork for Hayward and Watson in Orlando; they were perfectly in tune with the music and each other's movements, and it made me think how much I would have liked to see them in Romeo & Juliet in autumn.

 

In relation to parts 1 and 3, I was struck by how natural Alessandra Ferri's acting comes across. The variations in her facial expression and the way her hair slowly becomes a little dishevelled made it so incredibly real. Hugely deserved and loud cheers again last night. I just wish that at the end of Tuesday, clapping would only start after a few seconds of silence rather than as soon as when the curtain starts to come down. Having a moment to breath would certainly help me (and others?) move from that picture of drowning to expressing one's appreciation at the curtain calls.

 

I Now, I Then in its entirety is able to show in a sublime way the atmosphere and emotions of a time and place. Carefree dancing of young people in varying combinations as well as devastating solos and PDD, supported by beautiful period costumes and audio-visual effects. Watson's duet with Dyer in part 1 was as captivating as it was on the first night. Following the premiere, I had wondered about the PDD between Ferri and Watson in part 1 as they don't meet in the book. Thus I read up and found that when Mrs Dalloway hears about Septimus Smiths' suicide, she spends about two pages in the book thinking about death, so the PDD now makes complete sense to me.

 

Tuesday. The picture that remains with me so vividly is the on-going ebb and flow of waves, initially as gentle movements, then mounting further and further until Ferri is fully submerged. On the way to the train station last night, I was moving my arms in the form of waves (and hopefully didn't overly scare anyone else on the pavement ;-).

 

It maybe a complete coincidence however I have never talked so much with the person who happened to be sitting next me in the auditorium about the ballet being performed that evening than I have now done both at the premiere and last night. Is this just a coincidence, is it just me as I enjoy Woolf Works so much, or is Woolf Works more thought provoking than other ballets? Have others had similar experiences?

[Mary]

 

. I just wish that at the end of Tuesday, clapping would only start after a few seconds of silence rather than as soon as when the curtain starts to come down. Having a moment to breath would certainly help me (and others?) move from that picture of drowning to expressing one's appreciation at the curtain calls.

 

I do so agree that if ever there was a work that needed to end completely before applause, this was it ( well Romeo and Juliet is a bit like that too isn't it-) it is so irritating when people start clapping and cheering when characters are still busy dying on stage.

I found it very jarring indeed.

[FLOSS]

Yes this work is a considerable advance on what McGregor has done before but it needed to be. Wayne McGregor is the company's Resident Choreographer not a young and inexperienced choreographer trying to find his own voice.He has been working on the main stage at Covent Garden for some years now but he still seems to be choreographing his ballets for the audience in the lower part of the house and appears to be completely oblivious or indifferent to the fact that half his audience is in the Amphitheatre. In fact I think that the only pieces of his which have been visible throughout the house were the superfluous bits of choreography that he provided for Acis and Galatea and Dido and Aeneas.

 

I note that many people who have posted on this site have said that they have undertaken preparatory reading before attending a performance of Woolf Works.I am afraid that I believe that you should not have to spend a lot of time reading libretti and performance notes in order to understand a ballet let alone three novels.It is the choreographer's job to ensure that his ballets have clarity and are visible to the entire audience and not only to a select few in the most expensive seats.

 

The first and third sections were reasonably effective but so they should have been given the cast McGregor had at his disposal.But I do wonder how much impact they would have had if other dancers had been performing in them. Ed Watson is rather good at portraying mental anguish and he can now add a man suffering from shell shock to his portrayals of Rudolph and Leontes. But haven't suffering angst ridden characters become a bit of a cliche as far as he is concerned? Would this role have as much impact if it was danced by someone else? Again Ferri was effective but was it the performer or the choreography which really carried the day?

 

I found the middle section was the weakest.There was too much going on and given the atmospheric lighting some sections of dancing were over almost before you noticed them.It was the most McGregorish part of the work. I am not sure how his stock repertoire of dance vocabulary was intended to connect with the story which was the starting point for his creation. The choreography allowed Osipova and McRae to strut their stuff but what was the point of the middle section of Woolf Works if it was merely intended to provide an opportunity for two star dancers to display their facility with his style of movement ? The lighting was so clever that I felt that it prevented sections of the stage action and choreography from registering properly.I have no idea why we had a laser display apart from the fact that McGregor seems to like expensive lighting schemes for his works and the other sections were not suitable for such a display.

 

It would be interesting to know whether the audience find the three sections equally effective whether or not they have read the books which were the starting point for this choreography. It is said that dancers develop by having works made on them because choreographers see things in them of which they are unaware but it seemed to me that in all three sections the choreographer was merely typecasting his dancers and getting them to do things that they are already known to be good at.It seems quite likely that this full length piece will turn out to be one of those ballets that really only work with the original cast.

Edited May 16, 2015 by FLOSS

[SPD444]

Well I knew nothing of Woolf before watching this and, whilst FLOSS is right to say the choreography should carry the story, by reading the story first it would give names to the characters and how they related to each other.

 

I also agree with DUCK regarding talking to your neighbours, I spoke to mine for the first time ever as they new Woolf very well and helped to fill in the blanks for me, many thanks to them. Was hoping to grab another ticket for the matinee but tickets are very scarce so will be unlucky.

[bangorballetboy]

I am afraid I have to disagree. Both possess quality of dance in their own way. Several dancers from the other cast have not joined in so I suppose they simply ran out of time to properly rehearse the entire other cast.

 

That's a non-sequitur. You're complaining that the first night cast dancer does not look like Ferri. What's that got to do with whether there's enough time to rehearse another cast?

[alison]

Following the premiere, I had wondered about the PDD between Ferri and Watson in part 1 as they don't meet in the book. Thus I read up and found that when Mrs Dalloway hears about Septimus Smiths' suicide, she spends about two pages in the book thinking about death, so the PDD now makes complete sense to me.

 

Is Ferri only representing Clarissa Dalloway, or Woolf as well in this part?

 

I note that many people who have posted on this site have said that they have undertaken preparatory reading before attending a performance of Woolf Works.I am afraid that I believe that you should not have to spend a lot of time reading libretti and performance notes in order to understand a ballet let alone three novels.

 

Well, yes, in a way I agree.  But in that case there are quite a few ballets you could say that about.  Mayerling would be one - you are, I think, a lot worse off if you don't do your homework for that one - and several ballets by Cathy Marston would be others (her TS Eliot one is one I would have appreciated better if I'd known more about the subject, certainly).  And what about those ballets where familiarising yourself with the libretto would be helpful? (Song of the Earth, Les Illuminations, Pierre Lunaire come to mind instantly).

 

Incidentally, the thought has occurred to me several times in the last week that McGregor's definition of "narrative" is rather different from that of most people.  Back in the days when I used to go to insight evenings and rehearsals a lot more regularly I remember watching him working on something when he made some comment about a "narrative" section he was creating.  I have a feeling the ballet must have been Infra, and it must have been the part where Lauren Cuthbertson collapses in tears in the midst of the crowd, so my perception of his interpretation of "narrative" is that it is the opposite of "abstract", rather than the sort of storytelling many of us would expect.

[Nina G.]

Floss  "....It seems quite likely that this full length piece will turn out to be one of those ballets that really only work with the original cast".    Indeed. Could it ever work without Ferri and Watson? 

 

"...the choreographer was merely typecasting his dancers and getting them to do things that they are already known to be good at."

 That's what often annoys me in a McGregor work. 

[alison]

And not only in McGregor works ...

[Bruce Wall]

 

The first and third sections were reasonably effective but so they should have been given the cast McGregor had at his disposal.But I do wonder how much impact they would have had if other dancers had been performing in them. Ed Watson is rather good at portraying mental anguish and he can now add a man suffering from shell shock to his portrayals of Rudolph and Leontes. But haven't suffering angst ridden characters become a bit of a cliche as far as he is concerned? Would this role have as much impact if it was danced by someone else? Again Ferri was effective but was it the performer or the choreography which really carried the day?

 

 

 

I agree, FLOSS, with much that you say in your considered post, certainly that the role assignment to Watson in WW may not have been the greatest developmental challenge ever to press against the boundaries of his now established character range.  I would imagine this is why he is understandably eager to pursue projects such as the upcoming programme with the magnificent artist that is Wendy Whelan.  'If the mountain won't come to Mohammed' ... as t'were.  That said I do think that there are other dancers associated with the RB who could fill McGregor's 'Septimus' strand with more than honour.  Bennett Gartside replaced Watson as Leontes and - at least for me - was every bit Watson's equal if, indeed, not a tad more so in suggesting the overall round of that complex character.  As towards the Clarissa/Woolf assignment we know that Mara Galeazzi was rehearsing these roles should a cover for Ferri be required.  She would I'm sure be fine.  Moreover, I should think that Morera and Yanowsky - both fine dancing actresses - would be equally able to bring a unique magic to the particular requirements demanded here.  Also I would love to see Deirdre Chapman in this particular stand should she ever be interested in returning to the RB fold.  Her final performances in Brandstrup's excellent Ceremony of Innocence were, I thought, revelatory. 

[Duck]

Is Ferri only representing Clarissa Dalloway, or Woolf as well in this part?

 

Not sure. I've read in a review or one of the comments here that she is representing both. I am reading the PDD as representing Mrs Dalloway. I guess that's where "based on the book" comes in as it allows various interpretations. :-)

[Mummykool]

Well I'm not a huge McGregor fan and I haven't read any of the books, so was in a mild state of panic when reading the reviews. I did find a synopsis of each story on the web and studied them carefully. I tried to commit the very complicated and numerous characters to memory, as I was sure any programme notes on any McGregor work would lack a synopsis and leave me slightly annoyed by the lack of information for my £7.

 

Having now seen the performance on Wednesday I was left with a feeling of satisfaction that I had more or less followed the Mrs Dalloway piece (well at least up until the black coat and the clocks) but was wondering why I bothered with all the 'homework' for the other two pieces. The links to Orlando were tenuous at best and the final piece was everything to do with Woolf's suicide but I didn't get what the link was to the book (apart from its title) at all.

 

Having said all that (and maybe because of it) I did find the first piece quite moving. It was wonderful to see a more lyrical style from McGregor that was more akin to ballet than the usual contortions and jerky movement I associate with his work. That and the last piece went very well together, but having absolutely loved the brashness and excitement of the music, lighting and choreography (contortions and all), of the second piece I found myself left completely unmoved by the last piece. As posted by others I agree 'I Now, I Then' and 'Tuesday' paired together makes good viewing but 'Becomings' needs to be staged as a separate one act piece and let McRae, Osipova, Lamb, Underwood et al strut their stuff as often as they like. I for one, would buy a ticket to that, but I am not convinced I would for the other two pieces. Maybe a second viewing this Wednesday will help.

[Wulff]

Regarding Floss's comments on McGregor's works being primarily designed for viewing in the more expensive parts of the house, I have to say that after seeing this work three times, once from the Grand Tier and twice from the middle/side Amphitheatre, the view was better from the cheaper seats than the more expensive ones. Of course, if you are intent on recognising individual dancers the closer the better, but is dancer recognition what ballet is really about? Surely the quality of the choreography and movement and dramatic expression is what should carry the day, and the fact that you can recognise Ms X or Mr Y should be a secondary consideration. As for McGregor's choreography being focussed on particular dancers, I saw the second cast in the Orlando section and they were as good if not better in some respects than the first. Olivia Cowley in particular was outstanding in the Osipova role. And while the Orlando section does seem to have pretty tenuous connections with the book and is more in the familiar McGregor style, it is nevertheless a very effective spectacle and gets huge applause from the ( possibly misguided) audience.

[alison]

Bennett Gartside replaced Watson as Leontes 

 

Actually, he replaced Thiago Soares

[Scheherezade]

Nothing to add that hasn't already been said but, having seen the second cast, I, too, thought Olivia Cowley was fantastic. And, having tended towards the (New York Times?) view of McGregor as the cuckoo in the R.B.nest, I may well have to re-think. Loved it!

[Coated]

..... And while the Orlando section does seem to have pretty tenuous connections with the book and is more in the familiar McGregor style, it is nevertheless a very effective spectacle and gets huge applause from the ( possibly misguided) audience.

If taking a very literal approach, Becoming might be close-ish to the text. The Becoming section of the book has Orlando calling a self to her that initially refuses to appear, instead a huge amount of her previous selves (like snapshots of her character in time?) spin past. After some fairly psychedelic writing, her true self finally appears and being re-united with, erm, herself I guess, allows Orlando to rejoin time in the present day.

 

On stage, we have Orlando after Orlando - self after self appearing. A light show fantastic - matching the frenetic tone and tempi of the writing, and then possibly the 'true self' joining the curtain call as a fairly male yet very female Orlando resplendent in Elizabethan dress.

 

As a theory, it probably won't stand up, but it'll do me. Might even buy the programme to see whether that sheds any light.

 

Either way, I really like Orlando, and find I enjoy it more when I stop trying to figure out who is dancing. They are now all Orlando to me. Possibly even characters that weren't meant to be Orlando.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Coated

[Mary]

Certainly makes perfect sense to me Coated, I think you're right ( but still think the lasers etc superfluous).

 

 

But save yourself the £7 as the programme does not illuminate the ways in which the dance relates to  the books...(there's a surprise :-))

[bangorballetboy]

I see the online casting list has been amended and confirms no alternative cast for parts 1 & 3, which is very disappointing.

[alison]

Was there *ever* supposed to be an alternative cast for Tuesday?

[zxDaveM]

Maybe not for 'Tuesday', but certainly for the first part.

 

But, no rehearsal = no performance  :-(

[Nina G.]

Such a shame that due to a lack of rehearsal time we won't get to see the full other cast.

[Fonty]

I went last night with some trepidation, as I am not a huge fan of McGregor, but thought I would give it a go.  I didn’t do any advance preparation, although I have read all three books in the past.  I decided to let the experience wash over me. I am astonished to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the evening, and didn’t find any of it boring, which is a first for me with this choreographer. 

 

I enjoyed the music, the sets, the costumes and the overall experience.  I liked the fact that the middle section was different in its up tempo, disco style jauntiness, and I thought it provided a good contrast to the sombre atmosphere to parts 1 and 3.  The lasers in part 2 looked great from the amphi theatre, and I particularly enjoyed the fact that at one point a string of multi coloured lights circled all around the auditorium.  Were they placed on top of the boxes?  I can’t remember which level they were on, but it took me back to the joy of the opening ceremony of the London Olympics.  Great fun!

 

Throughout the evening, I thought the performances were excellent.  It doesn’t seem fair to single out one individual in I Now, I Then, they were all so good.  If I had to, then I would have to say Watson gave a cracking performance, and his anguish was all too palpable to those of us sitting in the roof.  In the second ballet, it was very difficult to make out who was who.   I am assuming the lady with the major contortion skills was Osipova, purely because I had read this thread before I went.  One blonde lady caught my eye, but it was only when watching the third part that I realised this must have been Sarah Lamb.  Macgregor’s style seems to suit her, and she obviously enjoys performing it and looks good doing it.   And Ferri was magnificent in Tuesday.  She is just stunning, and worth the price of a ticket for her performance alone.  I couldn’t take my eyes off her.  Were there any other dancers on the stage in part 3?  If there were, I didn’t really notice them.

 

I do have a few negative observations, but I will put those in a separate post when I have collected my thoughts. 

[SPD444]

I went last night with some trepidation, as I am not a huge fan of McGregor, but thought I would give it a go.  I didn’t do any advance preparation, although I have read all three books in the past.  I decided to let the experience wash over me. I am astonished to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the evening, and didn’t find any of it boring, which is a first for me with this choreographer. 

 

I enjoyed the music, the sets, the costumes and the overall experience.  I liked the fact that the middle section was different in its up tempo, disco style jauntiness, and I thought it provided a good contrast to the sombre atmosphere to parts 1 and 3.  The lasers in part 2 looked great from the amphi theatre, and I particularly enjoyed the fact that at one point a string of multi coloured lights circled all around the auditorium.  Were they placed on top of the boxes?  I can’t remember which level they were on, but it took me back to the joy of the opening ceremony of the London Olympics.  Great fun!

 

Throughout the evening, I thought the performances were excellent.  It doesn’t seem fair to single out one individual in I Now, I Then, they were all so good.  If I had to, then I would have to say Watson gave a cracking performance, and his anguish was all too palpable to those of us sitting in the roof.  In the second ballet, it was very difficult to make out who was who.   I am assuming the lady with the major contortion skills was Osipova, purely because I had read this thread before I went.  One blonde lady caught my eye, but it was only when watching the third part that I realised this must have been Sarah Lamb.  Macgregor’s style seems to suit her, and she obviously enjoys performing it and looks good doing it.   And Ferri was magnificent in Tuesday.  She is just stunning, and worth the price of a ticket for her performance alone.  I couldn’t take my eyes off her.  Were there any other dancers on the stage in part 3?  If there were, I didn’t really notice them.

 

I do have a few negative observations, but I will put those in a separate post when I have collected my thoughts. 

 

I far as I could see the lights ringing around the auditorium were place either above or behind the wall lights and were on all levels.

[zxDaveM]

Ienjoyed the music, the sets, the costumes and the overall experience.  I liked the fact that the middle section was different in its up tempo, disco style jauntiness, and I thought it provided a good contrast to the sombre atmosphere to parts 1 and 3.  The lasers in part 2 looked great from the amphi theatre, and I particularly enjoyed the fact that at one point a string of multi coloured lights circled all around the auditorium.  Were they placed on top of the boxes?  I can’t remember which level they were on, but it took me back to the joy of the opening ceremony of the London Olympics.  Great fun!

 

. 

 

They were the points where the lasers hit the walls - the intensity giving some idea of their power.

Right at the end (last few secs before curtain down) a fresh batch of lasers illuminated the auditorium - these were indeed located near the historic ROH lamps.

[Jacqueline]

Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but what historic ROH lamps should I be looking out for and why are they of interest? Also, what is that thing for that looks like an old fashioned telephone receiver, hanging over the auditorium near the curtain?

I have very much enjoyed reading the comments/reviews of Woolf Works and am looking forward to seeing it for myself on Saturday. Anyone else going to the matinee?