TERF

I really wanted to enjoy this - but I didn't. The actors are really good and it's clear that everybody involved want to (and would be great at) a tense character study - but they got caught on the idea of it being about JKR.and got drowned by that.

It flounders under its own weight. One to miss - but I'll keenly await what comes next after they detatch from this gimmick.

Far too fictionalised. JKR portrayed as an acid tongued sarcastic Mary Poppins type, not at all how she appears on media in real life. Her views should not be psychologically blamed in one life experience - they were portrayed as caused by a past abusive husband. That is not how opinions work: it's bigotry for anyone to think "my opinion is the only one that folks arrive at on its merits alone, and contrary opinions only exist as psychological damage".
Emma is portrayed as reciting repeatedly a statistic against the belief in toilet dangers, which issue and whether they should be prevented does not get discussed any further than that statistic.

How is this show groanworthy? Let me count the ways. No, actually I won’t. Seeing it (or an hour of it) was enough. It’s badly written, populated by caricatures and I have absolutely no idea of what point it was trying to make. One to avoid.

if you’re a rampant transphobe, this is the show for you!!!

in all seriousness it was really awful, made me quite uncomfortable. we were expecting something satirical or perhaps empowering. this was the opposite.

I went to this expecting a JK R(oast), or a delving into her terrible stances on minorities, however this is really a character study/satire. Unfortunately while the acting is great, the writing for Emma really misses the mark and ends up rather mean spirited; Jo (and Rupert/Daniel) hits the right tension of offensive and human.
If you go here expecting a parable about how TERFs suck (they do) you'll be disappointed, but as a study of the things that trauma does to everyone, it's pretty decent.

This is a worrying play for a few different reasons; I think a play that features the trans flag so heavily in it's advertising, a play that's is supposed to pull no punches, a play that is supposed to tell a radical new story just didn't.

It was lacklustre, nearly 2hrs long and much of this time was spent moving uneeded props around. But I could forgive all of this (after all it is fringe) if I felt this was a brave play - but it isn't at all. In the most forgiving scenario it's accidentally cowardly and in the least it's actively damaging.

The only Trans character in the play is voiceless throughout, has zero arc, is inexplicably dressed as an angel and then ends the play cowering in a corner - all agency removed - what is it then that the TERF team are saying about the Trans community? It certainly isn't anything good, or empowering or even nuanced.

Finally - the following deeply problematic exchange took place:
JK: Harry Potter isn't real Dan
Daniel Radcliff: Jo you've said alot of really hurtful things- but I think that might be the cruelest.

JK Rowling has said things that have incited vile transphobia, she has been cruel, she has literally endangered lives. Buy the playwright of this play truly believes that the cruelest thing she could say was that Harry Potter (the fictional character) is made up.

Wut?

This play is confused, misguided - and could be incredibly upsetting for members of the Trans community. Proceed with caution.

After the uproar that this play created it was astonishingly underwhelming. The acting was very poor and fell flat from all the main characters. The role of the trans person was underdeveloped. It was such a shame that this piece had such an opporunity to capture the audience and it failed.

Was quite disappointed by this play - found it to be rather lacklustre compared to what I was expecting, humour fell flat and the trans character on stage was underdeveloped/unexplained and therefore I couldn’t figure out her function. I found the play to be quite boring but perhaps I went in with expectations of something more explosive and in accordance to all the buzz of controversy and potential protests! As a trans theatre goer and worker, I was underwhelmed - not because I was expecting a dramatic and total takedown of JK Rowling, but just because I was expecting something more dynamic.

This show is surprisingly hilarious in parts and a very enjoyable 75-80 minutes. I saw it today expecting a drama (and there are some dramatic moments, to be sure), but there are some beautifully delivered lines and the actors have chemistry we don't always see at the Fringe - seems as though they've been rehearsing together for a long time.

This is less of an attack on JK's tweets (feels pretty balanced to me) and more of a parody of the writer's imagined conversations between the three movie stars and the author who created them. Both of the boys are highly believable in their roles and Piers MacKenzie does a very nice job oscillating between multiple characters, including JK's former lover and then, later, her father. The actress playing Emma reminds us of her tightly wound nature and is likewise convincing. Bailey, playing JK Rowling, is brilliant, showing both an acerbic side and a human side...with perfect comedic timing to boot.

We went to see what all the fuss was about and came away having laughed a good bit and with perhaps a slightly different view of Twittergate. Worth seeing for sure.

Obviously J.K. Rowling is a brilliant writer - even when it's about controversy. I went on the first Monday morning. The venue probably was at 30% capacity (maybe 200-300 out of what I suspect could have been around 1,000 capacity).

People aren't seeing this show because they either hate her and disagree with her, like her work but disagree with her comments or agree with her comments but are too afraid to support her work in public ... whether theater goers like it or not, a large amount of people see the Trans issue like J.K Rowling does. She was not afraid to have that conversation in the origin City of where she created Harry Potter..

The best part of the entire thing, is how she carefully used her words to point out hypocrisy in society.

It's clear she's willing to give up everything she has on this issue -- and for that reason, people should listen.

Note: I watched both J.K. Rowling's play AND Dylan Mulvaney's play.

I went to see this expecting a real hatchet job on J K Rowlings but was surprised to see a very balanced and nuanced piece that is both informative and entertaining.
Although the individuals portrayed sometimes come across as exaggerated caricatures that is really the only way the story could be told.
There is some good acting, and I would particularly highlight the ones who play Radcliffe and Rawlings.
I would strongly recommend this for anyone with an open mind on the issue of trans rights. My only criticism is that the character representing trans women has not been developed and so the actual genuine impact that words have on trans people does not really come across as strongly as it should.

Went to see TERF today out of interest as to how it would present this debate. It seems it has done so a shallowly as anything else I've read on Twitter about this topic.

JK Rowling is portrayed as an oddly bitchy successful woman. A kind of scary mother figure, probably described as intimidating by mildly mysogynistic men.

The flashbacks to her experiences of domestic abuse seem to have been poorly researched, with some attempt to elicit sympathy for her abusive ex-husband. The framing seemed to suggest Rowling's views on identity politics stem purely from this experience. Seeing as domestic abuse is an endemic problem, and rape effectively a decriminalised offence in the UK, the issue is far more complex than "JK had a bad relationship and now she's a bigot". Give her credit, she might have read up a bit on the topic. Many of us told to educate ourselves did, and here we are.

Overall I found the play to be confusingly told, poorly researched, and yet another case of trying to catch fame through having a pop at Rowling.

If only problems male authors got this much attention.

Billed as a 12+ but contains plenty of four letters words that I am sure would get my review deleted if typed in full, C@!% and F#@!. JK is portrayed as a woman that holds her views due to her less than positive experience of male behaviour, as if her experience is isolate to her or a small group of women. I would suggest that her experience of male behaviour is more typical that the play would have you believe. JK is far from alone in her beliefs and view of reality.