Storehouse review – an exasperating wander through the internet’s ‘arkive’

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"‘Storehouse’ Review: An Ambitious Yet Disjointed Exploration of Digital Archiving"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.1
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The immersive production 'Storehouse' is staged in a repurposed warehouse that once served as a storage facility for newspapers, notably those owned by Rupert Murdoch. This setting aligns with the show’s focus on archiving digital expressions from the internet since its inception in 1983. The venue features expansive rooms reminiscent of airplane hangars and intricate tunnels crafted from wicker and padded materials, creating a unique environment for the performance. Conceived by Liana Patarkatsishvili and produced by Sage & Jester, 'Storehouse' boasts impressive design and ambition, aiming to explore the concept of a 'Truthtopia' where every online message, meme, and utterance is recorded. However, the archiving project, dubbed 'the great aggregation,' has failed to meet its deadline, casting a shadow over the narrative's exploration of truth and knowledge in a digital age.

The narrative introduces a cast of employees who seem trapped in a repetitive and stagnant existence, echoing themes from works like 'Severance' and George Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-Four.' The audience is positioned as trustees of the company, observing the employees who follow peculiar rules, such as dancing to Culture Club's 'Karma Chameleon.' Despite the ambitious thematic exploration of data control, truth, and the impact of social media, the production suffers from an overabundance of ideas without a strong narrative underpinning. The dialogue, crafted by a team of six co-writers, often feels disjointed, with heavy-handed messaging that leaves little to the imagination. While the performances, particularly by Harriett O’Grady and others, add depth, the overall experience lacks the tension and stakes necessary to engage the audience fully. The visual and auditory elements, including dynamic lighting and sound, create a stunning atmosphere, yet the lack of meaningful content ultimately undermines the production's potential impact.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The review of "Storehouse" presents an intriguing exploration of a theatrical production that delves into the concept of digital archiving and the human experience within a dystopian framework. The narrative constructs a world where employees are caught in an endless cycle of archiving digital expressions, reflecting broader themes of truth and obedience.

Purpose of the Article

The article seems to aim at providing a critical perspective on the production's execution, highlighting its ambitious themes while questioning its narrative coherence. By dissecting the elements of the show, the reviewer appears to seek to inform potential audiences about the strengths and weaknesses of the performance, especially in relation to its thematic depth and emotional engagement.

Community Perception

The review may evoke skepticism among audiences regarding the effectiveness of the production. By pointing out the lack of tension and connection in the storytelling, it suggests that despite grand design and ambition, the show fails to deliver a compelling narrative, potentially leading to disappointment among viewers.

Concealed Aspects

While the review does not explicitly mention any intention to hide or obscure information, there is an underlying critique of the show’s narrative choices that could lead to a reflection on larger societal issues. The exploration of themes such as truth and the absurdity of bureaucratic systems may resonate with audiences who feel similarly trapped in contemporary society.

Manipulative Elements

The review is predominantly analytical, yet it could be interpreted as subtly manipulative by emphasizing the production's shortcomings. This might influence public perception, swaying potential viewers away from attending the show. The critical tone used in describing the performance could be seen as an attempt to shape audience expectations.

Truthfulness of the Review

The review appears to be grounded in the author's subjective experience of the performance. While it raises valid points about narrative and thematic execution, the interpretation of the show’s intent and impact remains subjective. It reflects one individual's viewpoint rather than a definitive assessment.

Societal Implications

The themes explored in the production could resonate with contemporary audiences, particularly in a digital age where the archiving of information is prevalent. This might lead to discussions about the implications of digital communication, privacy, and the pursuit of truth in society.

Targeted Communities

The review may attract support from those interested in experimental theater, digital culture, and dystopian narratives. It resonates with audiences who are critical of contemporary societal structures and are drawn to performances that challenge norms.

Market Impact

While the review addresses a theatrical performance, it may indirectly influence the broader cultural landscape and market for theatrical productions. The reception of such performances can impact ticket sales and future productions that explore similar themes.

Geopolitical Relevance

The concepts addressed in the production, such as truth and societal control, have timeless relevance, echoing current global discussions around misinformation and digital governance. The review situates the performance within a larger context of contemporary concerns.

AI Usage in the Review

There is no clear indication that AI was used in crafting this review. The language and style suggest a human touch, particularly in the nuanced critique of the production. However, if AI were involved, it could have influenced the tone and structure, steering the review towards a more analytical rather than emotive approach.

In conclusion, the review of "Storehouse" serves as a critical lens through which audiences can assess the production's merits and drawbacks. It encourages reflection on wider societal issues while operating within the context of contemporary theater.

Unanalyzed Article Content

The disused warehouse given over to this immersive production was once a storehouse for newspapers (Rupert Murdoch’s, in fact). So it is well suited to the show’s central concern – the archiving of words, although the fictive “arkive” stored here is for every single digital expression since the inception of the internet in 1983.

It is impressively gargantuan, with rooms as big as aeroplane hangars. Within them there are tight tunnels made of wicker or white padded material, the latter reminiscent of Punchdrunk’sViola’s Room, also staged in a vast space.

Conceived byLiana Patarkatsishviliand produced by Sage & Jester, Storehouse is certainly grand in ambition and immaculately conceived in design, with an intricately created lexicon, too.

The backstory is that a now dead company boss conceived a global project to record every online message, meme and utterance in the hope to build the formation of a greater truth – a “Truthtopia” – in the world above this alternate underground realm. Except that this archiving process, named “the great aggregation”, has missed its deadline for the revelation of truth.

We meet its employees who seem willingly imprisoned underground and frozen in time like New Romantic throwbacks. They follow random rules such as falling into dance every time Culture Club’s Karma Chameleon is blasted out of a loudspeaker. We, the audience, are positioned as trustees of the company and are being shown around in the hope to inject fresh blood amid low morale and a recruitment crisis.

There are shades ofSeveranceto the setup, with blind obedience among some employees rubbing up against the discontent and disobedience of others. Alongside, there are also echoes of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and HG Wells’s The Time Machine.

It’s a melange, with too many themes, and none of the dread, drama or tension that should accompany them. So the ideas float aimlessly in this great space without being tethered to enough actual story. The script has been conceived in a writers’ room usually associated with US screen dramas. This brings no less than six co-writers (Katie Lyons, Tristan Bernays, Sonali Bhattacharyya, Kathryn Bond, Caro Murphy and Rhik Samadder) alongside story producer, Donnacadh O’Briain.

It seems like a case of too many cooks; dialogue spins from data control to algorithms, the (mis)use of information, truths and lies (“Truth lies here” is a perplexing refrain). Themes are not only telegraphed but tub-thumped in the final scene with big questions thrown out to the audience such as: “What gives you hope?” (“My cat,” says one participant). There is earnest talk of tree hugging and disconnecting from social media. It’s nothing you do not already know, with no new take to offer.

Disembodied instructions are spoken through the public address system across the rooms (the voices of Toby Jones, Meera Syal, Billy Howle and Kathryn Hunter), and four combinations of cast perform the show simultaneously. Having seen two of these performances, I am still uncertain of why.

Some actors bring a little more depth to their character, especially Harriett O’Grady as a stacker (responsible for organising shelving of data) along with Chris Agha and Dawn Butler as bookbinders. It all comes together around a giant inkwell, when the plot is revealed in what seems like a Scooby-Doo style ending, with motives and culprits fully explained amid rather too basic reasoning.

Despite the alarm sounds and disturbed lighting through the show, there is no danger or jeopardy. The final moments open up to big electronic sound, laser light and Kraftwerk concert optics (lighting design by Ben Donoghue, sound design by James Bulley). It looks spectacular. If only there was more meaning in it.

AtDeptford Storehouse, London, until 20 September

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian