What do you think?
Rate this book
Cock
When John takes a break from his boyfriend, he accidentally meets the girl of his dreams. Filled with guilt and indecision, he decides there is only one way to straighten this out....
Mike Bartlett's punchy new story takes a playful, candid look at one man's sexuality and the difficulties that arise when you realise you have a choice.
Cock premiered at the Royal Court Theatre, London, on November 13, 2009.
Mike Bartlett's punchy new story takes a playful, candid look at one man's sexuality and the difficulties that arise when you realise you have a choice.
Cock premiered at the Royal Court Theatre, London, on November 13, 2009.
89 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
23 people are currently reading
750 people want to read
About the author
Mike Bartlett
38 books41 followersMichael Bartlett is a British playwright. Mike Bartlett was born on 7 October 1980 in Abingdon, Oxford, England. He attended Abingdon School, then studied English and Theatre Studies at the University of Leeds. In October 2013, Mike won Best New Play at The National Theatre Awards for his play Bull, beating plays from both Alan Ayckbourn and Tom Wells.
(source)
(source)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews
April 20, 2022
I’ve enjoyed several of Mike Bartlett’s plays at the National, so was keen to see this topical revival in an intimate setting, despite its rather puerile title (though to be fair, the original playbill demonstrates it’s also a pun on a cock fight). It’s a coming out story, but the opposite of the usual.
The setup is simple: John and his boyfriend of several years are on a break. Possibly only temporary. But John finds himself flirting with a woman, which leads to his discovery that he enjoys straight sex - and the possibility of having a (conventional) family. He raves about her cunt and questions his identity. This forces choices on John, or rather, the two partners force choices on him: who to be with, what sort of future he wants, and thus whether to assert his newfound bisexuality or stick to his lifelong label of being gay.
“People keep saying be myself. I have no idea what that is.”
Image: John, caught in the middle (Source)
The dialog is often sharp, and the situation is interesting.
Is it betrayal if you’re on a break?
Is a relationship with someone of a different gender from your long-term partner more or less of a threat?
Is everyone at least a bit bisexual, or are relationships either gay or straight?
Do we need labels at all in an age of gender and sexual fluidity?
However, I didn’t really understand the characters and their motivation nor believe in any of their relationships. In part, this was because the new relationship seemed very quick, although the timeline was unclear. Furthermore, John didn’t come across as worth fighting for, even as part of some power kick.
If I’d read the play, I’d have rated it 2* and said it was a promising draft. As audio, it might be better. But last Saturday, in the theatre, it was 4*.
Staging
The acting, the set, and the director and choreographer are what made this impressive.
Image: John and W, as the stage circles beneath them (Source)
The stage was circular (a nod to Arthur Schnitzler’s La Ronde, perhaps?), clean, curved, minimalist, metallic, reflective (but fractured), open but claustrophobic, with echoes of both an arena and an operating theatre. Mostly it was dull silver, but occasionally it was coloured.
The floor comprised concentric circles that could rotate independently. This was most powerfully used in sex scenes, though that feels like the wrong word: characters remained fully clothed and at opposite sides of the stage. Occasionally and fleetingly, they passed each other. As one moved, the other made an echoing movement from afar. Intimate and detached.
Cast
It was originally performed at the Royal Court in 2009, with Ben Whishaw as John, Andrew Scott as M, Katherine Parkinson as W, and Paul Jesson as F.
I saw Jonathan Bailey, Joel Harper-Jackson (understudy for Taron Egerton, who is in the photos), Jade Anouka, and Phil Daniels at the Ambassadors.
Image: The angst of John and M (Source)
Other works
Personal note: Earthquakes in London in 2011 and 13 in, of course, 2013, were very good.
The setup is simple: John and his boyfriend of several years are on a break. Possibly only temporary. But John finds himself flirting with a woman, which leads to his discovery that he enjoys straight sex - and the possibility of having a (conventional) family. He raves about her cunt and questions his identity. This forces choices on John, or rather, the two partners force choices on him: who to be with, what sort of future he wants, and thus whether to assert his newfound bisexuality or stick to his lifelong label of being gay.
“People keep saying be myself. I have no idea what that is.”
Image: John, caught in the middle (Source)
The dialog is often sharp, and the situation is interesting.
Is it betrayal if you’re on a break?
Is a relationship with someone of a different gender from your long-term partner more or less of a threat?
Is everyone at least a bit bisexual, or are relationships either gay or straight?
Do we need labels at all in an age of gender and sexual fluidity?
However, I didn’t really understand the characters and their motivation nor believe in any of their relationships. In part, this was because the new relationship seemed very quick, although the timeline was unclear. Furthermore, John didn’t come across as worth fighting for, even as part of some power kick.
If I’d read the play, I’d have rated it 2* and said it was a promising draft. As audio, it might be better. But last Saturday, in the theatre, it was 4*.
Staging
The acting, the set, and the director and choreographer are what made this impressive.
Image: John and W, as the stage circles beneath them (Source)
The stage was circular (a nod to Arthur Schnitzler’s La Ronde, perhaps?), clean, curved, minimalist, metallic, reflective (but fractured), open but claustrophobic, with echoes of both an arena and an operating theatre. Mostly it was dull silver, but occasionally it was coloured.
The floor comprised concentric circles that could rotate independently. This was most powerfully used in sex scenes, though that feels like the wrong word: characters remained fully clothed and at opposite sides of the stage. Occasionally and fleetingly, they passed each other. As one moved, the other made an echoing movement from afar. Intimate and detached.
Cast
It was originally performed at the Royal Court in 2009, with Ben Whishaw as John, Andrew Scott as M, Katherine Parkinson as W, and Paul Jesson as F.
I saw Jonathan Bailey, Joel Harper-Jackson (understudy for Taron Egerton, who is in the photos), Jade Anouka, and Phil Daniels at the Ambassadors.
Image: The angst of John and M (Source)
Other works
Personal note: Earthquakes in London in 2011 and 13 in, of course, 2013, were very good.
March 14, 2025
But that's what this is, isn't it? The ultimate bitch fight.
Cock ~~~ Mike Bartlett
The premise is interesting, and in this time of sexual fluidity becoming more prevalent in society, Cock opens a dialogue that is much needed. The problem with Cock is that none of the main characters are very likable. Bartlett has written a smart, hip and funny play with narcissistic stereotypes -- the bitchy queen who can cook, the brittle, cold, calculating female, the emotionally, indecisive gay boi who needs to grow up and become a man, and the wise, old elder who sets everyone right. We've seen them all colliding before. And in the end, we're left with an interesting play, living out a situation that is becoming more common in this world, if only Bartlett had written characters that were as fresh as the new, unexplored world he created on stage.
Cock ~~~ Mike Bartlett
The premise is interesting, and in this time of sexual fluidity becoming more prevalent in society, Cock opens a dialogue that is much needed. The problem with Cock is that none of the main characters are very likable. Bartlett has written a smart, hip and funny play with narcissistic stereotypes -- the bitchy queen who can cook, the brittle, cold, calculating female, the emotionally, indecisive gay boi who needs to grow up and become a man, and the wise, old elder who sets everyone right. We've seen them all colliding before. And in the end, we're left with an interesting play, living out a situation that is becoming more common in this world, if only Bartlett had written characters that were as fresh as the new, unexplored world he created on stage.
December 3, 2022
Update: I seem to read this play every 6 years, originally, 2009, then again in 2016, and this time impelled by the impending West End production with Taron Egerton and Jonathan Bailey. I still think it's a dynamite play and hope I can see a production at some point - or maybe even direct it myself. My original review is below, sans the last line, in which I questioned the use of full nudity -- as I realized THIS time around, that most probably no one takes their clothes off, it's just implied by the dialogue.
Original: Had read this play awhile ago, but reread it as I am going through all of Bartlett's published plays. This is one of his best, and wish I'd been able to see the original UK production starring Ben Whishaw and Andrew Scott. I understand Bartlett's staging directions (he requires no furniture, props or miming of such), so that the play is in essence a 'cock fight', but it seems odd that people continually talk about sitting or drinking or handling objects, and then apparently don't do so.
Original: Had read this play awhile ago, but reread it as I am going through all of Bartlett's published plays. This is one of his best, and wish I'd been able to see the original UK production starring Ben Whishaw and Andrew Scott. I understand Bartlett's staging directions (he requires no furniture, props or miming of such), so that the play is in essence a 'cock fight', but it seems odd that people continually talk about sitting or drinking or handling objects, and then apparently don't do so.
March 28, 2022
sharp and witty exploration of indecisiveness about (sexual) identity and the unwillingness to be labelled
February 10, 2017
Hugely disappointed.
I know nothing about the author but this play was performed by Ben Whishaw and Andrew Scott, two amazing actors who support GLBT rights and imagine how upset I was when, I personally, found this play homophobic, misogynistic and biphobic.
Also this is labelled as a comedy but again, I did not found it funny.
I know nothing about the author but this play was performed by Ben Whishaw and Andrew Scott, two amazing actors who support GLBT rights and imagine how upset I was when, I personally, found this play homophobic, misogynistic and biphobic.
Also this is labelled as a comedy but again, I did not found it funny.
September 12, 2022
I’ve gotta stop reading plays because I want to be in all of them.
November 9, 2013
First, I have to confess that I'm not a huge fan of plays, well, reading them anyway. I love seeing them on stage, but have a really hard time reading them. That being said, I listened to a discussion on the Literary Disco podcast of this one and it piqued my curiosity. I loved this play. Basically, it's a play about sexuality. The only named character, John, is in a dilemma. He's fallen in love with a woman, "W", after being in a gay relationship with "M" for about seven years. In the end, there's one awkward dinner that is just a bloody masterpiece of writing. The silences, as shown by spaces that become longer and longer as the dinner progresses, were superb. In fact, what these characters are saying is made more exciting, from a reader's perspective, by these spaces. It's really a genius writing technique. The "F" character who joins the trio for dinner stands for, I believe, Father, but also, it could stand for Facilitator, since he's the one who actually get the other three talking, and arguing, and is the one who pressures John to make a decision who he wants to be with "M" or "W". This play is a great meditation on bisexuality. The main character, John, is completely content loving both "M" and "W" but it is "M" "W" and "F" who need him to decide who he wants to be with. John can only love one of them and he must choose. But it's more than choosing who specifically he wants to be with but more in general who he wants to be: gay or straight. He can't be bi. Not being a bisexual myself, it was fascinating watching the conflict unfold, externally and internally. I was on the edge of my seat for the last 20 pages or so, secretly wanting John to just walk away from the entire situation. I definitely didn't want him to end up with "M" who I found to be too desperate, and stifling. I was captivated by this play and therefore highly recommend it. Also, if you don't listen to Literary Disco already, I suggest giving them try. It's a fantastic podcast.
October 23, 2012
The second half is where the rubber hits the road. This is an artfully constructed examination of sexuality and choice. Although it is probably most effective if performed in a heartfelt, realistic style, it is written in a way that puts certain aspects of relationships under a microscope in a way that would probably seem utterly unrealistic to most viewers. Still, that's generally how good art operates. I commend Mike Bartlett for writing a genuinely interesting meditation on a somewhat over-exposed subject. By the end, I was completely absorbed in the story as well as the ideas of the play.
June 16, 2025
Really enjoyed reading the script for Cock by Mike Bartlett! I watched Jonathan Bailey perform this a few years ago. It’s about man leaving his long-term boyfriend for a woman (think Passages). Really quick and witty and funny. The original cast had Ben Whishaw and Andrew Scott so I just imagined them this time
August 5, 2015
A lack of stage directions make for hilarious ambiguity on the first read. Ideally read with your best mate.
September 18, 2024
Mike Bartlett’s writing is intriguing. Hard to get used to at first but really helps you understand the mindset and psychosis of the characters. Fun and witty. Would love to see a production of the play.
June 9, 2022
Might be better off seeing this performed. The play, as written, is disappointing. I think the magic of the play must be in the performances and the things not said.
January 23, 2023
An entertaining, sharp and very funny play about a gay man who must choose between his boyfriend and new female lover. The comic tension is sustained throughout, though it does end up as a story entirely focused on the old cliche that bisexual men can't make up their minds.
January 27, 2023
I think it’s better to read this all in one go and watch it on stage as it took a while to get my head around but I wanted to hug John so much! I was kinda sad at how short it was as I feel like the concept could be made into a full length book, I wanted to know more but loved the themes explored!
April 2, 2024
*Audio: BBC Radio, Drama on 3 - Cock (starring Ben Whishaw, Andrew Scott, Katherine Parkinson, Paul Jesson)
December 11, 2024
Would have loved to see this on stage! The energy leaped off the page! Finished the play in one go.
August 31, 2025
yo, why is everyone toxic as f**k
June 13, 2023
-saw way too much of myself in john.
-i like how bartlett is so fluid with his punctuation or lack thereof but not sure how i felt about there being no stage directions - definitely gives the characters a feeling of universal relevance even though the discussion felt outdated in some ways.
-it reminded me how much i wish labels were unnecessary, maybe one day...
-and yes i read this for jonathan bailey shut up.
-always grateful for my college's drama online subscription, now i've got the password they won't be able to kick me out <3
-i like how bartlett is so fluid with his punctuation or lack thereof but not sure how i felt about there being no stage directions - definitely gives the characters a feeling of universal relevance even though the discussion felt outdated in some ways.
-it reminded me how much i wish labels were unnecessary, maybe one day...
-and yes i read this for jonathan bailey shut up.
-always grateful for my college's drama online subscription, now i've got the password they won't be able to kick me out <3
December 5, 2013
I'm not sure what relevance the title has on this play other than ticket sales... If we were to name it "Angst" doesn't sound as shocking, does it.
Cute coming-of-age story about John, a twenty-something struggling with his homosexuality/bisexuality. The other characters: his boyfriend, simply named "M"; his girlfriend, "W"; and the boyfriend's father, "F"; hash it out over dinner in a Shakespearean fashion.
A bit on the naming of the characters... John seems to be the everyday man (John Doe), generically named but central to the drama. When I first saw the cast listed, I thought M, W, F somehow stood for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Then when we get to know them, it seems like Man, Woman, and Father. However, looking back, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday may not have been that far off if we equate the what each character represents to a lifespan... Monday could stand for the beginning; Wednesday would be half-way, a hump; and Friday, a more seasoned, experienced, and near the end of life.
We're not sure with whom John ends up choosing as a life partner by the conclusion, but it's worth the hour journey it takes.
Cute coming-of-age story about John, a twenty-something struggling with his homosexuality/bisexuality. The other characters: his boyfriend, simply named "M"; his girlfriend, "W"; and the boyfriend's father, "F"; hash it out over dinner in a Shakespearean fashion.
A bit on the naming of the characters... John seems to be the everyday man (John Doe), generically named but central to the drama. When I first saw the cast listed, I thought M, W, F somehow stood for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Then when we get to know them, it seems like Man, Woman, and Father. However, looking back, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday may not have been that far off if we equate the what each character represents to a lifespan... Monday could stand for the beginning; Wednesday would be half-way, a hump; and Friday, a more seasoned, experienced, and near the end of life.
We're not sure with whom John ends up choosing as a life partner by the conclusion, but it's worth the hour journey it takes.
September 18, 2014
Great play! I appreciate the minimalism and the expressive freedom it gives actors/directors to create a show they want to do.
For those that missed the metaphor, J is acting like a cock (a rooster and a dickhead) and is about a cock fight.
It complements Bartlett's other play, Bull, which is about a Bull Fight, also among millennials.
For those that missed the metaphor, J is acting like a cock (a rooster and a dickhead) and is about a cock fight.
It complements Bartlett's other play, Bull, which is about a Bull Fight, also among millennials.
February 13, 2012
Usually don't like plays in this type of format, but the dialogue flowed so naturally and the characters felt very genuine. I could relate. Some of the dialogue rang very true. Really easy to get into.
April 17, 2014
Finished it in a little over an hour and a half. Wonderful play. Interesting plot. Really enjoyed it!
June 21, 2015
Modern, bizarre, bisexual love story where habit and sarcasm win over romance and hope.
July 17, 2017
I really wanted to love this. I did. I love King Charles III so I expected to love this too but I thought it was terrible. I couldn't wait for it to be over while I was reading it.
November 9, 2020
Biphobia, the play.
March 23, 2020
I surprised myself by really liking this play, especially part 3.
The rest may contain some spoilers so read at your own risk. I wrote this all while I was reading through it, so it may be mumbo jumbo but it was what the play made me question and think about and I think that's what good writing does, it makes you question things as you go along.
Be yourself”
“But I have absolutely no idea who that is, everyone else seems to have a personality, a character but I’ve never, I’ve never…”
— really feels like this part of the play is what the entire play is about — he is trying to find himself, he doesn’t like where is life is/ where his relationship is and so he goes out and does something out of ‘character’ because he is only the character everyone else wants him to be — he is John as in a classic no man or any man and he literally and metaphorically is that in this play — he can’t decide and he feels as if he doesn’t know himself so the entire play takes place because he is looking for that / searching for an identity, grasping at any straws he can along the way with no thought of who he might be hurting along the way
He lies, he cheats, he acts not like himself, but if even you do not know who you are then how can you be acting ‘not like yourself’ — I think Bartlett spun a very clever very interesting web for the reader and audience to fall into as we try to play our own judgements on a situation we all face — who are we and how do we know who we are — and in doing so - in the judging we discover who we are better, not necessarily who John is better, because how can we discover who he is if we don’t really know him and if he doesn’t even know himself?
Also interesting in the other characters need to classify John and put him in their respective boxes and in Johns utter lack of personality as he conforms to each of their set guidelines even if it means he has said yes to two people and knows it but doesn’t know how to change it so then it seems like he is a liar and a cheater when really he is a sort of conformer perhaps? And perhaps that doesn’t make sense but it does make it an interesting read.
Also the father’s entrance is of course very timely but it’s interesting his phrasing of question — “You need to work out what you are don’t you?” — “what you are” vs who you are, what as in he needs to just sort out his sexuality vs sort out his life and his personality. Interesting way to sing us further through a hoop and continue to allow the play to wind up.
And yet he still states that everything a person does can’t be blamed on another person — “its down to you” — and it really is down to this personality-less John Doe to find his own personality and to sort his life out, and to not blame others for who he has become even though he perhaps let them shape who that is/was.
There is also an interesting speech from the father about sexuality not being a ‘choice’ like it was thought to be in his generation and while some people may then look at that as not including bisexual people - I think it’s a really interesting look at what a heteronormative person might believe to be true and how they can think being gay isn’t bad but doesn’t understand when someone likes both because then aren’t they just ‘making a choice’ which they were told is not how it works, so how could this John be making this choice when his son who is gay did not have a choice — interesting question to pose from a man who grew up with people ‘getting imprisoned” etc for it in the past.
Basically the end of this play opens up a ton of issues and questions them, questions men’s attitudes towards the female body, questions sexuality and choice, questions about the past and its morality/ethics and it all leads to John having to question his own thoughts on the subject matter and therefore the audience/reader having to do the same.
I wasn’t sure if I’d like this play even though I Loved lungs, which is in a similar style, but I think I really did, and I think watching this play would be even better.
And I LOVED the finality of Say it and then nothing.
The rest may contain some spoilers so read at your own risk. I wrote this all while I was reading through it, so it may be mumbo jumbo but it was what the play made me question and think about and I think that's what good writing does, it makes you question things as you go along.
Be yourself”
“But I have absolutely no idea who that is, everyone else seems to have a personality, a character but I’ve never, I’ve never…”
— really feels like this part of the play is what the entire play is about — he is trying to find himself, he doesn’t like where is life is/ where his relationship is and so he goes out and does something out of ‘character’ because he is only the character everyone else wants him to be — he is John as in a classic no man or any man and he literally and metaphorically is that in this play — he can’t decide and he feels as if he doesn’t know himself so the entire play takes place because he is looking for that / searching for an identity, grasping at any straws he can along the way with no thought of who he might be hurting along the way
He lies, he cheats, he acts not like himself, but if even you do not know who you are then how can you be acting ‘not like yourself’ — I think Bartlett spun a very clever very interesting web for the reader and audience to fall into as we try to play our own judgements on a situation we all face — who are we and how do we know who we are — and in doing so - in the judging we discover who we are better, not necessarily who John is better, because how can we discover who he is if we don’t really know him and if he doesn’t even know himself?
Also interesting in the other characters need to classify John and put him in their respective boxes and in Johns utter lack of personality as he conforms to each of their set guidelines even if it means he has said yes to two people and knows it but doesn’t know how to change it so then it seems like he is a liar and a cheater when really he is a sort of conformer perhaps? And perhaps that doesn’t make sense but it does make it an interesting read.
Also the father’s entrance is of course very timely but it’s interesting his phrasing of question — “You need to work out what you are don’t you?” — “what you are” vs who you are, what as in he needs to just sort out his sexuality vs sort out his life and his personality. Interesting way to sing us further through a hoop and continue to allow the play to wind up.
And yet he still states that everything a person does can’t be blamed on another person — “its down to you” — and it really is down to this personality-less John Doe to find his own personality and to sort his life out, and to not blame others for who he has become even though he perhaps let them shape who that is/was.
There is also an interesting speech from the father about sexuality not being a ‘choice’ like it was thought to be in his generation and while some people may then look at that as not including bisexual people - I think it’s a really interesting look at what a heteronormative person might believe to be true and how they can think being gay isn’t bad but doesn’t understand when someone likes both because then aren’t they just ‘making a choice’ which they were told is not how it works, so how could this John be making this choice when his son who is gay did not have a choice — interesting question to pose from a man who grew up with people ‘getting imprisoned” etc for it in the past.
Basically the end of this play opens up a ton of issues and questions them, questions men’s attitudes towards the female body, questions sexuality and choice, questions about the past and its morality/ethics and it all leads to John having to question his own thoughts on the subject matter and therefore the audience/reader having to do the same.
I wasn’t sure if I’d like this play even though I Loved lungs, which is in a similar style, but I think I really did, and I think watching this play would be even better.
And I LOVED the finality of Say it and then nothing.
May 8, 2025
Finished the first of three parts. Is intense, written in a very specific style to aid with the way of it being acted. It feels like conversation in the fast, erratic nature of it. I am intrigued definitely. In this part, John and M are in love, but most of it was them arguing and being on the edge of leaving each other (or at least John actually leaving). But John wanted M back because he’s in a mess - he thinks he’s in love with a woman.
Not much room for monologues yet but definitely can see a John monologue happening in one of the other two parts.
-
Read part 2. John talks to the W, the woman he has feelings for. He’s not very smooth and doesn’t really know how he’s feeling or what he’s doing. They end up having sex and it feels… good? Puts John in an ever more awkward position because he then doesn’t know what to do because he is still with M but keeps meeting with W. He asks her to come to dinner with the two of them.
Was quite hard to read honesty, intense and emotional, the confusion and sexual frustration, I can understand that. Immensely personal play.
Not sure about monologues again for this part, possibly could piece some together because the character works really well, but would like to see one in part 3 maybe.
-
God honestly near to tears even just from reading it. I think watching it would destroy me. I’m not overreacting either - Bartlett writes here not necessarily with anything crazy or wildly original in theme but phrases thought and conversation in such a perfect way.
I’ve been giving updates as to the first 2 parts, so here I will just comment vaguely on the 3rd and final part. W comes to dine with John and M, but in the end M invites his dad, F, too. They try getting John to make a decision, and the scene builds uncomfortable tension so we’ll that when John does finally burst out at all of them you can tell the emotion and feeling even within seconds. I also had the first feeling that one of these monologues is going to be really good for me. His outburst is so relatable and means so much.
I really hope to see this play one day, no matter how painful it may be.
Not much room for monologues yet but definitely can see a John monologue happening in one of the other two parts.
-
Read part 2. John talks to the W, the woman he has feelings for. He’s not very smooth and doesn’t really know how he’s feeling or what he’s doing. They end up having sex and it feels… good? Puts John in an ever more awkward position because he then doesn’t know what to do because he is still with M but keeps meeting with W. He asks her to come to dinner with the two of them.
Was quite hard to read honesty, intense and emotional, the confusion and sexual frustration, I can understand that. Immensely personal play.
Not sure about monologues again for this part, possibly could piece some together because the character works really well, but would like to see one in part 3 maybe.
-
God honestly near to tears even just from reading it. I think watching it would destroy me. I’m not overreacting either - Bartlett writes here not necessarily with anything crazy or wildly original in theme but phrases thought and conversation in such a perfect way.
I’ve been giving updates as to the first 2 parts, so here I will just comment vaguely on the 3rd and final part. W comes to dine with John and M, but in the end M invites his dad, F, too. They try getting John to make a decision, and the scene builds uncomfortable tension so we’ll that when John does finally burst out at all of them you can tell the emotion and feeling even within seconds. I also had the first feeling that one of these monologues is going to be really good for me. His outburst is so relatable and means so much.
I really hope to see this play one day, no matter how painful it may be.
November 27, 2024
An interesting one.
Having read Bull first, I fell in love with the back-and-forth conversations and how easily Mike portrayed them/how real they felt. Elements of this definitely seeped through to Cock, but not as streamlined which could definitely be a case of reading over watching the play as I’m sure the overlaps would seem more coherent live.
I resonated with a range of the themes: abusive partners, having a relationship ‘stuck’ in the first period and not growing past that, sabotage and the pain of finding yourself and as already mentioned I think there would be a massive difference watching this live over reading it.
I also liked the fact that John almost seemed ‘invisible’. There were a few times where other characters would speak for or explain something on behalf of him, taking his own voice and I just feel this added another dimension of ‘being hidden’ which worked quite well
Having read Bull first, I fell in love with the back-and-forth conversations and how easily Mike portrayed them/how real they felt. Elements of this definitely seeped through to Cock, but not as streamlined which could definitely be a case of reading over watching the play as I’m sure the overlaps would seem more coherent live.
I resonated with a range of the themes: abusive partners, having a relationship ‘stuck’ in the first period and not growing past that, sabotage and the pain of finding yourself and as already mentioned I think there would be a massive difference watching this live over reading it.
I also liked the fact that John almost seemed ‘invisible’. There were a few times where other characters would speak for or explain something on behalf of him, taking his own voice and I just feel this added another dimension of ‘being hidden’ which worked quite well
May 8, 2022
this was hilarious. sorry bisexual community.
the advertised premise is flashy and attention-grabbing ofc but really the discussion of sexual identity is too rushed to be more than funny, though i know it probably hit harder a decade ago when it was more confusing and taboo. ultimately it was an interesting portrait of one pushover's struggle with conflicting obligations and his inability to choose or determine what he wants rather than what makes people happy with him. how painful how ridiculous how sad.
the advertised premise is flashy and attention-grabbing ofc but really the discussion of sexual identity is too rushed to be more than funny, though i know it probably hit harder a decade ago when it was more confusing and taboo. ultimately it was an interesting portrait of one pushover's struggle with conflicting obligations and his inability to choose or determine what he wants rather than what makes people happy with him. how painful how ridiculous how sad.
#/media/File:Cock_(play).jpg){kind=link}
April 14, 2018
I don't really know how to take this play. I found it entertaining and I was interested to see the outcome. I appreciated how none of the characters were really very likeable. At times it felt offensive and not PC. But, then again, there is a large segment of the population who behave like these characters. And I appreciate that I never found the piece "preachy". I'm sure this play would get a lot of people talking and, for that reason alone, I like this play.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews