1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Sept 7, 2016 10:00:38 GMT
Oooh Jan you are a one!!
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 7, 2016 12:54:52 GMT
Only if it turns out I'm wrong.
|
|
442 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Sept 11, 2016 10:03:54 GMT
Enjoyed this yesterday - my first live King Lear. Sher gives a very clear performance and Doran's production is very well-interpreted. They play up the effects on the kingdom and its poverty, etc..
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 11, 2016 10:09:53 GMT
Enjoyed this yesterday - my first live King Lear. Sher gives a very clear performance and Doran's production is very well-interpreted. They play up the effects on the kingdom and its poverty, etc.. How many followers does Lear have ? It is always a bit ridiculous when the daughters start moaning about his followers when there are just a couple hanging around in their brown leather jerkins. They should recruit 100 extras and do it properly, have them trash the place. I think in one old production they did it more realistically, maybe the Peter Brook one.
|
|
442 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Sept 11, 2016 10:25:01 GMT
Wow, that would be ambitious. Reading the programme beforehand we actually said that there were a lot of Lear's knights. Having said that, when Goneril circled the men and said there was 100 of them it made me wonder if she was exaggerating or were we meant to use our imagination there.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 11, 2016 11:48:46 GMT
Wow, that would be ambitious. Reading the programme beforehand we actually said that there were a lot of Lear's knights. Having said that, when Goneril circled the men and said there was 100 of them it made me wonder if she was exaggerating or were we meant to use our imagination there. In the Deborah Warner Julius Caesar she had 100 extras for the crowd scenes, it worked brilliantly.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Sept 11, 2016 13:30:45 GMT
It was ok, wouldnt say brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Sept 11, 2016 13:43:41 GMT
Oooh mart you are a one!!
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Sept 22, 2016 20:31:32 GMT
Saw todays matinee. Cards on the table first, i have liked Sher since i first saw him as Shylock almost 30 years ago plus KL is my fav Shakey play. I loved it! The three and half hours flew by. Sher is superb, commanding, fragile, stern, surprisingly funny. Supporting cast are uniformly excellent Essiedu is a star of the future, he is very good as a sardonic Edmund as is well matched by Johnston as Edgar. The sisters are well matched. Easily the best of the four Lears i have seem so far this year. Thoroughly recommended😃
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Sept 23, 2016 20:29:37 GMT
Oh dear
I am trying to keep my interest going for this
But I am officially taking Jan Brock's side that Antony Sher is giving the same performance in Travelling Light, Henry IV, Salesman and now this
He's better in the quieter moments such as his talk with the fool after arguing with Goneril
But he has this same delivery. Emphasising nearly every every word and drawing out vowels. His limitations shows when he has to try and deliver Lears rages
The pacing seems to slow down when he's on. I keep wishing David Troughton was Lear because even though he hasn't got a lot to do until the 2nd act he is selling his Gloucester. Even in the background he is acting his socks off
Uninspired set as well. I've seen better from Dorans King Arrhur a couple of years ago
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Sept 24, 2016 7:58:56 GMT
Just to elaborate the opening scene and Gonerils house with the big table were nice if static. Whenever a character made a point about Lears 100 knights they have to walk the whole length of the stage and back again to get round the stage
Otherwise you get this red brick background that goes with the old proscenium arch, and when there's no procession, table or a stark white background with a dead tree (the best set out of the lot), the whole thing looks dull
Wasn't keen on the storm scene either. Too busy for one as cast members dressed as beggars did something to the cloth on the stage so that it rise along with Lear and the fool on a lift. And after all that all I saw was Lear howling (as much as Sher could do) against a great big dirty looking cloth
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 24, 2016 8:55:35 GMT
Just to elaborate the opening scene and Gonerils house with the big table were nice if static. Whenever a character made a point about Lears 100 knights they have to walk the whole length of the stage and back again to get round the stage Otherwise you get this red brick background that goes with the old proscenium arch, and when there's no procession, table or a stark white background with a dead tree (the best set out of the lot), the whole thing looks dull Wasn't keen on the storm scene either. Too busy for one as cast members dressed as beggars did something to the cloth on the stage so that it rise along with Lear and the fool on a lift. And after all that all I saw was Lear howling (as much as Sher could do) against a great big dirty looking cloth I always think the opening scene should be at and after the funeral of Queen Lear. Then it makes sense of what is going on. Actually in Shakespeare's source play this happens but he omitted it. King Lear is one of the plays where a character who isn't there is important. Uncle Vanya is another.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Sept 24, 2016 9:14:49 GMT
Too busy for one as cast members dressed as beggars did something to the cloth Might have worked better with real beggars?
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Sept 24, 2016 9:16:09 GMT
King Lear is one of the plays where a character who isn't there is important. Uncle Vanya is another. So's Waiting for Godot.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Sept 24, 2016 9:16:23 GMT
Interesting take Jan, ive never seen it done tho going back thirty years. Its not in the text of course.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Sept 24, 2016 9:18:29 GMT
I always think the opening scene should be at and after the funeral of Queen Lear. Then it makes sense of what is going on. Actually in Shakespeare's source play this happens but he omitted it. Mike Bartlett honoured the original source in his King Charles III,
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Sept 24, 2016 12:54:39 GMT
Just to elaborate the opening scene and Gonerils house with the big table were nice if static. Whenever a character made a point about Lears 100 knights they have to walk the whole length of the stage and back again to get round the stage Otherwise you get this red brick background that goes with the old proscenium arch, and when there's no procession, table or a stark white background with a dead tree (the best set out of the lot), the whole thing looks dull Wasn't keen on the storm scene either. Too busy for one as cast members dressed as beggars did something to the cloth on the stage so that it rise along with Lear and the fool on a lift. And after all that all I saw was Lear howling (as much as Sher could do) against a great big dirty looking cloth I always think the opening scene should be at and after the funeral of Queen Lear. Then it makes sense of what is going on. Actually in Shakespeare's source play this happens but he omitted it. King Lear is one of the plays where a character who isn't there is important. Uncle Vanya is another. When I staged it in 2008, we did open with a funeral. We left it uncertain as to whether it was Lear or Gloucester who was burying a spouse - but it was a clear catalyst for Lear's decision to step aside. I was in a rehearsed reading of King Leir last year - and the opening is much clearer there. Though the rest of the play is not as good. Lots of rhyming and a happy ending!
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 24, 2016 13:24:48 GMT
Interesting take Jan, ive never seen it done tho going back thirty years. Its not in the text of course. I've seen 15 productions and never seen it done either which is odd as it is an idea that has been mentioned in the literature several times and is there in the earlier source play. Oxfordsimon's spin of leaving it ambiguous who the funeral is for is interesting too. It's the sort of editorialising that Trevor Nunn is famous for in Shakespeare but even his production offered no clues as to why Lear was giving his kingdom away.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2016 10:56:22 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon, and I was disappointed. It was my first Lear, and I was tired, but I have to say I kept looking at my watch and thinking about dinner. I'm a big fan of the RSC, and I do really like Sher, but I was bored a lot of the time, and found Sher the least interesting of the people on stage. I agree with the point above that his delivery was really similar to his Falstaff - I've never thought that before about Sher, and I loved his Falstaff, but I was bored with him yesterday. The people who held my interest were David Troughton, Paapa Essidou, and Nia Gwynne. For the storm, maybe I needed to be further away, but we were in the front at the very side, so when the tarpaulin went up it partially obscured the view and was partially just a bloke kneeling in front of us flapping a tarpaulin about.
I was also really aware of how much of the action was downstage - we've sat at the front side quite a few times and never struggled to see before, but lots of scenes had things obscuring the view, e.g. the courtroom scene or the bit when Lear meets Cordelia again and is sat in that big chair - if everything shifted upstage a couple of feet we'd have been able to see faces and who was talking a lot better.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 25, 2016 11:45:05 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon, and I was disappointed. It was my first Lear, and I was tired, but I have to say I kept looking at my watch and thinking about dinner. I'm a big fan of the RSC, and I do really like Sher, but I was bored a lot of the time, and found Sher the least interesting of the people on stage. I agree with the point above that his delivery was really similar to his Falstaff - I've never thought that before about Sher, and I loved his Falstaff, but I was bored with him yesterday. The people who held my interest were David Troughton, Paapa Essidou, and Nia Gwynne. For the storm, maybe I needed to be further away, but we were in the front at the very side, so when the tarpaulin went up it partially obscured the view and was partially just a bloke kneeling in front of us flapping a tarpaulin about. I was also really aware of how much of the action was downstage - we've sat at the front side quite a few times and never struggled to see before, but lots of scenes had things obscuring the view, e.g. the courtroom scene or the bit when Lear meets Cordelia again and is sat in that big chair - if everything shifted upstage a couple of feet we'd have been able to see faces and who was talking a lot better. I guess he's staged it with the Barbican proscenium stage in mind.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Sept 25, 2016 12:05:12 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon as well, and have to agree with Elanor. I have always found Lear to be a very boring, bloated and aimless play, especially compared with Shakespeare's other epic tragedies. However, I expected more from Sher. I also really enjoyed his Falstaff, but found his Lear to be totally uninteresting, and his deliveries were all very choppy and drawn out. I wouldn't be surprised if his slow delivery were responsible for pushing the show past the 3-hour mark (I'm exaggerating a bit, of course, but still). I also found the production to be pretty fairly uninspired. Not BAD, necessarily, but uninteresting. In defense of both Doran and Sher, I will say that I've seen 5 or 6 versions of King Lear now, and I've yet to see an interpretation (of either the role or the play) that I have found interesting. So in that sense, Doran and Sher were right on the mark.
The inconsistent design bothered me. What on earth was the story behind those bizarre glass boxes? Particularly the one at the beginning of the 2nd half. It worked fine in and of itself, but it felt like something out of a sci-fi movie. Totally and completely out of place in the context of the rest of the production.
I went with my university class, and almost all of my fellow theatre students were bored to tears as well. Suddenly I don't feel so alone in my dislike for King Lear as a play.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2016 12:10:06 GMT
To me, they just seemed to be going through the motions. Almost as though, we've got to put on King Lear because we're doing all of them, but we don't have any great ideas so let's just get through it. There wasn't much WRONG with it, it was just... nothing exciting.
The boxes were odd. There's a box in Cymbeline too. I understand the practicality of the big box for the eye gouging scene, but it was a bit pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2016 12:12:16 GMT
The best part of the day was the Unwrapped in the morning - they grabbed a girl out of the audience to play Regan because the actress (who REALLY reminded me of Samantha Bond by the way) wasn't very well. I hope the girl was a drama student because she was excellent.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Sept 25, 2016 12:56:09 GMT
Interesting to confirm that the Regan actress wasn't feeling well. Did you notice she wasn't present during the curtain call yesterday afternoon?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2016 13:34:03 GMT
Interesting to confirm that the Regan actress wasn't feeling well. Did you notice she wasn't present during the curtain call yesterday afternoon? No, I didn't! Apparently she has a bad chest infection and wanted to do the show but couldn't manage the unwrapped as well.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Sept 25, 2016 18:44:26 GMT
Oh well am sorry to hear some negative comments! I stand by my more positive view. Bit puzzled by the comments on the running time, it is King Lear, its a long play, ive seem much longer productions believe me. Will be interesting to see comments when it goes to London.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2016 7:46:12 GMT
I've seen much longer plays too, but they don't always feel so long. I saw Two Noble Kinsmen the same day and they're about the same length before the interval, but TNK's first half flew by.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 26, 2016 20:25:51 GMT
Ashamed to admit I didn't know about the death of Queen Lear and funeral possibility idea. Marvellous. Why not do this I wonder though I have never seen a production with a suggestion of this. I suppose we have to run with what we think Willy has actually written for us. What I'm waiting for is the production that makes it clear what they are fighting for..a kingdom. There is a suggestion of 'gorgeous ' clothes but I've never seen a really lavish, wealthy kingdom and why wouldn't the contemporary audience have thought of ancient Britain as wealthy and comparable to France and Burgundy in ostentation? I've seen plenty of old fur, wooden tables and rough stuff but I think there should be a real contrast between the wealth of the court, the out and out extravagance of it and the poverty of the beggars. Isn't it all about greed and wanting more, more expressed love, more than you need including promiscuity with the two women both wanting the same man?
Love reading this thread as so much gets thrown up..not literally though I trust. Note: this show's eye job far too tame.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Sept 26, 2016 21:28:32 GMT
Rather like the idea of Mrs Lear and since you often get 'additions' from directors am rather surprised that this doesn't get done more, or at least not when i've seen it. Interesting point Lynette, i've always assumed it's a power strugglle, a third starts out okay and then a half and I assume if Edmund hadn't provided another reason for their warring that Regan and Goneril would have come to blows over the country pretty quickly but yes it is often a country apparently full of bits of fur clothing and wooden tables. The McKellen one was fairly opulent from what I remember but I've never really thought of a huge contrast between the court and everyone else.
No squishing eye ball? Poor show, I faint at the blood but am always found a good eye scene goes down rather well.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 27, 2016 5:47:00 GMT
Ashamed to admit I didn't know about the death of Queen Lear and funeral possibility idea. Marvellous. Why not do this I wonder though I have never seen a production with a suggestion of this. I suppose we have to run with what we think Willy has actually written for us. What I'm waiting for is the production that makes it clear what they are fighting for..a kingdom. There is a suggestion of 'gorgeous ' clothes but I've never seen a really lavish, wealthy kingdom and why wouldn't the contemporary audience have thought of ancient Britain as wealthy and comparable to France and Burgundy in ostentation? I've seen plenty of old fur, wooden tables and rough stuff but I think there should be a real contrast between the wealth of the court, the out and out extravagance of it and the poverty of the beggars. Isn't it all about greed and wanting more, more expressed love, more than you need including promiscuity with the two women both wanting the same man? Love reading this thread as so much gets thrown up..not literally though I trust. Note: this show's eye job far too tame. The best casting out of an eye was in the Rupert Goold/Pete Postlethwaite one - once you saw it was going to take place in the banal surroundings of a garden shed with all the tools hanging up it made you queasy from the start, then when it happened one of his eyes was actually sucked out by one of the daughters who then walked across the stage and spat it out into a water tank and all the audience went "Euuugh !".
|
|