350 posts
|
Post by cirque on Feb 28, 2017 16:13:21 GMT
i think a great Hamlet the actor/the production
the rest is silence
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 1, 2017 10:55:32 GMT
Reviews for this are all over the place. Several 5 stars, one two star and everything in between. I'm surprised by Billington's (3 stars, though his review reads like a 4 star). I think he's missed the point. And to call Scott's a "good" performance is a woeful understatement.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Mar 1, 2017 11:03:34 GMT
The two star really shocked me. Big range of reviews, but I'm sticking with my personal 5* - there were things that didn't work (looks like Angus Wright's not being, well quite right, is being noted) but the production overall has stuck with me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 11:16:25 GMT
I'm surprised Dominic Cavendish only gave it 3 stars, it's got a white man in the central role, which is widely regarded as one of the greatest classical roles ever. Maybe he marked it down because Scott isn't straight?
Which reviewer gave it 2 stars, out of interest?
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Mar 1, 2017 11:19:18 GMT
Ann Treneman, The Times ★★ "Ben Whishaw gave us the ultimate angsty teen, David Tennant excelled as the neurotic and Cumberbatch mastered the cerebral. In some ways, you do feel that Moriarty has at least sent Scott a memo here."
"At times, [Scott] is mesmerising but there are times when he seems to lose his impetus and we just don't care about him. Indeed, the entire production, at almost four hours long, is uneven and sometimes the stage seems almost becalmed, especially towards the end when the TV screen is used to record a fencing match (more Bob Dylan)."
"Icke has gathered a gathered a mini-reunion of stars from his past production. Juliet Stevenson (who was just on stage here in Mary Stuart) is Gertrude. Claudius is played by Angus Wright and Ophelia by Jessica Brown Findlay, both of whom starred in Oresteia."
"But it is only Scott and Stevenson who really work here and Wright, in particular, never seemed believable."
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 1, 2017 11:19:52 GMT
Ann Treneman in the Times.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Mar 1, 2017 11:20:30 GMT
I have to say that if one of my A level students had written something as lazy as 'we just didn't care about him' they would have been asked to rewrite.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Mar 1, 2017 11:22:36 GMT
'Time Out' and 'What's on Stage' gave 5* 'Evening Standard' 4*
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 1, 2017 11:26:09 GMT
The Stage and theatrecat.com (Libby Purves) also 5 stars. The split is curious; the broadsheets meh, everyone else raving.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 11:31:18 GMT
That almost certainly says more about what a broadsheet reviewer expects from a Hamlet than the production itself. I look forward to making up my own mind next week, but I'm not exactly worried that the likes of Billington and Cavendish have been rather underwhelmed.
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Mar 1, 2017 12:07:43 GMT
The Stage and theatrecat.com (Libby Purves) also 5 stars. The split is curious; the broadsheets meh, everyone else raving. The Theatrecat one isn't by Purves but by one of her 'underlings.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 12:50:15 GMT
I don't understand the need to criticise other peoples opinions and reviews
We aren't living in a communist regime
Critics at least get paid for offering their reviews as opposed to the people on this forum
I don't find it necessary to then further dissect their thoughts
For the director and actor the mixed reviews just means it's not going to be a Hamlet which goes down in history as any sort of definitive offering
I am sure this will displease fans of Andrew Scott
Who whilst being a good actor
Is rather affected in his manner and doesn't really have that many stage credits to his name
Actors like Nancy Carroll and Amanda Drew (2 random ones offhand) have demonstrated much more versatility and range on the live stage
Many of the reviews comment on the protracted duration of this version
If it does transfer the running time and early start will play heavily against any commercial success
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 12:52:57 GMT
The Stage and theatrecat.com (Libby Purves) also 5 stars. The split is curious; the broadsheets meh, everyone else raving. The Theatrecat one isn't by Purves but by one of her 'underlings. OT Polly I've just noticed your signature- A-plus Cabin Pressure reference.
Back on topic, to argue with our learned friend, I think it is worth talking about critics, as we can discuss how why and wherefore we agreed or disagreed.
This is one where I'm actually waiting to see it before reading reviews, because I want to go in with no preconceptions (other than my arse is going to be sore!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 12:57:06 GMT
I would add
That whilst better reviewed than the dismal Barbican offering
This has been much more poorly received than both the Kinnear and Tennant versions
Those who have given high ratings- WOS, Time Out (the Primarks of the theatre world) are generally younger or more sympathetic reviewers as a rule
One could argue that Cumberbatch and Scott just aren't in the same league as actors certainly where live performance is under scrutiny One could argue people are sick of the director constantly meddling with classic plays and mutilating them
Increasing the running time whilst taking away from the whole
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 13:03:05 GMT
The two star really shocked me. Big range of reviews, but I'm sticking with my personal 5* - there were things that didn't work (looks like Angus Wright's not being, well quite right, is being noted) but the production overall has stuck with me. Perhaps some people are just more generous than others In general and across all aspects of life And willing to see the good or positive more readily I for one find Angus wright a terrible actor His voice and face are always constipated and strained And (although I realise he can't help his stature) he seems clumsy and misplaced on the stage Like he is cluttering it up
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 1, 2017 13:40:48 GMT
AT says Cumberbatch was the 'cerebral' Hamlet, does she? Short memory then. SRB was the ultimate cerebral Hamlet of course. Cumbersome not so much, somewhat overwhelmed by the stage set.
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 1, 2017 13:52:34 GMT
I for one am neither particularly young nor particularly sympathetic (and Sherlock bores me), but I consider this an outstanding Hamlet. Just wasn't fond of the ending.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Mar 1, 2017 13:52:58 GMT
I don't understand the need to criticise other peoples opinions and reviews We aren't living in a communist regime We do so precisely because we aren't; a 'communist regime' requires a neutered press and cowed people, as does a fascist one, for either the press is 'an enemy of the people' and 'the people' only useful as an amorphous 'mob' without individual and varied opinions.
As for criticising critics - given that they are the ones touting their opinion they are the most necessary to challenge and dissect. Treneman, for example, is the prime example of someone given a voice to generate heat rather than light in the pursuit of page views. Knowing why Billington has his opinions is also necessary, for example, otherwise his views exist, without worth, in a sea of nothingness. The fact that they are paid should also lead them to expect being held up to a high standard, the same as any journalist should.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Mar 1, 2017 14:03:18 GMT
There appears to be, again, a bit of a disconnect between the 'dead tree press' and the online reviews (now joined by The Independent after its print demise). This happens at times, most famously at the Lyric Hammersmith 'Three Kingdoms', which created its own commentary on that fact.
It tends to be when a production does something unusual and deliberately divisive, that this occurs. I just knew that you were going to get complaints about verse speaking for this, as soon as the decision to work with naturalistic delivery that obscures the written rhythm became clear, similarly with staging elements that blur (deliberately) the clarity of action. It's as predictable as Letts giving Simon Stephens the worst review that he can muster.
In the end, no review is worth anything, however, they are just opinions and the only opinion that matters is the one of the person holding it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 14:06:06 GMT
Of course the critics are allowed their own opinions, but they're the ones that are going to go on record in the future for people looking back to study these productions, they should be holding themselves to a higher standard. Billington's apparent not-getting-it would be able to be examined in context with the other reviews and any archive recording, but Cavendish's "Elsi-snore" and Treneman's "just don't care" are going to be significantly less helpful in the long run. If I wanted pithy snootiness and apathy towards a play, I could come here and read everyone's opinions for free for heaven's sake.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 14:10:51 GMT
Of course the critics are allowed their own opinions, but they're the ones that are going to go on record in the future for people looking back to study these productions, they should be holding themselves to a higher standard. Billington's apparent not-getting-it would be able to be examined in context with the other reviews and any archive recording, but Cavendish's "Elsi-snore" and Treneman's "just don't care" are going to be significantly less helpful in the long run. If I wanted pithy snootiness and apathy towards a play, I could come here and read everyone's opinions for free for heaven's sake. As someone who uses reviews in research, Baemax puts it really well- reviews are useful for looking at past productions, placing them in context of their reception etc etc, but only when like Billington's writing- even when I don't agree with his reviews, reasoned analysis can be found. So even when he doesn't seem to get it, we can place it alongside similar critics and try and reason out a response to the production. All to say, if a critic gives us some 'meat' their review is useful to see/read/preserve just for a wider picture of a production. If it's just 'meh I didn't like it' well as said above we may as well read our opinions here or on twitter.
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 2, 2017 17:08:41 GMT
I wonder actually whether the ending is still evolving night to night at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised; it didn't seem quite right to me. Does what I said about it seem familiar to others who've already seen it? (please use spoiler brackets) Artsjournal.com had a good review on the watches - I have to say I didn't really pick up on that aspect. I'm female, from an unconventional family, so the 'loving father giving gift of watch to son' tradition - if it is - wasn't something that ever featured in our lives!
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 2, 2017 17:33:33 GMT
Thanks crowblack, that WAS interesting. He doesn't mention Hamlet trying to hand in his watch and discovering he doesn't have it. Luckily I'm seeing it again, so perhaps that will be clearer.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 4, 2017 23:39:05 GMT
I'm with Alexandra on this one. A brilliant Hamlet, a production that sets out the store for a Hamlet of today. Yes, the modern dress, yes, video gizmos used to great effect here, wow the close up on Claudius, and some stuff I don't think I've ever seen before in any production ( she rushes to the text to try to find lines she has not heard before...) but not just all that. There was something new and fresh here, a theatricality I really loved. I've always thought that the speeches of instruction to the actors are Shakespeare's real voice but in this prod we are drawn into the action even more, invited in and shown ourselves.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 4, 2017 23:41:04 GMT
Ps why the problem with the watches? You don't need one when you are dead and we know how long a body takes to rot because the grave digger tells us. Time out of joint..
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 4, 2017 23:46:40 GMT
Pps aha! The alternative scene to Act 4 Sc 6 is in this prod, the one where Horatio tells Gertrude Hamlet is back. In Q1 but I've not seen it before. Made good sense here.
|
|
|
Post by tlt on Mar 5, 2017 0:41:40 GMT
Ps why the problem with the watches? You don't need one when you are dead and we know how long a body takes to rot because the grave digger tells us. Time out of joint.. My take on it was that by the end it became a video editor's Hamlet which fits with the camera work and video technology - Marcellus seemed like the hired hand for that! So the watch, as well as highlighting the rivalry between Laertes and Hamlet where both have lost, feels like a deliberate continuity gaffe as Hamlet enters the court's wedding party Valhalla. Which itself is like a rewind to the beginning. This also makes sense of the problematic Hamlet/Claudius scene, it seems to me. Of course this could just be me soliloquizing and if anyone has a better theory, I'd love to know it! trafficlighttheatregoer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/review-hamlet.html?m=1
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 5, 2017 12:23:37 GMT
Interesting. Is the problematic Claudius /Hamlet scene the one where C is praying and H could kill him? If so I was intrigued by this. But of course Shakespeare challenges us anyway by having them so close that H could kill him with a sword or dagger. I think this director just ..just...took it further. They are perhaps in a very very out there fashion together but not in the same plane . A bit sci fi. Makes our Willie way ahead of the game.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Mar 5, 2017 14:26:08 GMT
Poor Billington in particular seemed flummoxed by the Hamlet/Claudius scene (Clapp, as his Sunday sibling giving it five stars today, by the way). They are both in the same space physically and not in the same space physically (same with mentally), a deliberate ambiguity so that different possibilities exist. Some critics cope badly with that sort of thing, I took at as being akin to F Scott Fitzgerald's dictum of being able to hold two opposing ideas at the same time and still being able to function (be or not be, as it were).
|
|
|
Post by tlt on Mar 5, 2017 18:46:58 GMT
Poor Billington in particular seemed flummoxed by the Hamlet/Claudius scene (Clapp, as his Sunday sibling giving it five stars today, by the way). They are both in the same space physically and not in the same space physically (same with mentally), a deliberate ambiguity so that different possibilities exist. Some critics cope badly with that sort of thing, I took at as being akin to F Scott Fitzgerald's dictum of being able to hold two opposing ideas at the same time and still being able to function (be or not be, as it were). Well, I feel Michael Billington's comment about the Young Vic's A Midsummer Night's Dream is apt about this version of Hamlet as well - it was worth doing but you wouldn't want it done every time. I still think video editing makes sense of the Claudio/Hamlet encounter. Although for me too, the Claudius/Hamlet scene could equally be Hamlet's mental state of course. Hi, Yes, that's it. Oor Willie was ahead of the game in so many things. I agree totally about the scifi, especially at the end. I nearly put that exact thing in my review! Especially with the end news reel with a photo of the Crown Prince Hamlet, it felt as if there had been a twilight zone coup with everyone trapped in a video rewind!!
|
|