578 posts
|
Post by michalnowicki on Jan 3, 2018 14:03:17 GMT
Please note Snciole did not buy a programme because Five Effing Pounds Out of curiosity, what price would be acceptable for the programme?
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jan 3, 2018 14:21:21 GMT
Please note Snciole did not buy a programme because Five Effing Pounds Out of curiosity, what price would be acceptable for the programme? I think £4 is my upper limit for a programme, unless it is some big ol' souvenir job. Breakfast at Tiffany's were charging £8 so the NT aren't the most unreasonable but I've bought enough NT programmes to know I will barely look at them once the curtain goes up.
|
|
578 posts
|
Post by michalnowicki on Jan 3, 2018 14:48:34 GMT
Ah, good to know. I think that NT programmes (from what I've seen) are of really good quality, compared to the silly advert-filled programmes ATG sells in Edinburgh.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2018 16:11:40 GMT
Ah, good to know. I think that NT programmes (from what I've seen) are of really good quality, compared to the silly advert-filled programmes ATG sells in Edinburgh. I agree- the NT ones have far better content- usually what 2-3 essays, along with cast info. Whereas the ATG types have mostly adverts. So I don't begrudge the NT ones. (Donmar are similar if memory serves and also £5 but I haven't been there in nearly 2 years so I could be wrong).
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jan 3, 2018 17:00:09 GMT
Re the story choices of Follies, they're down to James Goldman, not Sondheim and, of course, Goldman has been heavily criticized for some of those choices. Personally I think his book is excellent and my big takeaway from Dominic Cooke's show was its reinforcement of that opinion.
One cannot criticize it for the road it didn't take - so to speak. It tells the story Goldman and Sondheim wanted to tell. It's about the core quartet - there are no other stories. The most fully fleshed other character, Carlotta, gives us her entire life in one song. One may not always empathise with Buddy and Sally and Phyllis and Ben but they are substantial creations, full of nuance and hidden depths, revealed only in stages as they come apart at the seams. And then there's Goldman's great masterstroke, the younger selves weaving through every scene and showing us - not telling us - exactly who these people were and are.
I find Goldman's work in Follies rich and insightful. I find new things in it every time I see it or listen to a cast recording. Of course Sondheim is the great genius and his score is sublime. But at least some of the credit for that goes to Goldman whose book provided such an inspiration for that genius.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2018 17:15:19 GMT
Re the story choices of Follies, they're down to James Goldman, not Sondheim and, of course, Goldman has been heavily criticized for some of those choices. Personally I think his book is excellent and my big takeaway from Dominic Cooke's show was its reinforcement of that opinion. One cannot criticize it for the road it didn't take - so to speak. It tells the story Goldman and Sondheim wanted to tell. It's about the core quartet - there are no other stories. The most fully fleshed other character, Carlotta, gives us her entire life in one song. One may not always empathise with Buddy and Sally and Phyllis and Ben but they are substantial creations, full of nuance and hidden depths, revealed only in stages as they come apart at the seams. And then there's Goldman's great masterstroke, the younger selves weaving through every scene and showing us - not telling us - exactly who these people were and are. I find Goldman's work in Follies rich and insightful. I find new things in it every time I see it or listen to a cast recording. Of course Sondheim is the great genius and his score is sublime. But at least some of the credit for that goes to Goldman whose book provided such an inspiration for that genius. I'll agree- and disagree. I find what is there equally interesting/insightful. But I disagree that we can't think about the 'road not taken' in a play. If they other characters exist in the world, then equally one can find them more/less interesting than the central characters- especially in an ensemble piece. For example, to take 'The Ferryman' another I was more 'meh' about than others, personally I would have loved a play focusing on some of the characters with less 'air time'- that's an equally valid reading as 'what is on stage is perfection' (because firstly I'd contest anything is actually perfect/above being improved). (also if it was directed at me I didn't mention there being anything less than 'substantial' about the main characters I very much liked the execution of their story even if I'm not enamored with the piece as a whole)
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jan 3, 2018 17:28:40 GMT
The only thing directed your way, Em, was the road it didn't take part - and I guess we continue to disagree on that. I don't believe one can criticize Follies or The Ferryman or anything else for not being what one wants it to be. It is what the authors wanted it to be. Judge it on that basis and not on the fact that it isn't something else.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2018 17:38:08 GMT
The only thing directed your way, Em, was the road it didn't take part - and I guess we continue to disagree on that. I don't believe one can criticize Follies or The Ferryman or anything else for not being what one wants it to be. It is what the authors wanted it to be. Judge it on that basis and not on the fact that it isn't something else. Fair enough- I wasn't sure what was and wasn't in answer to my post. I'll confess I don't quite understand your approach/reading- and perhaps it's a gendered/generational/background or who knows what thing, but in either consuming or later on 'interorgatting' work as either a reviewer or whatever, I've always instinctively thought of the 'what ifs' and the idea of 'author as God' I think has somewhat died out of fashion (thankfully) so that we can have multiple interpretations of the same work- including considering the 'what ifs' Indeed the 'roads not taken' are what lead us to spin off works (in TV and film) and alternative interpretations (in literature). For the latter think '50 Shades' to 'Twighlight' or for the more high-brow (if such a thing exists) Wide Sargasso Sea. All of which come from another author thinking 'Ah but what if..." Likewise it's not my instictive knowledge base, but somewhere along the line numerous comic book authors have looked at a narrative and said 'Actually I'm more interested in x character not the main one' and made stories that tell things from their point of view. I guess what I'm saying is in discussions around works I've always, instinctively looked at the 'what ifs' and I know others do too. Others may not. But I would strongly argue against your idea that there's a 'right' and 'wrong' way to read a text of any kind.
|
|
4,588 posts
|
Follies
Jan 3, 2018 17:39:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by Someone in a tree on Jan 3, 2018 17:39:52 GMT
Re the story choices of Follies, they're down to James Goldman, not Sondheim and, of course, Goldman has been heavily criticized for some of those choices. Personally I think his book is excellent and my big takeaway from Dominic Cooke's show was its reinforcement of that opinion. One cannot criticize it for the road it didn't take - so to speak. It tells the story Goldman and Sondheim wanted to tell. It's about the core quartet - there are no other stories. The most fully fleshed other character, Carlotta, gives us her entire life in one song. One may not always empathise with Buddy and Sally and Phyllis and Ben but they are substantial creations, full of nuance and hidden depths, revealed only in stages as they come apart at the seams. And then there's Goldman's great masterstroke, the younger selves weaving through every scene and showing us - not telling us - exactly who these people were and are. I find Goldman's work in Follies rich and insightful. I find new things in it every time I see it or listen to a cast recording. Of course Sondheim is the great genius and his score is sublime. But at least some of the credit for that goes to Goldman whose book provided such an inspiration for that genius. I agree but I found all those lovely nuances just got lost on such a vast modern stage ... I wish it was staged in an old playhouse, Wilton’s or quirky studio space ...
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jan 3, 2018 18:02:53 GMT
I’m very much on board with people creatively deconstructing existing works but agree with mallardo, in this instance, that criticism serves a purpose when it is based on what is rather than what isn’t. Copyright, of course, holds back anyone from doing this with modern works to a degree but a response to Follies would be perfectly possible if someone wanted to create that as well as the original.
The show that I wanted to get my hands on last year was Jubilee, as I can see ways to make a flawed adaptation better. Not to denigrate Chris Goode’s work on it because it is what he wants (and he may still change it in ways that go much against my hopes as well). Should I complain if he does that? I don’t think so, as he expects wants to tell a certain story in a particular way (as do Sondheim and Goldman for Follies), but I could justifiably complain that nobody else has adapted it a different way over the last few decades.
With Follies I found that time has changed it, for me, anyway. I loved the pastiches but didn’t feel for central relationships when I came across it in my twenties/thirties. Now that I’m a quarter of a century older the script has revealed itself to me more and I love the totality of it. One point still niggles though - why does the rich, privileged man get the last song? Sally, I could understand as, for me, she is the catalyst for the evening. But Ben? Maybe his privilege makes bim the last to break, I suppose, but that’s the only justification I can fathom.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2018 18:38:09 GMT
I spied a tweet earlier that hinted that there may be a cast recording on the way for this production. Here's hoping.
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Jan 3, 2018 18:45:49 GMT
and with the cut bolero, please.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jan 3, 2018 19:52:46 GMT
Re Ben getting the last number I assume it's because he is revealed (contrary to appearances) to be the most fragile of the four, the one who completely breaks down. What could follow Live, Laugh, Love? It's the natural conclusion to the show.
And, Emi, I think we're a bit at cross purposes. I'm not at all suggesting that plays or musicals cannot be interpreted in different ways. But, as CP says, criticism must be based on what is, not on what one wishes it to be.
|
|
|
Post by raiseitup on Jan 3, 2018 22:47:16 GMT
Another suggestion of a cast recording from a Sondheim biographer
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2018 23:33:22 GMT
brilliant!
|
|
1,016 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jan 4, 2018 0:02:11 GMT
In the pic, is that Weisman standing looking out over the audience as they leave his dilapidated theatre? It's a brilliant touch if so, I just don't think it happened when I saw the show...
|
|
1,904 posts
|
Follies
Jan 4, 2018 0:43:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by sf on Jan 4, 2018 0:43:11 GMT
In the pic, is that Weisman standing looking out over the audience as they leave his dilapidated theatre? It's a brilliant touch if so, I just don't think it happened when I saw the show... I saw two earlier performances (and was there tonight), and it didn't happen at either of them. He appeared in the doorway at the back of the stage at the very end of the final scene, but that's all.
|
|
515 posts
|
Post by callum on Jan 4, 2018 0:54:41 GMT
Oh no, definitely didn't happen happened at either of my performances. Perhaps because it is the final 'time'.
|
|
4,402 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Jan 4, 2018 1:09:58 GMT
From what I’ve heard, they’re in the studio at the end of the week recording!
|
|
885 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Jan 4, 2018 1:47:33 GMT
they're recording Friday and Saturday
was there tonight and it was beyond extraordinary ---- no props to the nitwit in front of me who chose Dame Josephine Barstow's shimmering opening of One More Kiss to get her sweets out and start chomping away. Imelda totally transformed from what she did on press night to tonight -- quite quite amazing. Everyone else on fire as one might expect, not least the wonderful Peter Forbes.
|
|
617 posts
|
Follies
Jan 4, 2018 8:06:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by loureviews on Jan 4, 2018 8:06:31 GMT
Great news about a recording. Pity there will be no DVD though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 9:29:36 GMT
I wonder if we'll be able to hear the cast on the recording...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 10:18:59 GMT
I do hope it's true - how wonderful it would be to have Quast, Dee & Bennett's performances preserved!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 10:54:52 GMT
Re Ben getting the last number I assume it's because he is revealed (contrary to appearances) to be the most fragile of the four, the one who completely breaks down. What could follow Live, Laugh, Love? It's the natural conclusion to the show. And, Emi, I think we're a bit at cross purposes. I'm not at all suggesting that plays or musicals cannot be interpreted in different ways. But, as CP says, criticism must be based on what is, not on what one wishes it to be. Really? Surely anyone can have whatever response to a piece of work that arises for them; if you think some of the minor characters are more interesting than the major ones and wish the story had gone in that direction, that seems as legitimate a response as any other. I might be misunderstanding what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 10:59:44 GMT
Re Ben getting the last number I assume it's because he is revealed (contrary to appearances) to be the most fragile of the four, the one who completely breaks down. What could follow Live, Laugh, Love? It's the natural conclusion to the show. And, Emi, I think we're a bit at cross purposes. I'm not at all suggesting that plays or musicals cannot be interpreted in different ways. But, as CP says, criticism must be based on what is, not on what one wishes it to be. Really? Surely anyone can have whatever response to a piece of work that arises for them; if you think some of the minor characters are more interesting than the major ones and wish the story had gone in that direction, that seems as legitimate a response as any other. I might be misunderstanding what you're saying. I agree Abby. The more I think about Mallardo's comments the less I think I understand. Criticism is filled with comments such as 'I enjoyed x but it would have been improved with more of y' both in the 'professional' sense and the general chit chat sense. Indeed the whole thread on 'Hype' is basically a lot of us going 'If it had been more x I'd have liked it but it was y' But honestly (I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it) I genuinely do not understand how I am 'wrong' to say 'I found x characters more interesting than the main ones' to my mind that's the same as saying 'I wish we could have a film about Black Widow's point of view rather than Iron Man because I find her story more interesting' just because the writers didn't write that story in the film I saw, doens't mean I can't express a preference for that angle of the story.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jan 4, 2018 11:11:46 GMT
I was talking about critiquing or reviewing a show. I'm not trying to stifle speculative thought, speculate all you want about the show that might have been - but you can legitimately critique only what's there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 11:16:26 GMT
Is 'I think Gertrude is a far more interesting character than Claudius and wish there was more of her and less of him' a legitimate critique of Hamlet based on that definition? Genuine question, trying to understand what you mean!
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jan 4, 2018 11:42:02 GMT
It's about context, Abby. If the remark was made in the course of a review of a production of Hamlet, then no, I don't think it is legitimate. You're simply expressing a personal preference that has little to do with the production under review.
If the remark is made in the course of an analysis of the play or simply chat about the play then sure, speculate away.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 12:00:09 GMT
Yes but, firstly the comments you're talking about aren't in a 'review' in any formal sense they're in chit-chat on a forum, which to my mind is equivalent to a discussion, so your point doesn't hold?
And I'd contest that reviews can (and do!) include elements of 'what would improve this production' by their very nature. My comments were 'in my opinion what would improve the book of Follies was more on the other characters' which whether a new or old production is a valid commentary. It's an expression of my reaction to the piece, and critical assesment of what in my opinion does and doesn't work. I fail to see how this isn't 'allowed'
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Follies
Jan 4, 2018 12:04:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by poster J on Jan 4, 2018 12:04:44 GMT
I was talking about critiquing or reviewing a show. I'm not trying to stifle speculative thought, speculate all you want about the show that might have been - but you can legitimately critique only what's there. I don't agree with that at all - if you are reviewing or critiquing a show, then part of doing so is to say if you feel it is lacking something that should have been there, and that can include the prominence or otherwise of particular characters or plot points. Maybe you consider that critiquing what is already there, in which case I think we're talking about the same thing using different phraseology, but I cannot see how a production can be immune from being criticised for what isn't there as well as what is - each are equally relevant to the production.
|
|