|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2016 19:56:37 GMT
Ohhh yes, it's an adaptation of Platonov but even as an adaptation it's existed for donkey's years.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Dec 4, 2016 19:56:37 GMT
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 4, 2016 21:26:49 GMT
Going on Friday.
Asked because I thought Hampstead was like the Royal Court and Bush and only presented new writing?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2016 21:51:36 GMT
They largely do seem to, but even the Royal Court will bust out a Seagull or a Road when they feel like it, sooo...
|
|
848 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Dec 4, 2016 21:54:32 GMT
It seems to be a once a year treat - Hapgood last year, for example.
|
|
885 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Dec 4, 2016 23:34:51 GMT
If this is as good as their HAPGOOD, we are in for a treat - one of the best productions of 2015!
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 5, 2016 7:48:06 GMT
Going on Friday. Asked because I thought Hampstead was like the Royal Court and Bush and only presented new writing? Under Ed Hall they have pushed the boundaries on that to breaking point - very wisely in my view to attract a more diverse audience and make more money. For example they staged an adaptation of a Chekov short story as a "new" play, and this one is a revival of a 1984 adaptation of Platonov. Mr Foote's Other Leg was also technically a new play, but not really. The Royal Court policy on new plays only is quite recent, in its heyday they still staged classical revivals.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Dec 5, 2016 9:55:35 GMT
The Royal Court policy on new plays only is quite recent, in its heyday they still staged classical revivals. Road is revived, thirty years on, at the Royal Court this summer. Also, they often do UK premieres of plays premiered elsewhere. And also London premieres of plays seen elsewhere in the UK. And some of the classical plays staged in the early years of the English Stage Company were done for financial reasons. At the Court, the heyday is always today, or perhaps tomorrow, but should never be yesterday.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 5, 2016 13:53:25 GMT
For a brief moment got very excited that I was going on the same night at Lynette and that if we both wore our badges I might track her down and just stand in awe of her Lynetteness (i'm not sure what that would look like exactly) and then realised i'm going on the 19th. Do'h. On well, there's Geoffrey to look at I guess. You mean you're not excited I'll be there on the 19th too ? Really? Possibly more daunted, I think I might be star struck with Lynette . Are you identifiable with a badge. I'll be the one wearing an excessive amount of clothing against the cold but am back row circle so won't be easily spottable, now if I get bored I can scan the audience wondering who you are.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 5, 2016 14:47:38 GMT
The Royal Court policy on new plays only is quite recent, in its heyday they still staged classical revivals. Road is revived, thirty years on, at the Royal Court this summer. Also, they often do UK premieres of plays premiered elsewhere. And also London premieres of plays seen elsewhere in the UK. And some of the classical plays staged in the early years of the English Stage Company were done for financial reasons. At the Court, the heyday is always today, or perhaps tomorrow, but should never be yesterday. Their heyday was the decade which started when the English Stage Company under George Devine staged Look Back In Anger in 1956. They have never been as relevant since.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 5, 2016 14:49:38 GMT
You mean you're not excited I'll be there on the 19th too ? Really? Possibly more daunted, I think I might be star struck with Lynette . Are you identifiable with a badge. I'll be the one wearing an excessive amount of clothing against the cold but am back row circle so won't be easily spottable, now if I get bored I can scan the audience wondering who you are. I only ever sit in the expensive stalls seats so should be easily visible from the gods. One time at the Silk Street Theatre I occupied the very same centre-stalls seat as Lynette but at the performance immediately before her - two stern critics in a row for the benighted actors.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Dec 5, 2016 16:08:30 GMT
.
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 5, 2016 16:58:37 GMT
😉
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 5, 2016 17:05:14 GMT
Really? Possibly more daunted, I think I might be star struck with Lynette . Are you identifiable with a badge. I'll be the one wearing an excessive amount of clothing against the cold but am back row circle so won't be easily spottable, now if I get bored I can scan the audience wondering who you are. I only ever sit in the expensive stalls seats so should be easily visible from the gods. One time at the Silk Street Theatre I occupied the very same centre-stalls seat as Lynette but at the performance immediately before her - two stern critics in a row for the benighted actors. I will be on the look out for a possible Jan Brock, the evening is already sounding more interesting.
Quality control is very important!
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 18, 2016 16:29:51 GMT
Just read Jane Edwards's review in Times Culture section. I couldn't agree with her less! I saw the Planonov at the National and I think it was by far the better adaptation of this early piece. She has Hampstead as better. What Chekhov left is anyone's guess but it had some resonance at the NT. Hampstead has a different ending which doesn't work and a set and lighting that do not convey what the script is saying, hot beautiful night etc..and old estate. Most of the cast seem unsure what they are playing, comedy or tragedy and so it falls flat with the farce and goes too deep with the tragic moments though you can't help but think that the tragic moments are what interested Chekhov more. It drags especially in the first half, falling into the trap of conveying tediousness tediously. Geoffrey Streitfeild is an actor I usually admire but here he seems to be lost and not in a good way. He isn't presented as sexy enough, clever enough or funny enough. Even physically he is awkward. I was very disappointed. Luke warm reception at the end. Maybe the death of Howard Davies affected this production although Jonathan Kent is a brilliant director and I'm surprised he didn't pull this together.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 18, 2016 17:15:21 GMT
Just read Jane Edwards's review in Times Culture section. I couldn't agree with her less! I saw the Planonov at the National and I think it was by far the better adaptation of this early piece. She has Hampstead as better. What Chekhov left is anyone's guess but it had some resonance at the NT. Hampstead has a different ending which doesn't work and a set and lighting that do not convey what the script is saying, hot beautiful night etc..and old estate. Most of the cast seem unsure what they are playing, comedy or tragedy and so it falls flat with the farce and goes too deep with the tragic moments though you can't help but think that the tragic moments are what interested Chekhov more. It drags especially in the first half, falling into the trap of conveying tediousness tediously. Geoffrey Streitfeild is an actor I usually admire but here he seems to be lost and not in a good way. He isn't presented as sexy enough, clever enough or funny enough. Even physically he is awkward. I was very disappointed. Luke warm reception at the end. Maybe the death of Howard Davies affected this production although Jonathan Kent is a brilliant director and I'm surprised he didn't pull this together. Well I guess I hope that i'm more of Jane Edward's view than yours Lynette though frankly your opinion probably carries more weight. I really enjoyed the NT Platonov so seeing so soon again was always a bit of a gamble and was largely based on Geoffrey Streitfeild's involvement so i'll hope it had an off night and lower my expectations accordingly. 'Conveying tediousness tediously', that's a great bad quote.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 18, 2016 18:45:09 GMT
Just read Jane Edwards's review in Times Culture section. I couldn't agree with her less! I saw the Planonov at the National and I think it was by far the better adaptation of this early piece. She has Hampstead as better. What Chekhov left is anyone's guess but it had some resonance at the NT. Hampstead has a different ending which doesn't work and a set and lighting that do not convey what the script is saying, hot beautiful night etc..and old estate. Most of the cast seem unsure what they are playing, comedy or tragedy and so it falls flat with the farce and goes too deep with the tragic moments though you can't help but think that the tragic moments are what interested Chekhov more. It drags especially in the first half, falling into the trap of conveying tediousness tediously. Geoffrey Streitfeild is an actor I usually admire but here he seems to be lost and not in a good way. He isn't presented as sexy enough, clever enough or funny enough. Even physically he is awkward. I was very disappointed. Luke warm reception at the end. Maybe the death of Howard Davies affected this production although Jonathan Kent is a brilliant director and I'm surprised he didn't pull this together. Well I guess I hope that i'm more of Jane Edward's view than yours Lynette though frankly your opinion probably carries more weight. I really enjoyed the NT Platonov so seeing so soon again was always a bit of a gamble and was largely based on Geoffrey Streitfeild's involvement so i'll hope it had an off night and lower my expectations accordingly. 'Conveying tediousness tediously', that's a great bad quote. Don't worry. The Michael Frayn text is way better than Sir David Hare's tin-eared effort. Interestingly enough the "Chekovian" first half is mostly Frayn whereas the farcical second half is mostly Chekov. See you tomorrow !!
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 18, 2016 19:49:26 GMT
O I'm sorry I posted this before you guys had seen it. I forgot you were seeing it this week. Should have tried to post together. I hope I haven't spoilt anything for you. Yes, Jan I did think there were moments when Frayn's script seemed sharper than Hare's but overall I preferred the NT version.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Dec 18, 2016 19:58:15 GMT
Just read Jane Edwards's review in Times Culture section. I couldn't agree with her less! I saw the Planonov at the National and I think it was by far the better adaptation of this early piece. She has Hampstead as better. What Chekhov left is anyone's guess but it had some resonance at the NT. Hampstead has a different ending which doesn't work and a set and lighting that do not convey what the script is saying, hot beautiful night etc..and old estate. Most of the cast seem unsure what they are playing, comedy or tragedy and so it falls flat with the farce and goes too deep with the tragic moments though you can't help but think that the tragic moments are what interested Chekhov more. It drags especially in the first half, falling into the trap of conveying tediousness tediously. Geoffrey Streitfeild is an actor I usually admire but here he seems to be lost and not in a good way. He isn't presented as sexy enough, clever enough or funny enough. Even physically he is awkward. I was very disappointed. Luke warm reception at the end. Maybe the death of Howard Davies affected this production although Jonathan Kent is a brilliant director and I'm surprised he didn't pull this together. Do you have a link to this article, lynette? Failed to find it online somehow.. Haven't seen Hampstead version to compare yet but it's always interesting to observe.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 18, 2016 22:13:24 GMT
Don't worry. The Michael Frayn text is way better than Sir David Hare's tin-eared effort. Interestingly enough the "Chekovian" first half is mostly Frayn whereas the farcical second half is mostly Chekov. See you tomorrow !! I will be on the look out for an informed looking person heading towards the stalls, I apologise to everyone else in advance if I stare at you wondering if you're Jan Brock.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 18, 2016 22:18:22 GMT
O I'm sorry I posted this before you guys had seen it. I forgot you were seeing it this week. Should have tried to post together. I hope I haven't spoilt anything for you. Yes, Jan I did think there were moments when Frayn's script seemed sharper than Hare's but overall I preferred the NT version. Don't worry, it's not spoilt it for me, I'm going to be spending the whole thing trying to work out just how it was different to the NT one anyway, I can't help doing that when I've seen something before and liked it.
|
|
37 posts
|
Post by johng on Dec 18, 2016 23:03:23 GMT
Saw this last week, and thought it was much inferior to the Chichester version. The first half is 20 minutes shorter than the Hare version but felt much longer. Some great actors in this production but when Geoffrey Streatfeild and Jo Herbert seem at a loss as to how to make the play work, not much is going well. Every character seemed inferior to the Hare version. It felt they were struggling to fit the tragic and farcical elements together, and the transition between the two was jarring, something that never happened in Chichester.
Possible I simply prefer Hare to Frayn, as in this case the source material is so unfinished that it will have more the stamp of the adaptor than the author.
|
|
3,471 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 19, 2016 4:47:07 GMT
Maybe it's just as well if you are seeing this, not to have seen the CFT/NT version? I regret missing it but at least I will have nothing with which to compare this one!
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 19, 2016 14:12:01 GMT
Just read Jane Edwards's review in Times Culture section. I couldn't agree with her less! I saw the Planonov at the National and I think it was by far the better adaptation of this early piece. She has Hampstead as better. What Chekhov left is anyone's guess but it had some resonance at the NT. Hampstead has a different ending which doesn't work and a set and lighting that do not convey what the script is saying, hot beautiful night etc..and old estate. Most of the cast seem unsure what they are playing, comedy or tragedy and so it falls flat with the farce and goes too deep with the tragic moments though you can't help but think that the tragic moments are what interested Chekhov more. It drags especially in the first half, falling into the trap of conveying tediousness tediously. Geoffrey Streitfeild is an actor I usually admire but here he seems to be lost and not in a good way. He isn't presented as sexy enough, clever enough or funny enough. Even physically he is awkward. I was very disappointed. Luke warm reception at the end. Maybe the death of Howard Davies affected this production although Jonathan Kent is a brilliant director and I'm surprised he didn't pull this together. Do you have a link to this article, lynette? Failed to find it online somehow.. Haven't seen Hampstead version to compare yet but it's always interesting to observe. I'm sorry I don't have link. Paper in the recycling...
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 20, 2016 8:07:39 GMT
I have seen four different productions of this play (and three of them were directed by Jonathan Kent).
The 1984 McKellen version of the Michael Frayn text was a big hit at NT and transferred to Broadway but I thought it was no more than OK. The problem (to be repeated) was that there was an inconsistency of tone within the play with scenes veering uneasily between tragedy and comedy and farce. Later it emerged McKellen himself had had problems with this, he’d struggled in rehearsals and considered withdrawing and he claims it was not until the first preview with an audience “I realised it was a comedy” and he found a way to play it.
In 2001 I saw the Sir David Hare text in an Almedia production in an old railway shed at Kings Cross. The staging in such a large space was a bit distancing for the domestic scenes but obviously good for the train. The actor playing Platonov needs to have some sort of charisma so you can see what all the women see in him – Aidan Gillen in this production was quite good.
The 2016 NT production of the Sir David Hare text we have all seen. Now this production of the Frayn text.
To start, I think the Frayn text is much more consistent and coherent as a play. With 5-6 hours of source material to choose from it is significantly different from the Sir David Hare text although I think the latter is probably closer to the original. The Frayn version is also better written with none of the clunky Americanisms of the latter. (Frayn also speaks perfect Russian so worked directly with the original rather than via a literal translation).
The two main problem remain. Is it a tragedy or a farce or both ? Does Platonov convince ?
Jonathan Kent is not really the director to resolve these problems of tone, I rate him highly but he has never demonstrated much of a gift for comedy and the Frayn version tends towards that conclusion. At moments the ensemble work which was a feature of Howard Davies productions was visible but it is not clear how much input he had. Overall the direction here looked a bit vague.
On the other problem Geoffrey Streatfeild is a charisma-free zone as far as I am concerned, it is literally unbelievable that the women would see anything in him. He is by far the least effective of the four actors I’ve seen play the role.
Ultimately as a production I think the recent NT one was better.
But, overall, quite a good production and mercifully short given the desperately uncomfortable seats at Hampstead.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Dec 20, 2016 8:32:02 GMT
The 2016 NT production of the Sir David Hare text we have all seen. You mean the 2015 Chichester Festival Theatre production. I didn't see it, for one.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Dec 20, 2016 8:51:56 GMT
Well, for me Mr. Streatfeild is a bucketful of charisma per se, but if he's managed to make his Platonov unattractive (in a role where attractiveness is essential) I'll be very VERY much surprised! )
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 20, 2016 9:10:03 GMT
The 2016 NT production of the Sir David Hare text we have all seen. You mean the 2015 Chichester Festival Theatre production. True, my mistake, wrong to give NT any credit for it.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 20, 2016 9:17:35 GMT
Have to agree with Lynette, this left me pretty cold whilst I bounced out of the NT version. I so wanted to like it but it did seem rather lost, not sure what it was about and actors who are normally utterly reliable to be good didn't seem to be quite working. As a character I wasn't convinced that all these woman would be throwing themselves at Platonov, if anything having seen the NT's Ivanov he seemed to have more echoes of that. Can anyone better informed throw any light on the ending, I know that it was an unfinished play but is the ending unwritten, unclear, hence the different interpretations. I couldn't tell from this one if he was meant to be running to or from destruction.
Jan Brock I did enjoy staring at the front stalls wondering which was you, I assume you were none of the following people, audience members breaking part of the circle rail and trying to fix it in a very quiet scene, the man talking loudly with the usher re inaudibility, audience members talking loudly between and into scenes, the woman who gave me a mince pie?
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Dec 20, 2016 9:25:35 GMT
Jan Brock I did enjoy staring at the front stalls wondering which was you, I assume you were none of the following people, audience members breaking part of the circle rail and trying to fix it in a very quiet scene, the man talking loudly with the usher re inaudibility, audience members talking loudly between and into scenes, the woman who gave me a mince pie? The man with a Mittel European accent who was dressed as a badger?
|
|