1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 18, 2016 12:47:37 GMT
Henry VI does appear in the dream according to the text You'd only see that if Richard 3 is performed alongside Henry 6 because other than being a corpse Henry has little impact in the former Thanks. You are quite right. The Almeida production used a skeleton rather than a whole body so introducing the character would make recognition difficult without adding "hey, for those that don't recognise me, I'm the late King Henry". I'm not convinced this would work!
|
|
1,005 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 18, 2016 14:29:22 GMT
Pretty average really
This falls into the trap of "let's make this modern and have everyone in suits". Very uninspiring
The cuts and adjustments to the text feel odd and makes the pacing sluggish. I didn't realise or else forgotten the bishop of Ely had a monologue after Hastings death
The 3 hour running time feels unjustified
Still I enjoyed the performances from a few favourites like Scott Handy and James Garnon
|
|
1,005 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 18, 2016 18:08:38 GMT
So, whilst Ralph Fiennes demonstrates he can deliver shakespeare, make the audience laugh with a few disparaging comments and knowing looks, show the occasional moment ofmaneavolence, and as Ryan says show the cogs turning in Richards head, this Richard didn't engage with me
Gould could have thought out the text editing more because the lines flowed awkwardly at times. And the slow pacing is just hampered by such additions like the car park scene. The dream scene can go on a bit, but it has been done better than this
Also my audience neighbours got to enjoy my big sigh as the rape went on and on. The lady next to me had the same idea for the dream scene
|
|
330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on Jun 18, 2016 23:28:52 GMT
Obviously a lot of the people find Ralph Fiennes appealing - an auditorium full of standing ovations! I liked to listen and watch him, but as David has already said, he didn't get me - as he did in Man and Superman or even in The Masterbuilder. Vanessa Redgrave is awful! Loved James Garnon. Some other solid performances. Weakest ensemble performance of a Richard III I have seen so far. Although I was partly bored when Kevin Spacey was not on stage, the ensemble was excellent. Here I was deeply. looking for the acting highlights. Even the Jamie Lloyd version had a stronger ensemble than this. Talking about it, where The Jamie Lloyd version had too much of, this had not enough of. I like it simple but then the acting and few ideas have to be brilliant. Lloyd's drowning in the fish tank was great. in this it was a bit boring. It's not a total failure like Medea but this is terribly average and so expendable.
My highlight of the evening was Franco Nero coming to see Redgrave! And except for me, no one seemed to recognise him!
|
|
443 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Jun 19, 2016 9:19:13 GMT
Saw this yesterday. An overall enjoyable production but not overwhelming. I was impressed by Fiennes' Richard - all dry wit and sophistication. But I'm not sure how it will be remembered. I haven't seen the play before but have studied it and can remember different actors' interpretations whether because they are linked with animals (Sher's spider for instance) or because they were fairly distinctive (Henry Goodman's showman Richard for instance). A good ensemble - Buckingham was quietly impressive as Hastings. Vanessa Redgrave wasn't as wobbly as I thought from reading others' reviews but it seemed a weak interpretation of the character. I liked how she passed the doll on to Elizabeth to hint that she will turn out like Margaret perhaps. As for the production, it was postmodern I suppose in the way that it questioned fact and fiction. Loved the framing with the excavation of his body. Unintended or not, the glass floor covering the tomb looks very similar to the glass floor currently covering the grave in Leicester. Enjoyed the lighting and sound and thought it was an effective ending - despite the (I agree) clunky dream sequence.
|
|
43 posts
|
Post by sayers500 on Jun 21, 2016 0:12:13 GMT
This may have been discussed but in what time is this production set in? Bosworth Field clearly alludes to a period setting, which makes sense due to the flashback nature of the production, but the awful and blatant 'look how relevant Shakespeare is' approach by giving Hastings a mobile phone disrupts the whole concept of the piece. Also, the lighting design is incredibly ill-conceived for people in the circle. The glass paneled floor reflected the light directly up to the circle in a very inconvenient way. I've never seen Fiennes ever give a different performance but he does ruthless very well. However, overall it was a rather pleasant evening out.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 8:44:50 GMT
This may have been discussed but in what time is this production set in? Bosworth Field clearly alludes to a period setting, which makes sense due to the flashback nature of the production, but the awful and blatant 'look how relevant Shakespeare is' approach by giving Hastings a mobile phone disrupts the whole concept of the piece. Also, the lighting design is incredibly ill-conceived for people in the circle. The glass paneled floor reflected the light directly up to the circle in a very inconvenient way. I've never seen Fiennes ever give a different performance but he does ruthless very well.However, overall it was a rather pleasant evening out. I liked him in 'Maid In Manhattan' . . .
|
|
443 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Jun 21, 2016 9:22:46 GMT
Also, the lighting design is incredibly ill-conceived for people in the circle. The glass paneled floor reflected the light directly up to the circle in a very inconvenient way. I was sat at the back of the stalls and it wasn't until I was making my way out at the end that I noticed the big ring above the stage.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jun 21, 2016 18:56:04 GMT
Also, the lighting design is incredibly ill-conceived for people in the circle. The glass paneled floor reflected the light directly up to the circle in a very inconvenient way. I was sat at the back of the stalls and it wasn't until I was making my way out at the end that I noticed the big ring above the stage. Note to self, look up when entering theatre as sitting near back too. Is it important? Presumably not if goes unnoticed if you sit far back.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 21, 2016 22:47:20 GMT
I was sat at the back of the stalls and it wasn't until I was making my way out at the end that I noticed the big ring above the stage. Note to self, look up when entering theatre as sitting near back too. Is it important? Presumably not if goes unnoticed if you sit far back. It looks more like a giant cog, than a crown, when up close. Maybe it's meant to be a cog, in the big wheel of power? It's really not important to see it though. Nothing happens to it (or on it lighting wise even).
|
|
532 posts
|
Post by jek on Jun 23, 2016 7:34:59 GMT
My 16 year old son went to see this last night with his sixth form college, as part of his A Level drama studies. I was dreading him coming home thinking that he would have been bored, especially never having been to a Shakespeare performance before. Instead, while he said it was long, he was largely positive about the experience and very taken with Ralph Fiennes' performance (described by him as quite literally 'in your face'). Best of all, from my point of view, he has now agreed to watch one of my favourite films 'In Bruges' with me in order to see another Fiennes' performance!
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 23, 2016 10:04:35 GMT
If you didn't catch it yesterday, here is a link to Goold and Fiennes discussing the production on BBC Radio 4: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07gct4zQuite a funny 'What WE decided' moment at one point - or so it seemed to me - and some not surprising discover-the-evil-in-yourself stuff. For anyone who finds the production painful to sit through it may be some solace to learn that Fiennes is in pain too 'I've booked a massage for right after this interview.' Very glad to hear that jek's son wasn't turned off Shakespeare/theatre for life - that proximity really is a selling point. And 'In Bruges' - now that is a treat!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2016 23:35:13 GMT
Tweeted tonight by Baz...
Hard to know when and where this would transfer to. Isn't Finnes supposed to be taking The Master Builder to Broadway at some point as well?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 5:42:43 GMT
Don't know about WE transfer,but wouldn't be surprised by Broadway transfer
|
|
443 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Jun 24, 2016 17:34:31 GMT
Surprised by a West End transfer too. My first time seeing the play but I agree that it's not the best production. Also, the use of space in the Almeida is quite different to what you can do in a West End theatre surely. The Master Builder was due to open this Autumn.
|
|
6,318 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jun 24, 2016 17:39:43 GMT
Perhaps the transfer of The Master Builder has been put on hold/delayed.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jul 2, 2016 19:37:11 GMT
It is very disappointing. I am sceptical there is demand for either this or The Master Builder because it is such a poor production. It is dark (not in a good way), the women have been badly cast (I think Redgrave should retire gracefully now) and as fine an actor Ralph is it is all so "LOOK! ME! ACTING!" that you warm to those who are adequate satellites to the character. I liked Finbar Lynch as Buckingham but it just isn't a very kind production; to either the actors or audience
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Jul 4, 2016 18:25:18 GMT
Perhaps the transfer of The Master Builder has been put on hold/delayed. Whenever Playbill publishes their "upcoming Broadway shows" articles, Master Builder is always mentioned in the "no dates or theatre confirmed" section, so it's likely they'll fit that around Ralph's commitments to Richard III and directing the Nureyev film and the availability of a suitable Broadway house for it, I would think. I'm seeing Richard III this week, I'm very intrigued by the negative opinions on here, I must say.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 9, 2016 17:31:43 GMT
I've just got a ticket from the TodayTx lottery - C9 in the circle. Hope it is worth the dash up to London! Now scoffing Almeida gnocchi in the cafe.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 9, 2016 23:20:06 GMT
Well, I quite enjoyed it. Maybe it helps to have lowered expectations?
Vanessa Redgrave is curiously underpowered as Margaret, compared to the other actresses, who were all making the most of their lines. I enjoyed the women's scenes generally, and liked that we got a little more out of some of the supporting cast then is often the case - in some productions you barely get to know a character before they die.
I felt the rape was unnecessary, and took away the implication that Richard was too deluded by that point to know he's being lied to. In this it feels like she is just saying it so she can escape.
|
|
2,529 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jul 16, 2016 16:48:28 GMT
I guess when the NT does a live broadcast the trucks are hidden away at the back of the theatre but the amount of kit in Almeida Street for next Thursday's live broadcast is astonishing - virtually the whole street is filled with broadcast trucks and they've laid cables along the whole street, including a new gantry to take the cables over the entrance to the building site halfway down the street. I had no idea it was such a major exercise to do a live satellite broadcast of this type.
|
|
75 posts
|
Post by adolphus on Jul 16, 2016 21:19:54 GMT
Presumably Jonathan Pryce's Lear, originally at the Almeida and available for download, was filmed outside the theatre. Which raises the question: if in-theatre broadcasts are technically too difficult to arrange at certain theatres, couldn't productions be arranged to be brodcast live from another venue with a live audience either during or immediatley after the theatre run? Appreciate there will be production and set design issues, but is an in-theatre vibe absolutely essential for these broadcasts? It was interesting that Branagh opted for a more cinema-styled broadcast of R and J - black and white and in cinemascope. Maybe this is the direction the broadcasts will go. There is certainly enough audience demand and its a vita new direction for cinema which is in a far from healthy state.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 19, 2016 21:51:59 GMT
I wonder if Rupert Goold really wanted to direct this or if Fiennes brought it to him and he felt he couldn't turn it down. Anyway, the dullest Shakespeare from him I've seen.
|
|
443 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Jul 19, 2016 21:58:06 GMT
I think he said in an interview that Fiennes suggested it. The way it was worded sounded as if it certainly wasn't director-led.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 19, 2016 23:19:48 GMT
I wonder if Rupert Goold really wanted to direct this or if Fiennes brought it to him and he felt he couldn't turn it down. Anyway, the dullest Shakespeare from him I've seen. It does seem like Fiennes has a checklist of classical roles he's wanting to get through quite quickly, and if you're a director willing to do any of them, he'll come to you.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 20, 2016 6:07:16 GMT
I think he said in an interview that Fiennes suggested it. The way it was worded sounded as if it certainly wasn't director-led. Oh really ? I'm a good guesser aren't I. I'll tell you now that the Antony & Cleo he has taken to the NT next year has the capacity to be more boring than this. I've seen Fiennes quite a lot in Shakespeare and other things. He doesn't have much of a gift for comedy and in this production he didn't have enough charisma to connect with the audience (despite all that pointing), to make them guiltily complicit in his villainy, so R-III is not really a part for him. SO it was just OK. Best production I've seen was the McKellen one, Sher was good in the role too in a feeble production. On another point I see Goold isn't directing anything else there for about a year at least - what is he doing instead ?
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Jul 20, 2016 9:52:20 GMT
I think he said in an interview that Fiennes suggested it. The way it was worded sounded as if it certainly wasn't director-led. Oh really ? I'm a good guesser aren't I. I'll tell you now that the Antony & Cleo he has taken to the NT next year has the capacity to be more boring than this. I've seen Fiennes quite a lot in Shakespeare and other things. He doesn't have much of a gift for comedy and in this production he didn't have enough charisma to connect with the audience (despite all that pointing), to make them guiltily complicit in his villainy, so R-III is not really a part for him. SO it was just OK. Best production I've seen was the McKellen one, Sher was good in the role too in a feeble production. On another point I see Goold isn't directing anything else there for about a year at least - what is he doing instead ? It can't be worse than the last Antony and Cleo at the National. I thought Fiennes was great in Love's Labour's Lost beck in the day (with SRB as the King and Amanda Root as whoever Berowne ends up with). I was sorry the two of them didn't do Much Ado.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2016 10:15:24 GMT
PEDANTRY CORNER actually the point of Love's Labour's Lost is that no one ends up with anyone PEDANTRY OVER AS YOU WERE.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 20, 2016 11:01:22 GMT
Oh really ? I'm a good guesser aren't I. I'll tell you now that the Antony & Cleo he has taken to the NT next year has the capacity to be more boring than this. I've seen Fiennes quite a lot in Shakespeare and other things. He doesn't have much of a gift for comedy and in this production he didn't have enough charisma to connect with the audience (despite all that pointing), to make them guiltily complicit in his villainy, so R-III is not really a part for him. SO it was just OK. Best production I've seen was the McKellen one, Sher was good in the role too in a feeble production. On another point I see Goold isn't directing anything else there for about a year at least - what is he doing instead ? It can't be worse than the last Antony and Cleo at the National. I thought Fiennes was great in Love's Labour's Lost beck in the day (with SRB as the King and Amanda Root as whoever Berowne ends up with). I was sorry the two of them didn't do Much Ado. Yes I saw him in that. The type of parts he should be playing now are Macbeth and Titus Andromicus maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 20, 2016 11:33:11 GMT
He's recently played a series of comic movie roles, including The Grand Budapest Hotel, A Bigger Splash and Hail, Caesar!
|
|