562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 26, 2017 12:13:48 GMT
Anybody sat in the cheap circle seats for this? I'm in P15 (second row in one of the side blocks) - had bad experiences of dreadful restricted views in the Dorfman so would be interesting to know how the sightlines are for this. We were sat next to yours. View was perfect. Naturally there were a couple of moments where the staging was more skewed towards the front but overall it was a great view of the action. Given the way that some of the projections worked, all in all I suspect that the view from this sort of height & location may well have been better than the more expensive floor level seats. Enjoy. (one caveat: I've never been to the Dorfman before so don't have anything to compare it to. nevermind, apparently The Flick was there so I have been but that wasn't in the round.)
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 26, 2017 12:16:34 GMT
That's great, thanks!
I think the worst views I've had there have been from the upper circle, but it can be very variable depending on the staging.
|
|
5,278 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jul 26, 2017 12:35:30 GMT
How has this play got ANY decent reviews? It's dreadful. Colman aside it's a total waste of time and effort. Actually it's a total waste of HER time and effort more than anyone else's. Implausible, dull and overlong.
It felt like it had been written by a school kid.
|
|
170 posts
|
Post by caa on Jul 26, 2017 14:36:17 GMT
How has this play got ANY decent reviews? It's dreadful. Colman aside it's a total waste of time and effort. Actually it's a total waste of HER time and effort more than anyone else's. Implausible, dull and overlong. It felt like it had been written by a school kid. I agree I do feel that I must have seen a different play, as the one I saw was overlong and disappointing.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 26, 2017 14:45:35 GMT
4 stars Independent 4 stars FT 5 stars Theatrecat (Libby Purves)
EDIT: Where's Billington?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 26, 2017 15:10:27 GMT
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2017 16:44:32 GMT
Oh, I liked that subplot a lot; powerful (albeit overlooked from the sheer number of different plots). I thought the "implausible" plot point would be {Spoiler - click to view} a teenage hacker single-handledly bringing down CERN/LHC and his aunt who can barely use email taking the fall for it, but everyone writing it off as an unexplained accident anyway, because people always just shrug and go "eh complicated s**t always goes wrong" when their globally significant €billion project crashes. And a boy criminally sabotaging his mum's work and entering into a conspiracy of silence with his aunt about it isn't a massive secret that's inevitably going to explode in their family at some point down the line.
Yes, it's quite disastrously handled by Kirkwood. Almost flippant. As she rushes on to cover all the subjects she wants to cram in.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2017 16:46:15 GMT
Anybody sat in the cheap circle seats for this? I'm in P15 (second row in one of the side blocks) - had bad experiences of dreadful restricted views in the Dorfman so would be interesting to know how the sightlines are for this. We were sat next to yours. View was perfect. Naturally there were a couple of moments where the staging was more skewed towards the front but overall it was a great view of the action. Given the way that some of the projections worked, all in all I suspect that the view from this sort of height & location may well have been better than the more expensive floor level seats. Enjoy. (one caveat: I've never been to the Dorfman before so don't have anything to compare it to. nevermind, apparently The Flick was there so I have been but that wasn't in the round.) Yes, even the views from up top aren't too bad as Norris has staged most of the evening centre-stage, as best he can. In fact the cheap seats ip top are a bit of a bargain in the in-round-round format.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2017 16:50:26 GMT
How has this play got ANY decent reviews? It's dreadful. Colman aside it's a total waste of time and effort. Actually it's a total waste of HER time and effort more than anyone else's. Implausible, dull and overlong. It felt like it had been written by a school kid. I totally agree. Maybe it's because the reviewers were coming off the back of CAT ON A... on Monday night, and were relieved to see some quality (in the design and Colman at least)? Maybe they felt bad for the run of Common & Salome reviews/NT generally? Maybe they felt the (bold) attempt at a science/humanity mash-up worthy of more stars than its content? It is a 2*/3* at best play. The 4*/5* reviews are only going to start baffling audiences once they've bought tickets and are inside.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Jul 26, 2017 17:34:37 GMT
Reviewers VERY generous with this
|
|
|
Post by floorshow on Jul 26, 2017 18:14:20 GMT
Seems the performances from the leads are going a long way to paper over the issues with some of the writing and pacing. I'm not sure that makes it a consistent 4* but its not dreadful.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 26, 2017 18:19:54 GMT
I wonder if the critics are very generous with anything which is about science as they don't actually understand science so assume it's cleverer than it is. See also The Hard Problem.
|
|
45 posts
|
Post by publius on Jul 26, 2017 18:32:28 GMT
I wonder if the critics are very generous with anything which is about science as they don't actually understand science so assume it's cleverer than it is. See also The Hard Problem. I said elsewhere on this thread that I was worried that the play would be too similar to The Hard Problem but, thankfully, it wasn't as there is very little science in Mosquitoes. I think the critics have been spot on with their opinions as the play, though far from perfect, is a good one with some wonderful acting too. Maybe many people have seen how quickly this sold out and expected that to reflect that we were going to witness something amazing? Maybe some should adjust their expectations?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 26, 2017 18:34:03 GMT
Some people liked something and some others didn't, that's all. The comments I'd heard from elsewhere were not in line with those in this thresd, maybe that explains why some are surprised.
|
|
5,588 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 27, 2017 10:57:53 GMT
I wonder if the critics are very generous with anything which is about science as they don't actually understand science so assume it's cleverer than it is. See also The Hard Problem. I said elsewhere on this thread that I was worried that the play would be too similar to The Hard Problem but, thankfully, it wasn't as there is very little science in Mosquitoes. I think the critics have been spot on with their opinions as the play, though far from perfect, is a good one with some wonderful acting too. Maybe many people have seen how quickly this sold out and expected that to reflect that we were going to witness something amazing? Maybe some should adjust their expectations? Regulars like me going for the two gals, no? Parsley said the science was rubbish and I've read that elsewhere too. I'm not keen on science thrust at me so to speak as opposed to being embedded as in say, Copenhagen, which was I think really good and about more than science of course. So I'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 11:31:04 GMT
To be honest, I got lost at Hadron Collider in the blurb. I don't mind admitting that I'm going for Olivia Colman. If it was announced that she was reading the Yellow Pages I'd go.
|
|
5,588 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 27, 2017 11:36:46 GMT
We used to call it Reading the telephone directory! Some clever clogs out there could create an 'entertainment' based on the idea.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 27, 2017 11:50:24 GMT
I said elsewhere on this thread that I was worried that the play would be too similar to The Hard Problem but, thankfully, it wasn't as there is very little science in Mosquitoes. I think the critics have been spot on with their opinions as the play, though far from perfect, is a good one with some wonderful acting too. Maybe many people have seen how quickly this sold out and expected that to reflect that we were going to witness something amazing? Maybe some should adjust their expectations? Regulars like me going for the two gals, no? Parsley said the science was rubbish and I've read that elsewhere too. I'm not keen on science thrust at me so to speak as opposed to being embedded as in say, Copenhagen, which was I think really good and about more than science of course. So I'll see. Without spoiling anything, I think the thing that Parsley was mainly referring to, that's mentioned in the Daily Mail article also, is part of a character's background/motivations but is different from the LHC physics stuff that forms a bigger part of the play's context. It's been a long time since I saw Copenhagen and I haven't seen The Hard Problem but in my mind, the 'science' in Mosquitoes really provides the backdrop for the play rather than it's substance. Certainly my take away was that the play is mainly interested in the communication and trust in scientific knowledge, rather than specifically what that knowledge is. There are a few lines and an intentionally divisive & naff joke that might make more or less sense depending on what you know, but I don't think it would ruin anyone's experience of the play either way. There are a couple of longer monologues that might not be to everyone's taste but I'm not sure that understanding the details is necessary to get the implied reflections on the wider story. Ultimately, it felt to me the same as the way that a play might use history to tell a story about power and corruption; where knowledge about the true events might enrich the viewing experience, but isn't required to enjoy the play. Furthermore, I don't think it's simply a case that the play 'sides' with the scientist character. Over the course of the play it's pretty clear that she has serious character flaws, and she isn't simply someone that relies on an objective/rational view of the world.
|
|
5,588 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 27, 2017 12:19:21 GMT
Thanks, interesting. The Hard Problem was a poor play regardless of the science.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jul 27, 2017 12:29:48 GMT
Science-wise I had more of a problem with the idea that {Spoiler - click to view} scientists will one day "punch through" to a parallel universe and somehow create a new solar system and a new earth that exactly matches our own, but sped up so billions of years pass in minutes. And then presumably stops so we can hop go the Stargate and live on this new virgin earth without the sun going supernova a week later? It's quite a beautiful idea in its own way but the IVF metaphor was pushed home a bit hard.
I read Asimov's 'The Gods Themselves' which handles this stuff so well, and handles the science elements so well and in so much depth you practically need a Physics degree to understand it. The metaphorical science of Mosquitoes suffers by comparison.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 27, 2017 12:33:44 GMT
To be honest, I got lost at Hadron Collider in the blurb. I don't mind admitting that I'm going for Olivia Colman. If it was announced that she was reading the Yellow Pages I'd go. Having heard the early reviews I reminded myself that I too had said that regarding Olivia Colman and whilst it is somewhat mad and I'm not sure about all the science I think it's much more than just looking at her in awe, though I may well have done that too
I think Lynette it's possibly some of it is a bit madder/unlikely than the Hard Problem but has more heart/meatier and I agree with jadnoop that understanding all the science isn't the point or necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 17:29:40 GMT
Having big read the spoilers, it sounds like knowing anything about science would be a positive disadvantage! I'm guessing it's more sci fi, is that right? Very much looking forward to seeing it for myself!
|
|
45 posts
|
Post by publius on Jul 27, 2017 17:34:38 GMT
Having big read the spoilers, it sounds like knowing anything about science would be a positive disadvantage! I'm guessing it's more sci fi, is that right? Very much looking forward to seeing it for myself! No, nothing like sci-fi either. It's essentially a play about a family one of whom works as a scientist. If you want to read a lot into it there are a lot of potential metaphors but you can watch the play without any interest in science or needing to dig deep to appreciate it.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 27, 2017 18:02:48 GMT
There's an interesting piece on the background to the play by the wonderfully named Tushna Commissariat in Physics World - just seen the link on Twitter. It's spoilery, though, so don't read it till you've seen it.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 27, 2017 23:12:51 GMT
The Olivias are going to be on Woman's Hour tomorrow - no, today, for it is now Friday!
|
|
1,316 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Jul 28, 2017 9:17:05 GMT
The Olivias are going to be on Woman's Hour tomorrow - no, today, for it is now Friday! Just listened, well worth catching. Murray calls them Willy and Colly to distinguish!
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 28, 2017 9:42:19 GMT
Yes, it was interesting. I didn't realise Colman had, well, I suppose stage fright or something - I assumed she didn't do stage work because she was so much in demand elsewhere. The Tom Stoppard point was a good one - ironically, when I read the synopsis a few weeks ago I worried that it might be a bit Tom Stoppard-y: I really don't like his work, 'aren't I clever?' but without much in the way of human warmth. Mosquitoes generally felt like the opposite. Btw, anyone who saw it in early previews. I saw it on Saturday and there's an event near the end which, in the playtext, is caused by one character but in the play I saw on Saturday by another, in a way which really changes the way you view a plot thread. the end of the world event, in Saturday's preview, was caused by Luke: in the text by a scientist called Gavriella. I wondered how late in the day the change was made?
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Jul 28, 2017 10:05:57 GMT
I saw it last Thursday and it was Gavriella
|
|
1,316 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Jul 28, 2017 10:15:00 GMT
Yes, it was interesting. I didn't realise Colman had, well, I suppose stage fright or something - I assumed she didn't do stage work because she was so much in demand elsewhere. The Tom Stoppard point was a good one - ironically, when I read the synopsis a few weeks ago I worried that it might be a bit Tom Stoppard-y: I really don't like his work, 'aren't I clever?' but without much in the way of human warmth. Mosquitoes generally felt like the opposite. Btw, anyone who saw it in early previews. I saw it on Saturday and there's an event near the end which, in the playtext, is caused by one character but in the play I saw on Saturday by another, in a way which really changes the way you view a plot thread. the end of the world event, in Saturday's preview, was caused by Luke: in the text by a scientist called Gavriella. I wondered how late in the day the change was made? Haven't seen it yet - going on 23rd September (long wait!) I'm glad you think it's not too Stoppardy-clever-clever. I'm generally a fan Sir Tom but the recent Travesties tested my patience beyond endurance. Frankly I've never seen a play that was more up itself. re Colman - She often comes over quite vulnerable and self deprecating in interviews (as she did in this one) and I think that's why people warm to her.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Jul 28, 2017 10:23:19 GMT
Yes, it was interesting. I didn't realise Colman had, well, I suppose stage fright or something - I assumed she didn't do stage work because she was so much in demand elsewhere. The Tom Stoppard point was a good one - ironically, when I read the synopsis a few weeks ago I worried that it might be a bit Tom Stoppard-y: I really don't like his work, 'aren't I clever?' but without much in the way of human warmth. Mosquitoes generally felt like the opposite. Btw, anyone who saw it in early previews. I saw it on Saturday and there's an event near the end which, in the playtext, is caused by one character but in the play I saw on Saturday by another, in a way which really changes the way you view a plot thread. the end of the world event, in Saturday's preview, was caused by Luke: in the text by a scientist called Gavriella. I wondered how late in the day the change was made? Haven't seen it yet - going on 23rd September (long wait!) I'm glad you think it's not too Stoppardy-clever-clever. I'm generally a fan Sir Tom but the recent Travesties tested my patience beyond endurance. Frankly I've never seen a play that was more up itself. re Colman - She often comes over quite vulnerable and self deprecating in interviews (as she did in this one) and I think that's why people warm to her. It's quite a pedestrian and banal family drama. Nothing like Stoppard. I'd compare it to an episode of Eastenders - people with personality disorders who take it out on their equally messed up family members The science in the marketing is a misnomer and doesn't form an important part of the plot at all.
|
|