2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 12, 2017 15:39:52 GMT
What's Simon Russell Beale doing in the next eight weeks? The Tempest, I hope, because I've booked for that too!
|
|
376 posts
|
Post by sherriebythesea on Jun 12, 2017 17:14:19 GMT
The Tempest, I hope, because I've booked for that too! Me too. He's still listed as being there.
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Jun 12, 2017 17:26:33 GMT
When I saw Peer Gynt with Chiwetel Ejiofor, it was literally half-ful at the start and a quarter-full after the interval Deservedly? Cos that sounds quite good to me! It was so bad even the director heckled it. (True story)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 17:39:02 GMT
Deservedly? Cos that sounds quite good to me! It was so bad even the director heckled it. (True story) Really sounds worth telling if you can be bothered!
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Jun 12, 2017 17:54:43 GMT
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jun 12, 2017 18:29:26 GMT
Interesting reading thanks profquatermass
I'm currently still booked for this and the similarly low starred R and J at the Globe, I'm less bothered about the later as it's not a play I like and I booked it on the basis of a £5 for a play I haven't yet seen and disliked since forced study at school. There is perhaps a limit to how much bonkers or plain bad I should see in a short period of time but I think summer tends to be more poorer viewing time perhaps because the improved weather, lighter/longer days etc. temp me to things I wouldn't risk in the winter.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jun 12, 2017 18:35:34 GMT
I think both Salome and Common will limp on but expect cast illnesses to go through the roof so understudies get a go. I do wonder what the bigger names in these productions turned down but I can't hate on Rufus for taking risks and if new works means higher representation of those who aren't represented elsewhere then I am all for it but the NT doesn't have the cash revenue it once hard. New plays need to have a common purpose, something that makes them stand out in a competitive field. A successful play doesn't need big names, it just needs to get people excited.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 12, 2017 19:17:53 GMT
I can't hate on Rufus for taking risks and if new works means higher representation of those who aren't represented elsewhere then I am all for it I think the themes of Common would appeal to a certain sort of audience if they got to know about it, but they're not the sort who currently make up your typical theatre crowd.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 13, 2017 18:36:53 GMT
The Villains' Opera was dire. Maybe worst thing I've seen at NT. As I said elsewhere I sent Common tix back. When I booked I thought it would be interesting as yes the whole common land thing is v important issue etc etc... and the cast, well, what went wrong? Do people go and have a look at stuff in early rehearsals? I've often wondered. Or is Norris just not up to the job? This is The National Theatre for goodness sake. Thousands of tourists passing by, wanting to see good British theatre for which the UK is renowned and which we here know is out there. They and regular punters should be able to see several plays over the summer in a season of British theatre ( ok maybe I mean theatre in English, ok, maybe I mean good theatre in translation ) but proven good. Challenging? Yes, in all sorts of ways but honestly it isn't that hard to see if a show is good enough or not. I don't think so. We can all do it.
|
|
1,179 posts
|
Post by joem on Jun 13, 2017 20:07:17 GMT
I am seeing both Common and Lettice and Lovage this weekend. Either Tristan saves it or the dinner at Joel Robuchon will have to do the biz,
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 21:45:01 GMT
I am seeing both Common and Lettice and Lovage this weekend. Either Tristan saves it or the dinner at Joel Robuchon will have to do the biz, Joel always lovely 😸😸😸 Have to have the chocolate sphere
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on Jun 14, 2017 17:14:42 GMT
The Villains' Opera was dire. Maybe worst thing I've seen at NT. As I said elsewhere I sent Common tix back. When I booked I thought it would be interesting as yes the whole common land thing is v important issue etc etc... and the cast, well, what went wrong? Do people go and have a look at stuff in early rehearsals? I've often wondered. Or is Norris just not up to the job? This is The National Theatre for goodness sake. Thousands of tourists passing by, wanting to see good British theatre for which the UK is renowned and which we here know is out there. They and regular punters should be able to see several plays over the summer in a season of British theatre ( ok maybe I mean theatre in English, ok, maybe I mean good theatre in translation ) but proven good. Challenging? Yes, in all sorts of ways but honestly it isn't that hard to see if a show is good enough or not. I don't think so. We can all do it. Norris just doesn't know how to tell the difference between good playwriting and bad (a not uncommon fault among directors). If he did, 'f*** the Polar Bears' might not have been quite so bad. He should recruit someone who understands playwriting craft to work for him. But he would need to understand the craft to know who else actually understands it..
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Jun 16, 2017 19:46:04 GMT
Review in current issue of Spectator is hilariously bad! "What an embarrassment for the National, lots of baffled ticket holders bailed out at the interval".
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 16, 2017 20:15:11 GMT
Review in current issue of Spectator is hilariously bad! Maybe, but from the sound of it, politically it's hardly the sort of thing that was likely to appeal to the right-wing press anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 23:33:16 GMT
Well. This is a HOT MESS. It's hilarious! It's sort of like Wurzel Gummidge as written by Russell Brand.
Anne-Marie Duff is a game gal and gives it some wellie even when she switches to playing Alexis Colby in a corset and she's such a watchable actress. Set looks good (although it's much too big for lots of the two-hander or solo scenes) and the revolve is on form. Great end of act one and beginning of act two as well.
Not sure I thought it was as bad as it's been made out to be but have to admit I didn't have a clue what was going on for half of it though.
|
|
45 posts
|
Post by publius on Jun 17, 2017 1:26:14 GMT
Well. This is a HOT MESS. It's hilarious! It's sort of like Wurzel Gummidge as written by Russell Brand. Anne-Marie Duff is a game gal and gives it some wellie even when she switches to playing Alexis Colby in a corset and she's such a watchable actress. Set looks good (although it's much too big for lots of the two-hander or solo scenes) and the revolve is on form. Great end of act one and beginning of act two as well. Not sure I thought it was as bad as it's been made out to be but have to admit I didn't have a clue what was going on for half of it though. Did you read the programme prior to the performance? It really did assist the understanding of what was happening in my opinion.
|
|
368 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Jun 17, 2017 7:45:02 GMT
Well. This is a HOT MESS. It's hilarious! It's sort of like Wurzel Gummidge as written by Russell Brand. Anne-Marie Duff is a game gal and gives it some wellie even when she switches to playing Alexis Colby in a corset and she's such a watchable actress. Set looks good (although it's much too big for lots of the two-hander or solo scenes) and the revolve is on form. Great end of act one and beginning of act two as well. Not sure I thought it was as bad as it's been made out to be but have to admit I didn't have a clue what was going on for half of it though. Did you read the programme prior to the performance? It really did assist the understanding of what was happening in my opinion. What does the program me say? I saw it without reading it and I am still wondering what was the plot.
|
|
1,189 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jun 17, 2017 7:47:10 GMT
Isn't it a sad state of affairs when you have to read the programme in advance to understand what is happening in the play? And how many people would know that their experience would be better if that was done?
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 17, 2017 7:50:10 GMT
You don't have to read the programme to get the play - just the social and political background to the play. Like any other historically based NT production.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 17, 2017 8:50:54 GMT
Isn't it a sad state of affairs when you have to read the programme in advance to understand what is happening in the play? Surely you could say the same for Shakespeare's histories? It probably says a lot about our education system that children are taught more about Romans and medieval kings than they are about more recent and relevant working class social movements and actions.
|
|
45 posts
|
Post by publius on Jun 17, 2017 11:06:58 GMT
You don't have to read the programme to get the play - just the social and political background to the play. Like any other historically based NT production. Yes, but it's a neglected period of our history and many attending will be unaware of the historical context.
|
|
45 posts
|
Post by publius on Jun 17, 2017 11:08:10 GMT
Did you read the programme prior to the performance? It really did assist the understanding of what was happening in my opinion. What does the program me say? I saw it without reading it and I am still wondering what was the plot. The programme has a number of articles which explains the historical context and the superstitious belief system in vogue at the time.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Jun 17, 2017 12:10:45 GMT
From the Spectator:
'The Olivier’s auditorium looked like an empurpled jaw following multiple extractions. Local schoolchildren may be recruited to fill the voids. An awful prospect. Youngsters forced to experience this bolus of drivel will probably shun the theatre for decades afterwards. The production highlights a key difference between subsidised and commercial art. Bad commercial art gets ignored and forgotten. Bad subsidised art enjoys a life-support system, also subsidised, that can lure the innocent into its toxic embrace. Please, National Theatre, spare the kids this one. It could take a generation to repair the damage.'
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 17, 2017 12:35:47 GMT
Funny that the right-wing press should pour so much bile on a play with this particular topic. That review reminds me of the sort of OTT thing they used to write about gay-themed stuff decades ago: "I would rather give a healthy boy or a healthy girl a phial of prussic acid than this novel."
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Jun 17, 2017 20:46:13 GMT
I resent that a programme is needed to understand the play, and really you don't need a synopsis for a Shakespeare play. He's rather good and provides all the detail if the audience concentrate. Programme notes fill in the gaps or allusions, but should never be there to be used as a prologue. In my small opinion.
|
|
1,316 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Jun 17, 2017 21:29:16 GMT
Well it's a load of b*llocks really but still way more entertaining b*llocks than Salome. Duff gives a really classy performance. Shame it's wasted on such a perplexing play.
|
|
1,179 posts
|
Post by joem on Jun 17, 2017 21:46:19 GMT
Dire.
Informative programme notes are to be welcomed and can be educational but the playwright has to provide the information necessary in the text.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Jun 18, 2017 11:28:43 GMT
I resent that a programme is needed to understand the play, and really you don't need a synopsis for a Shakespeare play. He's rather good and provides all the detail if the audience concentrate. Programme notes fill in the gaps or allusions, but should never be there to be used as a prologue. In my small opinion. Wholeheartedly agree with you!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 15:43:43 GMT
Did you read the programme prior to the performance? It really did assist the understanding of what was happening in my opinion. Alas, I did not. I was too busy ordering vast quantities of gin for the interval.
|
|
227 posts
|
Post by barelyathletic on Jun 20, 2017 10:59:36 GMT
Well. This is a HOT MESS. It's hilarious! It's sort of like Wurzel Gummidge as written by Russell Brand. Anne-Marie Duff is a game gal and gives it some wellie even when she switches to playing Alexis Colby in a corset and she's such a watchable actress. Set looks good (although it's much too big for lots of the two-hander or solo scenes) and the revolve is on form. Great end of act one and beginning of act two as well. Not sure I thought it was as bad as it's been made out to be but have to admit I didn't have a clue what was going on for half of it though. Sounds marvellous. Can't wait to see it on Saturday.
|
|