4,567 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jul 30, 2017 20:13:53 GMT
Hated the clunky CGI, just before it's used a gauze is lowered into place. Such terrible stage craft and the fabulous Ariel is always to be seen which belittles the point of CGI?
That's aside it's really good and moving. Such a strong message of forgiveness comes across, perfect RSC Christmas show fodder
Beautiful music with Hockneyesque projections for the masque.
Adored Mark Quarterly. I need to see more of him on the stage.
I always have mixed feelings about SRB but here he was excellent. A national treasure, well a treasure for us theatre and radio 3 geeks!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 30, 2017 20:25:13 GMT
Anyone who booked early and got a £10 seat in row C before rows A and B went on sale got a bargain as these are now £57! Ahh that's always nice to know, I was wondering how I managed to get such a good deal, of course that answer was some great info sharing soul on here. I wonder how the dvd has captured this all, presumably it's the Stratford version (I note at least one cast change for the London run).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2017 9:05:16 GMT
Grabbed a £10 rush ticket from Today Tix for the matinee yesterday. Fabulous view from the front view, did not disappoint.
Odd production - stellar performances from Simon Russell Beale & Mark Quartley, but just bizarre projections that really do not add anything to the play.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 6, 2017 9:40:35 GMT
Remember this was the annual RSC Christmas show for family audiences. Do you think that younger children might enjoy watching the projections?
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Aug 6, 2017 10:09:50 GMT
Well for a Christmas show it did have spectacle, but the motion capture projected imagery was the least interesting aspect of it - especially the imagery of ariel when he was standing at the side of the space. The projections onto the Masque dresses worked well but the live motion capture was jerky and clumsy and not necessary. The physical effects, as they should be in theatre, were great. The disappearing feast worked well when I saw it. I still feel theatre is about the live and tangible, and of course we should have cross over works, but it as the practical stuff in this show that was so glorious.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Aug 6, 2017 11:27:56 GMT
I went with my niece and nephew ( 15 and 13 ) and they were enthralled by the production, mainly because of the spectacle of the visuals - a great introduction to Shakespeare for them. However, I have to say that the physical tricks like the disappearing feast and table etc. prompted the most questions from them. They are so used to seeing CGI in film and computer games that the old stage tricks had the most fascination!
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 14, 2017 21:32:02 GMT
I thought the technology and projections worked very well, better than I expected. The problem was that when they switched them off we were left with a dull, plodding and horribly old fashioned production devoid of any hint of interpretation. I mean for example you've got to do something to make sense of Caliban other than putting him in a stupid costume and have him over-act. A director with greater visual flair than Doran could have integrated the projections into the entire play.
Some performances were dodgy (Miranda) but SRB very good, but I'd have preferred to see him in a small-scale pared-back production.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 14, 2017 21:38:07 GMT
Miranda had an irritatingly wobbly voice during the first scene – seemed to take her a while to get it under control (unless she was doing it deliberately but I can’t imagine why she would). Anyway, highly recommended. Wobbly voice still being deployed. Very odd. Also playing way too old for the part. Unconvincing.
|
|
2,946 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 15, 2017 20:44:38 GMT
Just got back from the matinee this afternoon. It's a beautiful production - love the Mary Rose set - though I'd rather have Ariel physically centre stage than a projection as he was wonderful, the stand out performance for me. I wasn't that keen on SRB's Prospero, to my surprise. He came across like a tired old headmaster on the verge of retirement, and I didn't like the delivery and pace of the early scene with him and Miranda (Heathcote Williams' dangerous Prospero in Jarman's film is still my favourite). I liked the villains but with a bit of tweaking they could have wrung more humour and audience engagement from it, I think. A great Trinculo and Stephano - yes, I too thought LoG/Psychoville! Caliban was off so we got an understudy but he was OK.
I have to add that the young person sitting next to me was the most annoying person-to-be-sat-next-to yet in my recent theatregoing, fiddling with, rattling and chewing her numerous bracelets throughout (why not go the whole hog and bring in a fidget spinner?). The combined effort of angry looks from me and the two people in front finally stopped the bead rattling with half an hour to go, but she signed off by yawning loudly in the final speech.
|
|
411 posts
|
Post by schuttep on Aug 17, 2017 9:37:49 GMT
I have to add that the young person sitting next to me was the most annoying person-to-be-sat-next-to yet in my recent theatregoing, fiddling with, rattling and chewing her numerous bracelets throughout (why not go the whole hog and bring in a fidget spinner?). Preferably one that lights up as it spins....
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 17, 2017 9:58:00 GMT
Off topic but I saw an interview with SRB where he spoke about wanting to play Richard II but he might be too old. Well, he might be. It is very strange he hasn't played it, if you were making a list of Shakespeare roles suitable for him it would be near the top.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Aug 17, 2017 11:05:02 GMT
Off topic but I saw an interview with SRB where he spoke about wanting to play Richard II but he might be too old. Well, he might be. It is very strange he hasn't played it, if you were making a list of Shakespeare roles suitable for him it would be near the top. Yes you would think it would be an obvious fit really wouldn't you. I'd rather assumed he'd kind of run out of Shakespeare roles now unless he did more minor ones, I do hope to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 12:18:39 GMT
Off topic but I saw an interview with SRB where he spoke about wanting to play Richard II but he might be too old. Well, he might be. It is very strange he hasn't played it, if you were making a list of Shakespeare roles suitable for him it would be near the top. Yes you would think it would be an obvious fit really wouldn't you. I'd rather assumed he'd kind of run out of Shakespeare roles now unless he did more minor ones, I do hope to be wrong. I'm sure I read an interview somewhere (perhaps after he did King Lear) where he said that Prospero was probably one of the few roles left for him now and at the time he wasn't keen because he's never really 'got' the play. Obviously he changed his mind there.
|
|
2,946 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 17, 2017 12:29:10 GMT
because he's never really 'got' the play Interesting comment - I saw it this week and, while there was lots to enjoy in the production, I was disappointed that both it and his version of Prospero didn't really seem to add anything to any of the others I've seen - in fact it seemed a bit lacking. I didn't, for example, get much of a sense of power relinquished, of the sort of man who'd have commanded graves to open, more like someone at the dog-end of life - you got the feeling if the ship had appeared a year later he maybe wouldn't have bothered at all.
|
|
834 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Aug 17, 2017 12:29:10 GMT
Off topic but I saw an interview with SRB where he spoke about wanting to play Richard II but he might be too old. Well, he might be. It is very strange he hasn't played it, if you were making a list of Shakespeare roles suitable for him it would be near the top. Yes you would think it would be an obvious fit really wouldn't you. I'd rather assumed he'd kind of run out of Shakespeare roles now unless he did more minor ones, I do hope to be wrong. There's always radio of course.... Angelo in Measure for Measure is another one I always saw him as ideal for; he has done that for CD. There's Cymbeline and Julius Caesar as title roles; I wonder if he could be tempted to do Falstaff on stage in the right production. A Merry Wives, if not the full Henry IVs. What about Shylock? We know he's in the play about Bach for Hytner's new theatre next year. I'm sure he could fit in another big Shakespeare or two - what about another RSC season with him as Shylock and as Falstaff in the Merry Wives?!
|
|
2,946 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 17, 2017 12:32:51 GMT
We know he's in the play about Bach for Hytner's new theatre He was in one on Radio 4 recently, too - I only caught a bit of it so not sure if they tie in.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Aug 17, 2017 12:50:05 GMT
Yes you would think it would be an obvious fit really wouldn't you. I'd rather assumed he'd kind of run out of Shakespeare roles now unless he did more minor ones, I do hope to be wrong. There's always radio of course.... Angelo in Measure for Measure is another one I always saw him as ideal for; he has done that for CD. There's Cymbeline and Julius Caesar as title roles; I wonder if he could be tempted to do Falstaff on stage in the right production. A Merry Wives, if not the full Henry IVs. What about Shylock? We know he's in the play about Bach for Hytner's new theatre next year. I'm sure he could fit in another big Shakespeare or two - what about another RSC season with him as Shylock and as Falstaff in the Merry Wives?! Angelo does seem an obvious one for him. Though i love the idea of Shylock/Falstaff. He has spoken about poss doing Shylock. Surely R2 is gone now?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 17, 2017 13:31:13 GMT
There's always radio of course.... Angelo in Measure for Measure is another one I always saw him as ideal for; he has done that for CD. There's Cymbeline and Julius Caesar as title roles; I wonder if he could be tempted to do Falstaff on stage in the right production. A Merry Wives, if not the full Henry IVs. What about Shylock? We know he's in the play about Bach for Hytner's new theatre next year. I'm sure he could fit in another big Shakespeare or two - what about another RSC season with him as Shylock and as Falstaff in the Merry Wives?! Angelo does seem an obvious one for him. Though i love the idea of Shylock/Falstaff. He has spoken about poss doing Shylock. Surely R2 is gone now? Not sure on R-II, it would depend on the production. Spacey was good in the role and he was middle-aged, but probably yes, late 50s is too old. Angelo or Duke in Measure for Measure would be feasible. He's a character actor rather than a leading actor really, several of the leading Shakespeare roles have been (or would have been) entirely unsuitable for him: Macbeth, Henry V, Coriolanus, Titus Andronicus, Antony. He is a great comic actor, could do Bottom in an unconventional way maybe.
|
|
5,495 posts
|
Post by Baemax on Aug 17, 2017 14:03:07 GMT
If you go the Maria Aberg route, present Richard II as a tragedy about a character who is a king rather than a history play about a real historical king, there's no reason why Richard would therefore have to be played by a maximum 33 year old.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 17, 2017 14:45:39 GMT
could do Bottom in an unconventional way maybe. Quite.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 17, 2017 14:59:14 GMT
could do Bottom in an unconventional way maybe. Quite. I didn't see it but critics say that Richard Griffiths was great in the role playing Bottom as a controlled, quiet man with small precise gestures - you sort of imagine gestures like Oliver Hardy - and none of the usual broad slapstick and coarseness. You could imagine SRB finding a similarly novel way to play it.
|
|
77 posts
|
Post by tributary on Aug 23, 2017 18:58:20 GMT
SRB is far better in comedy than in drama. His best recent performance by some margin was Hytner's London Assurance. I didn't rate his Hamlet at all though his poison toad Richard 3rd was rather good. I could imagine him being rather operatic as Richard II.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 23, 2017 19:39:01 GMT
SRB is far better in comedy than in drama. His best recent performance by some margin was Hytner's London Assurance. I didn't rate his Hamlet at all though his poison toad Richard 3rd was rather good. I could imagine him being rather operatic as Richard II. Yes, for me the high point of his career was that very early season of fops he played for the RSC, he is unsurpassed in that class of material, very good in London Assurance as you say. His Macbeth was terrible, shouldn't have been cast.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Aug 23, 2017 20:28:52 GMT
SRB is far better in comedy than in drama. His best recent performance by some margin was Hytner's London Assurance. I didn't rate his Hamlet at all though his poison toad Richard 3rd was rather good. I could imagine him being rather operatic as Richard II. Yes, for me the high point of his career was that very early season of fops he played for the RSC, he is unsurpassed in that class of material, very good in London Assurance as you say. His Macbeth was terrible, shouldn't have been cast. Indeed, that Swan season was 30 years ago!!!
|
|