1,114 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Jan 17, 2018 23:19:06 GMT
Ah it wasn't I. Alas I was in A13. Must recommend the front row for this play also. There is very little missed as the stage is fairly low and the closeness makes the atmosphere even more palpable!
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jan 17, 2018 23:23:35 GMT
And I was there tonight as well (treated myself to Row E, as Toby Jones appearances are always something special), and I loved it also. It's all been said above, basically, about the menace of the play, and the humour, the how the elusiveness of facts magnifies both the menace and the humour. It's also been alluded to above what unsettling, weird and wonderful dominant/submissive double acts we have in Mangan/Vaughan-Lawlor, and in Jones/Wanamaker. I would add that I love the sense of normalcy that Peter Wight and Pearl Mackie bring to this zany cocktail. Some spoilers follow. . . If I could add just one thing to these near perfect performances, it would be that in the few scenes where Mangan drops his delightful and unnerving, sarcastically superficial charm, that he escalate the threat and menace of those moments. I think comedians, like Mangan, make terrific villains, and it just takes one moment of unguarded psychopathy to really spark that dyanamic. When David Walliams (another comedian playing a menacing character in a Pinter play) was in "No Man's Land," I really felt threatened by him, at moments, and I'd love for Mangan to achieve that level of threat too. He is so close to perfection! This play is as alive today as 60 years ago. For me, Wanamaker's Meg is like "the forgotten man" of America, flirting with wolves at the door, obliviously giving away the freedoms of everybody, in exchange for the cheap and easy seductive attention of psychopaths. No doubt Meg would have voted for Trump, and if he were alive today, righteously furious man that he was, Pinter would have throttled her just as Toby Jones' Stanley feels impelled to do. Zoe Wanamaker really gives a career defining performance in this show! 4 stars.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 17, 2018 23:48:08 GMT
Oh lots of us out then, didn't venture out in interval as too busy staring at empty seat along from me. You did well not to slum it back with the rest of us, around me were lots of glasses chinkers and that wretched illuminating phone in yes that moment.
Still one of those plays I would like to sort of linger over and think about instead of running for train which slightly distracts me with my unfitness. I agree and have awarded 4 *.
|
|
1,114 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Jan 18, 2018 0:04:36 GMT
I agree with the comment on Zoë Wanamaker giving a career defining performance. At the closing of the play she was so in the action and herself that she struggled to come back to reality in the bows. To add to that haunting ending was the superb 'to blackout' lighting design that made her literally vanish as if a ghost.
I could sit through it all again right now. 5* from me.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jan 18, 2018 8:55:20 GMT
There's a quote from Pinter in the programme that I thought was especially telling:
"A character on the stage who can present no convincing argument or information as to his past experience, his present behaviour or his aspirations, nor give a comprehensive analysis of his motives, is as legitimate and as worthy of attention as one who, alarmingly, can do all of these things. The more acute the experience, the less articulate its expression."
|
|
5,571 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 18, 2018 14:54:42 GMT
Well that is interesting, not only for the content of the comment but also because Pinter notoriously didn’t like essays of analysis in the programmes for his plays.
|
|
1,175 posts
|
Post by joem on Jan 18, 2018 21:55:02 GMT
I thought the weasel under the cocktail cabinet was excellent too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 22:00:08 GMT
I thought the weasel under the cocktail cabinet was excellent too. hahaha haven't heard anything about that weasel for decades. Can you refresh my memory. I can't remember what Pinter said about it.
|
|
1,175 posts
|
Post by joem on Jan 18, 2018 22:04:37 GMT
I thought the weasel under the cocktail cabinet was excellent too. hahaha haven't heard anything about that weasel for decades. Can you refresh my memory. I can't remember what Pinter said about it. I love the weasel. It was his half-jesting response to someone asking what his plays were about. He later claimed to be embarrassed about it but, frankly, I think it is a very good dramatic definition of what they are about - the dark forces lurking beneath the ordinary and the mundane.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 20, 2018 23:25:12 GMT
This play certainly didn’t divide London critics, after receiving praise out of town, the in town critics hated it, with the Evening Standard critic opined that “like trying to solve a crossword puzzle, where every vertical clue is designed to put you off the horizontal”, this could be more pertinently aimed more at Tom Stoppard. This was Pinter’s second play and no one understood Pinter at the time, boy have they since recanted, critics have written books on him, students have done PhD thesis on him, so really not a bad second play, that only ran 8 performances is it then?
A wonderful acted play and I enjoyed all 6 actors for different reasons and each one of them I have taken something away form the Pinter Theatre and trying to fill in the grey areas still, as that is what Pinter does so well and leaves things unexplained, he certainly likes to set you some homework, maybe I need to see it again.
Seeing the play and I hadn’t read the play and only knew 2 of the cast, naturally after reading the bios I have seen the cast in other things, however the play reeked of Sonia Friedman, maybe reeked is the wrong word, maybe strongly scented would be a better choice.
As for me I enjoyed it, exercises that grey matter. Certain parts of it, had me scratching my head, but I am sure that is what Pinter would have wanted. Where the author only allows you to come up for breathe sporadically, other than that you have to be good at holding your breathe, or you will drown like the London critics did.
4 Stars
|
|
2,786 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Jan 21, 2018 0:01:32 GMT
Saw the matinee today and loved it. I can't say I understood everything, but this didn't take anything away from my enjoyment. Superb cast, especially Zoe Wanamaker and Stephen Mangan. Excellent lighting as well.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jan 22, 2018 23:27:55 GMT
I forgot to ask others who have been in the front row. In the party scene copious amounts of whisky are consumed. Obviously this is not real. However, I got a very distinct whisky aroma for some time. Anyone else? I have not rejected the possibility that it was simply my mind playing tricks!
|
|
1,114 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Jan 23, 2018 3:04:41 GMT
I forgot to ask others who have been in the front row. In the party scene copious amounts of whisky are consumed. Obviously this is not real. However, I got a very distinct whisky aroma for some time. Anyone else? I have not rejected the possibility that it was simply my mind playing tricks! I was in the front row and didn't notice this. Probably because all I could smell was my own lovely gin...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 15:37:56 GMT
Oh dear... I don’t understand all the love for this production at all.
Lots of misses, in my opinion: the casting, the direction, the design, the music... Thought Zoe Wanamaker and Stephen Mangan were completely wrong for the roles. Their voices weren’t right at all, something we take for granted usually. ZW was lacking the mumsiness (too hard and brittle) and SM far too nasal to be threatening. Overall it was far too stylised, with overchoreographed movement, especially for McCann. It was all so heightened we lost any sense of reality of these mysterious forces from outside coming to destroy Stanley’s safeness and security in his nest, however miserable it looks to us. Disliked the rouched gauze cloth and the moody music.
Had high expectations, especially after the Old Vic’s excellent Caretaker last year, but was underwhelmed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 18:42:37 GMT
Well. I trundled off to the Antonia Fraser's Husband Theatre to see this. And then I went back home again. It was all mildly diverting but I can't say I really knew what was going on half the time. I liked the beginning when Toby Jones was there and then he wasn't with a swish of the curtain. Some of it was funny enough but I just don't think I cared for it in the end. Zoe Wanamaker was woefully miscast, although God love her, I did admire some of her Boadicea Overall acting choices. I also found Stephen Mangan about as menacing as a rhubarb crumble. One bit I wasn't sure about though . . {Call it a party without some cheese and pineapple on sticks?} Did they cut out Toby Jones' tongue after the party? Whatever happened to a nice bunch of flowers or some chocolates? Although it did give me a little fancy for some Corn Flakes when I got home. Sadly all I had were some Frosties and a couple of Weetabix. It wasn't the same.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 19:08:42 GMT
Well. I trundled off to the Antonia Fraser's Husband Theatre to see this. And then I went back home again. It was all mildly diverting but I can't say I really knew what was going on half the time. I liked the beginning when Toby Jones was there and then he wasn't with a swish of the curtain. Some of it was funny enough but I just don't think I cared for it in the end. Zoe Wanamaker was woefully miscast, although God love her, I did admire some of her Boadicea Overall acting choices. I also found Stephen Mangan about as menacing as a rhubarb crumble. One bit I wasn't sure about though . . {Call it a party without some cheese and pineapple on sticks?} Did they cut out Toby Jones' tongue after the party? Whatever happened to a nice bunch of flowers or some chocolates? Although it did give me a little fancy for some Corn Flakes when I got home. Sadly all I had were some Frosties and a couple of Weetabix. It wasn't the same. 😂 🤣😂 🤣😂
|
|
1,181 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Feb 7, 2018 19:09:49 GMT
I think Ryan wins my favourite funny Theatreboard poster award
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 20:24:15 GMT
I think Ryan wins my favourite funny Theatreboard poster award Oh theatrelover123, me too. May The Lord bless you for your kind words. That's Andrew Lloyd Webber not the Big G for any avoidance of doubt.
|
|
3,458 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Feb 8, 2018 5:04:15 GMT
I think Ryan wins my favourite funny Theatreboard poster award Oh theatrelover123 , me too. May The Lord bless you for your kind words. That's Andrew Lloyd Webber not the Big G for any avoidance of doubt. Thirded!
|
|
3,028 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Feb 9, 2018 16:58:56 GMT
I saw this last weekend, not knowing too much about it and thought it was really good.
TodayTix front row, pretty central so a good view and easy to get a ticket. Also gave me a sense of satisfaction of saving money over the well spoken group behind, who I presume were bankers treating their significant others, trying to pretend they were cultured and making the most ridiculous observations during the interval.
The main thing I picked up on was Stephen Mangan trying his best to make the rest of the cast corpse, succeeding at least twice with Pearl Mackie. Although that may be a standard part of the show.
Worth seeing.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Feb 27, 2018 6:20:23 GMT
I went to this last night ( thank you Todays Tix lottery) M20 in the stalls. I've now seen 4 productions of this play ( as well as the film) and I'm done with it. I don't hate it, I think that unlike other Pinter plays which continue to fascinate me time and again ( Old Times, No Man's Land, The Homecoming) I feel that I've seen what great directors and actors have gotten out of it and I'm no longer as fascinated by it as I once was. I thought tonight's performances were across the board fascinating. But what didn't happen for me was that despite the first class production all around the ensemble never fused together for me, each performance seemed independent of the other - unlike current productions such as The York Realist, Long Day's Journey or Beginning. That certain spark seemed to be missing. I still gave it 4 stars like most everyone else here on the board , it is very worthwhile it's just not "that" production which illuminates something new for me.
|
|
3,058 posts
|
Post by david on Feb 27, 2018 20:19:07 GMT
How easy has it been to get a day seat for this. I’m in London the week 3rd -6th April and am looking to day seat for this on the wed eve performance. How easy was it to get a day seat? I’m tempted to also try the TodayTix option. Which option would people suggest?
Thanks in advance for any advice!
|
|
5,495 posts
|
Post by Baemax on Feb 27, 2018 22:16:20 GMT
I did TodayTix on a Saturday, I found it achievable enough. No idea on the day seat situation so couldn't say which is better.
|
|
3,058 posts
|
Post by david on Feb 27, 2018 22:30:21 GMT
I did TodayTix on a Saturday, I found it achievable enough. No idea on the day seat situation so couldn't say which is better. Thanks for the info. Much appreciated.
|
|
3,058 posts
|
Post by david on Feb 28, 2018 12:29:30 GMT
Thanks for the info TM. I’ll probably try day seating as it will be a new experience for me! I’ve also got a a few SOLT vouchers to use up. I can always use the today tix option as a plan B if the box office option doesn’t work.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 13:50:33 GMT
There seriously can't be people queueing up for day seats in weather like this can there?
|
|
4,943 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Feb 28, 2018 14:16:20 GMT
There seriously can't be people queueing up for day seats in weather like this can there? Of course not @ryan. Like you, they send 'the help'! The more benevolent employers get James to drop them at the theatre first thing.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 17, 2018 9:29:48 GMT
Saw this with an excellent £25 TodayTix front row seat. An exemplary production of this modern classic with good cast, acting, set and excellent direction from Ian Rickson. The NT used to do productions like this long long ago.
Only problem was an unappreciative West End audience - it’s over 10 years since I went to a West End play and the contrast with the audiences I’m used to was striking. The (of necessity) rich “theatre as a social event” middle-classes proudly wearing their philistinism as a badge. Also the theatre itself is appalling of course, it takes quite some doing to build a theatre where so few seats have a good view.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 17, 2018 20:56:46 GMT
Finally got to it this afternoon. Lovely, well-behaved audience. Loved the set and staging, did get a very strong feeling Pinter was talking about the hold religion has on people most of the time. Mangan, I'm afraid, I had a problem with. I don't know if it was him, the movement or dialect coach, but I'm afraid he made a total hash of being Jewish. He couldn't pronounce words familiar to all Jews, and his rhythm and body movement were utterly, utterly wrong. Don't know if it was his fault or one of the team, and I refuse to apportion blame, but I'm afraid it did rather wreck the play for me. One possible blooper, if anyone can help? Act Two Goldberg sits on a chair and invites Lulu to sit on his knee. This afternoon, he tells her after a moment, to "please assist me by sitting on the table for a moment." She seemed surprised to be asked, and he then played with her leg and she did a line about being tickled. I got the idea something went wrong and they were covering? Or is it how it is always? No that is the same as when I saw it - Rickson directs every second and it is all calculated. I quite liked Mangan, he has a comic’s sense of timing. However I was a bit unsettled by his teeth, looks like he’s had extensive work done.
|
|
|
Post by firefingers on Mar 17, 2018 21:37:32 GMT
Finally got to it this afternoon. Lovely, well-behaved audience. Loved the set and staging, did get a very strong feeling Pinter was talking about the hold religion has on people most of the time. Mangan, I'm afraid, I had a problem with. I don't know if it was him, the movement or dialect coach, but I'm afraid he made a total hash of being Jewish. He couldn't pronounce words familiar to all Jews, and his rhythm and body movement were utterly, utterly wrong. Don't know if it was his fault or one of the team, and I refuse to apportion blame, but I'm afraid it did rather wreck the play for me. One possible blooper, if anyone can help? Act Two Goldberg sits on a chair and invites Lulu to sit on his knee. This afternoon, he tells her after a moment, to "please assist me by sitting on the table for a moment." She seemed surprised to be asked, and he then played with her leg and she did a line about being tickled. I got the idea something went wrong and they were covering? Or is it how it is always? Could Mangan's mispronunciation be a typical bit of Pinter's misdirection? I thought one of his trairs was you can't trust the characters, what they say, what is real etc? Goldberg says he's Jewish but his mannerisms say his isn't? And Lulu on the table happened when I was there too.
|
|