24 posts
|
Post by siteseer on Aug 24, 2019 10:04:53 GMT
Need help choosing a seat. Need an aisle and have a few options. Row H is available as is the first three rows. Are the first few rows too close? Already have tickets for Hansard, Appropriate, Evita, The Doctor, Falsettos and The Night of the Iguana. Should be a great first week of September. This board has been extremely helpful in choosing my shows. Very grateful and thanks in advance.
|
|
1,016 posts
|
Post by andrew on Aug 24, 2019 13:39:00 GMT
I can count the three hour plays that couldn't have been shortened on one hand, does this justify it's length?
I'll be there on Monday either way I guess...
|
|
99 posts
|
Post by youngoffender on Aug 24, 2019 13:55:23 GMT
I was at the fourth preview last night (Friday 23rd) and it was a lot slicker than expected - no fluffed lines, and complex scene changes all working smoothly. What doesn't work, sadly, is the play. Lucy Prebble concedes in the programme that she struggled with the framing of this story, and what we see here feels like an early draft that came up against an immovable deadline. {Spoiler - click to view} The first half is the stronger, with some modestly intriguing scenes as we start to wind back from Litvinenko's poisoning to his early work for the FSB back in Russia. But just before the interval we are introduced to Putin (played with musical-hall relish by Reece Shearsmith), who then becomes an acid chorus throughout the second act's increasingly sketchy and uninvolving hunt around London for polonium traces. Tonally it's all over the place, attempting to milk the comedy in the poisoners' ineptitude alongside a central tragic love story, but by the time the actors dropped completely out of character and asked audience members to read conclusions from the public inquiry, I was scratching my head at many of the baffling decisions.
I can see what Prebble was trying to do, putting multiple perspectives on this story rather than just a linear narrative when we know already from the inquest whodunnit. But her approach sucks all drama out of an overlong evening, and the intermittently accented pairing of Tom Brooke and MyAnna Buring as the Litvinenkos never got me invested in their fate.
Look out for some familiar Soviet caricatures in the first half. Their scene is the highlight by some distance.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Aug 24, 2019 14:05:45 GMT
My thoughts weren't disimilar youngoffender, but then the first person I spoke at the cycle rack loved it - about 30 years and a nationality different to me. It just reminded me there are all kinds of audiences for all kinds of styles. It is shambolic in parts and head-shaking - but by my perhaps staid, conventional measure. Others think otherwise. It might even be somewhat ... generational.
|
|
76 posts
|
Post by finalperformance on Aug 24, 2019 21:29:43 GMT
Time flew by and got out around 10:30. A first rate production. Construction still on at Old Vic and temp toilets are outside theatre.
|
|
1,186 posts
|
Post by Steve on Aug 25, 2019 7:54:28 GMT
I really enjoyed this. Informative, entertaining, never boring, the substance lags behind the style, as psychology and motivations are sometimes swamped by procedural elements and playful theatrical techniques. Some spoilers follow. . . Lucy Prebble takes the factual material surrounding the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko, and reassembles it, like a series of Russian Dolls, into layers that are peeled back, one after the other, until we get a final clear picture of what happened and why. But she spends too much time on the what, and too little time on the why. Of course, if you know absolutely nothing about Litvinenko, this approach may wholly succeed for you, as we start in Litvinenko's hospital death bed, and move back in time, and again, and change perspective, and whatnot, doling out facts. But if, like me, you saw news coverage of the case, back in the day, the procedural elements involving investigating all the different places Litvineko might have been poisoned just spark deja vu. For me, it's what the news DIDN'T highlight that was most interesting, and this show does a great job of characterising the man himself, harnessing Tom Brooke's natural openness, and coupling that with a charming conviviality and forthrightness, to suggest a man with almost spectrum-levels levels of naiveté and can-do spirit. Brooke's characterisation expanded the story for me dramatically in a relatable, human and tragic way. But the motivation and psychology of the Russian authorities and agents, and pretty much everyone else in the story, never receive the same focus and attention. When Michael Schaeffer bitterly delivers a surprising monologue about how 35 million dead Russians in WW2 got overlooked by the West, it resonates like a punch to the gut, partly because it's so powerfully expressed and written, but also because it's so lonely a speech, an outlier of how great the show might have been if we could have peeked more deeply being the (Iron) curtain. Instead, what we mostly get are the kind of fun and surreal theatrical techniques from Enron: singing, dancing and movement, puppet heads, assassins as keystone cops, Peter Polycarpou hilariously singing as Boris Berezovsky, and most magnificently, a wry, dry and sly Reece Shearsmith, as Vladimir Putin, popping up like Punch and Judy, to fake news the whole show lol. But while that stuff is fun, it's surface, and it never gets deep the way Shaeffer's speech gets deep, and all the stuff about this hotel room, or that bar, or this night club, feels more like a quotidian episode of "Law and Order" (dum dum). I loved Brooke and MyAnna Buring as the central couple, Alexander and Marina Litvinenko, and felt they gave the show a lot of heart, but what I wanted from Prebble was a bit more head. 3 and a half stars.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Aug 25, 2019 9:56:08 GMT
I loved Brooke and MyAnna Buring as the central couple, Alexander and Marina Litvinenko, and felt they gave the show a lot of heart, but what I wanted from Prebble was a bit more head. My inner Sid James forced me to quote this.
Interesting comments Steve.
Fascinated by the breadth of reactions. Mainstream reviews will be interesting.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 25, 2019 10:07:54 GMT
I saw it last night and Steve has hit on pretty much everything I would have said. This is recent history 101; for me, I wanted it to be angrier, to connect the dots with now. To make the murderers and their superiors into comedy characters feels wrong, when we are living through its continuation; not just overtly with the Skripals but with the propaganda of fake news (the true one, not Trump’s attempt to kill the phrase by subverting it).
Does it make it more palatable? Yes, but why should it? The ending is fine but feels like an apology rather than the call to arms that the story needs.
|
|
1,903 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 25, 2019 10:38:51 GMT
Got an email, matinees are now starting 30 minutes earlier at 2pm.
I got the same email. Irritating, given that I'd already booked train tickets based on a 2.30pm start.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 25, 2019 17:30:24 GMT
I was also there last night and a bit lukewarm to it, which can also be translated as tepid.
If the producers change the start time, does that mean the theatre has an obligation to re-imburse you, if you cannot make it.
Unfortunately that won’t apply to the train, which can cost more that the theatre ticket.
|
|
2,345 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 26, 2019 21:26:42 GMT
I enjoyed this. I agree it was a little sketchy and tonally all over the place, but th3 comedy was good. And reece shearsmith always does a good slimeball
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Aug 27, 2019 12:54:14 GMT
I had a bumpy ride with this but ended up liking it and would probably give the same number as stars as Steve - if not for entirely the same reasons.
The first 20 minutes or so didn't work for me - at all. Like Steve, I knew a bit about the story so some of it wasn't new and the style was sort of 'Casualty' stuck on stage. Just when I was about to despair, I got hooked. Thought the Boris and Putin sections were fascinating and very well performed. The surreal stuff worked for me - the story is so wild and crazy, a wild and crazy style seemed appropriate. Highlights were the ends of both acts, the use of puppets and as Steve mentions Shaeffer's speech (25 million!) Lloyd Hutchison was his usually endearing self - I always enjoy his performances (okay I didn't see Salome.)
It's baggy in bits and there were a few weird technical things (some tinny music was playing up in the Dress Circle for about 8 minutes early on, for example.) The women in the play except for MyAnna Buring, who I wasn't entirely sure about, had very little to do, but that seemed to be the nature of the tale. Row D aisle Dress Circle for £10 were a steal - no restriction to view at all.
When we were leaving I heard people discussing it in relation to the Salisbury poisoning and it's sent me to the internet to look up some stuff I didn't know/had forgotten about - so that's got to be a good thing?
|
|
1,319 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Aug 27, 2019 14:09:26 GMT
I really enjoyed it. It certainly has flaws and some of the jokes are just har har Russian stereotypes that don't stand up to much scrutiny. The actual staging is quite fantastic, the swings and the use of the entire stage (and then some) is really impressive.
When it does come together, it's excellent. The monologue about Russian deaths, the speech just before the internal and notably, the dance at the end are all fabulous and land hard.
I came out of it really impressed and fairly moved. In the cold light of next day, I am a little less so, and I'd tend agree that it's all on the surface. Tho I would say that the spectacle and the theatrical techniques are quite excellent and frankly worth the price of admission alone.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Aug 29, 2019 14:58:47 GMT
I see this one now has a gunfire warning. Would anyone mind saying what happens and when in a spoiler tag, please? And whether it's real gunshots, or sound effects.
|
|
2,345 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 29, 2019 15:08:05 GMT
I see this one now has a gunfire warning. Would anyone mind saying what happens and when in a spoiler tag, please? And whether it's real gunshots, or sound effects. <SPOILER>
'Mugging' scene ends with the mian character pulling a gun to shoot in the air. Dunno if real or sound effect!
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Aug 29, 2019 15:37:56 GMT
I see this one now has a gunfire warning. Would anyone mind saying what happens and when in a spoiler tag, please? And whether it's real gunshots, or sound effects. <SPOILER>
'Mugging' scene ends with the mian character pulling a gun to shoot in the air. Dunno if real or sound effect!
Thanks. One gunshot I can cope with. How far into the show is it?
|
|
1,016 posts
|
Post by andrew on Aug 29, 2019 19:33:19 GMT
Thanks. One gunshot I can cope with. How far into the show is it? {Spoiler - click to view} Real gun firing a blank. I think it's about an hour in maybe, some youths appear and start harassing Alexander, after a brief altercation he pulls the gun quickly and then fires into the air.
|
|
1,186 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Aug 29, 2019 20:08:41 GMT
I see this one now has a gunfire warning. Would anyone mind saying what happens and when in a spoiler tag, please? And whether it's real gunshots, or sound effects. <SPOILER>
'Mugging' scene ends with the mian character pulling a gun to shoot in the air. Dunno if real or sound effect!
Where's the spoiler? !!! I CAN'T SEE IT!! WHERE IS ITTTTTTT? ? Is it hidden behind a spoiler tag? WHERE? ?!! Oh.....no.....hang on........that spoiler is right there in plain sight for all to see. As you were
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 31, 2019 22:33:57 GMT
Very sad and moving play. I’m not totally convinced by the way LP has chosen to present it: obviously in the zeitgeist with smashed fourth wall and variation of tone because for me it worked best when closest to a straightforward drama. Maybe she felt the audience doesn’t know enough about the subject and needs reminding of the context and so on to ‘get’ it fully. So she is not, I don't think intending this to last, rather like Hare’s polemics on the railways and the Iraq War, or her other work for that matter. But there is a genuine tragedy here and proper characters. Some lovely detailed writing though and all done with style, good sets, lighting etc. Nice acting, loved the change in the accent from ‘Russian’ to Russian English - been trying to remember where this is done in another play.
Interestingly, we don’t get to find out what happened to Boris, the Mayfair ‘bear’. This would have taken away from the main ‘plot’ I suppose but it is very relevant to the overall message LP is putting before us.
We went to this tonight instead of The Weatherman at the Park, the tix for which I dumped having read the word ‘rancid’ in one review. No, I don't always believe reviews but this one was dire and I had the choice.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Aug 31, 2019 23:05:00 GMT
Nice acting, loved the change in the accent from ‘Russian’ to Russian English - been trying to remember where this is done in another play. Rock 'N' Roll by Tom Stoppard
|
|
503 posts
|
Post by jampot on Aug 31, 2019 23:16:03 GMT
Nice acting, loved the change in the accent from ‘Russian’ to Russian English - been trying to remember where this is done in another play. Rock 'N' Roll by Tom Stoppard What was the reason for doing this?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Sept 1, 2019 1:19:01 GMT
Rock 'N' Roll by Tom Stoppard What was the reason for doing this? To differentiate when they are speaking in English (when they have an accent) or Russian (when they don’t).
|
|
1,016 posts
|
Post by andrew on Sept 1, 2019 10:11:23 GMT
So she is not, I don't think intending this to last, rather like Hare’s polemics on the railways and the Iraq War, or her other work for that matter. I'd rather contemporary playwrights construct things that they believe speak best to audiences right now, at the time the play is being written and produced, than trying to write something that will be revived several times through the years. Not sensible for her retirement plans, but I think better for us.
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 1, 2019 13:31:37 GMT
I agree, you can’t write for posterity but funny how Ibsen still works for us...
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Sept 2, 2019 22:58:59 GMT
I saw this in previews, so have ended up with a spare £20 ticket, stalls Q35 restricted view available for this Monday (9th). There's a notice on the noticeboard. I enjoyed it, so reckon someone else will as well.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Sept 3, 2019 12:50:35 GMT
I was going to market it as 'Monkey-approved' but thought that might be pushing it! :-) (It's still available BTW)
|
|
|
Post by nytheatreguy on Sept 3, 2019 16:26:23 GMT
I went to see Expensive Poison last night. Was beyond excited given Lucy Prebble’s previous success as well as the buzz / positive press surrounding the show. I found the play terribly inconsistent and much less satisfying than I was hoping for. I was expecting a show that smartly unpacked the A.L. story and conspiracy of his death, and what I saw was a show that seemed unable to know what it wanted to be - from literal to absurd - which sadly didn't work for me. The 2nd Act felt stronger than the first as it had a bit more literal storytelling, but the character in the upper tier with the microphone played by Reece S. was completely annoying and not needed. Perhaps I am way off when I see the reviews Thursday night/Friday am - but I SO wanted it to be an “edge of my seat” thriller, and that isn’t what I saw on the stage last night. Or am I wrong?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Sept 3, 2019 16:40:38 GMT
I went to see Expensive Poison last night. Was beyond excited given Lucy Prebble’s previous success as well as the buzz / positive press surrounding the show. I found the play terribly inconsistent and much less satisfying than I was hoping for. I was expecting a show that smartly unpacked the A.L. story and conspiracy of his death, and what I saw was a show that seemed unable to know what it wanted to be - from literal to absurd - which sadly didn't work for me. The 2nd Act felt stronger than the first as it had a bit more literal storytelling, but the character in the upper tier with the microphone played by Reece S. was completely annoying and not needed. Perhaps I am way off when I see the reviews Thursday night/Friday am - but I SO wanted it to be an “edge of my seat” thriller, and that isn’t what I saw on the stage last night. Or am I wrong? Welcome nytheatreguy. I agree in a way. It wasn’t what I was looking for, really. Too flippant at times and quite basic in its approach, not really delving into the wider context. Maybe others who don’t really know the story will like it better. I see a lot of more fringe type ensemble shows and this felt like it was striving to be that but also trying to be a west end play as well. A worthwhile experiment but with incomplete success.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Sept 3, 2019 21:55:44 GMT
I enjoyed this piece of performance art this evening and think it has potential. The show is thought provoking and tries to interest you through lots of different layers.
But it suffers from the same problems as Sylvia last year, where it comes across very much as a work in progress and one that would have benefited from being workshopped. There were a few line stumbles towards the end, so I rather think they're still testing different things out each night. Running time was 2 hours 45 minutes.
This is very much a play of two halves. The first half is great, a mostly traditional play. The second half is a variety show, with singing, dancing and lots of audience interaction. If you do enjoy that type of thing, the best places to sit, at least from tonight, are centre front row, anything on the second row (two men in the middle got to say if they preferred having a crotch or bum in their face - I'll come back to them later) and the side Stalls for the first few rows. There is some action in the other levels as well, although I couldn't see all of it.
My second row Stalls seat, picked up during one of the sales, was great value. This seemed pretty full and I think it will sell.
The show is presented rather as if it is a work of fiction. From conversations around me, I'm really not convinced that people knew this was based on a real story. It's presented in such a way that you have to yourself differentiate fact and fiction and try and work backwards to put together the whole story. Personally, it has made me want to read the non-fiction book this whole thing was based on.
I think it could easily be trimmed. There are a few scenes that don't really add to the plot. There are two gunshots (together) at the end of a long scene that leaves you on edge. The use of gunshots adds nothing. As it happened, these were on the quieter end of the spectrum.
Reece Shearsmith is very active in coordinating the variety act, with a portrayal very similar to all his most annoying characters from The League of Gentlemen (you'll probably even recognise the voice). That was one part that didn't really work for me, as if it was all there just to lead to a poorly done magic trick towards the end (which I saw coming a mile off). There's a lot of breaking the fourth wall and talking about the terrible condition of the Old Vic right now as it's plagued with building work and entering through side doors (as someone near me mentioned, how would they get everyone out quickly if there was a fire?).
The ending snaps between acting and real life, to the extent that I was expecting the real Marina Litvinenko to appear on stage (I'm sure she will at some point). There were several other teases that didn't happen, including the theatre being taken over by gunmen, as well as showing images taken of the real Alexander Litvinenko.
Apart from that, sets are effective, with good use of small sets to suggest rooms and a fully open stage with multiple set pieces during events that may have been fact or fiction. The acting was competent, with a large cast, with many playing multiple characters (the opposite of many recent plays, which have as small a cast as possible). There is a change between Russian and English accents which has been explained earlier in the thread and really wouldn't have been obvious to me otherwise.
My impression at the end was an audience not sure if they'd watched a comedy, with respect for the actors, but ultimately puzzlement. There's enough puzzlement there that this will get decent reviews and word of mouth out there. It also got one person standing, one of the aforementioned men, although his partner did join him right at the end of the bows to make it two people. I would have stood up if a lot of the audience had done so, but although this has potential, it isn't quite there yet.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 3, 2019 22:44:53 GMT
I went to see Expensive Poison last night. Was beyond excited given Lucy Prebble’s previous success as well as the buzz / positive press surrounding the show. I found the play terribly inconsistent and much less satisfying than I was hoping for. I was expecting a show that smartly unpacked the A.L. story and conspiracy of his death, and what I saw was a show that seemed unable to know what it wanted to be - from literal to absurd - which sadly didn't work for me. The 2nd Act felt stronger than the first as it had a bit more literal storytelling, but the character in the upper tier with the microphone played by Reece S. was completely annoying and not needed. Perhaps I am way off when I see the reviews Thursday night/Friday am - but I SO wanted it to be an “edge of my seat” thriller, and that isn’t what I saw on the stage last night. Or am I wrong? We thought Reece Shearsmith's character was either Putin or represented the embodiment of the Russian State. Putin certainly has a sense of entitlement about Russia's role in the modern world based on its contribution to shaping it. Hollywood has educated us to see things differently.
Perhaps the idea with Shearsmith and the operative who spoke of the 25 million men was, together, to offer some sense of another experience.
I did think Prebble missed a trick by not referring to the eastern front of WW2 as Russians do ('The Great Patriotic War'). She might also have found a way to mention the UK is the only European country to not have been brutally subjugated at some point in the last 75 years; stuff that shapes national identities.
LOL. There as also a good deal of puzzlement at the first preview.
|
|