|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 13:29:10 GMT
Oh piffle. We've all gone to see something without really knowing what it's about and basing it on the cast. That's half of my theatre going life! I shouldn't have to do any revision before deciding whether I book for something. And good luck working out what the play is about before booking something at the Almeida if their website is anything to go by. I definitely book to see shows without knowing what they're about, often without knowing anything about the cast, ALL THE TIME. For example, I booked a ticket for Downstate last November, and just found out yesterday what it's about. (Depending on early word of mouth, there is a possibility said ticket may be returned for credit.....) There are LOADS of reasons why people might book to see a play, and although it would kill the snobs to admit it, there isn't a single reason that is better, or more correct, or more pure than any of the other reasons.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 28, 2019 13:45:32 GMT
Clearly, the language barrier will have led to misunderstandings about the nature of the play for the non-English speaking attendees. Those who do speak English have less of an excuse, though. It's not as though it was tucked away on the website because it was emblazoned across the press both when tickets went on sale and when performances started. From the perspective of the audience I was in, they were very much with the play however, although this may be because it was an extra performance so people were booking with a very good understanding of what they were booking for. Those who returned tickets would probably, on the whole, have done the right thing as they realised they had made a mistake. Those who just turned up, hadn't registered what was being said and didn't get what they were wanting only have themselves to blame. Caveat emptor. All in all, apart from the asinine way that the NT made it appear exclusive, the audience was there for the diverse reasons that it always is.
I'm pleased that a fair number (increasingly in evidence on here) will have had a good experience of something previously outside their usual theatregoing. Obviously, there are those who tried it out and didn't get anything out of it but that's the nature of art, there is no guarantee.
One small part of the audience is a group that always annoys me, however. The ones who blame everyone except themselves for them not enjoying it. You read about it, you book the tickets, you make the decisions. In future, make better choices and if you keep seeing things you dislike then maybe you need to realise that you are the problem. As I say, a small part of any audience but a frustratingly voluble part.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Feb 28, 2019 13:45:47 GMT
I suspect that I'm in the minority here, but if we're talking about 'bad manners' then I've gotta say that finding out that theatre-goers are going multiple times strikes me as slightly unsporting, given how limited the ticket availability is for this and how many people haven't been able to go even once.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that this is a play that will benefit from multiple viewings and I suppose it's nice that those who liked it most and made the effort (or have the most disposable income and flexible work schedule) have been able to grab a second ticket. However, while the online returns give everyone a chance, I feel that it would be fairer if those who missed out on the earlier ticket sales got a second shake at the stick over those who've been already. Or perhaps that's just me feeling bitter about only going once.
Either way, in the (presumably unlikely) chance that this comes back to the NT, I hope they go with a lesser-name actress, in which case I'll be inline to see it again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 13:49:32 GMT
No I see your point on that- when it's balloted. I see cheating the system by two friends buddying up and taking one another as 'fair game' I suppose, as they're not taking up additional allocation. But it does seem unfair/poor manners.
*I say this with full disclosure that I *did* cheat the NT's rules for Angels tickets...
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 28, 2019 13:56:21 GMT
Found the gift giving at the end a bit cringeworthy People used to do it in theatre though, didn't they? At least that's the impression I get from old movies. always seems weird to me when people give gifts inside theatre or outside to actors.....I mean, there could literally be anything in there (a bomb?) surprised that, with security concerns everywhere now and especially UK, it is even allowed by the theatre...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 14:52:43 GMT
*I say this with full disclosure that I *did* cheat the NT's rules for Angels tickets... But to quote Franz in the original movie "The Producers," "You are only the audience, I am the author*, I outrank you" so you are probably given a bye on that one. *of an article in the programme, but still, attached to the show. I mean this was my reasoning. 'I KNOW PEOPLE' was my other...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 15:00:51 GMT
☝️OMGay, did you write about 'Angels in America' @emicardiff? Why didn't you say anything before? Bravo!
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 28, 2019 15:29:35 GMT
if we're talking about 'bad manners' then I've gotta say that finding out that theatre-goers are going multiple times strikes me as slightly unsporting I don't - my issue is more with people who go half-heartedly because the money's no object and it's something to say you've seen and hated at your next dinner party. I think the couple to the left of me fell into that bracket (he asleep, her rooting noisily in her bag all the time), frustrating when you can see ticketless people on social media or craning from the upper gallery who would clearly love to be sitting where they were.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 15:44:37 GMT
if we're talking about 'bad manners' then I've gotta say that finding out that theatre-goers are going multiple times strikes me as slightly unsporting I don't - my issue is more with people who go half-heartedly because the money's no object and it's something to say you've seen and hated at your next dinner party. I think the couple to the left of me fell into that bracket (he asleep, her rooting noisily in her bag all the time), frustrating when you can see ticketless people on social media or craning from the upper gallery who would clearly love to be sitting where they were. But don't we need some of those people for whom money is no object and just go to the theatre in the most expensive seats to enable the people craning in the upper gallery to be able buy a cheap seat?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 28, 2019 16:04:32 GMT
We do, but when the expensive seats suddenly become all the seats except the upper gallery, one has to ask questions, perhaps. Related to that, I don't think any of the £15 seats at the NT should be put on sale until public booking opens.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 16:11:26 GMT
☝️OMGay, did you write about 'Angels in America' @emicardiff ? Why didn't you say anything before? Bravo! Mainly an essay of 'Garfield Hair through the ages'
|
|
3,088 posts
|
Post by david on Feb 28, 2019 16:33:51 GMT
☝️OMGay, did you write about 'Angels in America' @emicardiff ? Why didn't you say anything before? Bravo! Mainly an essay of 'Garfield Hair through the ages' A hair raising experience?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 16:57:29 GMT
Mainly an essay of 'Garfield Hair through the ages' Orange with black stripes? Again waaaay off topic but the other week someone said to me 'Oh I'll remember your name, like the famous cartoonist' we went around the houses a bit and got to 'You know the one with the orange cat' ...before inevitably establishing, that the cat was called Garfield, not the cartoonist, and as I am not Mrs Andrew Garfield this was not my name either....
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 28, 2019 17:02:32 GMT
Would be interesting to see what effect that has on their membership income... I'm curious, but it is frustrating to see theatres using the existence of these tickets as a symbol of greater accessibility when in reality they are probably mostly snapped up in advance by those with pockets deep enough to afford membership, which in the higher tiers for this and other theatres is pretty high.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 17:05:03 GMT
But many theatres need memberships to keep going no?
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 28, 2019 17:39:05 GMT
many theatres need memberships to keep going In the long term wouldn't it be better for its appeal and survival if theatres didn't have all these mysterious perks for the rich which only increases the widely held (and not unjustified) impression many people have that theatregoing is a luxury for the wealthy and in-the-know rather than an art form open equally for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 17:45:39 GMT
many theatres need memberships to keep going In the long term wouldn't it be better for its appeal and survival if theatres didn't have all these mysterious perks for the rich which only increases the widely held (and not unjustified) impression many people have that theatregoing is a luxury for the wealthy and in-the-know rather than an art form open equally for everyone. Membership isn't really a "mysterious perk" though is it? Most of the theatres will tell you what you get for your membership should you choose to join, it's not like it's a secret club where you need to be recommended twice before being invited to join. Perhaps without memberships ticket prices would have to be even higher and those cheap tickets everybody loves will become even rarer. A theatre won't survive on £15 tickets and a few day seats.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 28, 2019 18:00:45 GMT
It would be interesting to look at who buys what tickets and when.
I’ve always taken it as read that those who can afford a membership are able and willing to buy tickets at a higher price, to subsidise those less able to pay (even £80 a year would be seen as unwarranted expenditure by many). Why would they not continue to pay for that membership if those tickets were priced normally until public booking opens? They would still be at levels cheaper than the full price, so the membership is still getting the early access which most seem to feel is the real benefit, plus they get a double or more chance to get tickets for popular shows. The other result would be first timers, those for whom going to the theatre is not a regular thing, would find affordable tickets more available to them.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 28, 2019 18:40:49 GMT
It is, in my experience as an 'outsider'. Are all seats released to members? Do they (as it appears) get the pick of the litter regarding the best seats / bargain seats / bargain days? I'm in quickly when public booking opens and there's rarely anything left in some theatres (Donmar, Almeida) if there's a good cast or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 18:41:39 GMT
In the long term wouldn't it be better for its appeal and survival if theatres didn't have all these mysterious perks for the rich which only increases the widely held (and not unjustified) impression many people have that theatregoing is a luxury for the wealthy and in-the-know rather than an art form open equally for everyone. Membership isn't really a "mysterious perk" though is it? Most of the theatres will tell you what you get for your membership should you choose to join, it's not like it's a secret club where you need to be recommended twice before being invited to join. Perhaps without memberships ticket prices would have to be even higher and those cheap tickets everybody loves will become even rarer. A theatre won't survive on £15 tickets and a few day seats. Bear in mind this is some VERY basic maths/economics to illustrate a point, but the purpose of Memberships is 'money in the bank' as in if you've got 100 memberships at £10 each well that's £1000 before you start that you aren't going to lose either way. While in theory you could make more by selling out your 100 seats at £10 than only selling 1/3 of them at £50 or whatever, you need that capital to keep the 'lights on' as it were in the first place. And anyway all to say, no memberships aren't some big mysterious thing. And honestly anyone I know who has one generally sees it as 'yes i get the perks but also I want to support the arts more broadly and I'm in a position to do so' as well. I don't disagree that much like the Amex system they should hold back some of the cheaper seats for general sale, but also that's the theatre's prerogative etc (and maybe just nobody has pointed this out to them)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 19:20:02 GMT
It is, in my experience as an 'outsider'. Are all seats released to members? Do they (as it appears) get the pick of the litter regarding the best seats / bargain seats / bargain days? I'm in quickly when public booking opens and there's rarely anything left in some theatres (Donmar, Almeida) if there's a good cast or whatever. If you were a member (say for example you felt passionately about a particular theatre or wanted to treat yourself or someone bought it for you as a gift) would you only buy the most expensive seats when you got the chance even if there were some of those £15 tickets available? If you got the chance to buy tickets earlier than others because of that membership, would you take advantage of that or would you wait until public booking opened? I'm genuinely interested.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 28, 2019 19:29:05 GMT
yes i get the perks but also I want to support the arts I understand the economics of it but theatre has an image problem as being something for an elite and the 'early access for the wealthy' thing plays into that. If it felt more welcoming and accessible, more part of the community in general, maybe it would attract more people over the threshold and wouldn't need a few with very deep pockets to keep it ticking over. It's unusual, as an art form, in that where you sit has a direct bearing on the quality of your experience and can completely transform it. I really like studio productions because all seats are the same price and if you are enthusiastic enough to be prepared to wait you'll get a great seat and if you'd rather be in the bar till 7.30 you won't, so the quality of your experience isn't predetermined by wealth. I appreciate that's obviously not practical for large old fashioned theatres - the issue with membership is quite often you don't even have the chance to buy a decent stalls seat even if you do have the money because they've gone by the time public booking opens.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 19:31:23 GMT
Yes, but (sorry Mods this is a tangent) but there is no magic money tree is there? fact is we need rich people to support the arts so the less well off can have the cheap tickets.
And I say that as one of the broke-as-hell folks who can't afford membership. Ironically because I work in the arts.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 28, 2019 19:37:33 GMT
Most people I guess off-set the membership by the ticket price. But for those of us from out-of-town you have to factor in that we're probably aiming for a Saturday matinee and I'll generally spend more on travelling than the ticket itself. What I do is get a crap seat, buy advance train tickets and then keep checking for a better seat through returns if it's a theatre that's enlightened enough to do them and let me swap. Some West End ones don't, even though the ticket you are trying to return is a £10 upper circle massively restricted view and the one you want is a much pricier stalls!
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 28, 2019 19:44:55 GMT
we need rich people to support the arts so the less well off can have the cheap tickets. Yes, but my original point was that in some cases the cheap tickets are snapped up by those with memberships before there's a chance for the general public to get them. I note the Royal Court flags up that only a limited number of advance cheap Monday seats are available to members before their public release, membership is anyway fairly cheap so accessible - £35 - and it's a theatre that attracts a younger, more diverse crowd than most London venues.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 19:58:45 GMT
we need rich people to support the arts so the less well off can have the cheap tickets. Yes, but my original point was that in some cases the cheap tickets are snapped up by those with memberships before there's a chance for the general public to get them. I note the Royal Court flags up that only a limited number of advance cheap Monday seats are available to members before their public release, membership is anyway fairly cheap so accessible - £35 - and it's a theatre that attracts a younger, more diverse crowd than most London venues. Look I think we're all talking completely at odds and getting nowhere, so I for one am calling it a day (also because possibly people do want to discuss Cate and her nylon underwear in this thread and who am I to stop them).
|
|
|
Post by mathh on Feb 28, 2019 20:40:46 GMT
(also because possibly people do want to discuss Cate and her nylon underwear in this thread and who am I to stop them). Five days since I've seen the play and I'm still thinking about them...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 21:01:35 GMT
Yes, but my original point was that in some cases the cheap tickets are snapped up by those with memberships before there's a chance for the general public to get them. I note the Royal Court flags up that only a limited number of advance cheap Monday seats are available to members before their public release, membership is anyway fairly cheap so accessible - £35 - and it's a theatre that attracts a younger, more diverse crowd than most London venues. Look I think we're all talking completely at odds and getting nowhere, so I for one am calling it a day (also because possibly people do want to discuss Cate and her nylon underwear in this thread and who am I to stop them). Quite right. So that dildo huh? Had a bit of an odd curve to it, did it not? No wonder Stephen Dillane kept his scanties on in the curtain call. I hope someone scans his dressing room post-show...
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 28, 2019 22:38:00 GMT
Look I think we're all talking completely at odds and getting nowhere, so I for one am calling it a day (also because possibly people do want to discuss Cate and her nylon underwear in this thread and who am I to stop them). Quite right. So that dildo huh? Had a bit of an odd curve to it, did it not? No wonder Stephen Dillane kept his scanties on in the curtain call. I hope someone scans his dressing room post-show... exactly....was wondering what made them choose this particular one.... btw - does anyone know why they had the tape over their mouth in the beginning? it did not seem to have any real purpose and they took it off quickly anyway....
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 28, 2019 22:56:32 GMT
Quite right. So that dildo huh? Had a bit of an odd curve to it, did it not? No wonder Stephen Dillane kept his scanties on in the curtain call. I hope someone scans his dressing room post-show... exactly....was wondering what made them choose this particular one.... btw - does anyone know why they had the tape over their mouth in the beginning? it did not seem to have any real purpose and they took it off quickly anyway.... Control - setting the ground rules as to who gets to speak and when and who gets to use language and how (a lot of the time the observers are also made to parrot lines as opposed to the main couple who also get to improvise around the scenarios). Class, language and power and how they are intertwined is an important aspect of the novel it is based on. Probably something to be said about the ownership of other orifices, too.....
|
|