|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 9:03:18 GMT
There was a theatre a year or two back who had some kerfuffle with people complaining about booking fees, so they went into quite some detail as to why they had to charge different fees and why they had to call them what they did. I wish I could remember which theatre so I could find an article rather than relying on my shoddy memory, but it was basically that the ticket cost either completely or mostly goes to the production company, whereas the booking fees go to the venue. So although people were complaining they'd have been less annoyed if the ticket prices had simply risen a little to cover the price hike rather than introducing a new booking fee, if the theatre had done that, they still wouldn't have been any better off, as they needed booking fees to cover staff and building costs that the production company wouldn't be dealing with.
Some booking fees are massive rip-offs, sure, but generally they exist for a reason. Other businesses are set up that extra fees for venue and staffing (such as a restaurant) are included in the basic price and that doesn't lead to any financial confusion down the line, but for better or for worse theatre has been set up over the years in such a way that the booking fee does need to be listed separately from the ticket price.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 10:48:02 GMT
I remember that article, while this isn't it there is a breakdown in this....http://www.marlowetheatre.com/page/3598/Booking-fees-your-questions-answered
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 9, 2016 16:55:01 GMT
Tempted to see this now.
|
|
1,016 posts
|
Post by andrew on May 9, 2016 22:09:48 GMT
Caught this tonight with the £20 Mondays thing, and probably because my expectations were lowered by recent reviews I had a surprisingly good time. I'm not particularly well versed in classical theatre so know not much of Dr Faustus (or Faust), haven't seen any other productions, and haven't got much to compare it to. Maybe that's why I had a pretty good time from start to finish. I don't have any qualms about the script, although I can see how the modern sections don't quite live up to the classical parts in general. It all gelled together in a strange way, mostly as everyone says because of the actors working very hard. Craig Stein created one of my favourite moments in the play with a particularly surprising Obama portrayal, Jenna Russell was on top form and Kit Harrington just about acted as well as he is sculpted. I'm very glad I went.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 10, 2016 5:36:00 GMT
I was there as well, andrew, and I agree with you. Who would have thought dreary old Doctor Faustus could be such fun? Not being a fan of Marlowe's dramatically inert original, I welcomed Colin Teevan's script interventions and, frankly, preferred them. Faustus selling his soul for celebrity is hardly a new or profound take on this material but Jamie Lloyd has thrown everything (including a kitchen sink) into it and I thought it was pretty damn dazzling.
I have not much enjoyed some of Lloyd's recent work - the Pinter on steroids Homecoming, the overblown and hence unfunny Urinetown - but here he has a project perfectly suited to his gifts. He's not a thinker he's a showman - like Lucifer himself - and this is a great show.
I thought Harington was shouty and uneasy at the beginning (the Marlowe bits) but once the concept took hold he came into his own and I thought he was tremendous thereafter - a perfect fit in virtually every way. He earned his applause. I also loved Jenna Russell (of course) and her interval cabaret and Tom Edden, whose extravagant second act monologue was quite astonishing and Forbes Masson, whose camp Lucifer was a darkly entertaining presence throughout. But the whole cast was wonderful.
I can see why Marlowe afficionados wouldn't care for this but for me it turned a dutiful evening of "classic theatre" into a great night out.
And then, to emerge into St. Martin's Lane to find a mob of smartphone wielding fans swarming around Harington's waiting limo, screaming for his attention, was icing on the cake. Was this too part of the show? It was the perfect coda. Life and art conjoined.
|
|
87 posts
|
Post by greenswan on May 10, 2016 5:52:48 GMT
I went yesterday as well. With those famous £15 Tickets plus £3,50 for the joy of them selling it to me. Quite a few empty seats around me at the back of the stalls so I had a great view and plenty of legroom! I thought the overall audience reaction at the curtain call was fairly muted though aside from some whistling.
My expectations were lowered by what I read here but despite this I didn't particularly enjoy it. Like with The Maids which I also experienced as relentlessly stressful, this one reaches fever pitch quite quickly and never breathes. There is so much thrown at it, it goes beyond even Regietheater really? If there was a coherent play in there somewhere it got lost.
I do think the actors do what they can (aside from lack of clarity in the dialogue in the beginning) but overall I really don't know what to do with this. And just on a last note, interesting when the tables are turned so to speak and a man is objectified on stage - lots of gratuitous nudity.
|
|
2,571 posts
|
Post by viserys on May 10, 2016 11:49:57 GMT
Trust me, Regietheater in Germany can be way way worse. Especially since it so often involves bare stages that are meant to be arty but only scream "we had no money for a set" and very staid cerebral "performances" completely drained of any emotion. It's in the strange stiff German that kids are being taught at drama schools that has no bearing on normal German and ruins movies as well.
I hate German Regietheater with a passion and have avoided seeing dramas here for years - one of the reasons why I keep coming back to London all the time. So initially I was dismayed when I read all the negative reviews (here and the official ones) about this Faustus. I love the story, especially Goethe's version which I'd LOVE to see staged somewhere (outside of Germany) and I'm a huge Game of Thrones fan so seeing Harington as Faustus was the icing on the cake for me.
And yet, when I saw it last week, I was thoroughly entertained by the frenetic action on stage and I thought Lloyd's concept worked very well here. I was far less impressed by The Maids, though I think that's the play's problem rather than the staging. But overall - nah, nothing like Regietheater and I'm with Mallardo on this.
|
|
330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on May 10, 2016 12:19:19 GMT
Also seen it yesterday. My theatre buddy and me had a lot of fun watching it but thought it was not really good. Our main problem with it: Jamie Lloyd has thrown too many ideas, gimmicks etc into it, even more overloaded than the stage at Richard III. A kind of very entertaining and funny show, but not a working production of the play. Such a shame as some of the ideas are fantastic and especially Jenna Russell and Forbes Masson shine. When Jenna Russell performed her songs at the end of the interval we were just thinking it would be much better if she was just going on instead of the play.
|
|
161 posts
|
Post by dan on May 12, 2016 22:40:39 GMT
I apologise for the tedious question, but as I'm trying to book trains... Can anyone let me know what time they were out of the theatre for an evening performance? I normally book latest train back from London but the website does says it is a 2hour 15min performance?
|
|
2,571 posts
|
Post by viserys on May 13, 2016 5:15:31 GMT
I didn't look at my watch but it was before 10pm.
|
|
87 posts
|
Post by greenswan on May 13, 2016 5:36:13 GMT
It was over at 9.40pm including the curtain call.
|
|
44 posts
|
Post by Hana PlaysAndParasols on May 17, 2016 9:55:12 GMT
Oh wow. I tried to be really openminded (also used to Regietheater btw) but I had sooo many issues with this. I actually prefered the modern part to the original because with the original bit the delivery was so disjointed from the text. There were so many people around me who didn't know how to behave in theatre which I found annoying. I enjoyed Jenna's performance but even here I think dramaturgically the relationship could have been explored much more effectively.
Glad some of you guys liked it though!
|
|
367 posts
|
Post by Ade on May 19, 2016 21:53:43 GMT
What a load of tosh this is! Saw it this evening and while I enjoyed it, it was in a car crash TV kind of way. If I'm being blunt it probably shouldn't have made it to the stage, but pleased I saw it none the less.
It actually had nearly a full standing ovation in the stalls, but I can't help but think that was primarily for Kit Harrington's (rather perfect) bottom.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 20, 2016 7:04:16 GMT
A number of people have posted here to say that they enjoyed this even though it didn't work. Folks, if you enjoyed it, it worked.
|
|
1,244 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on May 20, 2016 8:15:59 GMT
I can't say I enjoyed it, won't say I endured it. I experienced it. That feels right.
Oh, Kit Harrington's bum ... sigh ... that I enjoyed.
|
|
44 posts
|
Post by Hana PlaysAndParasols on May 20, 2016 10:22:40 GMT
A number of people have posted here to say that they enjoyed this even though it didn't work. Folks, if you enjoyed it, it worked. Not necessarily, maybe those people expect not only "fun" but also some sort of substance from a theatre experience. (I sadly didn't get either in this case)
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 20, 2016 11:31:17 GMT
A number of people have posted here to say that they enjoyed this even though it didn't work. Folks, if you enjoyed it, it worked. Not necessarily, maybe those people expect not only "fun" but also some sort of substance from a theatre experience. (I sadly didn't get either in this case)
But enjoyment is enjoyment, never mind breaking it down into categories. It's a positive overall feeling. So why do so many people tell us they enjoyed it but didn't think it was any good? Seems like they feel guilty about enjoying it.
|
|
44 posts
|
Post by Hana PlaysAndParasols on May 20, 2016 12:30:17 GMT
Not necessarily, maybe those people expect not only "fun" but also some sort of substance from a theatre experience. (I sadly didn't get either in this case)
But enjoyment is enjoyment, never mind breaking it down into categories. It's a positive overall feeling. So why do so many people tell us they enjoyed it but didn't think it was any good? Seems like they feel guilty about enjoying it.
You have a point there, it might be a bit of a "guilty pleasure" thing. But as in other such cases (a bad romcom or something), you can be passively entertained enjoying it at the moment but you realize it didn't stimulate you intelectually. So the overall feeling is mixed. I don't know, maybe someone will elaborate on their experience. I just wanted to point out that sort of having a good time doesn't automatically mean it was a good production because theatre has multiple social and cultural functions - so it is right to evaluate your experience on multiple levels and expect more.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 12:38:49 GMT
I can enjoy something while still recognising that it is technically bad, just as I can recognise that something is technically good but be bored witless by it. I don't like the idea of guilty pleasures, I think we should be allowed to enjoy what we enjoy without being made to feel bad because of it, but I also don't like the idea that if you liked something it was completely fine and only if you disliked it are you allowed to call it bad.
|
|
44 posts
|
Post by Hana PlaysAndParasols on May 20, 2016 12:50:20 GMT
Totally agree with you Baemax, I didn't mean to say you should feel guilty, I thought that was the expression people use to describe their own feeling if it's split like that. (In my language we don't have this expression at all btw)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 12:52:03 GMT
Oh, I agree with you entirely, no one should have to feel guilty, and I think your language is incredibly sensible if it doesn't have an equivalent for "guilty pleasure". I'm just stropping about semantics, that's all.
|
|
1,872 posts
|
Post by Marwood on May 20, 2016 13:06:37 GMT
A question about front row seats - I'm going next Friday, sitting front and centre, am I likely to get splattered? I wasn't planning on wearing anything flashy/expensive, but not planning on wearing a plastic poncho or a boiler suit either.
Regarding 'guilty pleasures' I seem to be the only person in the whole of London who enjoyed The Mentalists last year, so it's obviously Diff'rent Strokes for different folks when it comes to this, I'm taking all of the remotely negative comments with a pinch of salt.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 13:14:09 GMT
I'd be VERY surprised if you got spattered. If you're worried, you could wear dark clothes, but Jamie Lloyd productions never spatter as much as they should. Front row of Richard III, where they specifically warned that spattering would happen, and I got NOTHING.
|
|
330 posts
|
Post by charliec on May 20, 2016 13:29:35 GMT
A question about front row seats - I'm going next Friday, sitting front and centre, am I likely to get splattered? I wasn't planning on wearing anything flashy/expensive, but not planning on wearing a plastic poncho or a boiler suit either. Regarding 'guilty pleasures' I seem to be the only person in the whole of London who enjoyed The Mentalists last year, so it's obviously Diff'rent Strokes for different folks when it comes to this, I'm taking all of the remotely negative comments with a pinch of salt. I was front row seat 2 last night and I got splattered by a tiny bit of stuff that when dried it brushed off. Think is may have been a paper/ water type mix.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 17:41:32 GMT
Don't worry about splatterage. You'll get a prime view of Kit-off in his pants and his peachy bottom.
I think that will suffice.
|
|
4,039 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 21, 2016 20:32:18 GMT
Saw the matinee today - from the front row, which is an excellent place to see it from because you can still see Fit Kit's facial expressions when his hair has fallen across his face, which happens a lot in the second act and must be annoying up in the circles. You do get slightly restricted views due to the TV and a coffee table at some points, but being close enough to see Fit Kit's appendix scar makes up for that.
No splattering, but I did get pointed at by Jenna during the medley and Fit Kit kicked the devil's cheques from the stage to us at curtain call, so we have a nice souvenir (payable to 'A Rich Person' for £250m, dated 6/6/16).
We thoroughly enjoyed it, even though we thought the nudity at the start a bit gratuitous and pointless, and that the modern middle section doesn't really add much to Marlowe's text (apart from the chance to make jokes about David Cameron and Donald Trump). The flashiness is a bit shallow, but it's certainly doing its job of attracting s younger audience.
I felt the ending lacked something - I was expecting him to have a moment of clarity right at the end and the audience were unsure when to clap.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 21, 2016 23:14:42 GMT
Interesting. I thought the audience hesitation at the end was due to the long fade out. But I thought the final image was haunting and quite perfect.
|
|
4,039 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 22, 2016 9:24:26 GMT
Yes, definitely due to the long fade out. The glowing light from the Mac on stage meant it was never quite blackout - they need to fiddle with the sleep mode on it to get it to turn off sooner.
I just wanted it to end a bit more crisply - the rest of the production is so punchy that I was expecting something else to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 15:37:46 GMT
Can I just clarify something about the ending... {Spoiler - click to view} In Marlowe's original text Faustus is dragged to hell. In this production he is left dancing onstage with Wagner dead on the bed. Is that supposed to be his descent into hell?
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 22, 2016 16:38:24 GMT
That's how I would see it, mrmusicals. Minus the descent part.
|
|