1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on May 31, 2016 22:05:49 GMT
I'm going to see this again.
Not because it was brilliant (right now). In fact I wen't to see a preview tonight and unfortunately the energy was non-existant during the first act, with only smatterings of laughter
The only part that was greatly received was the start when the band was playing theme tunes like the A-Team and (I think) The Italian Job in Elizabethan/Modern style music. It pumped me up for something thrilling and funny, but was never matched by the rest of the act. Ian Redford was the only one outshining everybody as Sir Epicure Mammon (has he played Falstaff already because he acts the part).
But boy did the show pick up in the second act. Everyone was hitting the right notes with gusto and was greatly received by the audience. There's also quite an explosive moment to watch out for. There was even a cheeky breaking the fourth wall to finish the show.
Polly Findlay has definitely reined herself in after Treasure Island, The Merchant of Venice and As You Like It. Even if it lacked energy the first act definitely shows promise.
So yeah I'm going to the press night this Thursday (even my mum wants to come now), and am expecting a fantastic night out.
Stay tuned.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Jun 2, 2016 21:45:33 GMT
Okay, the cast are in fine form now, even though the show had to be stopped for a couple of minutes when Mark Lockyer fell ill. Gregory Doran came on to explain that he will be able to continue, and he was seen with a walking stick for a little while.
The audience was more receptive and there were a couple more laughs in the first act. But its not laugh-a-minute, and the second act is still the funniest where all the con artists' plots collide together and they have to overcome these set backs.
Now that I come to think of it, the problem really is the text. Anybody seeing this should read up on the plot because it is difficult to know what exactly is going on and who's who.
That was the consensus I got from people who saw it last Tuesday, and I thought that it was because the cast needed to settle down. But even I had a vague understanding of what was going on the first time I saw this, and tonight I had to reaquint myself with wikipedia during the interval.
Jonson's language just didn't stand out to me really, which was a similar problem I had with the RSC's production of Volpone last year. Now I am not going to say which early 17th century writer had a better command of language. Jonson may show a deep knowledge of alchemy in this play, but the text lacks that special something that has you engaged with what's going on from the start.
I mean think about those theme tunes the band plays at the beginning like the 'A Team'. They get you hooked from the get go and you know what you're getting into. For the first act at least the play never matched that.
That's just me anyway. It's still an enjoyable show worth seeing. Just take along a print out of the plot.
Anyone have a better knowledge of Jonson to elaborate or contradict me? I'm genuinely interested.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 26, 2016 23:02:23 GMT
Interesting comments, David. I agree the music sets the tone nicely and makes the audience tune in the chuckle muscles. I wasn't so keen on Redford who I do actually highly rate. At one point a woman by us with a very sharp laugh, laughed in anticipation before Redford spoke and he dealt with it brilliantly earning more laughs. I saw Ian Richardson play the part at the National, his last part I think before he died, and he brought something extra to it. There was other connecting moments with the audience which worked well.
I loved the tobacconist! His first job out of college and I think a dead cert for tv Dickens and the role of sidekick in anything. Others all good. They certainly went for it so that the quiet moments were very good, for example when they are planning their escape. But on the whole it was a bit too frantic for me. Apparently they cut loads of the original script which Jonson published in his Folio ( I read the programme) I think even more cutting might help - would we notice if Drugger didn't come on at the end or the Dutch guys who by the way should have been dressed in Dutch clerical garb of the time, the black suits and white collars and big hats ( think Rembrandt) because the home owner distinguished between them as deacon and the other one as something else and why not a Dutch accent as they made fun of the language? I'm being picky but a large part of the satire was directed at religion.
I was puzzled by the ending but I liked it..something to do with stripping away the illusion.
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Jul 27, 2016 20:01:07 GMT
The ending sort of felt like a very lo fi version of the ending of Wild. I liked this better.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Jul 27, 2016 23:07:02 GMT
I'm still mixed about the production. I think Peter Viney's review sums it up for me. Notably Polly Findlay's direction isn't perfect. She should have included a brief moment between scenes where the tied up Drugger was brought on to remind us he's still in the building because when he turns up near the end I completely forgot about him. The main trio's subtle acting is at odds with the over-the-top acting from some of the supporting characters And again there's something about Ben Jonson's writing that doesn't stand out to me. But I liked it nonetheless and thought the ending was a nice trick |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 30, 2016 5:50:47 GMT
Didn't enjoy this much. I suppose it is the duty or the NT and RSC to stage this play every decade or so and it is our duty to watch it but it is hard work - the first half here is dismal. I have seen it a few times including versions directed by Nicholas Hytner and Sam Mendes and they weren't any better than this. Part of the problem with this (and all the other Jonson plays) is they are satirical and a lot of the contemporary references are just lost to us - what is left here is just a thin farce.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Sept 30, 2016 6:44:36 GMT
Usual glass half empty from you Jan, why did you go if you didnt like it in previous productions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 30, 2016 7:48:22 GMT
Usual glass half empty from you Jan, why did you go if you didnt like it in previous productions? What an odd question. I don't think much of Hamlet either. But everyone else says it's a great play. So I kept going to see it in the hope a new director might convince me, and the 10th production I saw was a work of absolute total genius that made seeing the preceding lesser productions worthwhile. This Alchemist is literally a glass half empty production. The first half doesn't have a single laugh in it based on the audience reaction (not just mine). |
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Sept 30, 2016 8:17:09 GMT
Sigh! I dont get that at all. I have plays/writers i dont like, so i dont go, its just a waste of time and money😕
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 30, 2016 8:27:04 GMT
Sigh! I dont get that at all. I have plays/writers i dont like, so i dont go, its just a waste of time and money😕 Depends how much time and money you have I suppose. I like to give plays a fair chance. I have now given up on King Lear after 15 which seems about right. Very good productions of Jonson are very rare. Richard Griffiths as Volpone was brilliantly funny, Danny Boyle's production of The Silent Woman was excellent. That's about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Sept 30, 2016 8:35:22 GMT
Danny Boyle's production of The Silent Woman was excellent. Yes! Nasty! As I was leaving the theatre, an elderly woman said to her husband "I take so much care to avoid nasty new plays, and now I get caught out with this nasty old one." Hannah John (pre-Four Weddings) and David Bradley. Interestingly, as I recall, Epicoene only played the Swan, with no transfer. |
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Sept 30, 2016 9:03:26 GMT
Usual glass half empty from you Jan, why did you go if you didnt like it in previous productions? What an odd question. I don't think much of Hamlet either. But everyone else says it's a great play. So I kept going to see it in the hope a new director might convince me, and the 10th production I saw was a work of absolute total genius that made seeing the preceding lesser productions worthwhile. This Alchemist is literally a glass half empty production. The first half doesn't have a single laugh in it based on the audience reaction (not just mine). OK, I'll bite, Jan - which Hamlet? (Sorry if you've told us before and I don't remember). |
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Sept 30, 2016 9:54:43 GMT
Sigh! I dont get that at all. I have plays/writers i dont like, so i dont go, its just a waste of time and money😕 Depends how much time and money you have I suppose. I like to give plays a fair chance. I have now given up on King Lear after 15 which seems about right. Very good productions of Jonson are very rare. Richard Griffiths as Volpone was brilliantly funny, Danny Boyle's production of The Silent Woman was excellent. That's about it. 15!!! 😮😮😮 |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 30, 2016 10:09:13 GMT
What an odd question. I don't think much of Hamlet either. But everyone else says it's a great play. So I kept going to see it in the hope a new director might convince me, and the 10th production I saw was a work of absolute total genius that made seeing the preceding lesser productions worthwhile. This Alchemist is literally a glass half empty production. The first half doesn't have a single laugh in it based on the audience reaction (not just mine). OK, I'll bite, Jan - which Hamlet? (Sorry if you've told us before and I don't remember). I may have mentioned it before. Young Vic/Michael Sheen/Ian Rickson BTW I only paid £10 for an Alchemist day ticket this time otherwise I would have given it a miss. |
|
