294 posts
|
Post by dani on Nov 7, 2017 15:32:17 GMT
A very rare opportunity to see some contemporary Dutch writing (go on, how many can you name?). None, but isn't that because Dutch theatre doesn't set great store by new writing, being a theatre landscape dominated by companies like Toneelgroep Amsterdam (which I have probably spelled wrong)?
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Nov 7, 2017 8:59:22 GMT
Off topic, but I remember seeing Ed Stoppard's Hamlet at this venue, although I think it was called the New Ambassadors then. That was the last time I was there.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Nov 6, 2017 13:03:23 GMT
It's a shame there weren't more people in the theatre - I'm sure lots of people would enjoy it. How empty was it? I've been wondering if the lack of a really big name would hurt this. Rory Kinnear, Nancy Carroll and Oliver Chris are big names to me, as I'm sure they are to many people on this board, but I couldn't help wondering how great their general appeal is. A lot of reference has been made to the Bridge Theatre having to offer populist shows, but that will surely only cut through if there is also populist casting.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Nov 6, 2017 12:58:23 GMT
This sounds like a great idea. A lot hangs on the casting of Cady and Regina.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Nov 6, 2017 12:55:37 GMT
I always think it must be weird being a critic and going to several pantomimes from the same stable, with all the same jokes and songs, but knowing that most people will go to only one panto, making it redundant to comment on the samey nature of the material.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Nov 6, 2017 12:52:57 GMT
Ha ha, I was going to post the same thing. Today's reviews resolve the question. It sounds like a charming play.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Nov 3, 2017 9:04:49 GMT
Thank you for your nice review of this, but I think you mean you were floored.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Nov 2, 2017 10:06:08 GMT
Admittedly I'm hugely biased (we have, as the kids say, "beef") but I really don't think Lyndsey Turner is a great director. She has good ideas but the execution is often flawed. A few years ago I thought she was very good, but recently she's been poor. Her Light Shining in Buckinghamshire was a low water mark for me.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 30, 2017 9:40:26 GMT
How could they maul something so funny? If they do maul it, it just means they don't have a sense of humour. That comment is a perfect example of "snarkey" It is neither valid or humorous. Even I, as a comparative newcomer to this board, know that Ryan's thing is being facetious, with a love of a good double entendre. It's nothing to get upset by. If you don't like it, there'll be another comment along in a few minutes. I haven't seen this and don't feel a strong urge to do so, but it does actually sound like there might be some intention for the production to be amusing rather than terrifying.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 29, 2017 9:56:17 GMT
Personally I thought this was good fun, in parts puerile but entertaining and with a more serious message under the veneer of silliness. Some lovely performances, especially Kinnear. My impression is that there are very few bad seats here and the cheap ones offer good value. One strange thing to me is that the foyer seems like a hangar and when I was there at the interval I felt like a spare part, not quite knowing where to stand. It sounds silly, but that's how it seemed to me!
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 29, 2017 9:49:59 GMT
Tonight's performance cancelled after Robert Glenister fainted and collapsed 15 mins in. Was worrying That's terrible. It's now been announced that he is okay. The Sun (okay, not my favourite news source) has a report of the incident, which includes the information that two weeks ago he lost a case against HMRC that left him liable for ten years' National Insurance contributions to the tune of £147,547.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 25, 2017 12:39:49 GMT
Interesting to see people's definition of adolescent. The interview appears to be in his late 20s at least (I'd guess 30) and has a child (yes, I looked him up on Facebook). When do you consider someone old enough to have their own opinions? I would guess he is in fact closer to forty than thirty. His linkedin shows that he left university in 2002.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 18, 2017 10:54:59 GMT
I'd love this to transfer. Perhaps not starry enough, though? I'd say definitely not starry enough. It's three hours long, and the thrust staging is very important. Remaking the production to suit a pros arch venue wouldn't do it any favours.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 16, 2017 14:54:10 GMT
See British Theatre Guide, whose reviewer said 60 mins seemed long! But clearly in the minority so far. Thank you. I have to admit I'd never previously heard of British Theatre Guide. I see a review of Hair at the Vaults there which contains a reference to "a very cramped thrust setting", which sounds entirely against the spirit of that particular musical.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 16, 2017 11:34:23 GMT
I've seen several reviews but not all enthusiastic All I've seen is 5* in Whatsonstage, and 4* in The Times, The Stage and Time Out. I am curious: what else has there been?
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 15, 2017 19:02:01 GMT
I'm going to see this in a few days and thought I would start a thread as there has been some fantastic word of mouth. It's a one-hour play by David Ireland. The Times review described it as absolutely hilarious.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 15, 2017 17:31:41 GMT
That said, the theatre has today tweeted a 4-star review from the Express - I didn't know they even reviewed theatre but I recognise the reviewer's name. That tweet draws unfortunate attention to the reviewer's 1-star drubbing of Young Frankenstein.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 15, 2017 17:19:27 GMT
A 3-star review - but actually sounding worse - from Reviewsgate. I just looked it up. "Although the play defies resuscitation, as an example of what star casting in the 1950s West End could achieve in the way of persuading audiences to admire a dreary pretentious Chekhov-lite tale it is well worth catching." This is complete gibberish.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 12, 2017 13:46:16 GMT
Anyone here thinking of going to see this when it comes to London? I think it has its first previews next week.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 12, 2017 13:44:37 GMT
I like the Times review apart from the bit where it says "the relatively unknown Hadley Fraser". He's much important in my eyes than the other people in the cast, but I suppose one could make the case that he is "relatively" unknown compared to TV stalwarts Ross Noble and Lesley Joseph. I get the impression with Anne Treneman's reviews, when I see them, that she thinks she is writing for a broad general public rather than an audience of theatre fans.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 12, 2017 13:40:08 GMT
Turns out I'm not done! Shenton has also produced one of the most lazy reviews I've seen in a long time. That wouldn't wash with any of the editors I work with and hell I wouldn't let it was on my own blog. And this is a man who gets paid (probably too much) to review. My goat is well and truly got this morning. Also I was on the fence about George, but I'm bloody determined to like it now just to spite Shenton. And the toliets. "Rory Mullarkey offers an appropriately larky stage version of the legend". I see what he did there! Shame there wasn't any "mull"ing involved in Shenton's critique.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 11, 2017 14:39:46 GMT
Hey kids, the National Theatre has published it's annual report. Lets see how the failing organisation is getting on under its terrible artistic director review.nationaltheatre.org.uk/#2017/overview/2"The theatre was 93% full - a 12 year high" "The theatre goes into 2017/18 in good health and with increased reserves that are getting closer to our target of three months' running costs" against a background of a "real terms cut to our Arts Council grant of 24%" etc Guess he's doing OK then. Thank you for drawing attention to this. I see there is £7.7 million in the expenditures for "depreciation". Not being well versed in these things, I don't know what it is that has depreciated - not premises, I see, as these are a separate entry in the expenditures. Is this a fall in the value of things such as costumes and machinery?
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 11, 2017 10:24:46 GMT
I agree with deadyankee. I enjoyed aspects of Danny Boyle's production and seeing the two leads, but Nick Dear's script was very poor. I wouldn't expect much of a fringe revival.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 11, 2017 10:22:54 GMT
I'm sympathetic to the general concerns that Natasha Tripney is raising, but I think this is a strange place to dwell on them. I've only seen the film, not this adaptation, but everything that's in bad taste in Young Frankenstein is knowingly and overtly in bad taste. It's unconsidered misogyny or the stealthy abuse wreaked by the powerful that needs exposing. Exposing the not PC values of Mel Brooks is like complaining that there's blood in a steak.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 10, 2017 15:48:41 GMT
I'm feeling apprehensive about seeing this. There are some video clips on the NT website that inspire little confidence. Rory Mullarkey describes it as "a big, epic rollercoaster of a play". I imagine someone might have described Common in similar terms, in advance of anyone actually seeing it and being able to contradict them.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 9, 2017 8:12:09 GMT
I liked this. Nice to have Anne-Marie Duff back Back from the clutches of Common, do you mean?!!
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 8, 2017 17:08:42 GMT
The other person on the panel, besides Mark Shenton and Bidisha, was Kate Williams, who gets a lot of airtime from the BBC, but never strikes me as a TV natural. Amol Rajan was hosting, competently. This was the first time I have tuned in, although a quick look reveals the first episode had Viv Groskop and Nihal Arthanayake as pundits, and the second had Ekow Eshun and Sarah Churchwell. Largely the usual suspects for this kind of arts programme.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 8, 2017 14:04:50 GMT
I have booked for this new play by Chris Thompson. I thought his last play Albion was a very brave attempt to write about alienated white working-class people and the far right. It was a mess, but it was an ambitious mess. I see Mike Bartlett has now written a play called Albion too.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 8, 2017 13:58:23 GMT
I see that Mark Shenton has overcome his distaste of this programme to be one of the guests on tomorrow's edition. I noticed this too. I didn't think he was given very much opportunity to say anything of substance. He was basically asked to agree with the proposition that Ian McKellen is one of the acting greats, and then he was asked for an opinion of Blade Runner, which he had found slowmoving. I'm not convinced by the concept of the programme. Who is it aimed at?
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 7, 2017 9:20:28 GMT
Karl Johnson was Gloucester in the Glenda Jackson Lear at the Old Vic. He wasn't very good in my opinion and had serious problems making himself audible. I guess that won't be an issue on the radio!
|
|