492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Aug 3, 2017 11:58:47 GMT
Funnily enough I was reading up about this today after looking at the new season at the Arcola.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Aug 3, 2017 11:57:02 GMT
Unpopular opinions? That Shakespeare is unreadable and unwatchable. For me that is - I've always always battled with it, I just cannot enjoy any Shakespeare.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Aug 3, 2017 11:55:02 GMT
Think this is the right place for this? Mod can move if not. Be interested to hear when you have all heard laughter at the theatre and been baffled as to why someone would find that particular thing funny. Or laughter that really took you out of the moment. Inspired by listening to Matthew Xia on the 'Off The Book' Young Vic podcast talking about being surprised at people laughing during Blue/Orange. I have to agree. Blue/Orange - As mentioned in the podcast, when Christopher has his breakdown, there was a lot of laughter when I went. Shopping & F---ing The night I was there, a couple of guys in the front row seemed to find everything hilarious. That play is difficult to take seriously at the best of times, but even the harsher scenes were slightly ruined by it. Angels In America - {Spoiler - click to view} Various points in part one, leading to someone on here rightly wondering if they had added a laughter track Especially just after the bible burning. Mosquitoes - {Spoiler - click to view} The attempted overdose scene, a lot of people seemed to find it funny. Baffling.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Aug 2, 2017 14:19:08 GMT
Thanks so much all - impressive knowledge as expected! Lots to get stuck into.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Aug 2, 2017 11:32:35 GMT
My favourite one person play is Misterman by Enda Walsh. It's also one of the best plays overall that I've ever seen; dark, human, revelatory. Very funny and utterly heartbreaking . I also absolutely adore Sea Wall by Simon Stephens. I think you can still find the short film with Andrew Scott if you'd also like to see it as well as read. Neither is in the same vein as Fleabag though (stylistically or thematically). Thank you. Yes, I bought the short film of Seawall so have that on my computer. I'll check out Misterman, thank you! Not only interested in styles/themes of Fleabag, just mean a modern one-person play. Ta
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Aug 2, 2017 11:00:29 GMT
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Aug 2, 2017 10:44:42 GMT
Hi, Bit of a random one. Could people please recommend one-person plays? (To read, rather than current productions) I'm thinking in the same vein as Fleabag, Grounded etc. Much appreciated x
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 28, 2017 16:38:35 GMT
Yes, it was interesting. I didn't realise Colman had, well, I suppose stage fright or something - I assumed she didn't do stage work because she was so much in demand elsewhere. The Tom Stoppard point was a good one - ironically, when I read the synopsis a few weeks ago I worried that it might be a bit Tom Stoppard-y: I really don't like his work, 'aren't I clever?' but without much in the way of human warmth. Mosquitoes generally felt like the opposite. Btw, anyone who saw it in early previews. I saw it on Saturday and there's an event near the end which, in the playtext, is caused by one character but in the play I saw on Saturday by another, in a way which really changes the way you view a plot thread. the end of the world event, in Saturday's preview, was caused by Luke: in the text by a scientist called Gavriella. I wondered how late in the day the change was made? That's really interesting actually. It was Gavriella when i saw it(25th), but i think it may have worked better the alternative route. That would have made the entire plot thread hold up better IMO
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 28, 2017 16:35:41 GMT
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 28, 2017 8:22:52 GMT
This is back for a limited run in Sept.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 28, 2017 8:22:11 GMT
My list is painfully long but consists mainly of plays rather than shows, and in some cases I've either taken a gamble on a transfer to follow, or have known before the run ended that there would be one. This is now my standard policy with the Menier, due to their prices, so I'm hoping to catch Travesties in due course. Lots of plays I've regretted missing have been at smaller venues with short runs, e.g. Thebes Land at the Arcola, which, though it doesn't end until Friday, I won't have time to see. showgirl, you may be interested to know Thebes Land is back for a limited run.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 27, 2017 14:43:16 GMT
^ Wouldn't leave it too long, wiggymess, could get busy. Anyway, the stalls from G back are un-touched, so should be fine. So the K19/K28 type £10s are worth a go?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 27, 2017 14:12:13 GMT
I've not booked for Albion, I'm too daunted by all the pillars and possible bad seats. When I've got more time I'll try and look into it a bit and see...
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 24, 2017 13:17:16 GMT
They must have gone quick...
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 23, 2017 9:00:57 GMT
I enjoyed it more than some on here but completely understand the reservations many have.
What I do not understand, however, is why the playwright's gender must be so frequently mentioned. So frustratingly antiquated.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 20, 2017 8:20:17 GMT
I also enjoyed it last night. Performances were great. {Spoiler - click to view} I liked the science-y bits, but as has been mentioned before, I'm not sure if the metaphor (I'm still trying to process it) completely holds up, but I found it entertaining none the less.
The sub-plot with Luke I found quite odd and seems to be from a different play. I think it was at its best when the sisters were together to be honest. I'm not sure how I feel about the LHC launching scene. Very theatrical, but a bit 'meh'. I think by the time the previews are finished, the main issues can be pretty efficiently dealt with. Interval was at 20:45, out by 22:25/30 Shout out to the moron behind me who jabbed me in the back with their foot half way through the second act, causing me to jump in that sort of surprise jolt way, then whacked me with their bag TWICE whilst retrieving their noisy water bottle.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 19, 2017 8:38:37 GMT
This might improve availability because people like you are more likely to return their tickets. Based on....?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 17, 2017 20:46:41 GMT
Still no news on the new Annie Baker?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 17, 2017 10:56:13 GMT
So, to recap. It only got five stars because of either: The writer/ the director/ the cast/ the producer/ some sort of tinfoil hat conspiracy to ensure a transfer/ a less measured than usual approach/ high expectations/ cute sweary kids/ Teenage Kicks/ the simpleton producing bunnies from his pockets. And not just simply because the reviewers felt it was worthy of five-stars?! I just honestly will never understand why someone would have the need to conclude that a different opinion to their own has to be somehow flawed or swayed by something other than the opinion itself. Q - Why do you think the reviews were less measured than usual? A - Because it didn't strike me as a five star play. Bizarre to me. It is very possible for a play to get 5 stars, even though it didn't hit your level of entitlement.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 14, 2017 9:01:05 GMT
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 13, 2017 16:35:40 GMT
You think, crowblack? I mean, I didn't like "Hangmen" at all, but my own rave reaction to "The Ferryman" was based on the idea that it made a very difficult period in recent history highly accessible. I didn't feel that it was over-praised by reviewers, if I'm honest, and am fascinated by the thread on here, getting the other perspectives. Be interested to hear the rationalisation others decide to place on your opinion. Are you sure Sonia F didn't force your hand to the keyboard?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 13, 2017 10:16:26 GMT
And those of you who saw it think this isn't as good, yet has been star rated as though it were. If Jerusalem comes out again, will they have to invent a 6 star rating? I think the 5 star consensus from the mainstream press is...odd. Like a shower of fish. I saw another play this week where I think the reputations of those involved coloured the glowing reviews, so I do think this is a 'thing'. I wonder if you're not simply over-thinking this crowblack ? Of course, the critics will partly be coloured by things outside of the actual production; they might be influenced by the opinion of their friends & colleagues, by the hype, by how they were feeling that day, by the play they saw the day before, and so on. They will also be influenced (subconsciously and hopefully minimally) by things somewhat 'underhand', like the expectations of their bosses, or by their personal feelings about the creators. However, it's not as though any of us really have an 'objective' view on how good a piece of art is anyway. Your opinion of it will partly be coloured by the expectations that you had going in, or by the fact that, say, you like or dislike Paddy Considine or Jez Butterworth. Further, I think you're mistaken in thinking that 5* somehow represents 'a perfect play' just as 1* doesn't mean that the play is completely without any merits whatsoever. Being pedantic, in an 'out of five' system, five stars just means "above 80%". Given the number of plays released each year it's completely understandable that a bunch will get five stars (hopefully a similar proportion to the number that get 1*) and, occasionally those might align (just as the more or less uniform 1* seem to have been given out for things like Common). At the end of the day, it's completely human to rationalise our tastes and wonder why others might not see things our way, but the reviews are just a bunch of people giving their opinions. Placing too much emphasis on the ratings system is silly in the inherently subjective nature of art. But so is an attempt to discredit a review, which is also purely subjective. You have to understand that if you don't like something, that is your opinion, if others like it, that is their opinion. Both are just as valid. I find it bizarre how desperate people seem to be to give excuses or reasons as to why someone might be wrong in their opinion. Because no one has laid into those who disliked it... I've said before, I have similar feelings with People, Places & Things. The general view of that doesn't match my feelings, but I see no merit in deciding that all the rave reviews for that must be wrong.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 13, 2017 9:59:50 GMT
So, to recap. It only got five stars because of either: The writer/ the director/ the cast/ the producer/ some sort of tinfoil hat conspiracy to ensure a transfer/ a less measured than usual approach/ high expectations/ cute sweary kids/ Teenage Kicks/ the simpleton producing bunnies from his pockets.
And not just simply because the reviewers felt it was worthy of five-stars?! I just honestly will never understand why someone would have the need to conclude that a different opinion to their own has to be somehow flawed or swayed by something other than the opinion itself.
Q - Why do you think the reviews were less measured than usual? A - Because it didn't strike me as a five star play.
Bizarre to me.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 13, 2017 7:44:20 GMT
Often those who fail to understand that other people have different opinions to their own are, ironically, very defensive of their right to hold their own opinion.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 13, 2017 7:17:40 GMT
Not really. I felt it was a collective London critic 'Diana Moment' or Harry Potter Midnight Shop Opening, partly due to the massive expectations (yes, I bought my ticket before they sold out on that first day, too) and partly due to the names involved. Maybe their hearts all melted at the cute sweary kids, Teenage Kicks and the simpleton producing bunnies from his pockets, I don't know. I can't recall another time when a play has got 5 star reviews across the board in the mainstream press. Were you really not surprised by that too? Every single critic? Feels a bit Fortean Times. You are spending a lot of time coming up with reasons why they were five star reviews purely because they don't match your opinion.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 12, 2017 22:57:54 GMT
What is it that makes you believe they are not being as measured as usual Because it didn't strike me as being a five star play, and because reviews from those outside the London theatre critic circle have chimed more with my feelings about it (ditto, those of the audience members sitting next to me with whom I discussed it afterwards). You can love something but still be aware of the flaws: five stars is for perfection, and it wasn't. It wasn't in your opinion. It was a five star play for those who gave it five stars, that's self evident. Just because those five star reviews don't chime with your opinion on the play, or the opinion of others (sat near you / other papers etc) does not mean the five star reviews are somehow less measured than usual. It proves the point because you are saying that because you thought it wasn't a five star play, you think reviews that give it five stars are either buying into the hype or being less measured than usual. They're not. They just disagree with you. And to suggest they are somewhat cheapens the discussion in my opinion. For What it's worth, I would have given it 4 stars, very close to 5, but I agree it wasn't quite perfection. Nearly, but not quite. I'm not defending five star reviews because they reflect my opinion, I'm defending them because they are the reviewer's opinion and I think it's wrong to suggest that because they don't match yours, there is some reason to that other than they disagree with you. If that makes any sense.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 12, 2017 22:04:31 GMT
Ok so this isn't Jerusalem (it may not even be as good as Mojo) I think my issue is that critics who are normally far more measured in their judgement are all reviewing it as though it was - five stars across the board. They seem starstruck, all of them, which surprised me. What is it that makes you believe they are not being as measured as usual, rather than them just loving the play?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 11, 2017 10:56:03 GMT
Booking now open for those with membership guys. Just bagged 2 for Girls & Boys
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 10, 2017 16:49:22 GMT
Reading about the plays, quite a lot that appeals, particularly Grimly Handsome and Bad Roads, good to see a decent international reach, too. Not something that the Court should always focus on but the times we are in need a focus outwards to combat the danger of increasing insularity. One other interesting link - having revived Road and then Rita, Sue and Bob too, we get two of the best portraits of Northern working class life from the eighties plus both of them were transferred to the screen by the sadly too early departed Alan Clarke. Some very fair points. I'm intrigued by Goats for sure.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 10, 2017 10:36:34 GMT
The quote from Dennis Kelly play did make me chuckle though: “I met my husband in the queue to board an Easyjet flight and I have to say I took an instant dislike to the man.”
|
|