492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 20, 2019 10:23:36 GMT
Interested to see what you thought of this, ronnette. Were the other 2 times you've seen it at the London production?
Been meaning to take my parents to see this, and the Oxford March dates are a lot more convenient if this production is worth it.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 1, 2019 11:26:30 GMT
I do wonder why the debate so quickly turns to dismissing differing opinions on a piece of (subjective) art. Especially when it's prefixed with being annoyed at have been dismissed for their own opinion. Odd to me.
Another discussion being hijacked by the "People only like it because of the name attached" argument.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 28, 2019 14:04:20 GMT
Out of interest, did you see The Flick? Sadly not. Circs didn't allow. Having read some about it, I did wonder if Baker worked part-time while a student Urm.. OK. Best to leave it sometimes I guess.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 28, 2019 11:44:15 GMT
Some thoughts that percolated around my head yesterday. I make no claims as to their merit Annie Baker was, of course, reaching for more. For example, surely there was a theme about the corporatisation of ideas – perhaps something more alien for those outside the USA (hierarchy, boardroom table, PA, etc). Once in the corporate environment, creativity suffocated in the bogus *dome* concept. The guy who had no ID and wasn’t getting paid – no idea, perhaps intended as a motivational tool for the group. The choice of brainstorming ‘grotesque’ as a subject. Parody? The whole set up felt pretty grotesque as a creative environment .. The chicken story (and dismissal of Danny 2) was certainly there for a, presumably, counterpointy reason. Was it the best story because it resonated at a very relatable, human level - the nonsense Greek myth-type story at the end has been parodied by Caryl Churchill recently so that did fall flat with me. Maybe the inward-looking table was indicative of how these environments produces, well, there’s a phrase: ‘a camel is a horse designed by committee’. Maybe our experience as an audience proved the point …
A couple of times I did think, for no reason at all I can discern, 'Netflix'. I also noted the artistic choice to mix UK and US accents.
I still wish someone with this talent would go out in the world.
Out of interest, did you see The Flick?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 22, 2019 9:34:47 GMT
I was at the first preview last night! It was a mad, profound, hilarious and sad evening. Annie Baker asks us a lot of questions and allows us to find our own stories. The quietly explosive text is performed fantastically by the ensemble cast. The intimate space of the Dorfman was used well but it felt quite clearly like a preview. As they’re all sitting around a table a lot, the blocking could have been better in order to allow audiences to see all of of the cast more. It will be interesting to see how critics will react to this as it is really quite a unique piece. The first performance came just under 2hrs despite signs saying it would be 2hrs 10mins. The cast and the writing is brilliant as it all whizzes by and in a way I quite like the fact there is no interval as you are fully immersed throughout the whole show. Definitely would recommend! Thanks for this. Could I please ask regarding seating - do the seats at the side of the stage seem good or obstructed? thanks!
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Aug 19, 2019 10:25:15 GMT
I think it's OK To post this on here - Now can't attend the show I booked for this (Fri 06/09/2019) It's one of the pillar seats Q3. Was £21.50 all in with fees etc and just want to recoup that. If anyone is interested I have it as e-ticket already
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 9, 2019 14:34:58 GMT
If you haven't heard the BBC Radio 4 Front Row interview it's available on: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006lny It's the first interview so you don't have to wade through a lot. Both the Tree and the Giant Olive blogs were eye-opening to me, I suppose in part because I hadn't thought about how complicated and messy workshops and 'based on' productions could be. Thought it slightly odd when they were listing the things the current production had in common with their ideas, and they described the protagonist 'going to South Africa for the first time after the death of a parent' as their 'original idea' which doesn't seem to fit with the fact it's based on Mi Mandela? Seems very muddied and I expect complex, but personally I don't feel that either side has helped much in clearing up the actual situation.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 9, 2019 12:25:00 GMT
Possibly, but Giant Olive say that
'Following the production, Sarah Henley threatened litigation, demanding co-ownership, rights and basically making the project a non-starter with her unreasonable and disproportionate demands. These were the type of demands that make a production financially unviable to mount.'
So (IF true and correct) that doesn't sound like simply demanding a credit for creating dialogue to me..
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 9, 2019 9:23:13 GMT
Loving the TWIST! Are there any true innocents in theatre? Am I being unreasonable in thinking that Henley should have got a credit if she created dialogue? The most interesting point was that she apparently had money for days that she could have used to sue Giant Olive* *Nearly called them Big Olive, which is a much better name. Don't @ me. Yeah, if she created dialogue for the play, then some credit is probably due... Find it a little hard to believe that a demand for a credit was what brought down the whole production though, no?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on May 7, 2019 21:49:49 GMT
I genuinely can't think of anything I want to do less. That film was repugnant, as were all the characters within. Couldn't agree more. And the real Belfort promoting it. Yuck.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Feb 18, 2019 10:33:51 GMT
OK, as I have gone well beyond the point of no return, the forces of righteousness can spoiler tag as they deem necessary (if it is indeed necessary, the bit about the bag might just be a bit of grief Eric was having with his recycling) Why is it righteousness? I'm seeing it Thursday, and now have a very good idea of what happens, because of that post. If it was spoiler tagged, I wouldn't have clicked it. Simple.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Feb 17, 2019 19:57:08 GMT
Does the above comment possibly need spoiler tags? Yes..
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Feb 4, 2019 12:06:17 GMT
Saw this on Friday, sadly without Cecilia Noble who was ill (not the first time in this run I think). Still worked well, and a very different audience from the crowd at my other two shows this weekend, especially in the cheap seats at the back where it was received enthusiastically. Deserves all the plaudits it has got. Were you on the back row? I have an end of row ticket - assume view is ok? Thanks
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 31, 2019 11:46:00 GMT
People say "you can't judge a book by its cover" but actually, to a point, you can. That's why books have covers. Without reading a book, you can't say for a fact that it's terrible and an absolute waste of time to read. But you can certainly pick up a book and see if it's an author you've enjoyed previously, if it's a genre that appeals to you, if there's affirmatory blurbs from trusted names. I don't know that this play is going to *suck*, per se, but I'm familiar with Mamet's works, I've read the blurb on the website, and I don't think anyone can hold it against me or the others like me who have consequently gone "WHOA, nope, this play is absolutely not for me". And there *is* information out there already, it's... kinda completely normal and even acceptable to look at this available information and conclude "well, I've obviously not seen or read it, but it does sound frightfully misjudged from what we have here"? I mean, I'm a big fan of "don't knock it until you've tried it", and of course it would be fairest to see the play in question before casting final judgement, but it's hella unrealistic to expect people to abide by a strict binary of "if you've seen it, you can judge it, if you've not seen it, you can't hold any opinion whatsoever". (And yeah, this play is absolutely not for me, so although it may yet turn out to be a great piece of theatre, I'm going to stay in Team "This Sounds Misjudged", and wait and see what teams the people who do see it end up in. And maybe I'll read it in the NT Bookshop one day between shows.) It's a fair point, I just think there's a difference between picking up the book, reading the synopsis or whatever, and then putting it back because you don't want to read it and picking it up, reading only the synopsis, and then deciding, before reading it (or before it's even published) to create a furore and moral backlash against it. (By the way I'm not accusing you of taking the 2nd route at all)
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 31, 2019 10:52:28 GMT
Very much agree with Shenton on this.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 17, 2019 10:52:16 GMT
This is getting some people very excited on Twitter! Actually, I wonder if this is partly why they’ve decided not to NT Live it? This sort of content would find difficulty getting mainstream distribution if it was in a film - there’s all sorts of issues with various international ratings boards. It's fine - the same tweeter seems to have clarified this morning that {Spoiler - click to view} she wasn't wearing the strap-on while she was kissing the woman, but used it afterwards to penetrate a man.
I wasn't expecting to be writing that when I woke up this morning. I have to admit the furore on this forum about the ticketing makes this even more amusing. I wonder if this post will last long...
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 16, 2019 14:43:54 GMT
I can't remember another thread on either this or the previous board where I've veered so much between laughing and despairing. Agreed. This thread is getting out of hand. Can we get back to the football/glory hunting debate please?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 15, 2019 12:15:30 GMT
I am an NFL fan, and a supporter of the Minnesota Vikings. What does that make me? As a Packers fan, I'd rather not say... Are you suggesting I should not follow them because I wasn't born there, and when I travel over there for a game I am depriving someone from the local community a seat in the stadium? Which is a fair point applying to most fans. Anyhow, isn't it time we did swing back to the theatre a bit, please? We most definitely WILL get back to theatre now you've announced yourself a Packer!!
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 15, 2019 11:34:26 GMT
You posted this on a theatre forum, so, no I won't go to a football forum. So when I'm down the pub with all my friends watching our team, who are very much not in the premership, nor currently anywhere near, which category do I fall under? Or am I, rather conveniently, one of the few not covered in your sweeping statement? If, like me, you follow a team with little chance of success and who occasionally get on television then, as you know, you are clearly not a glory hunter. You clearly know, however, that Iain from Ipswich who has never been to Manchester and has no family connection to the city will be, rightfully, ridiculed and called a plastic Glory Hunter for proclaiming to be a Manchester City 'fan'. Even old school City fans don't regard him as a fan. He should be supporting Ipswich and his local community. There's a reason why you will find it next to impossible to buy tickets in The Kop, Stretford End or whatever the Kippax is called post move if yu are a glory hunter... It's because the regular fans don't want people like you near them because you don't understand what the club represents to the local community and you dilute the atmosphere. Anyway, as you say, this is a theatre forum and not a football one but if you're being honest about your allegiance to a small club you know that what I am saying about how glory hunters are received, regardless of whether you agree with the position or not, is the consensus opinion. For a reason... Well... no, I don't agree - don't assume that my opinion is the same as yours. I know plenty of people who support teams they're not local to, for a multitude of reasons - one of which will inevitably be levels of success because, amongst other things, that means increased exposure to the team, especially when young fans want a team to support in the premier league, and I don't begrudge anyone that - it feeds their passion for football, for sport, for an active lifestyle, and helps them develop social groups. I'm not going to get on my high horse and force someone to support their local team because that is arbitrary, binary, and not taking into account a multitude of factors. I am an NFL fan, and a supporter of the Minnesota Vikings. What does that make me? Are you suggesting I should not follow them because I wasn't born there, and when I travel over there for a game I am depriving someone from the local community a seat in the stadium? What toss.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 15, 2019 11:05:25 GMT
None of which backs up your claim that the only people who watch 'their' football team in a pub fall into the 2 categories you described though, does it? I said most rather than most and, as above, please feel free to offer an alternative opinion on any number of football forums and tell me how you get on. You posted this on a theatre forum, so, no I won't go to a football forum. So when I'm down the pub with all my friends watching our team, who are very much not in the premership, nor currently anywhere near, which category do I fall under? Or am I, rather conveniently, one of the few not covered in your sweeping statement?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 15, 2019 10:57:53 GMT
Go and question that 'sweeping' statement on any number of football forums and let me know how you get on... Good local clubs are struggling to stay alive because some people have no interest in football beyond the Premier League and even then only associating themselves with the most successful/high profile. If you think it is fair that families who have followed Arsenal - for example as I know of quite a few cases - for generations are forced to watch THEIR team on the TV rather than from the stands because they've been priced out so Alistair and Tabitha, who showed no interest in football before it became trendy, can boast to their circle of friends and colleagues that they go to matches then you don't understand what football represents. I suggest you also read 'Fans from anywhere, not somewhere' the only article I can remember reading and agreeing with Rod Liddle on... None of which backs up your claim that the only people who watch 'their' football team in a pub fall into the 2 categories you described though, does it?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 15, 2019 10:18:41 GMT
You cannot quantify love or loyalty of a production (or even a football team) those who spend money on tickets every week to a not love their team more than those who watch them in the pub. Sorry, and completely off on a tangent but those who watch 'their' team in a pub - excluding away games - normally only fall into two categories : * Glory hunters who attach themselves to successful clubs they have no connection with and whom they 'support' merely because they are successful * Old timers who have been priced out and replaced by Johnny Come Latelys from watching their local teams. Both are a sad endictment on modern football and the former are rightfully mocked by football fans across the country relentlessly. Anyway that is completely off topic. No one is going to change their minds or opinion on this but that's ok. Thank you for reading my little rants! That is so binary it is absolutely laughable.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 7, 2019 10:04:07 GMT
Dearie me, what a parade of overheated finger-in-the-air-waving. But it did give me a couple of chuckles so thanks at least for that. I love the idea that theatregoers looking for a drink on arriving and finding no seats will, en masse, sigh and say "Oh well, better not get that drink then" and leave. And thanks for the suggestion that I sidle up and listen to the aggrieved whining of the oppressed theatregoers cruelly forced to huddle around one small table or wandering seatless, but I'll pass. Incidentally, where are the data on NT public area usage? I love the nervous false laughter when middle class guilt is held under the microscope... well I suppose we're all so convinced the NT is doing brilliantly well financially under its plan to transform wifi moochers into regularly theatregoers, may as well just dismiss that £40 is a lot of money for some people and they might not want to feel like they are in Stansted airport. Or maybe as long as it makes you feel good brushing shoulders with the common people then it doesn't matter either way. Why has this suddenly become yet another discussion about class? You're completely ignoring the fact that those who are comfortable with it being a public space are not convinced that it is a ploy to try and get people into the theatre. I've always personally found most theatres very intimidating places, as have many of my friends, but the public space at the NT feels very different and I think that's important.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 6, 2018 18:20:11 GMT
OK, can now talk about it. BOOK. Tompkinson doesn't have the manic energy of Ifans, but he is far deeper and more introspective. As a result, you really believe he is examining his soul as he changes. The whole show is also far tighter than last year - the dubious opening 10 minutes in particular. Little fun bits have been smoothed out, though (bit less snow, fewer sprouts) but on the whole it's way better. Note on seating is that the side block "high numbers" side gets more face time, as do seats in the main house rather than on stage. Also, side block H doesn't have quite as much legroom this year, annoyingly. Thanks for this. Are H80/H81 affected much by the less legroom issue? Ta
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 25, 2018 16:20:21 GMT
Hopefully this is ok to post but unfortunately due to illness my wife & I will not be able to attend this tomorrow. I have 2 row q stage stall seats for sale. £10 each and there were no fees, so £20 total. Have as e-tickets so can send instantly. Ta
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 24, 2018 14:03:23 GMT
how you could get upset about a CLEARLY fictional representation of HCA/Dickens. There's another thread on this forum about fictionalising real people and the ethics of it. There are those who get angry about Schaffer's Amadeus, for example. If this was done in some way that, say, extracted some kernel of truth and from it spun some sort of fantastical psychedelic riff then ok - say, that there was something in their writing or in their letters that hinted at some really bizarre skeletons in the cupboard, but here, what? Why? It's not the worst thing about the play, but if you are going to go about mocking and denigrating other writers you had better make damn sure your own writing is absolutely top notch, and this isn't. Let's agree to disagree on this. I don't think any story, based on historical characters or not, should follow some arbitrary set of rules. I'd really hate that, and I'm glad it's not the case.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 24, 2018 13:27:39 GMT
Because if you go into this thinking it's a biopic then it's, frankly, your own fault? Oh, please! There is a difference between a satire or a surreal, grand guignol take, and something that is just an utterly random brain fart. I didn't say there isn't. I just don't understand how you could get upset about a CLEARLY fictional representation of HCA/Dickens.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 24, 2018 12:40:25 GMT
Han Christian Andersen, who thinks of himself as a nice chap, yet engages in dreadful behaviour But why pick on this writer, and Dickens, a humane campaigning journalist and author? Why make them, here, crude, stupid torturers, limb-choppers, rapists, murderers, and utterly talentless? What point is he trying to make linking a Danish writer and a British writer, neither from privileged backgrounds, with atrocities in a Belgian colony in Africa? Satire, if that's what this is meant to be, needs - a the very least - a germ of truth and intelligence for it to work, and this has neither. Because if you go into this thinking it's a biopic then it's, frankly, your own fault?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 22, 2018 16:00:11 GMT
any views on seats Q48 & 49? Worried they may be a bit far out, but for £20 for the pair I think I'll take the risk. For a tenner each, go for it. They are fine anyway, just inside the proscenium, with a decent view down the stage fairly close to the main action. Bargain, I'd say. Lovely thanks!
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 22, 2018 12:49:54 GMT
Really want to get to this after missing last year - any views on seats Q48 & 49? Worried they may be a bit far out, but for £20 for the pair I think I'll take the risk.
|
|