1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Mar 16, 2019 23:55:34 GMT
Liked it a lot this afternoon. Not sure about Kerwin's accent - seemed a little generic, wonder if an American can comment on that mallardo ? Sound performances, liked the staging and direction a lot. Only other slight gripe was wondering if the dialogue maybe slipped into a little "stage literate" at times. No matter, easy strong 4 stars from me.
Kerwan's accent was, as you say, TM, generic American as opposed to specific New York-ese which everyone else was doing quite successfully - but it didn't bother me. I like Nash16's comment about her bringing her own energy to the piece. I think that's a good description of the way she was playing the role.
Re the "stage literate" dialogue it seems to me that one of Stephen Adly Guirgis's great strengths is his ability to express big ideas through down and dirty street talk without ever striking a false note. There is perhaps a slight heightening of the dialogue at times but, for me, credibility is never an issue.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Mar 16, 2019 11:41:42 GMT
Saw this on Thursday, liked it very much. Felt a bit like a typical American prison drama movie to me, but lots of fodder for thought and amazing performances by the two leads.
It has the shape and atmosphere of a typical prison drama but, for me, it is elevated by the sheer virtuosity of the writing and by its sustained play of ideas. It lays out its metaphor in plain sight - the prisoner protagonists are Lucius (Lucifer) and Angel, while the intervening agent, the morally flawed lawyer, is Mary (Magdalene). The play is a discourse on good and evil and the possibilities of redemption. The setting, Riker's island, is pure hell.
If all of that seems obvious and even trite it does not play that way. Both Lucius and Angel are brilliantly realized (and wonderfully acted) creations, complex, charismatic, never at a loss for words, to put it mildly. As befits the devil, Lucius is the attention grabber from the start. We respond to him even after we learn the nature of his horrific crimes. But as the play develops Angel comes more and more to the fore until, in fact, he takes it over. His story is the through line of the piece.
The one issue I have is with the Mary figure. She is a crucial element both to the story and to the underlying theme and her scenes should carry equal weight but they do not. I don't think it's the writing, I think it's just that a very good actress has been miscast here - she simply lacks the heft to stand toe to toe with the two powerhouses that frame her actions.
But, that said, it's a great play and, I think, a great production, beautifully conceived and directed by Kate Hewitt. Don't miss it.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Mar 14, 2019 10:36:15 GMT
she's an absolute powerhouse and totally irresistable I remember you being quoted saying that somewhere else too, mallardo . Was it at our last restraining order hearing, perhaps? Oh, and don't worry, season tickets for London are being organised as we speak... under assumed names, naturally (we are both Mr B. Bear, if anyone asks). I believe we've both agreed on Ms Barks's virtues on a couple of occasions, TM, the last being The Last Five Years. All I can say is wait until you see her in this!
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Mar 14, 2019 7:18:56 GMT
I saw it in New York recently and Andy Karl is very good in this, don't underestimate him. He brings a lot to an under-characterized role and would not be easy to replace. The guy no one is mentioning is Eric Anderson who is actually third billed, before Orfeh, and who is terrific in a double role. But as long as Barks is in it the show will do well - she's an absolute powerhouse and totally irresistable.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Mar 3, 2019 16:04:11 GMT
The late lamented Landor pub theatre did a decent production of it a few years back. As CP says, the score is quite strong but for me the book is less so. Dramatically the first playlet works best though the plot situation is a familiar one. The second is more fun but less cogent and ultimately unconvincing.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Mar 1, 2019 11:00:48 GMT
This one didn't ultimately work for me. Yes, Denis O'Hare was great, a nice combo of foolishness, deceit and menace but Tartuffe, a conman and hypocrite, cannot really be turned into a social revolutionary bent on bringing down the ruling classes with an army of street people. It's completely at odds with the nature and point of the play - or at least Moliere's play. Nothing against the updating, it's a play that should be updated, but not in this blunt, crude way with cheap laughs abounding. And of course the spectre of Trump and Trumpishness hangs over the whole thing. Perhaps that's unavoidable these days. I loved Olivia Williams though, her scenes with O'Hare were highlights. It's always fun to see two fine actors throwing themselves into their roles with 100% commitment. But I didn't think director Blanche McIntyre brought much to it. Her surprise entrance bit for several of the characters wore out its welcome quickly. I suppose it suited the farcical OTT tone of this production but that tone was the real problem for me.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Mar 1, 2019 7:49:34 GMT
This one didn't ultimately work for me. Yes, Denis O'Hare was great, a nice combo of foolishness, deceit and menace but Tartuffe, a conman and hypocrite, cannot really be turned into a social revolutionary bent on bringing down the ruling classes with an army of street people. It's completely at odds with the nature and point of the play - or at least Moliere's play. Nothing against the updating, it's a play that should be updated, but not in this blunt, crude way with cheap laughs abounding. And of course the spectre of Trump and Trumpishness hangs over the whole thing. Perhaps that's unavoidable these days.
I loved Olivia Williams though, her scenes with O'Hare were highlights. It's always fun to see two fine actors throwing themselves into their roles with 100% commitment. But I didn't think director Blanche McIntyre brought much to it. Her surprise entrance bit for several of the characters wore out its welcome quickly. I suppose it suited the farcical OTP tone of this production but that tone was the real problem for me.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 22, 2019 15:10:02 GMT
Welcome back, good to see you again :-)
Thanks. Been in the US for a while soaking up the toxic atmosphere. Glad to be back.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 22, 2019 9:40:56 GMT
A strange play. Two brothers, Vic and Walter, meet again after 16 years in the shambles of their late father's home and explosively confront the issues that have kept them apart for so long - and yet the focus of the piece is grabbed, from his first entrance, by the quirky old furniture dealer, Solomon, who has come to appraise the stock, so to speak. What was Arthur Miller's reasoning?
It's a play clearly based on Miller's own family, a play with deep personal resonances for him, yet he deliberately leavens the intensity of the drama with an outsider, an essentially comic character, so wonderfully wrought that he was bound to steal the show. It reminds me of another work from the same period - the 60s - also dredged from Miller's own life, After The Fall, a play about Marilyn Monroe which never quite comes to grip with its subject, as if it is too painful to deal with head on.
But having noted that, The Price, for all its structural unorthodoxy, is a much better play than After the Fall and, in fact, works. The clash of brothers, confined to the second act, is brilliantly handled and fiercely written while the long first act setup, the Solomon show, is entertaining and ultimately meaningful - the appraiser's bargaining for his price metaphorically reflective of the brothers' situation.
Solomon is, of course, played here by David Suchet and he takes every advantage of the gift of a role he has been given - a consummate performance. But kudos too to Brendan Coyle as Vic, the unsuccessful brother, who never leaves the stage and is, in fact, the lead in the play. Coyle is strong and characterful throughout in both the light and heavy moments and deserves much of the credit for the show's success.
And this production is a success, without a doubt. Under Jonathan Church's solid direction Miller's structural instincts for the piece are proven to be correct. Well done to all.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 21, 2019 17:03:27 GMT
I'd see it again in a heartbeat. It's a beautiful show and, for me, the simple staging allowed it to cast its spell. Jeannine Tesori's score is masterful, earthy and lyrical at the same time and totally in sync with the story it's telling. I hear something of Adam Guettel's Floyd Collins in it - I wonder if she and Guettel are friends? Kaisa Hammerlund is giving the most powerful MT performance in town right now - I hope she gets some recognition for it.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Dec 16, 2018 14:55:12 GMT
The thing about On Your Toes is that the ballet is justified by the plot - it's about ballet. And Slaughter on Tenth Avenue is one of Richard Rodgers'greatest compositions.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Dec 7, 2018 16:42:31 GMT
The timing is right for Rags which, I believe, was supposed to be something of a sequel - with different characters - to Fiddler. Joseph Stein wrote the book to both. That noted, it's - as sf says - Charles Strouse's gorgeous score that stands out. "Blame it On The Summer Night" is in the running for most beautiful song, ever.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Dec 5, 2018 12:49:50 GMT
Bad idea. Changing Bobby means changing everybody - couples swapping genders - if it's going to make sense. Can you see Sorry-Grateful, a male POV song if ever there was one, sung by the wives? Or Not Getting Married Today sung by Paul instead of Amy? Or three men singing You Could Drive a Person Crazy??? Company is virtually a perfect show - why mess with it. Has Sondheim approved? As a post-Company treat to myself* I’ve decided to read this thread from the start. I didn’t know the play at all. We had the Barbara Streisand Sings Broadway album when I was growing up and this was on it, so I was very surprised to learn from this thread that it was originally sung by a man. It’s fascinating to me to see the initial response to the news of the gender-switch and to now know more of the songs you are all talking about and how they did work. Thanks a lot for exhuming that comment! And, yes, I was VERY VERY wrong.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Nov 7, 2018 15:23:32 GMT
I saw this last night and the two leads were incredible. It took me a bit to figure out where they were in story but such a thrill to be able to see Jonathan Pryce and Eileen Atkins do their thing Yes, it does take a bit of an effort to sort out what is going on in this - which is always the case with a Florian Zeller play. But because Zeller is such a master of structure things clarify at exactly the moment of maximum impact. In this one we have a death in the family but we don't know who because all of them are still there interacting with each other and one of them is undergoing the onset of dementia. The focus keeps shifting until it arrives at a poignant and masterful final scene which is so quietly devastating because we are now, at last, confronted with the truth.
It's a great cast, for sure, but the play is worthy of them.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Nov 6, 2018 19:21:48 GMT
He's been here before... Remember him in Take Me Out at the Donmar, years ago... He was good. He’s got a lot of stage experience (including a number of musicals, like Assassins and Sweet Charity, which is where I first noticed him). I think that it was his stage work that led to his great TV roles.
I saw him in both Sweet Charity - opposite Christina Applegate - and Assassins - where he played Charles Guiteau - and he was wonderful in both. He's a highly respected Broadway actor. And he's perfect for Tartuffe. What's the problem?
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 31, 2018 18:31:42 GMT
On a more cheerful note. Going to Hamilton. Any recommendations for not too expensive place near there for early bite and a glass?
The big new hi-rise development in Victoria, behind and to the east of the theatre, has many restaurants, mostly chains but decent ones. I'd go for Bill's.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 20, 2018 15:31:31 GMT
The presence in the cast of Kelli O'Hara and Matthew Broderick helped it on Broadway but it's a decent show in the Crazy For You mould - music by Gershwin. The book by Joe DiPietro (Memphis, Toxic Avenger) is clever and funny.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 18, 2018 14:42:48 GMT
A very nice (and helpful) review, Andrew, but despite the four stars I'm afraid you've made this production sound quite unbearable.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 18, 2018 12:08:04 GMT
Say what you will about Great Britain's colonial past, in the atrocity sweepstakes no one beats the Belgians.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 16, 2018 11:47:33 GMT
him being from London has to do with it I don't know where you are from, but the worldview and opportunities of someone from London are very different from someone who grew up or lives outside it. In the context of this play - and in the place where it is being staged - as with the criticism levelled at him for his depiction of rural Ireland or the US, it's something that feels relevant.
I can't speak for rural Ireland but McDonagh's depiction of the US (specifically Missouri) in Three Billboards was right on the money.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 7, 2018 16:58:12 GMT
I saw the 2008 touring production (at Richmond) and found it to be surprisingly stage worthy. I think the score is much better than rated with strong numbers for all the ladies (Ria Jones, Poppy Tierney and Rebecca Thornhill, in Richmond) and for Van Horne. If the Southwark Playhouse, for instance, were to revive it, I'd definitely be there.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 7, 2018 7:07:04 GMT
I saw the final performance - so glad I did. Marber's production was stunning and the cast superb, top to bottom. As fine as Ifans was the honours go to Indira Varma, I think - her command of the last ten minutes was extraordinary, The play itself is wonderfully conceived and beautifully written, Ionesco's masterpiece - maybe just a masterpiece, period.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 4, 2018 6:29:26 GMT
Thanks all for the input! May avoid the merch stand and just get a programme then. Dont want to end up in a fight with a teenage girl over a t shirt... Just seen on Instagram carrie is under the weather. Hoping she’s better for this Saturday matinee. Any idea who the understudy Veronica is?
Beware! Programmes are ten pounds. I passed and took a free brochure instead.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 3, 2018 16:50:36 GMT
Tempting, but I hate the Finborough and the trek there. Had so many bad experiences that I've given up going.
Not exactly a trek. It's a ten minute walk from the Earl's Court tube station.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Sept 30, 2018 12:57:11 GMT
The ending of The Humans is foreshadowed throughout the play, indeed from the very first scene. The basement duplex flat, with its bumps and bangs and power failures and lightless windows, is virtually the seventh character in the six character play, not just a metaphor for the Blake family's turmoil but a complicit partner in it. I thought the final moments were incredibly powerful, crucial to the conception of the whole piece.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Sept 28, 2018 12:42:21 GMT
To me this is one of the few shows where the book and lyrics are far better than the music. I'm a fan of Laurence O'Keefe's work but too many of the songs in Heathers feel like all-purpose Legally Blonde clones. Music is supposed to help delineate character but that doesn't really happen here since so much of it is so generic.
That said, the show works, without a doubt. Great cast, great direction and a solid script. Fletcher is the driving force, for sure and Muscato is good as well though, for me, he overdoes the creepiness. In the end I felt nothing much for him and - harkening back to the film - I definitely did for Christian Slater who, in memory at least, brought more to the role. Perhaps not a fair comparison.
The featured player who elevated things for me was Rebecca Lock. I loved her big second act scene. But kudos to all, I had a great time.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Sept 28, 2018 11:56:06 GMT
Lee Evans can certainly act. I saw him in The Dumb Waiter (with Jason Isaacs) and he was terrific - quite perfect for the part.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Sept 26, 2018 15:58:54 GMT
Indeed, the lady's intense preoccupation with the frank sexuality in the show makes it a one star "money" review.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Sept 21, 2018 6:53:16 GMT
Pinter One is definitely a grim theatrical experience with Pinter at his most political, sparing us nothing. One For The Road, which I had seen at the Young Vic a few years ago in a very different production, is difficult to watch - an Interrogator (a wonderfully evil Antony Sher) tormenting three family members in successive one-on-one scenes. Yet the piece has gut-wrenching power. One feels that it's one of those plays that needed to be written and kudos to Pinter for being the one who cared enough to take it on.
Ashes To Ashes, in the second half, is the prize of the group. It's also an interrogation play of sorts but, this time, between a husband and wife (or are they?) searching for an indecipherable truth somewhere in a past that seems part real and part fantasy. Both Papaa Essiedu and Kate O'Flynn are amazing, especially O'Flynn, devastating as the besieged wife struggling to interpret her life in the wake of what seems to be the loss of her child.
This is the Pinter we know - elusive and oblique, drawing us in to a situation we understand only in fragments yet, as the fragments accumulate, finding a profound and, in this case, shattering truth.
If the mosaic of playlets in the first half of this "collection" demand audience stamina, the second half is the reward.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Sept 18, 2018 8:32:16 GMT
For a prime example of this kind of criticism, look no farther than Ben Brantley's New York Times review of a just-opened off-Broadway production of Uncle Vanya ( Uncle Vanya review). Seeing this "devastatingly intimate" production, in which "everything has the sheen of unmediated transparency", left Ben "shivery, teary-eyed and stunned" (although not too stunned to remind us that he has seen "at least a dozen versions" of Uncle Vanya, as if that were a big deal for a professional critic).
It's not as if Brantley is a cliché monger using the same catch phrases over and over again. He's actually a rather brilliant writer, whatever you think of him as a critic.
|
|