562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Sept 5, 2017 23:46:21 GMT
I loved Punchdrunk when I attended The Drowned Man. I really did. And I would love to go and see something else by them. But either they want me to go or they don't. Ballots? Really? No thanks. I'm not that desperate that I want to tell them how much I like them only for them to tell me they don't want me. Pardon me for saying, but this is an odd way of thinking about what seems to be the most fair way of allocating the tickets. I mean, in practice, this isn't very different from a normal online ticket sale: Instead of refreshing a website and hoping your connection happens to get through before other peoples' does, you hope that your name is picked out of a hat. If anything, this system is fairer, since people aren't penalised for having poor/no internet access, or if they can't get time off work at a specific moment in time, or whatever. Given how far demand is going to outstrip supply, there was always going to be a huge number of disappointed people, but I'm not clear that there's any fairer way of choosing who gets the tickets.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Sept 4, 2017 17:08:12 GMT
I'm really not sure quite what to make of this. Despite finding Mamet's most recent films pretty terrible, I love the Glengarry Glen Ross film, and would like to see it 'for real'.
However, I'm not quite sure what to make of the cast. The brits seem solid enough, but I'm not that keen on Christian Slater, at least on screen. How is he on the stage?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Sept 4, 2017 13:11:17 GMT
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 31, 2017 15:54:42 GMT
I wonder how much motivation there is for a big name star to take on this role immediately after Paddy Considine.
Quinn Carney is a great role, and there are actors with more star-power who may well give a better performance than Paddy Considine. However, given how unanimous the critical praise has been for the play, anyone stepping in now can surely only see the reviews go down. As an audience member I tend to take the star ratings with a pinch of salt. However, I can imagine for the creative team -both in terms of their egos and their perceived 'value' in the industry- there might be a worry that updated reviews might reappraise The Ferryman, and by implication themselves, as four stars. It would be different if the play was transferring to the US, or if this was a revival.
Putting that aside someone like Michael Fassbender taking on the role would be fantastic, but would surely make finding tickets impossible. For someone in that scale of superstar, my vote would be for Cillian Murphy.
Of course, to some extent, the issue is somewhat moot; the standout turn when I saw it was probably Laura Donnelly, so if she's staying on (and has good chemistry with Considine's replacement), I'll be happy.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 31, 2017 11:15:28 GMT
Annie Baker's John and the Tricycle co-production of The Great Wave have both been announced for the Dorfman early in the new year The NT/Tricycle might have missed a trick scheduling it for next year. I would have imagined that putting it on during, or straight after, the recent Hokusai exhibition at the British Museum might have made sense, especially since the play appears to be based on an existing play.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 31, 2017 11:07:36 GMT
As much as I love Paddy Considine's film roles, I found him to be a little hit & miss on the night I went. Great energy and charm, but his accent seemed to waiver a little to my (admittedly slightly tin) ear. Does anyone know what the norm is for situations like this? Is it likely that another big name star will be brought in, or will the role probably be picked up by a lesser known name? I'm thinking of going again later in the run, and wonder if the loss of Paddy Considine might see a drop in ticket sales, and the chance of some discounts...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 30, 2017 23:37:42 GMT
Two things come to mind here: - was there something else pencilled in for the Dorfman, for this to run in rep, which is now not going to be ready, so they have filled with more performances of BSC? - or is it just that BSC is selling well (which it is) and they have persuaded the cast to do more shows...? I'm pretty sure that the only other thing that's been explicitly mentioned to be coming up soon in the Dorfman is Annie Baker's new play John. Given that Network has been announced through to the end of March, it seems odd that nothing has come out about it. However, I think John was always meant to be in early 2018, although I might be mistaken and this might have originally been pencilled in for earlier on.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 30, 2017 14:20:59 GMT
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 12, 2017 13:20:17 GMT
Ugh, the reviews for this are so disappointing.
I know that the general early consensus here seemed to be somewhere between negative and indifferent, but it seemed right up my alley; a dystopian sci-fi setting, an outline that -if treated appropriately- could have been interesting nuanced and thought-provoking, intriguing rehearsal photos, and the mentions of Margaret Atwood George Orwell & Aldous Huxley.
In the end, despite some excitement, I decided to take heed of the negative comments here, and hold off on booking for the Old Vic until the early reviews came out. Definitely thankful that I did now, so thanks everyone.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 9, 2017 12:55:59 GMT
First performance of Part 1 was tonight. From a quick scan of the early twitter comments so far, it seems fairly evenly split between 'terrible' and 'great'. One did mention interval (and mid-performance) escapes though, so doesn't bode well. I can only find three tweets, two very good, one not. What phrase should I be searching for? #TheDivide seems to be the main one. Not lots, but if you sort by latest going back to yesterday early evening probably gives tweets from around ten people. I don't know quite what the Edinburgh Festival audiences are normally like, and not clear on what the reference to 'choristers' is for this play, but this photo on the left looks pretty disheartening if it reflects the audience turnout... the photo on the right looks like a member of the performance, but the one on the left looks like an audience-perspective(?)
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 9, 2017 2:20:59 GMT
First performance of Part 1 was tonight. From a quick scan of the early twitter comments so far, it seems fairly evenly split between 'terrible' and 'great'. One did mention interval (and mid-performance) escapes though, so doesn't bode well.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 8, 2017 15:23:53 GMT
Not that I've been casually watching Twitter all day or anything, but no one seems to have had one yet, unless a condition of sale is not to mention your success on social media. RADA themselves replied to someone 7 hours ago saying entrants would be notified before booking opens tomorrow morning; that's a little open to interpretation but is beginning to sound like emails will go out as late as workably possible. Maybe the emails have long gone out, sitting unloved in the winners' spam inboxes, and RADA are wondering why there's no buzz...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 2, 2017 13:10:24 GMT
Barbican have released a little teaser for the Ninagawa Macbeth. Towards the end there's a little footage of what's presumably a past performance or the stage rehearsals. Either way this looks fab.
edit: This video, has more footage, including some speaking and the actors' lists for Macbeth/Lady Macbeth/Banquo/Macduff/Duncan:
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 1, 2017 16:54:27 GMT
I was so emotionally invested in the show that I forgot to buy a program during the interval. I regret that deeply now, as I really wanted to have the list of the songs that were played. I am assuming here that the program has that list. Would anybody who bought the program or has access to the list of songs be an incredibly kind soul and share it? I downloaded this from somewhere imgur.com/a/49fzdDon't remember where I got it from originally. Might have been someone here...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 1, 2017 12:50:48 GMT
In preparation for seeing The Twilight Zone - you might want to check this out: It's a 'Top Ten' compilation of some of the most famous episodes - the last two mentioned: Time Enough At Last and Nightmare at 20,000 Feet became iconic and have been referenced frequently. The page on the Almeida website lists Richard Matheson and Charles Beaumont who are writers for certain episodes, rather than the show's creators, so it looks like they're adapting specific episodes rather than the general format of the show. I wonder how they'll deal with the fact that twists are a big part of the appeal, but some of the big episodes are part of popular culture these days.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 1, 2017 9:59:08 GMT
Having still not gone to Robert Icke/Adam Scott's version, I think I should probably save my money, but this definitely looks exciting.
Interesting to see the name 'Lolita' amongst the cast. I don't know the last time I saw that name in real life...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 31, 2017 23:07:11 GMT
I could be wrong but I think The Hard Problem is the only show which NT Live has broadcast from the Cottesloe / Dorfman, which is a shame as I think much of the most interesting stuff is on there. Maybe they feel the intimate scale of much of the work wouldn't translate well to the screen. I too would love to see this added to the line-up. IIRC Annie Barker's The Flick was at the Dorfman, and definitely would have been interesting to see in a cinema.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 31, 2017 21:07:21 GMT
And our country's good 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I understand that it's exciting and you want to tell your online buddies all about how bad you thought the play was, but it's okay to pause for a few seconds, and collect your thoughts onto a single post. If you're going to make each comment split out into multiple 1 or 2 word sentences then it can make the posts get a bit clunky and makes some of your thoughts awkward to read as a whole. It also means that other people's comments get lost. If you hit the post button too early and would like to make a change, it's also possible to do an 'edit'. It's the button in the top right of your posts here: imgur.com/FEJs0e3
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 29, 2017 8:13:13 GMT
I've just been chatting to the production manager assigned to a massive new- and I suspect quite controversial- theatre "experience". I get that you might feel a little hard done by here, and tone doesn't always come across well over the internet, but fwiw this sounds a bit like a stroppy teenager to me. You've suggested some changes you'd like for the forum and, for now at least, the forum doesn't seem to agree with that. It seems fairly democratic here on the whole so who knows, perhaps changes will be made over time. Perhaps we/I could have been less sarcastic in some of our messages but surely you can also see how some of your comments might have rubbed people up the wrong way. In any case, I'm not sure this latest message is the way to win people over. It's early enough that not many people will have seen these messages yet. How about a re-start? You can delete your message, and I'll do the same (I haven't quoted the second sentence of yours for this reason). I'm not suggesting that you should give any information that you don't want to; just that this message comes across as fairly abrasive, and isn't going to convince anyone that you were right. For what it's worth your comment makes me think of The Jungle. The Old Vic/NT notes about an immersive experience in the migrant camps struck me as potentially quite iffy.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 28, 2017 15:06:04 GMT
On the other hand, it also sounds like the set up to a subtlety-of-a-brick self-congratulatory rant on the dangers of irrational thought and the idiocy of the NRA, Gosh. Like Dr. Dre and Ice Cube and the like? That doesn't sound like little Benny Whishaw at all. He's more Straight Outta Compton Street really. A one-man NWA biopic with Ben Whishaw playing all the parts? Now that's something I'd definitely watch.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 28, 2017 15:03:17 GMT
Maybe the number just demonstrates restraint. I suppose I could bore everyone daily with musings over whether to grab a coffee in the Lyttleton bar, or whether the Latte is cheaper at the Globe. Maybe I'd post more if the threads- which seem quite heavily policed for some types of comments- were to be improved by organizing ticket discussions to a place of their own. If you love discussing buying tickets what's wrong with it being in a ticket discussion area? Police! Hands Up! Just kiddin' I do take your point but i don't see how that would practically work. If you had one thread for all ticket discussions it would be a complete jumble and no-one would be able to find anything. And having a 'sister' thread for every existing thread purely to discuss tickets that would double the size of the forum, and the threads would equally be all over the place, in different places and both would inevitably go off topic and the discussions would get out of control. It would be a mess.
If anyone has a solution they think could work feel free to tell us in the feedback section here. For what it's worth I think the current system works great. Sure some threads end up being quite scattered (or focussed) but that's just the nature of the beast with internet forums (fora? fori?). The flipside of that freedom is that if you have a random question about, say, the seating, or something weird you noticed in a show, then there's a reasonable chance that people will chat/respond to what you have to say. As someone relatively new here (and who's only been going more regularly to the theatre over the last couple of years) I've certainly benefitted from being able to ask naive/idiotic questions and getting lots of responses. Having lots of small specialised sub-forums might work if there's a massive community, but where it's (relatively) small & niche like here, my guess is that you'll end up with lots of the smaller forums with little to no chatter. It looks like the 'musicals' and 'plays' sub-forums here have a lot more traffic than the others, and I know that I don't check the 'opera & dance' one (that I have an interest in) anywhere near as much as this forum.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 28, 2017 14:56:07 GMT
This one looks like it'll be either great or awful. I just wish there was more information about what to expect.
The blurb, with lines about violence in America and god, and the image of the clockface with religious symbols make it seem like it could be an intriguing play covering interesting and important topics. On the other hand, it also sounds like the set up to a subtlety-of-a-brick self-congratulatory rant on the dangers of irrational thought and the idiocy of the NRA, full of straw men.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 27, 2017 15:21:39 GMT
Saying it out loud may get any 'theatre-going credibility' karma I've gained to be removed, but I have to confess that it's Twilight Zone that most intrigues me from this line up. I don't know what the playwright is like, but with the right choice of short stories and tone, this sounds like great fun. Like adult panto.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 27, 2017 11:50:24 GMT
I said elsewhere on this thread that I was worried that the play would be too similar to The Hard Problem but, thankfully, it wasn't as there is very little science in Mosquitoes. I think the critics have been spot on with their opinions as the play, though far from perfect, is a good one with some wonderful acting too. Maybe many people have seen how quickly this sold out and expected that to reflect that we were going to witness something amazing? Maybe some should adjust their expectations? Regulars like me going for the two gals, no? Parsley said the science was rubbish and I've read that elsewhere too. I'm not keen on science thrust at me so to speak as opposed to being embedded as in say, Copenhagen, which was I think really good and about more than science of course. So I'll see. Without spoiling anything, I think the thing that Parsley was mainly referring to, that's mentioned in the Daily Mail article also, is part of a character's background/motivations but is different from the LHC physics stuff that forms a bigger part of the play's context. It's been a long time since I saw Copenhagen and I haven't seen The Hard Problem but in my mind, the 'science' in Mosquitoes really provides the backdrop for the play rather than it's substance. Certainly my take away was that the play is mainly interested in the communication and trust in scientific knowledge, rather than specifically what that knowledge is. There are a few lines and an intentionally divisive & naff joke that might make more or less sense depending on what you know, but I don't think it would ruin anyone's experience of the play either way. There are a couple of longer monologues that might not be to everyone's taste but I'm not sure that understanding the details is necessary to get the implied reflections on the wider story. Ultimately, it felt to me the same as the way that a play might use history to tell a story about power and corruption; where knowledge about the true events might enrich the viewing experience, but isn't required to enjoy the play. Furthermore, I don't think it's simply a case that the play 'sides' with the scientist character. Over the course of the play it's pretty clear that she has serious character flaws, and she isn't simply someone that relies on an objective/rational view of the world.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 27, 2017 11:14:12 GMT
Thanks for the responses Some websites can be abrasive when it comes to new members asking mundane or obvious questions, so it's nice that here is much more accepting/inclusive. Certainly didn't expect so many answers so quickly. Thanks
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 27, 2017 10:55:23 GMT
If there are any other cheapskates here like me, what are the stalls £10 tickets behind the pillar like compared with getting the same price tickets on the sides of the circle? I can't quite tell if these will be unobtrusive or those pillars that seem to take up all of the view.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 26, 2017 15:10:27 GMT
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 26, 2017 12:13:48 GMT
Anybody sat in the cheap circle seats for this? I'm in P15 (second row in one of the side blocks) - had bad experiences of dreadful restricted views in the Dorfman so would be interesting to know how the sightlines are for this. We were sat next to yours. View was perfect. Naturally there were a couple of moments where the staging was more skewed towards the front but overall it was a great view of the action. Given the way that some of the projections worked, all in all I suspect that the view from this sort of height & location may well have been better than the more expensive floor level seats. Enjoy. (one caveat: I've never been to the Dorfman before so don't have anything to compare it to. nevermind, apparently The Flick was there so I have been but that wasn't in the round.)
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 26, 2017 12:03:17 GMT
Jack O'Connell does indeed fare slightly better (no towel-slipping tonight) Well that's one star off the show review for a start. The nudity isn't completely gratuitous, And there goes another. I'm not sure how planned it is, but the way your photo/avatar/image thing is looking at your comment seems a perfect balance
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 26, 2017 11:11:49 GMT
To anyone thinking of going and checking the reviews, I'd strongly suggest skipping the Daily Mail one. Quite aside from matters of taste (although IMO he seems to have missed the point of the play), the review gives away (indeed focuses on) what amounts to a signficant plot point. For what it's worth the other poor review so far (Evening Standard 2*) also gives away this plot point. Luckily it's the most implausible plot point out of a list of quite a few in this play, so not that much of a spoiler, especially as the issue is "resolved" alarmingly quickly early on in the evening. (Apparently it's massively inaccurate scientifically...) Given the ending of the play, I'm not clear how you can honestly argue that the child's death is the 'most implausible' point in the play. In any case, focussing on how common or likely deaths from the anti-vax movement generally, or the MMR scandal specifically are misses the point IMO. The play felt to me about the propagation of information (and misinformation) in the modern age, the disconnect between 'experts' and the general public, and the different (and malleable) ways people view the world. Of course some artistic license has been taken throughout the script, but my feeling is that the likelihood that that specific set of circumstances might occur is less important than what the choice represents and how Alice and Jenny (and their mother) look back on that decision. After all, you could have a similar discussion about how likely it would be that Jenny's baby was okay after her behaviour during the pregnancy . The interesting thing wasn't the probability that this would actually happen, it was in the way that Jenny & Alice react to this happening.
|
|