40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Mar 11, 2020 7:59:22 GMT
Friends who saw the NYC production said it was one of the most moving and exciting plays they’d seen in years.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Mar 3, 2020 23:18:38 GMT
Saw this last night--it's a very strong production. Jacobean revenge tragedy will never be everyone's cup of tea, but I thought this production got the balance between absurdist camp and ruthless violence right. You're laughing one minute and feeling your stomach turn the next. Sublime stuff.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Feb 21, 2020 13:05:57 GMT
There's also quite a nice shirtless gardener moment for those interested in that sort of thing. I don't think I will ever not find it amusing when the character that is supposed to be the typically bookish shy and awkward and gangly one has to take of his top and reveal the standard actor's washboard 8-pack abs. Point taken, but this is actually specified in the stage direction: "GABRIEL enters. He's got his top off. Six months of work in the garden has had an effect. He's fit, and muscular..."
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Feb 16, 2020 11:08:48 GMT
How about correcting the playwright's name (to Blyth)?
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Feb 9, 2020 20:46:46 GMT
I thought it seemed much shorter.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jan 31, 2020 13:37:52 GMT
For those of us who believe that Endgame is one of the most important plays of the 20th century, this seems like a must-see.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Dec 7, 2019 4:49:15 GMT
Has no one noticed that this is not the Chekhov play? It's a new play by Inua Ellams based on the Chekhov.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jun 25, 2019 1:32:50 GMT
He was also wonderful in Misalliance at the Orange Tree last year.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jun 21, 2019 22:46:50 GMT
I was there tonight too and thoroughly enjoyed it. Very strongly cast, and Menzies is superbly controlled and moving in the lead. I don't think the ending works yet, though--I and the people I was with were quite confused about what actually happens in the final scene, and I'm not sure the ambiguity is intentional. Hope they experiment in the remaining previews to clarify it. But overall I thought this was a terrific production, up there with Goold's best.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jun 21, 2019 22:42:05 GMT
I saw it last night. I think it is very good and Andrew Scott, Sophie Thompson and Indira Varma are excellent. It was my first time seeing the play and the friend I went with told me that there is a relevant change in this version. I am just not sure about the housekeeper... The only problem is the clash between the plot and the context which this change brings about. It would never have been put on in 1942 in this form tho I’m sure Coward would have loved it this way. So why is this a problem? Thank god, say I, for a production that isn't simply an attempt to replicate the 1942 original--Matthew Warchus's version felt vividly fresh and exciting, a huge revelation of a play that up until now didn't seem especially interesting to me. And Andrew Scott is simply a comic genius.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on May 14, 2019 4:10:23 GMT
I’ve missed this. Is it a transfer from the States? No. It's a completely new production of a play Broderick did in NYC ten years ago.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Apr 3, 2019 23:49:54 GMT
It is "dazzlingly perceptive", so everyone here is wrong. 😂 Not everyone. And what makes you think Aleks Sierz is dishonest? One of the best critics around, IMHO.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Apr 1, 2019 23:06:13 GMT
For what it's worth: I'm amazed at the general tenor of this thread. I'm an American who has loved and taught theater for over 40 years, and I don't know anyone who doesn't love Caryl Churchill. I have taught and directed her plays, and have seen every production of her work that I've had the opportunity to see. She's so prolific that of course some of her plays are stronger than others--she's a fearless and passionate experimenter who has changed the British theater more than anyone else now living. Top Girls is one of the masterworks of 20th c. drama. I haven't seen the NT production yet--I'm bringing a group of 24 Americans to see it (along with 9 other plays) in June--and I'm more than slightly worried about the decision to undo Churchill's doubling, which seems to me integral to the play. So I may or may not love this production. But to say that the play itself is incoherent or nonsensical is to sell one of the great works of British theater very short indeed.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Aug 12, 2018 1:33:53 GMT
He was a great Irish playwright long before he died.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jan 30, 2018 3:06:16 GMT
The production is terrific, the actors all extraordinary, the movement and music impeccable. But in truth it's just not a very good play: sentimental, predictable, simplistic. It was McCraney's very first play, written while he was in graduate school, and it shows. He's obviously very talented, but this is apprentice work.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jan 20, 2018 0:17:55 GMT
Wonderful production, extraordinary play. Annie Baker is brilliant in her ability to conjure up mystery and depth out of what seem perfectly ordinary details: they add up in a way that is haunting and resonant. The cast is superb, and already by the third preview they were working like a well-oiled machine. Marylouise Burke is legendary in New York, but I'd never seen her before: she is very funny in her apparent distraction and then suddenly empathetic and wise--the part fits her like a glove. And the other actors are equally subtle and precise. This production is really very special, not to be missed--but you do have to be willing to be patient and not expect the details to add up quickly. I took a dozen of my university students tonight, and they were practically jumping up and down afterward.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jan 19, 2018 0:04:25 GMT
I had a very different response. I love the play, but was rather disappointed by the production. I thought much of the acting was very good--I was impressed by both the Helena and the Bertram, and thought they did much to explore the characters' complexities and make them real and palpable. But the directing seemed to me, frankly, a mess: lots of ideas that were neither cohesive nor carried through, lots of rushing around the stage in a way that felt chaotic, lots of unsustained emotional choices. The fact that almost all the characters carried candelabra throughout seriously limited their range of movement, and distracted from the play because I worried they were going to catch each other's costumes on fire. There's one disastrous casting choice that threw a whole aspect of the plot off balance. And what they've done with the ending seems to me a real failure of will. Despite these reservations, I would recommend the production primarily on the strength of Ellora Torchia's performance, but I think the play can be much subtler and more moving.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jan 17, 2018 13:35:25 GMT
For what it's worth, I thought Toby Jones was extraordinary too. In my view, it's important not to get bogged down in the details as specified in the text: for me, the only really useful question is whether the choices made in the production are effective. And in this case, the Meg/Stanley relationship absolutely did work in its own terms. Here's a very thoughtful interview with Peter Wight that may be useful for those who are struggling to come to terms with the play: www.broadwayworld.com/westend/article/BWW-Interview-Peter-Wight-Talks-THE-BIRTHDAY-PARTY-20180117
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jan 12, 2018 12:22:15 GMT
I saw this last night with my students, and we thought it was extraordinary. A really fine production, well-acted across the board, beautifully timed and paced. In my view, it's one of Shaw's plays that holds up best--wonderfully entertaining, and still politically relevant (read Elinor Cook's essay in the programme). So glad to have the chance to see it.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jan 11, 2018 16:34:03 GMT
Saw the 2nd preview last night. It's already in fine shape: really strong ensemble, no one predominating, Toby Jones, Zoe Wanamaker, Stephen Mangan all superb. The tone, so hard to achieve precisely in this play, is impeccable: hilarious and anxiety-producing in equal measure. I loved it.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Dec 20, 2017 18:43:34 GMT
Thanks for the links to reviews. Looking forward to this. (The Guardian erroneously credits Audrey Brisson, who is not in this production. She is currently playing the role of J Cricket in the NT Pinocchio!) That was the Guardian's review from a year ago, when the production was in Bristol (with Audrey Brisson).
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Sept 28, 2017 14:53:48 GMT
The production at the National in 1995 directed by Phyllida Lloyd was superb AND what some on this thread might call radical: I still remember the vision of Geraldine McEwan distraught and sprawled in a towering heap of binbags. The cast was great, including McEwan, Fiona Shaw, Roger Allam, Richard McCabe, Julian Rhind-Tutt, Sian Thomas--and three younger actors playing servants whom most people at that point had never heard of: Amanda Drew, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, and Catherine Tate...
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Sept 28, 2017 14:46:26 GMT
Maybe an admin could correct the spelling of the title? It's Belleville.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Sept 18, 2017 16:20:24 GMT
Not on-sale, but the next two plays were announced months ago: The Great Wave and John. Thanks. Yes, I knew that--I just didn't think either was planned for as early as January.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Sept 16, 2017 16:11:42 GMT
But nothing has been announced for the Dorfman after 9 January, right?
And yes, rumbledoll, you're right about the website. For instance, it continues to say Amadeus returns "from 22 January" even though it was pushed back to January 11th weeks ago.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Sept 12, 2017 3:10:09 GMT
Based on the New York production I saw in 1981 (and still vividly remember), it's a delightful play. An underwear manufacturer and his eccentric family meet a Polish aviatrix who crash-lands her airplane in their greenhouse. It's like "Heartbreak House" but really funny.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jul 27, 2017 2:24:54 GMT
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jul 17, 2017 23:45:44 GMT
Slightly OT: can anyone work out what will be on in the Dorfman in December and January? Apart from the return of Barber Shop Chronicles, I mean. There are roughly 20 days in December and all of January after the 9th unaccounted for. If not the Annie Baker (and not The Great Wave, which according to the Tricycle's website opens in Spring 2018), then what? Anyone know?
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jun 24, 2017 1:18:09 GMT
I was there tonight one seat over from Baz Bamigboye who is a very warm, supportive audience member. I wouldn't put this up with Angels or Ferryman - there was terrific stuff in it, particularly in the second half, but it was very uneven - and the first half felt long (one scene in particular fell flat.) I felt I learned a lot about how The Sun newspaper became what it is, and about the editor Larry Lamb (good perf from Richard Coyle), but despite a sound performance from Bertie Carvel, Murdoch remained, to me, an absolute enigma, which was frustrating. The structure is quite odd - a very episodic first act and then the second act is dominated by two important news stories/features that caused the breakthrough in The Sun's circulation. The set is good and there is some inventive staging. There was a terrific moment from Geoffrey Freshwater. I think I'd be around three and a half stars on this - but I imagine others will go for 4. It was warmly received at the end. I saw it on Monday, and agree completely with this. It felt more like a docudrama than a satisfyingly shaped narrative: lots of information, almost over-explanatory at times, and the various episodic subplots came and went without adding up to much. I enjoyed the performances, and the piece as a whole has lots of Gooldian razzle-dazzle, but I never felt particularly engaged emotionally. Surprisingly to me, Murdoch is a pretty subsidiary figure to Larry Lamb--I think Graham may have been going for a sort of Faustian-bargain take (with Murdoch as Mephistopheles), but it never quite paid off dramatically.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jun 17, 2017 1:02:13 GMT
The transfer seems to be getting better reviews than the Almeida version - five stars across the board. I saw a later preview and thought Scott was brilliant, but wasn't keen on every aspect of the production. Is it better all round now? I'd like to see it again but doubt I'll get the chance (wish they'd record it!). It's wonderful, one of the best Hamlets I've seen, original and deeply affecting. But I didn't see it at the Almeida, so can't compare.
|
|