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.
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..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.