|
Post by orchidman on Jul 29, 2019 14:48:59 GMT
Why has this sold so well? Are Duncan and Jennings really a big draw?
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Jul 23, 2019 13:39:56 GMT
Sounds interesting but surprised to see there are still 3 out of 4 main stage plays written by men. Surprised on a sample size of 4? Really? If you care about that you've got to look at what they do over a couple of years of work.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Jul 19, 2019 12:56:10 GMT
Always thought it was a decent play elevated to something special by Rylance's performance. For me The Ferryman is a much better script. But to be fair to Butterworth, I think he wrote Jerusalem for Rylance so he has to take his fair share of credit for crafting him a great vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Jul 3, 2019 0:30:59 GMT
This was enjoyable, with stand-out performances from Atwell and Terera but the idea that it is topical mystifies me.
Okay, so we have a divisive election between conservatives and progressives in which we know absolutely nothing of the policies proposed or actual likely consequences. Which could be basically anytime anywhere across human history for as long as there have been elections. You would think Ibsen had invented the idea of equality as a political goal the way he is getting praised here. Whereas in the UK right now the most striking part of the milieu to me is that the self-declared conservatives are acting like cultish radicals, which is not the case in this play at all. A conservative politician says the people not voting for him have been duped to vote against their interests, wink at the audience, but again that's something politicians might say about voters whose vote they have lost at practically any time - and in our time it is more likely a liberal politician, here and in the US, who would voice that grievance. What is the relevant material then? That politics is divisive? Um, yeah.
First half of the first half very good and atmospheric, second half of the first half gets rather repetitive. First half of the second half it really kicks into gear, second half of the second half it tails off into melodrama.
In that section I found the character of Rebecca, her actions, declared motivations and psychology not very believable, unhuman in how she seems to be weighing up the balance between her ideals and emotions. Yes, of course there are such tensions but mainly on a subconscious level, the way she is processing them out loud just didn't ring true to me.
The idea that her admitting to him that she may have psychologically facilitated the suicide would thus rid him of any guilt is absolutely bizarre. He's still the husband who has been emotionally unfaithful with another woman under the same roof as his wife. That she would risk her standing with him to make that admission makes it even weirder. Then her explanation of why she refused his proposal of marriage lost me yet further, there is no tension between her ideals and emotions if she has converted Rosmer to her ideals, yet the play acts as if there is. I would also have liked a greater sense of the history of the relationship between Rosmer and his wife, whether they were ever truly affectionate, or it was simply a convenient marriage of social equals in a small society.
Still plenty to like but a long way from a 5 star show for me. Always pleased to see a classy production of a serious play in the West End without any stupid gimmickry.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Jun 17, 2019 19:32:55 GMT
Lots of £15/18 tickets available, some front row.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on May 21, 2019 22:44:00 GMT
Unpack that for me. Is it that the word disabled is no longer a politically correct term? I guess not because you used it. Or you think it's wrong to mention his disability because it's not relevant information? When referring to a scene in which his sister literally mentions it as relevant information? In a world in which it is desired that the King be very good at fighting? In a world in which, if you needed a reminder that our ethics and morality do not apply to their ideals of governance, in that exact scene, representative democracy is proposed as a form of government and everyone laughs their heads off? Or it's that I called him a kid too? I would like to think you could tell I would have been just as condescending if Sansa or Gendry had bizarrely ended up on the throne, either of which would have made roughly as much sense as Bran, rather than that I have some rabid hatred of disabled people in positions of power. But perhaps it would it be okay if I called him a 'disabled guy?' Enlighten me. Disabled people is an acceptable term, the current government guidelines on inclusive language www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/inclusive-language-words-to-use-and-avoid-when-writing-about-disability (not political correctness) might be interesting for you. My issue is that you reduce Bran to ‘disabled kid’ when he is an ancient and immensely powerful greenseer with enormous magical ability. He can perceive the past, present and future through visions and he can time travel. They’re in the burnt out ruins of the former seat of power, they know they no longer need someone who is ‘very good at fighting.’ Did you miss the bit where they kept taking about “breaking the wheel”? A candidate who cannot have children breaks the cycle of inherited power. A candidate who doesn’t want to lead would make a change from someone who believes it’s their right. The old white men laugh at the idea of participatory democracy. Do you not think that Tyrion's proposed solution is the first step on that journey though? The wheel isn't broken because Tyrion, a character who has been wrong about everything for a long time now, hopes so. In the last series the fact Daenerys couldn't have children was a problem according to Tyrion, now it's great that Bran can't? Tyrion's proposed solution is the first step towards civil war every time the King dies because the succession is unclear. See: history. The culture of an entire continent doesn't change because Tyrion makes a stupid speech and a fairly random panel of people, from which the interests of most of that continent aren't voiced, nod their heads. Let's remember for one example from very recent history, what happened the last time a Dornish Prince was perceived to be too weak and pacifist. He got shanked by his sister-in-law who took power to popular acclaim and took up arms against the reigning house. So this new Prince is just going to go home and tell everyone they must accept being ruled from the capital when even the King's sister wouldn't and she got independence for her region? When he has probably the most well-rested army? At the very least he's declaring independence and then the whole thing starts to unravel. I don't see how anyone could have watched all eight series and think that anything has meaningfully, lastingly changed on that ending. The best chance for stable government in the medium term was Daenerys when she had three dragons and could rule through her WMDs like her ancestors. That's irrespective of whether she would be a good ruler, but you can't be a good ruler if you can't maintain your grip on power. The only way Bran is keeping that power structure in place is using his magical powers to implement a totalitarian state in which treason becomes a thought crime because Bran (unverifiably) sees people's treachery in visions of the future. Sounds great, what a happy ending, Team Stark forever. Except he chose not to use those powers to intervene meaningfully in the most important battle of all time in episode three or to prevent an enormous civilian atrocity in the previous episode? I like that you seem to think I don't understand the version of events portrayed by the show, rather than that I don't think it makes a lick of sense.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on May 21, 2019 12:35:09 GMT
You have to hand it to the writers. Just when you think the series can't get any stupider, they pull out all the stops like that. It's a show called Game of Thrones in which everyone has been fighting for the throne for eight series. But in the end, a group gets together and someone says let's give it to some disabled kid with no experience or desire to lead, who most of us don't know, for absolutely no good reason, and everyone just shrugs and says yes. I find your casual prejudice about disabled people disgusting. Unpack that for me. Is it that the word disabled is no longer a politically correct term? I guess not because you used it. Or you think it's wrong to mention his disability because it's not relevant information? When referring to a scene in which his sister literally mentions it as relevant information? In a world in which it is desired that the King be very good at fighting? In a world in which, if you needed a reminder that our ethics and morality do not apply to their ideals of governance, in that exact scene, representative democracy is proposed as a form of government and everyone laughs their heads off? Or it's that I called him a kid too? I would like to think you could tell I would have been just as condescending if Sansa or Gendry had bizarrely ended up on the throne, either of which would have made roughly as much sense as Bran, rather than that I have some rabid hatred of disabled people in positions of power. But perhaps it would it be okay if I called him a 'disabled guy?' Enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on May 20, 2019 22:30:24 GMT
You have to hand it to the writers. Just when you think the series can't get any stupider, they pull out all the stops like that.
It's a show called Game of Thrones in which everyone has been fighting for the throne for eight series. But in the end, a group gets together and someone says let's give it to some disabled kid with no experience or desire to lead, who most of us don't know, for absolutely no good reason, and everyone just shrugs and says yes. And then his sister says even though my brother is going to be King, I want our region to have independence. And all the other regions go yeah sure, no problem, because we wouldn't like our own independence. And let's let Davos and Brienne get a vote on the new King because they are characters the audience recognise even though they have no business being there. And Tyrion who was responsible for bringing the Dragon Queen to torch Westeros and the Dothraki who are probably pillaging the capital as this is happening can be the Hand even though he has got every decision wrong for the last three series.
This was a show which used to have guys pulling the strings like Littlefinger, Varys, Tywin, pre-brain tumour Tyrion. But now everyone has a double-digit IQ and knows they are in the last episode of a TV series and forgets about their own interests.
The idea that it's any kind of ending at all is ludicrous. Guaranteed civil war as soon as anyone with any ambition gets any position of power or influence, the throne has never been more vulnerable. Based on the established logic of the last series, if Bronn shows up to the next council meeting with his crossbow, he becomes King because that's all he has to do to get whatever he wants.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on May 18, 2019 13:38:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on May 17, 2019 15:00:15 GMT
It's not a great Williams play, that's the main shortcoming, the acting and direction are fine.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on May 15, 2019 14:01:01 GMT
Also, it's not that Daenerys devolving into a Mad Queen couldn't have worked as a plot, it's that the execution of it was totally inept.
It would actually be way more believable based on her experiences and previous actions if Arya rather than Daenerys snapped and killed lots of innocent people.
And Daenerys's father, the Mad King, only wanted to burn down the capital when he was under seige and about to lose everything. Now that's crazy but you can see how those extreme circumstances could push a vulnerable mind over the edge. Daenerys burns down the capital HAVING WON. So what she did is several gradations crazier than the exemplar for madness in the story, having previously acted in her rational self-interest.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on May 15, 2019 0:10:09 GMT
Was it completely out of character? Yes, because it was unprovoked, and not in her interests in any way. This is a might is right world, none of the stuff she's done before was notably OTT in this context because she was acting in her interests as a would-be ruler. Go back and look at the stuff Ned or Rob Stark did as supposedly heroic characters. This was completely against Daenerys' interests. Cersei can hardly be popular after nuking the Vatican and she had a very tenuous claim to the throne anyway so Daenerys would broadly have been popular in replacing her. Instead...having won an easy victory and getting exactly what she set out to do, Daenerys...goes crazy and kills innocent people for no reason. Rather than directly targeting Cersei. It was telling that there wasn't a shot of Daenerys on the dragon in the actual moment of the rampage because the writers didn't really know why she was doing it so what is the director supposed to tell the actress? The cast know how terrible the writing is: digg.com/video/game-of-thrones-disappointing
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on May 13, 2019 15:12:08 GMT
The rabid fanbase making lots of noise online have had too long to work out exactly what they wanted to happen. They were always going to be disappointed. And they are making a lot of noise trying to tell others how wrong it all is. No, no, no, it's mainly because the quality of the writing has gone off a cliff. None of the characters I wanted to 'win the Game of Thrones' were still alive going into this series so I am watching for entertainment. And my expectations weren't high after the last series but it's got way way worse. Let's see how dumb the show is this week: Varys, one of the cleverest characters on the show, manages to get himself executed by openly, including outside in broad daylight, conspiring against his Queen with her chief adviser and her lover, and when they don't agree to join in the conspiracy, he just waits around to get killed. Tyrion, one of the cleverest characters on the show, once again takes a huge, stupid risk by releasing Jaime and putting his faith in Cersei acting out of character by giving up, sending his brother to his death and risking his own life if Daenerys finds out. Last week the scorpion weapons hit a dragon three shots out of the first three from a few ships and the remaining dragon for absolutely no reason didn't counterattack, making it look like the scorpions were a serious threat to dragons. This week one dragon took out all the scorpions in the city and an entire fleet without getting hit once. It became clear one dragon was enough to sack King's Landing so Daenerys could have taken the city very easily when she had three of them but at that time they just decided...not to. Even though that's exactly how her ancestors conquered the continent. And they could have directly targeted Cersei in the Red Keep and spared many lives which they briefly were very concerned about. If Arya was planning to kill Cersei using her magical assassin powers, why not just tell Jon and give that a go before destroying the whole city? Instead, while not actually doing anything or utilising those powers, she puts her life in extreme danger, but fortunately for her Starks can't die any more. Euron decides to attack Jaime for absolutely no reason so as to give Jaime a dramatic final fight scene and gets himself killed. That's just basic stuff without even getting into how badly they have handled most of the characters (this week Daenerys, Jaime in particular) and butchered the overarching plots. And this week's episode was actually marginally less stupid than last week's. Yes, some people will be disappointed if the things they wanted to happen don't happen, but anybody who can remember how good the series used to be and can see how much they have gone off-piste is going to be unhappy with the nonsense of the past three weeks. I struggle to see how anybody can actually care now when all logic and continuity has gone out of the window. The entertainment value has actually gone up again because the show is so bad. It's incredible that HBO with its reputation for quality and plans to turn this into an ongoing franchise have let two idiots torch their biggest ever show. 70 episodes of building a rich world with great characters and storylines reduced to the level of the stupidest of Hollywood blockbusters with total contempt for the audience. At least there's some amazing content in the reactions: https://www.reddit.com/r/freefolk/comments/bjjjjj/actual_footage_of_the_writers_after_episode_3/
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on May 9, 2019 0:40:40 GMT
It's a weak play, and however glad people (myself included) are to see Maggie Smith, I couldn't say it was good theatre.
I don't like knowing too much before I see things and hadn't realised there's a documentary of the actual woman, filmed aged 105. Now, that is a much more promising concept. Firstly because it's not often you see someone aged 105 reflecting on their life. Secondly because that makes her one of the last people alive to have lived through these events. Thirdly to see her in close-up and judge for yourself how much you believe her.
But to see someone else play her removes the main elements that are interesting in the source material. Her life story isn't one of particular note given the many, many fascinating stories from that time. So telling it as a play is probably a bad idea but there are ways to bring it to life, none of which are taken. We just get one actress playing her and a monologue in continuous time. Seriously? This is the best adaptation they could conjure up?
Maggie Smith is captivating for about twenty minutes until you realise it's not really going to go anywhere, beyond that she does as well as anyone could with the material. Sometimes you know you aren't loving something but you can feel you are out of step with the audience (Come From Away recently), but here, I got the feeling a lot of the audience was politely bored.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on May 7, 2019 14:11:30 GMT
I could still enjoy the previous series, it's the last two episodes which have totally killed it. And now after 71 episodes there are only 2 episodes left so of course I am going to see it out. And I have quite a few friends who watch it, none of whom think it's good any more, so it makes for entertaining conversation.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on May 7, 2019 12:34:02 GMT
It's almost unbelievable how quickly the show has jumped off a cliff. There were 4 great series, up there with the best ever. Then series 5 and 6 stupid stuff started happening more and more but it was still very good TV. Series 7 was worse again, undoubtedly trash TV, but entertaining trash and you could forgive them if they were focusing on setting things up for the last series.
Then this series opens with 2 pointless setup episodes, at least they weren't actively terrible, just not a good sign when it's a six episode series. Episode 3 ridiculously bad, Episode 4 somehow even worse, stupidity absolutely off the scale, characters acting out of character and having dropped about half their IQ, complete discontinuity with established norms.
One of the show runners said of the dragon getting ambushed: "While Dany kinda forgot about the Iron Fleet and Euron's forces, they certainly haven't forgotten about her."
Unreal.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Apr 30, 2019 0:21:51 GMT
No explanation as to why the Night King risked his only way of losing to go after Bran when he had the battle won easily. Bran wasn't doing anything in the battle to make him worth targeting. Even if he is special they could just wait until everyone else is dead rather than putting their one huge weak spot in the firing line.
I think Bran was his chief enemy - or rather, not Bran but the Three-Eyed-Raven who is memory. By killing the Three-Eyed-Raven the Night King erases the memory of the Living along with what's left of the living (at this stage he must have thought he was winning). The little group in the Godswood was defenseless against the Night King and his White Walkers. He just hadn't counted on Ninja-Arya to save the day. Personally I would have expected a big showdown between Jon Snow and the Night King, but that said, I believe this was the one crucial assassination that Arya had worked towards for all eight seasons. Sure, it still relies on the Night King who has previously seemed pretty strategic acting like a complete moron. The only way he can lose this battle is to get killed. He can't be killed by dragon fire and he seems to know this. So he's just got to stay away from Valyrian steel blades. All he has to do is wait for the battle to be properly won, then go after Bran who can't fight. He's waited 1000 years for the Wall to fall but he can't wait about 12 hours for his army to finish the job. Now if he was an actually fleshed out character with known personality traits he could make such a pathetic mistake and it could work. When he's portrayed as a (near) unstoppable force of nature it's just pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Apr 29, 2019 17:31:59 GMT
Just laughably bad and insulting to the audience's intelligence. The white walkers had been setup as the existential threat from the very first episode and they go out in comical fashion. All the heroic characters throughout who have taken this threat very seriously look stupid while Cersei who is supposed to be the villain is proved right.
No explanation as to why the Night King risked his only way of losing to go after Bran when he had the battle won easily. Bran wasn't doing anything in the battle to make him worth targeting. Even if he is special they could just wait until everyone else is dead rather than putting their one huge weak spot in the firing line. The longer the battle lasts the better for the Night King who can raise the dead to his side, not only does he have no incentive to take risks to accelerate matters, he has strong incentives to do the opposite, his army won't tire or need refuelling.
Ridiculously bad strategy on both sides. Why would the living launch an attack at night when they could sit tight in their castle and send out the dragons? Who was in charge of the living's strategy? Why weren't they using Bran's magical visions to aid them? They knew killing a white walker would take out loads of others but didn't target them in battle?
The red priestess deus ex machina at the start and and Arya deus ex machina at the end. Basically all the major characters can't be killed no matter how perilous their situation unless to save another more major character.
So much stuff that was setup just obliterated without a payoff. Reminds me of Lost. Probably why the guy can't finish his books, he knows he can't resolve things satisfyingly, the TV writers don't even care to try.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Apr 25, 2019 23:39:43 GMT
Wasn't rushing out to see a play on this topic but glad I heeded the advice on this thread, a five star play.
Agree that The Nether was a much more imaginative approach, still can't complain when you see a genuinely well-made play about a difficult issue.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Apr 23, 2019 21:56:38 GMT
The writing has gone to pot since they went beyond the books. The plan to capture the wight and whatever was happening with Littlefinger in the last series got close to shark-jumping territory, and everyone basically ignoring Bran is not far off either. The show was at one point absolutely first-rate, with one of the best depictions of politics ever, now it's just another TV show, albeit one with a dizzying budget and a residue of good characters.
It will be very disappointing if it all ends predictably with the heroes on top when what captured people's imaginations in the first place was the way it subverted genre cliches. But that's the way it's going, so much lately has been to give the audience what they want.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Apr 2, 2019 11:46:11 GMT
A murder mystery spoof, just what the world needs.
Feels like they didn't want to price the nights differently based on the relative pull of the stars, so are hoping the audience will take pot luck. But at those prices, and an unknown property in terms of the play, not a chance.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Apr 1, 2019 14:44:16 GMT
Yes, but to be iconic you surely have to at the very least conjure an image in people's heads. Hamlet holding the skull of Yorick could be described as iconic.
And Top Girls may be a rather well-known and much-studied play but that doesn't detract from the reality that 9 out of 10 people on the street won't have even heard of it.
To be fair maybe they would have written a more apt adjective: 'evergreen', 'classic', 'enduring', had they not seen this latest production.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Apr 1, 2019 13:06:41 GMT
I'd be more worried that Norris and Burger are illiterate enough to write of "Caryl Churchill's iconic Top Girls".
Can any stage play be iconic? That one certainly isn't.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Mar 28, 2019 23:46:33 GMT
I can understand why people seeing this Downstairs might have been taken with it but once you hit the big stage and get evaluated on that level, it doesn't cut it.
Perhaps the biggest flaw was that the stuff happening in the recorded video was for the most part a lot more interesting than what was happening on stage. So many more interesting ways you could have approached a premise like this. Picked up a bit after the big twist but not enough. Really, way too much progresses off stage politically/socially relative to the length of the time that passes in the main story.
The science being portrayed is entirely unclear which matters. When we see the test numbers at the start, they are percentages. Which means there is still huge uncertainty as to a person's medical fate. But when schizophrenia is being discussed later on it's as though the science is not only accurate enough to predict 100% but even down to when the disease will hit. The social implications of knowing someone's tendencies towards disease are small, it is only knowing their exact medical future that is a potential powder-keg. And if we reached that stage of technology, the idea we would need post-birth abortion is laughable.
The idea that there would be one number out of ten makes no sense. It is portrayed that lots of tricks and fraud is going on, but someone would just invent a different metric which weights things differently and people who score higher on that metric would start quoting that instead. The idea that one specific metric would completely dominate society is ridiculous.
The stuff about fruit was just thrown in for no reason. Some of the dialogue is painfully bad, especially at the awkward interval break. Some totally off bits like the girl having her test done for Huntington's by one of her best friends who knows her father has the disease but is totally blasé about the whole thing as it's getting calculated despite the fact her friend has a 50/50 chance of being given a death sentence.
I could nitpick a lot more things. Stuff which you let go when the material works because in sci-fi there will always be some rough edges but this story wasn't involving enough. The premise is very good but it's not in the least bit original and the execution is pretty poor. Didn't believe the world at all.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Mar 27, 2019 23:56:14 GMT
Appears that Brendan Coyle has been off for about a week. Saw his understudy Sion Lloyd tonight and he was very good, although hadn't realised he'd had a little time to bed in. Coyle is probably a little old for the part but haven't seen his performance, certainly would be a different feel to Mark Ruffalo who was the right age (and a very well preserved example of it) in terms of the character talking about changing careers and a new vocation.
Think this is one of Miller's best plays and the recent Broadway success and now this production will elevate its reputation.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Mar 27, 2019 0:09:12 GMT
Didn't do it for me. Thought it was a great premise when I first heard of it, then when I realised they were only there for 5 days, wondered if there would actually be enough material. The first 20 minutes or so are fantastic and very heartwarming but it doesn't really go anywhere, the characters are thin and don't develop.
Lots of them telling the audience how different they feel but we only see a lady drink two beers instead of one and that's about it. It's telling that the big song seems to be about a woman becoming the first female American Airlines pilot 15 years earlier which is...from a different show?
I could imagine a non-musical film version working well where with some dramatic licence some of the people end up there for two or three weeks. People on an enforced holiday in the wake of tragedy re-examining their lives in a remote place. In this it feels like that is going to happen then everyone leaves before it gets started.
Music was serviceable but forgettable. Pleased I saw it for the first 20 minutes and a pleasant reminder of the kindness of the majority of people but the Guardian 3/5 review nailed it for me.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Mar 25, 2019 23:12:55 GMT
I'm not 100% convinced by the play itself but agree this was an excellent production.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Mar 22, 2019 12:53:23 GMT
Where's Paul Nicholls gone then? Won the Ryanair Chase and the RSA, 2nd in the Champion Chase and 5th in the Gold Cup, should be back on the stage now Cheltenham has finished.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Mar 8, 2019 12:51:40 GMT
Strange choice of material, can't believe Ayn Rand is too big with European theatre goers.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Mar 7, 2019 15:27:01 GMT
Read that Vulture review after seeing the US production and thought it incredibly myopic. You either share the reviewer's viewpoint or you are a 'creepy' (word used twice) racist, and it makes big assumptions about the playwright's intentions which are actually completely up for debate.
Comes across very emotional, this play challenged my beliefs and rather than process a reasoned response I proclaim the play and the people who enjoyed it to be wrong. Reviewer is clearly educated and intelligent which is interesting.
The play is willing to get into the hypocrisies, ironies and nuances of real life. The reviewer is not and seems to conclude that it is inherently a shortcoming for an artwork "to reach the bleak conclusion that, in the end, we’re all hopeless hypocrites."
|
|