|
Post by katurian on Apr 5, 2020 20:53:21 GMT
Did Wild work in the theatre? was it exciting? I loved it. It's talky theatre and mostly static until the final moments, so if that's not your thing it's not going to be your thing, but I found it thrilling and hilarious. It was interesting enough to hold my attention and all three performances are terrific. I'm not surprised it had a mixed reception at the time, it doesn't have a conventional plot structure or development, but it works and the production at Hampstead was impeccable.
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Feb 28, 2020 18:34:27 GMT
Another thread dominated by the "how do I get in cheap?" brigade. What's wrong with that? I would love to see this play, it's an all time favourite (hence my username) and I've only ever read it, but I won't be able to unless I compromise as best I can with restricted views or find some sort of deal. Wanting to find those deals isn't wasting a thread. It's just west end prices aren't easy. As for the casting, I think Steve Pemberton definitely has the right vibe for his part, if you've ever seen his range in Inside No. 9. I'm slightly unsure about ATJ. I imagine David Tennant owned the part, in fact when I read it I ended up hearing him saying all the lines, but I've only seen ATJ in film and I'm not sure what he'll be like on stage. That's the main reason I'm unsure whether to splash out. I think the power trio of McDonagh, Matthew Dunster and Anna Fleischle is always fabulous theatrically. When the writing and characters are that good, you don't want a lot of distracting fuss in the direction. Although Pillowman might require some theatrical embellishment, more because of how it's told. Hangmen was perfect, IMO. AVVVDM wasn't quite as good... because the play wasn't as good. It did need a few more drafts, I feel (although I still mostly enjoyed it), but that wasn't at the fault of the director. Did you find Three Billboards rushed?
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Nov 1, 2019 11:57:36 GMT
That's certainly true sometimes, leaving aside British TV writers (because they tend to write the whole of a show themselves), there are a crop of very well known showrunner type writers in America (Vince Gilligan of Breaking Bad, David Simon of The Wire, although he's just recently got himself into hot water over defending James Franco), and though there are exceptions, they are still mostly white middle aged men. But, I'm not sure beyond the showrunners' names, if a general audience (not people interest in screenwriting themselves) could reel off a list of writers for episodes of their favourite shows. Mostly, outside other writers, most TV writers aren't household names at all. Even if you told the audience which episodes of Better Call Saul or Game of Thrones they wrote and they realised "oh! I love that one!". That is reflected in Antipodes, if we go with the theory it's a TV show brainstorm, with Sandy as the big cheese, and the guy he was mentored by himself, and with Heathens being mentioned as his name making prestige show. The other writers in the room are just fodder for the endless churning mill. A lot of screenwriters are still treated poorly and underpaid behind the scenes, or suddenly dropped from a project with no warning. There always seems to be some problem going on with the WGA or a strike, and PAs are treated even worse. So given that, I find it entirely plausible that Sandy is a prestige drama showrunner who had a hit and now has the pressure of trying to recreate that magic in a bottle again, starting from scratch with a new bunch of writers. In the increasingly overloaded "golden age of TV" where everyone's bored of anti heroes, they've seen the hero's journey a million times, most historical periods have been done, violence/nudity/etc don't shock anymore, I can totally see it being a nightmare to try and find "something new to say". It's also maybe that Sandy is a one hit wonder and isn't really that good at his job. I kept thinking of William Goldman's line that nobody knows anything in Hollywood about what will work, everyone's just guessing and hoping. The play is about interaction between a bunch of people who know each other to varying degrees (some going back longer than others), but none of them really know each other, and they're there to work, so I don't mind that none of them develop deep bonds because that often isn't the case at work, and I actually like that depiction when paired with the fact they're all forced to tell intimate stories and fears, that doing that doesn't really open them up to each other, or seriously change anyone's opinion of anyone else, or make them truly empathetic to each other either. I like that the play both works as an ode to the power of stories, since every time they fall into despair, someone begins one and once again they are all drawn irresistibly into listening... but also, it's about the limits of stories, or the contradiction, that they are trying to find the heart of something in that room, but nothing they tell each other makes them really care about each other. (don't know if the below counts as spoilers, so I'll say just in case) Although I think in small ways there are subtle developments and changes of view. Sinéad Matthews cares about Stuart McQuarrie, from my memory I think they both bring each other water bottles and share stuff, quietly, while most of the team ignore him. I also think it's very pointed that they all wake up and realise the power of Fisayo Akinade's long story after its been pointed he and Matthews are the only two (not white men!) who the intern doesn't take notes from.
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Oct 25, 2019 22:10:27 GMT
Saw this tonight and thought it was pretty bad.
Never seen a Gorky play before but I've enjoyed Mike Bartlett plays. Not this one. I found the play itself, as a story and as an adaptation, not worth updating, and the adapted script, especially the "un-PC" jokes which all landed leadenly, was a poor effort which didn't match what I'd expect from the Almeida or Bartlett. It either needed to go much, much darker in its comedy, and more consistently, or have more human pathos in it. As it is there are a few limp un-PC moments and bitchy remarks, but because I don't care about anything happening none of this stings or means much.
I don't need theatre to make grand political statements. More than anything I want to be entertained! I'm happy to watch plays about horrible characters being horrible, but I still want to be entertained, have funny jokes that land, and I still want to feel a human connection to the characters even if they are all flaws. I want some semblance of relatable humanity, even if it's the worst of humanity. In Vassa, characters are either farcical, underwritten or incomprehensible. I completely agree with the previous comments saying all the actors are playing it in different tones, which makes the whole thing incoherent, but seems to me the fault of a director or whoever should be overseeing the ensemble? Surely that should have been sorted our in rehearsals.
Individual performances are good, I thought Amber James and Danny Kirrane were very good and gave the right balance of humour, pathos and depth to their inconsistently written parts. But others cast members who I've enjoyed in other things were left at sea in this play.
I really wanted to like it, but to me it's a dud.
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Sept 11, 2019 16:05:08 GMT
I'm a huge fan of Baker's work and found The Flick, Circle Mirror and John all wonderful, so I am looking forward to this. I had already read the play and would say it goes further into the strange territory that John did (which I like, those moments in John were some of my favourites) while maintaining her sharp eye for the nuances of ordinary people and the existential anxieties of modern life.
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Sept 4, 2019 21:28:10 GMT
That was one part that didn't really work for me, as if it was all there just to lead to a poorly done magic trick towards the end (which I saw coming a mile off). Can I ask what the Shearsmith magic trick was? I was at the performance tonight and can't work out what part this was! {Spoiler - click to view}Unless you mean that he turned out to be one of the white boiler suit crew packing up the dead body near the end?
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Dec 18, 2018 11:32:25 GMT
I agree with Billington, it was one of my most entertaining theatre experiences of 2018 - not perfect (I can see reasons for critique), but I also thought it was interesting in how it dealt with its issues in a non straight forward way. I thought it used comic absurdity - and some chilling moments - to make points about its themes without having to have the characters explicitly stand there and explain things to the audience in an obvious or soap box manner.
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Nov 18, 2018 11:47:28 GMT
I was apprehensive to see this after the mixed reviews, but I enjoyed it very much.
I would say it's not McDonagh's best script, although it is a great production, and I can certainly understand aspects of the criticism, but I was thoroughly entertained by the dark comedy, performances and beautiful staging. Top set design!
I liked the tricksy plotting, and I think it made salient points about the history of white men guiding the narratives of the world without trying to be too worthy about it. More than anything, though, I had great fun watching it! The audience I was in seemed to, as well.
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Sept 6, 2018 23:45:49 GMT
Is the dishwasher bit when the party people in masks disappear via the kitchen cupboards? It was hard to tell in the NTLive broadcast since those shots were from a distance.
The NTLive broadcast of this... made me glad I didn't pay to see the play properly. The performances were good (although I found Julie quite irritating, and I say this as a usually avid fan of antihero female characters), but I felt I'd seen it all before. I mean I literally have seen a version of 'Miss Julie' before - but also the depiction of tragic rich partying horrors, which still manage to look glamourised and cool (the dance bits at the beginning), and money not being everything or even enough.
Despite the beforehand documentary bits basically framing the performance and how to interpret it for the audience in advance, I was left feeling there wasn't any point in modernising the play. The melodramatic elements and reasons for Julie being so trapped make less sense in our times, so what's perhaps universal about the play isn't given any greater meaning. Can't we instead have some new female centric plays that don't essentially still revolve around a female character feeling rejected and thus worthless because she can't be sure a man wants her? This version did foreground the mother's suicide as her greatest tragedy, I don't remember how much or if that's in the original, which is fine, but still inherently as a mostly two hander love story of sorts... inevitably having the tragic female character whimper about wanting to be wanted by men feels a bit... oh come on, can we not move past this?!
There's a bit where her lover asks why she doesn't use her privilege and money to do something, because from her place she can, and... well... exactly. It's hard to feel anything for her, whereas at least original Miss Julie is trapped by a (more) deeply misogynist society. I know some of it still stings horribly true, like Julie being called easy, etc, but it's also hard to deny that her circumstances are not the same as Miss Julie's.
More than anything I feel sorry for the cleaner/friend who will now feel haunted and guilty forever, for nothing that was her fault.
|
|
|
Post by katurian on May 12, 2018 10:25:15 GMT
I saw this last week and it's a fantastic play - even more so for being a debut. The tone shifts between light and dark are well done, the awkwardness between people is well captured, and the poetic moments feel earned. The cast are great, particularly Irfan Shamji who I defy anyone not to want to give a hug by the end!
It was also my first time at the Orange Tree and I was really impressed with the intimacy of the venue and how they used the space. The walls and ceiling decked out in leaves, you feel like you're in a secret little dell. I saw Jess & Joe Forever when it went to the Fringe and Mayfly really reminded me of how a small play can be the most incredibly moving.
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Mar 10, 2018 11:28:55 GMT
I saw this the other night and really enjoyed it. It's the second Annie Baker play I've seen, after John, and it does feel like an earlier work, as it's simpler and less formally inventive with what it's doing - but! I don't mean that in a bad way at all. It's full of subtle characterisation and poignant performances. It's funny, it's sad, it's very recognisably human. Annie Baker captures what people can and can't say so well.
I'd highly recommend it as a quietly moving trip to the theatre.
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Jan 18, 2018 22:48:55 GMT
Agree with theatremonkey about the performances being better than the play. Imogen Poots particularly has a fantastic sparking presence that makes her character seem more interesting than she is for much of it (and later, lifts her from being a flakey cliche). In fact the very first scene with her and the neighbour is, unfortunately, the best in the play, because she feels the most vivid and interesting as a character, with the script promising much. All the stuff with the father and the sister, I kept expecting it to add up to more, even at one point wondering if it would turn out neither existed or something (I mean, it wouldn't have been a stretch with the other melodrama going on!) but... I feel I just didn't get it, or more that there wasn't much to it to get. I also agree with the problem of backstory revelations rather than development. It's very odd, in that a lot of the potential developments that are set up seem forgotten or thrown away in the end. Eg, the toe scene! In the end, it doesn't impact anything, it doesn't set off a chain of events or signal anything about the character we didn't already know, and she's very drunk at the time, anyway. The next time we see her, her foot is bandaged and... it's never referred to again. Much like the nudity, it feels thrown in for the shock value and not for any particular development of character or point. Or the baby monitor being left behind to... no real consequence at all. To me the script is the root of the problem. It focuses on two main characters who don't make sense, whose situation doesn't really make sense, and who descend into histrionics it's hard to care about. There's something about it that feels quite dated. Like if I'd been told it was 30+ years old I'd probably go 'oh, that explains a lot'. I found the performances/production engaging enough, but overall it didn't do anything for me.
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Jan 18, 2018 19:25:23 GMT
I saw the opening night performance and thought it was really fantastic.
I'd read the play already and I felt the production captured it perfectly. The performances, particularly of Kitty and Jenny, were perfect (although one thing I'd say is I think some of the actors need to speak up a bit, it gets very softly spoken at times and a struggle to hear). The set design is exactly as I'd pictured it, and the tone wonderfully captured.
I think her plays can be marmite, especially the long pauses and slow pace, and I could sense around me that some of the audience were perplexed and restless at times. There's a bit early on where the characters go upstairs and talk in an unseen bedroom, and we can't hear what they're saying. I've read the text and it says for this bit 'shouldn't' hear all of it', but actually we couldn't hear any of it, and the audience around me got very restless and confused and thought it was an error. However, just a small issue that can easily be rectified.
As a warning, there's a bit at the end of Act 2 where the lights go up for interval, but then a minute or two later a character comes out from behind the curtain and begins a monologue. I'd forgotten that this happened, so luckily I hadn't left my seat, but a chunk of the audience had already left and missed it, or only came wandering back in for the end. Maybe they need to tighten it up and have the character come out sooner, it left things a bit confused. I think that's just first night issues that can easily be addressed!
All in all, a few issues to be smoothed out, but this is a fascinating, beautiful play. It won't be to everyone's tastes, but I think it depicts a complex group of characters very astutely, it leaves a lot of room for thought, and it's also very funny.
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Nov 14, 2017 11:04:06 GMT
I found that too, but I wanted to be on the safe side. As my username may hint I'm a big fan of McDonagh's plays, but apart from the NT broadcast of Hangmen I haven't seen any performed, so I had to get in on this!
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Jul 21, 2017 20:13:09 GMT
I thought this was really sharp and entertaining - I didn't know where it was going to go from scene to scene, moment to moment. It was funny and horrifying, and I'm going to be haunted by it for some time.
Colin Morgan and Bayo Gbadamosi/Ellie Kendrick's triple character performances were particularly fantastic, and I loved the way the set design of the 3rd scene echoed the 1st scene. Ditto the Bach threaded throughout. Those recurring elements gave the whole thing a great sense of dread for the inescapable cycle the characters were trapped in. I also liked how at times they were aware of that themselves, like waking up from a nightmare, but when the cycle continues whether they participate in it or not, they often end up sucked back into it again.
Definitely intrigued to see more of Jacobs-Jenkins's work.
|
|
|
Post by katurian on May 19, 2017 6:23:39 GMT
I saw this through NTLive too and wow, I was rather stunned into silence by the end!
I haven't read or seen the play or film before, so this was all new to me. I didn't know where it was going to go (except increasingly badly for all the characters!) and the deft intelligence, sparking humour and sharp points of the script were superb. The whole production was! This is a static one room play of the kind that can only succeed by pairing great writing with great acting, and the ensemble were terrific. In particular I was moved throughout by Conleth Hill. I felt I followed him most throughout the play, and he has such a seamless way of moving between humour and tragedy in a second. I loved George's development from defeat and passive aggression to a growing volatile anger of life still left in him yet.
Fab, couldn't fault it, wish I could see it again!
|
|