1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 19, 2024 9:51:15 GMT
Good riddance to this absolute dross 🥂 Are you "Trying To" hurt our feelings, mrbarnaby
"This isn't a Game anymore!"
Well, I'm not "Married" to the show, so "I Forgive You!"
We had "One Shot to Change the World" and we just couldn't do it.
So, "Meet me at the Start" of "2:22," and we can toast to making tragic out of "Magic."
You'd think life was a "Pantomime."
"Makes one wonder," but I've seen 3 casts already. I fancied "A Change of Life," something an iddy biddy bit more novel.
And Stacey Dooley wouldn't even be "The Second Woman" I've seen star in it. That was Cheryl.
These "Trojan Women," leaping from the Trojan horses of their reality shows to star on West End stages, are pretty cool, I suppose.
And I confess, I am a "Moth to a Flame," and I feel "Ready for Battle," so maybe I'll go.
*Hums 3 times,* a kind of chorus to everyone who has ever resigned in defeat at their favourite unpopular show closing.
No, maybe I won't.
Nicola Hughes was right.
"Life is Thin."
:'-(
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 18, 2024 17:23:09 GMT
Saw this at Thursday's matinee and liked it a lot. Some spoilers follow. . . Its got a lot of entertaining elements: Danny Sapani being gruff, twists and turns every 15 minutes, unpredictable dramatic confrontations, and therefore it is entertaining. However, the above elements feel a little Screenwriter 101 in the application, and I found that the other Adly Guergis plays I've seen ("The Last Days of Judas Iscariot," "Jesus Hopped the A Train," and "The Motherf--ker with the Hat) felt less by-the-numbers, more imaginative, so I suspect the Pulitzer for this is a bit like Gary Oldman winning the Oscar for the "Darkest Hour," which felt like career recognition for "Sid and Nancy," "Pr**k up your Ears," and "Meantime" lol. In any event, Sapani giving gruff is good fun, the twists surprise, and amongst an excellent ensemble, Martins Imhangbe is particularly good as the most real feeling and consistent character, playing Sapani's son. All in all, I liked this to the tune of 3 and a half stars.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 18, 2024 16:50:22 GMT
Saw today's matinee, and LOVED it. It is "The Breakfast Club" crossed with "The Weir" where the 4 protagonists are Somali Girls in detention. Some spoilers follow. . . You can register the basic character types of 3 of the girls, in detention in this Muslim school, immediately. The monosyllabic one with the eye shadow, Hani (Hadsan Mohamud) is the Goth, the strict shouty one with the glasses and extra robes, a sort of teenage Muslim Sarah Brown, Salma (Susu Ahmed), is the Conformist Goody Two Shoes and the one with her hair showing and the big gold earrings, Yasmin (Faduma Issa) is the Western Rebel. The other one, blank, mischievous, dyslexic, Munira, is much more nuanced, less definable, which makes sense when you realise she's played by the author, Sabrina Ali lol! Anyhow, one character actually says "This isn't the Breakfast Club," which is a funny clever way of admitting this IS "The Breakfast Club." And when you get 4 different types mocking each other in a trapped environment, playing on their character differences, the clash of personalities formula is just perennially funny. And it is all the more funny for the lives and expectations of the characters being so specifically, authentically and clearly conveyed. Like in Conor McPherson's "The Weir," telling each other (ghost) stories is a key way for the characters to establish their own personas, and to dig into each others' postured personas, and the effect is primarily funny, but also poignant, and inadvertently educational, as well, for someone like me who doesn't know many religious Somali Girls lol. The Guys and Dolls Sarah Brown dynamic of Susu Ahmed's forceful religious character badgering the others while simultaneously being seduced by their preoccupations is brilliantly realised by Ahmed, who gets the most laughs. Hadsan Mohamud's mysterious Goth character keeps the intrigue up for the duration and ultimately earns the most feels. This is a successful, specific, intriguing, funny rendition of a tried and tested entertainment formula, and just as John Hughes hit the bullseye with his movie, so does this play. 4 stars from me.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 18, 2024 15:55:11 GMT
“Like sands through the hourglass” we enter the dying days of a dying show, and prepare ourselves for the influx of “last minute” visitors reviewing as “Do you know what, I actually really loved it”. What is it about end of runs that inevitably invites these sudden positives? Is it the fact they saw the show just before it ended? I’ve always been intrigued. Attendees of a funeral tend to be the ones who loved the deceased.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 18, 2024 15:51:52 GMT
Kudos to Benjamin Walker, who, each time I saw this, found a different way of improvising laughs out of Sheridan Smith. That final scene they do together is all about improvisation, how real moments are superior to parroting a leaden script, and he took that dead script and breathed new life into it every night, crossing his eyes in new and imaginative contortions, messing with his hair in every way possible, ever looking to surprise Smith and get her corpsing in genuine laughter. The above's from Steve's longer post. Only seeing it once I thought this was rehearsal/devising improv that got written down and fixed in that writer-in-the-room way; so really interesting to find from Steve it was different each night. When I saw it a lot of camera-up-Benjamin-Walker's-nose featured, and I think he asked if Sheridan Smith could see his brain. . . Without knowing it was fresh nightly improv I settled on thinking we were meant to feel as alienated by the play extract as Myrtle had felt rehearsing it - a sort of 'Myrtle through the looking glass' moment where everything's inverted. That doesn't fully work though, because by that point Myrtle's rediscovered her calling to 'make magic' and come to some equilibrium - she's no longer fighting the play (tbf she's got a lot on just sobering up!). Knowing the improv is fresh I can see that interpretation of the celebration of spontaneity, though on my night it didn't feel quality mucking about really; putting them into a different lighting state from Sarah the writer could have given more of a nod to the audience about different planes of reality - for those seeing it only once. The bit about Myrtle seeing his "brain" was just for your audience lol. One of two things is happening in this scene. Either:- (a) Van Hove decided to allow Walker to improv one section each night to bring life to the scene, in which his character is acquiescing to Myrtle's desire to change the play; or (b) Van Hove froze the section, and after he left, Walker decided off his own back that he wanted to bolster Smith's spirits, by surprising her every night with new wild and crazy choices, to keep the scene fresh. Obviously, it is more likely that (a) is true, and that the muck-up-matinee-every-night vibe was Van Hove's choice, but (b) could be true too as this cast must need to amuse each other in light of the show's early closing, and the muck up matinee playfulness fulfils the purpose of the scene anyway, which is that the ex-husband finally reaches out to Myrtle to help her through her "battle," and in so doing they inadvertently create a scene that succeeds.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 16, 2024 12:17:56 GMT
Like I said, being a conservative personality type .... is a great advantage in many situations, especially related to survival by not taking undue risks, but it will not have been an advantage for any critic who saw this show. The view that it is somehow the fault of the audience when they don't like a show is common amongst those auteur directors who regard themselves as "edgy" - for that reason they will regard 2* reviews (from media outlets they disapprove of anyway) as affirmation that the production has succeeded. Likewise criticism from the likes of me - however in reality in theatrical terms I'm not a "conservative" - for example I thought the Michael Sheen Hamlet was the greatest production of the play I've ever seen and that was about as far from a traditional production as it was possible to be. Indeed, and you liked the Young Vic's "Three Sisters" as well, so definitely not someone who disapproves of Andrews' techniques per se. The post you quote was intended as a caution to conservative types, who disapprove of such techniques, to save their hard earned money on this one, as they definitely won't like it. Everyone else, open to the use of such techniques, will be free to judge whether they are well used. You think not, and that's fair. I had a rousing emotional reaction to this, so the techniques worked well for me, as did everything else, so I did in fact rate this highly, though I'm probably innately more conservative than you (I adore safe and cosy, traditional and period, large effects and pretty vistas lol).
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 15, 2024 23:25:39 GMT
whether The House Party is still clearly based on Miss Julie? Yes and no. I saw today's matinee and LOVED it for it's thrilling vibrancy, it's on point dialogue, its brilliant performances and its thoughtful coda, but its the least Strindberg Miss Julie adaptation I've seen. This plays super youthful, with Olivia Rodrigo's "Obsessed," looping at the start, setting the tone. My sister is desperately trying to source scarce tickets to Rodrigo at the O2 this weekend for my 12 year old niece because "all [her] friends are going" lol. And while I wouldn't let a 12 year old near this show (because Strindberg), I'd say this is a super first theatre experience for late teens, as it's basically a party from start to finish, with Headlong and Frantic Assembly collaborating to create utter urgency in the staging, and they might learn theatre can be exciting rather than "boring," as some may suspect from behind their smartphones filled with TikTok. Some spoilers follow. . . Yes, this does walk through some of Strindberg's plot points (one key incident is all him and another key incident is mostly him) but the characters doing the walking don't feel like Strindberg to me. The two female principals are besties whose friendship is challenged by class differences, whereas in the Strindberg, class meant there could be no such friendship in the first place. For me this feels less like Strindberg, and more like a female version of Laura Wade's "Posh," with only one posh person, behaving badly, modified by Polly Stenham's massive empathy for posh people's problems. The legacy of Strindberg is the weakest thing about the play, with his plot points stretching credulity in this setting. But the authentic youthful dialogue is on fire, and the friendship setup is uber-endearing, with Nadia Parkes' Julie so much dimmer than Strindberg's Miss Julie that you can't help but laugh at every silly outburst. She is like the dimbulb, Lisa Kudrow's Michele, in "Romy and Michele's High School Reunion," thinking that her dad sleeping with someone her age is "actually incest," and "Capricorns die more often than other star signs," and, like in that movie, it falls to Rachelle Diedericks' Romy-like ultra-capable friend, Christine, to reign her in. By the time the two are doing their girly dance, you love them both. But then Josh Finan's Scouser-with-a-Cleaner-mother, Jon, comes between them. . . The actors are uniformly fantastic. Rachelle Diedericks was the most memorable of the testifying teens in the National's "Our Generation," and more recently, she was the one you empathised with, trapped in Southwark Playhouse's "The Walworth Farce." Here she both testifies and is trapped, and is once again the most empathetic character. Josh Finan gave a towering performance in Southwark Playhouse's "Shook," and even challenged Alex Jennings for most compelling performance in the Bridge Theatre's "The Southbury Child," and here, his working class Scouser on the make, Jon is compelling again. And Nadia Parkes, who was new to me, is phenomenal as a dimbulb Miss Julie with roiling believable teen emotions who veers between loving friendship and hateful jealousy on a dime. There are tons of extras that make the party scenes incredibly dynamic. The worst parts of the show are when Parkes' character is forced to act out Strindberg's psychologically sophisticated plot horrors, which this play's set-up doesn't really earn. Overall though, this show has performances and dynamism through the roof! 4 stars from me.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 15, 2024 23:00:30 GMT
This seems to be more about Jamie Lloyd's previous work than R&J. I agree. O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? Lol. Never was a story of more woe, than having not yet seen Lloyd's Romeo.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 15, 2024 22:42:32 GMT
Chanced my arm and rushed up from a Chichester matinée to see if I could make it to the Gielgud to see this one last time tonight before it closes Saturday. Although the train stopped for half an hour, while a fight was broken up on the train in front, I made it by the skin of my teeth lol! Despite its flaws, I've fallen in love with this show, and I'll miss it. That's why I bought the T-shirt, cos I want to remember a show I love, that I probably won't see again. Its just so different and has so many moments unlike anything I've seen before. Some spoilers follow. . . Kudos to Benjamin Walker, who, each time I saw this, found a different way of improvising laughs out of Sheridan Smith. That final scene they do together is all about improvisation, how real moments are superior to parroting a leaden script, and he took that dead script and breathed new life into it every night, crossing his eyes in new and imaginative contortions, messing with his hair in every way possible, ever looking to surprise Smith and get her corpsing in genuine laughter. One time he pulled off her shoe, one time he turned his shirt full gurning Quasimodo, each time he tried to achieve more freedom, extra zaniness, more unexpected antics to reduce Smith and the audience into life and laughter that really isn't there in the scripted lines, and each time I saw it, he succeeded more than the time before; Kudos to Shira Haas for taking a nonsensical character and charging her with such vivacity and humour, one moment quivering with tears, another moment merrily mocking the "Magic" song with supremely offhand sarcasm. Her whispering sardonic imp on Sheridan Smith's shoulder has been an absolute joy every time, and her songs never missed; Kudos to Jos Slovick for injecting huge amounts of heart into the most minute moments; Kudos to Amy Lennox for embodying tired vitriolic contempt, and a visceral sense of lostness, in the worst and most thinly written character in the piece. How I wish I had seen her Sally Bowles!; Kudos to John Marquez for being the compassionate soul of the piece, the only one who genuinely seemed to care about Smith's character (and everyone else) even if he was too dumb to call her a doctor lol; Kudos to Hadley Fraser for realising the wonderful "Pantomime" song every night to such a mellifluous degree, a song full of contradictions about shutting out the outside world, that is simultaneously narrow-minded, and so beautiful in its insular cosiness, a man constantly wrapping the world in cotton wool; Kudos to the wondrous Nicola Hughes for belting that closing first act number, "Life is Thin" into the stratosphere, one of the best and most fearsome and majestic personifications of death in a musical; And kudos to Sheridan Smith, who took a character that is thinly conceived and overwritten, and turning her into a proper believable human being, with a beating heart. Her "Magic" was magic every time. I'll wear my T-shirt with a wistful sense of loss and also joy at having fallen in love with this baby so many people felt was so utterly ugly lol.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 15, 2024 21:49:20 GMT
Front Row Stalls tickets have just been released at £20 each. Just got on a train, checked the board, saw your post, and got a £20 front row ticket. Thank you SO much! Imelda Staunton is a national treasure. Her "Gypsy" was electric, such a buzz to watch, so emotive, so thrilling! Not everybody has to sing as perfectly as Beverley Knight or Philip Quast. If you can act as well as Judi Dench or Imelda Staunton, making every moment count, that's the most exciting thing for me. I'm happy, even if it's only a floating acting head without feet I'm watching lol.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 14, 2024 9:57:02 GMT
Been thinking about Jamie Lloyd's trajectory. A few years ago, he used to be a go to for traditional, detailed revivals; the likes of Inadmissable Evidence, Passion, She Stoops to Conquer. Even his productions of new shows were fairly 'classic' - I'm thinking Spelling Bee and The Pride. Then he started the Jamie Lloyd seasons at Trafalgar, where his productions, whilst less naturalistic and traditional, were definitely not minimalist. What was his first production with the stripped back, all wearing black, visible microphone approach? That's now his house-style, but it's quite a jump from his earlier work, and important to remember that his productions weren't always like that. As you say, in 2012, "She Stoops to Conquer" was traditionally dressed, though I thought there was nothing period about the portrayals, which were hilarious.
I think the 2013 Trafalgar Macbeth is a key turning point, as the designs were grey and simple and the set was tables and chairs. But I've never thought of Jamie Lloyd as a straightforward minimalist, as such, which wouldn't actually appeal to me if that was all he was doing, as something he does always hits you smack in the face (his expressionist side, maybe), and that Macbeth was soaked in mud and blood and dynamic violence in an intimate setting, so I felt then, as now, he pulls some things back to make other things more impactful.
In 2014, in the Trafalgar Richard III, the microphones showed up big time, but there, I felt, like in the later Evita, or with the recent use of screens in Sunset, Lloyd used them brilliantly thematically to showcase how propaganda works, and what a surveillance state feels like.
So for me, describing Lloyd as a "minimalist" misses most of the point, which is that he only pulls back extraneous nonsense like costumes if he's got some other visceral thing to make a production exciting.
I remember how with "Urinetown" in 2014, the consensus on the old Whatsonstage board was that he was NOT MINIMAL or subtle enough, that he had gone TOO FAR with all the blood and violence, that the blood and violence made it unfunny, and I was pretty much alone in loving it, and going multiple times, because I thought that if you have a society that even polices urination, then of course it would be super extreme, and I found it even funnier because of all the (satirical) blood and violence.
I remember how he orchestrated one of the most extreme theatrical moments ever, in 2017 in "Pitchfork Disney" at Shoreditch Town Hall, when he turned out the lights almost completely, and then had a roaring growling Seun Shote rampage through the thin space, chairs on either side, a huge figure in a barely visible gimp mask crashing noisily through the silence. The whole audience was either frozen stiff in fear or shrilly screaming and I myself could barely breathe for fear myself lol. Hit or miss, Jamie Lloyd is a theatrical treasure.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 14, 2024 9:36:48 GMT
I didn’t pay anywhere near £250 (despite being third row stalls) and knew I was going for 1. First preview Are you saying that you booked the first preview (Saturday) and were reseated to the Monday?
If so, did they dynamically make you pay more than you initially paid, or did they allow you to swap for the price you initially paid?
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 11, 2024 22:30:54 GMT
My favourite one was where Sybil went off in a strop and Basil persuaded Polly to impersonate her in her sickbed. Una Stubbs was in it as a concerned friend. Fabulous. I still wonder what the appeal of seeing this live is, when the original and better version is available on demand. A lot of laughter is the fulfilment of comic tension. Once you've seen the TV show, you know forever exactly how it fulfils the built tension, frozen in aspic. With real people on the stage, there is the potential for variety, and even failure, so, beyond nostalgia, the joy is in whether and to what degrees the actors will fulfil your own expectations, whether they'll come crashing down or hit the comic bar so hard, you are confounded, and the whole audience just loses it in joyous mirth together.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 11, 2024 22:06:07 GMT
Saw this tonight, and agree with everything above. It does nothing new, but is very funny anyway, and the material benefits from the energy of being live on stage, with all the anticipation of whether the actors can actually land the lines. Some spoilers follow. . . They do land them, and then some lol! This is not an original play, just a mashup of three TV scripts. Not even a mashup really, but done consecutively. I rewatched all 12 episodes when they were on iPlayer a couple of years ago, and from my recollection, this is just "The Hotel Inspector," "Communication Problems" and "The Germans" done in order, with a character from the second script lingering into the third. Given that this is indeed a "nostalgia play," as Dr Tom accurately observes above, the only question is whether it's as funny as the TV show, and in my opinion, it absolutely is! The key is the casting, and that is spot on. Here are the actors who I found the funniest in reverse order:- (6) As the PC Guest, who watches BBC2 documentaries about Native Americans, only eats fresh peas and has a germ phobia about touching phones, Steven Meo has a coiled Northern Reece Shearsmith style provocative finickiness about him that teased my funny bones; (5) As the Bolshy Guest who won't wear her hearing aid, Rachel Izen is just the right amount of absolutely ferocious lol; (4) As the legendary Sybil Fawlty, Anna-Jane Casey's superb combination of insular Sid James cackling and commanding scorn for Basil does total justice to the magnificent memory of Prunella Scales' portrayal. The only problem is that there's just not enough of her in this play; (3) As Manuel, Hemi Yeroham flips from sparky to doltish to uncontrollable fool enough to generate at least two belly laughs; (2) As the Major, Paul Nicholas can do no wrong. He never overeggs the pudding, which means his Major's bluntness and blankness open the door to some simply marvellous comic blurting. When armed with a weapon, he's an unpredictable laugh riot; (1) But its Adam Jackson-Smith's Basil that makes the show for me. If he can't wind himself up like an explosive comic clockwork toy again and again and again, this show will fail so badly, but he matches Cleese's own original performance (I admire Cleese for allowing someone this good to be cast in the role lol) in dripping scorn for everyone around him, and in sheer stuffed-up mounting fury, and his comic explosions are a joy to behold. "The Germans" is the best comic script because it has the most things going on at once, and the most comic dimensions (Basil is not himself, and the action and interactions that swirl around him are nonstop), which is why it comes after the interval, as a topper. During this finale the show is no holds barred funny. 4 stars from me for great nostalgic comedy perfectly realised in a live format. I'd go higher if this amazing cast did new material. PS: The show was sold out tonight, and ended at 9:30pm on the dot.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 11, 2024 21:03:16 GMT
Only Sir Ian McKellen can do two productions at once, that magnificent man! :-) Lol 😆😆 I think they poorly copied it from another article which said "Other actors to have played Romeo on stage include Harry Potter star Alfred Enoch, The Lord Of The Rings actor Sir Ian McKellen, Game Of Thrones’ Sean Bean and Bodyguard actor Richard Madden." McKellen rides the drone from one theatre to the other, being filmed singing as he does it.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 11, 2024 20:56:46 GMT
As for this final curtain song - the way they each take a line, with exaggerated bonhomie (the opposite of the show itself) it's just perfect for the as-yet-unmade but announced 'Muppets On Broadway' with one of those camera-swinging-around numbers. I mean that in a good way! [I'm cueing up the 'they'd be muppets to take it to Broadway' jokes, I know] Opening night played by muppets except Myrtle who is still Sheridan Smith? Waldorf as the Writer, Statler as Nancy the Fan, Fozzie Bear as the Producer, The Count as the Director, The Swedish Chef as the Director's Wife, Kermit the Frog as Sheridan Smith's Ex-husband! Sell me a ticket right NOW!
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 11, 2024 20:38:17 GMT
I was baffled when my friend told me how many stars are in this as I was sure they were wrong. Turns out there's some clumsy reporting in the Daily Fail "Tom, who is best known for playing Peter Parker in the latest Spider-Man movies, will star in the Jamie Lloyd Company's version of the romantic tragedy alongside Harry Potter star Alfred Enoch, Sir Ian McKellen, Game Of Thrones' Sean Bean and Richard Madden." Unless I'm wrong and they've just cast all these people 🤣 Only Sir Ian McKellen can do two productions at once, that magnificent man! :-)
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 11, 2024 16:22:12 GMT
Saw the matinee, and it felt like the best ever exhibit at the Tate Modern, rather than an entertainment. Some spoilers follow. . . Duly warned by this thread, I was kicking myself for buying the cheapest Stalls Seats (Row B), which in the past provided excellent access to surtitles in various Van Hove's and whatnot. So, given that everyone was still waiting to go in at 2:40pm, I joined the very back of the queue, so as to go in last, and noted as I walked in that Row R of the Stalls was almost completely empty, so I just went in there instead. From there, the surtitles were easy to see and, as Parsley said, it became clear that alot of it is repetition. That makes perfect sense because this is really an art exhibit "The Confined Queen loses her marbles," and repetition is a big part of that. I remember, for example, how the polar bears at Bristol Zoo, years ago, just paced back and forth, banging their heads against the walls, completely insane, like mechanical cuckoo clocks more than living creatures. Huppert goes through lots of insane moods, repeating her babbling words about Mary Seton (as the surtitles spelled it) being her bestie, and Mary Fleming being a grump, in silhouette, beaming, dour, with a rictus grin, cackling, rasping like Linda Blair in the Exorcist. She rages about savagery and abuse and betrayal, before constantly slipping back into her world of the 4 other Marys. She stretches her arms as if to fly, like a caged bird with clipped wings, does her merry dance going nowhere, then her not-so-merry dance, then she imagines herself to be brightly cheerily floating in the clouds, but always the darkness and the repetition return, and she looks more and more desperate and robotic. The stillness of Huppert's trapped silhouette, which brightens to reveal an overly bright unnatural forced smile, followed by all her repetitive unnatural behaviour, was all quite brilliantly done. If there is anywhere you expect a theatre show to be experimental, like an art exhibit, its the Barbican, and I was doubly warned by this thread lol. So that said, as a drama, this is 1 star, as an art exhibit, it's 5 stars. Overall, from me, 4 stars, as imprisonment and madness are states I can only bear for so long, and once you get the hang if it, you get the hang of it. It lacks the Sarah Kane type unexpected eccentricity and extremism of the Phaedra thing Huppert did, that Parsley mentioned, where your mind boggles at what you're watching, and which was more up my street.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 9, 2024 16:59:10 GMT
Just got out of this, and enjoyed it, despite being a bit tired for having to drive on account of train strikes.
I will write a very quick car park review while I wait for the car park to clear lol.
Some spoilers follow. . .
It's a very classy sedate production, with lots of lovely musical interludes accompanied by suitably stiff and staid courtly dancing, an adaptation written by Mike Poulton as if we've already seen his adaptations of "Wolf Hall" and "Bringing up the Bodies," who thus leaves out a lot of the action from both those plays.
Thus this show plays like a serious version of "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead," whereby we barely ever see the real schemers, Cromwell, Wolsey and especially Henry VIII, the monster at the heart of it all.
Instead, we get Freya Mavor's Anne Boleyn acting like Regina George from "Mean Girls," calling her sister Mary a "farm animal," a "slut" and a "whore," and scheming to steal her life. The girls' mother and uncle, Alex Kingston and Andrew Wyatt, are equally, if deliciously dreadful, albeit caricatures of dreadfulness, whereas Mavor's Anne's dreadfulness is much better developed and verges on poignant.
Thankfully, Lucy Phelps' Mary Boleyn is a likeable character, the only one, and her plight, her attempts to survive and save her sister from herself, are moving.
Anyway, by keeping Cromwell and Henry VIII out of the show, by and large, much drama is sacrificed, and I enjoyed this classy 2 hour, 55 minutes production to the tune of 3 and a half stars.
Now the drive home, grr, but at least the car park misery is over, and I can exit at leisure lol.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 8, 2024 13:27:52 GMT
Merch desk. Couple in front devastated at £2 magnets having sold out, as they collect them for their fridge. T-shirts reduced to £15. Who could resist! T-shirt acquired! Interval edit: Nicola Hughes is back and she's killing it. SO goode!
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 7, 2024 20:29:37 GMT
RIP Ian Gelder, a wonderful actor. My thoughts are with his loved ones.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 7, 2024 20:19:50 GMT
Row G of the Dress is £50. That's probably better than giving £25 for the back of the Upper Circle, which is SO high lol. No, it’s £80 if you have to book ahead as those of us from out of town have to do. Also, I’m not paying £80 for 7 rows back in the circle. £80 should get you a decent stalls seat. I just booked Row G of the Dress for late June for £50. Admittedly, it wasn't the weekend I booked, so that's probably it.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 7, 2024 20:17:02 GMT
His music was the worst part of the show… For me, the book is the worst part of the show. Its utterly static, bonkers, and then tries to explain itself desperately by being embarrassingly on the nose. That's down to Van Hove sticking too closely to Cassavetes' art film, which was also a flop in its day, and could never have been made into a commercial musical, with exciting action, by anybody. I agree Rufus Wainwright's music doesn't advance the plot, but that would have been impossible anyway because the plot doesn't advance. For me, as music, it's wonderful! I love it. Of course, this was never a commercial prospect, post-Brexit, during Brexit, pre-Brexit, since the dawn of time lol. Of course, he is understandably upset because his baby has been judged as ugly, and nobody can deal with that without getting upset. Sondheim was always upset by the smallest critical comment, for example. Anyway, the cast do amazing justice to Wainwright's songs, and I've loved this eccentric show as something "completely different," to quote Monty Python. And Sheridan Smith has been amazing, brilliant in the show, gone above and beyond to promote it, and indeed, without her efforts, the numbers would have been far far worse.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 7, 2024 19:59:18 GMT
I hope Layton keeps the drag out of it. It’s not drag. Either way, with every cast change the idea of spending circa £200 on this becomes more preposterous. I am destined never to see it. Row G of the Dress is £50. That's probably better than giving £25 for the back of the Upper Circle, which is SO high lol.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 5, 2024 16:22:47 GMT
I’d love to see/hear Celinde Schoenmaker play Jenny Lindt…and maybe Jamie Muscato as Zac Efron. Celinde Schoenmaker was great as Jenny Lind in Barnum at the Menier, best thing about that production in a country mile lol.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 5, 2024 11:47:48 GMT
Which leads me directly to talking about the first half closing number, "Life is Thin," my favourite song in this show, performed by the character of Sarah Goode, the writer of the play-within-the-play, "The Second Woman!" Spoilers follow. . . 1. "Life is Thin:-" Ostensibly, Sarah Goode, the writer, is "the third woman" (ie an aging post-menopausal woman) who scares the heck out of Sheridan Smith's Myrtle ("the second woman," no longer young but not yet old) with her dour dreary script about aging, "The Second Woman," catalysing Myrtle's retreat into a destructive imaginary fantasy friendship with "the first woman," Shira Haas's dead 17 year old Nancy (youthful, reckless, passionate, bonkers), which Myrtle, having had a psychotic break, perceives as real. As if that wasn't bonkers enough, as is universally common in this show, a much bigger metaphor outweighs and overthrows the "reality" of this already absurd situation in the final song of the first act: For Rufus Wainwright, Sarah Goode is the harbinger of death and the song is a five minute heart attack! The title of the song ("Life is THIN") gives the first clue, as the "thin"-nest thing about our lives are our constricting arteries, which thin until they eventually kill us, if something else doesn't get us first; The second clue is the beat of the intro music, which thumps a heavy bass two-pronged "boom boom" heartbeat motif as the intro. The music to the song that follows, accompanying that heartbeat, piano and percussion jazz-inflected funky sixties-style dance music, reflects a dance of death conception to the song, whereby we mindlessly dance along with our lives until we suddenly cop it; The third clue is that the song is framed as a series of interruptions to Myrtle working on the play, nattering away with the director and her ex-husband, as Sarah Goode watches on, lying in wait, to interrupt Myrtle's ramblings, like a heart attack which can suddenly interrupt our day to day:- She gutturally growls (if sung by Nicola Hughes, in the manner of Shirley Bassey singing a Bond song) or eye-brow raised, scowling sneers (if sung by Jennifer Hepburn) the following lyrics: "This silly world we're living for Can disappear in the matter of a minute Don't get your hopes up anymore Life is Thin." The diabolical infinite expanse of (not so) Goode's vision becomes clear, as she dismisses any human pretensions to permanence, like Shelley in "Ozymandias," snarling "The Pyramids are a house of cards." Then, she cautions: "It's over before you know it It's over even before you blow it You're welcome and thanks for coming Yes I've been patiently waiting for you And now You're in." Like in Nick Cave's "Red Right Hand," Sarah Goode isn't so much Good as GOD, patiently waiting for us to expire, to welcome us in to the afterlife. Not only does she sneer that we are likely to "blow" our plans, we are likely to expire "even before we blow it" lol. I mean, not even having the chance to blow it, that's really mean! As Michael Palin said in "Monty Python," "Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition:" and so it is with Goode, each interruption of Myrtle's play-within-a-play, leaping out to get Myrtle like the Spanish Inquistion, a closeup of a hidden Goode towering and glowering over proceedings, even as Goode herself disappears off stage left, hidden from Myrtle and us on stage but only revealed by Van Hove's omniscient enormous threatening screen, plotting Myrtles demise, her voice growing louder and LOUDER with each interruption as death draws near. With each interruption, the immediacy of the danger Goode represents lyrically increases: Whereas initially she gloated that we could die "in the matter of a minute," in a subsequent verse, she suggests that "this silly world we're living for Can explode in the heat of a moment" and most sinisterly, she subsequently concludes that, "This silly world we're living for Can expire in a FRACTION OF A SECOND." Louder and louder, with greater and greater urgency, Hughes' belt tops most anyone you've ever seen as the song concludes with one more "It's over before you know it It's over even before you blow it You're welcome and thanks for coming Yes I've been patiently waiting for you And now You're in." Myrtle falls to the floor, apparently dead from this lurking heart attack of a song, metaphorically admitted to the afterlife in that instant.
The famous film sequence that this song most resembles is at the end of James Cameron's "The Terminator," as Arnold Schwarzenegger's Teminator just keeps getting up and coming back to kill Sarah Connor one more time, even after you've written him off for dead. Here, Nicola Hughes' Terminator just keeps coming back one more time to (metaphorically) kill Myrtle.
Hilariously, the song ends in a musical Bond parody flourish, mimicking the music of the gun barrel sequence in every Bond film where Bond appears at the end of the barrel, except here, it is Nicola Hughes' Goode, Sarah Goode, who turns to shoot Myrtle dead. About 16 performances remain of this incredible song, and it remains to be seen if the superlative Nicola Hughes will return for any of them. If she does, it's "Time to Die."
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 5, 2024 11:04:53 GMT
Interestingly I only enjoyed Gross Und Klein for Cate B Three Sisters was okay and worked well enough I'm interested what made you keep going back to other Andrews productions? Hope over experience? Because frankly after last week, can't see I'll be booking another of his shows... Parsley does say he enjoyed "Gross und Klein" for Cate Blanchett, and "Three Sisters" generally, so not a total loss then. No doubt he'll speak more to this lol.
In the meantime, for me, "Gross und Klein" was revelatory for showing how Cate Blanchett's character, desperate to communicate, fails to do so again and again and again. It could easily be read as a powerful portrait of neurodivergence, where her character's brain simply functioned on a different wavelength from other people, and noone was willing to meet her half way. Heartbreaking.
"Three Sisters" had a great concept, a ground literally falling away from under the characters' feet, but the performances and characterisations were equally great, with Vanessa Kirby, Adrian Schiller, Danny Kirrane, Sam Troughton, Mariah Gale all doing such great work, I thought.
And although Parsley hated that "Streetcar," I thought the spinning set really conveyed such a caged atmosphere for Gillian Anderson's Blanche, with Stanley always claustrophically somewhere on it, behind a curtain or whatever, that she had no escape, and I just had to cry.
I wasn't bothered about whether the clothes of those productions belonged to Emperors or paupers, whether they were new or old, but they did break my heart. :'
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 5, 2024 8:50:23 GMT
Well, I enjoyed the show. They tried something new, maybe it didn't really work but there was something there. We had Jennifer Hepburn on for Sarah (the writer) who was amazing. I went to yesterday's matinee, as I simply LOVE this utterly eccentric, gloriously pretentious show full of desperately poignant and on-point songs and terrific performances, despite all its flaws (all inherited from the source material: unlikeable characters, meandering static plot, blustering blisteringly obvious revelations about aging), and its imminent closing and copious ticket availability have motivated me to go as much as possible lol.
So I did get to see Jennifer Hepburn's take on Sarah Goode, the writer, and she is archly, slyly, comically good, an eagle-eyed predator perpetually, loftily and wryly surveying her victim (Sheridan Smith's Myrtle) for the kill. Nicola Hughes, by contrast, is MUCH more fearsome, the coming of the storm, an unstoppable, raging, fearsome twister destroying everything in her path.
It's like the comparison between Rachel Tucker and Nicole Scherzinger in Sunset Boulevard, where the former had more intricate characterising nuances to her performance but the latter was an unstoppable tour-de-force that leaves you breathless.
Both were great!
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 5, 2024 8:21:10 GMT
I have a ticket for this next week, but given the reviews on here, I'm debating whether or not to exchange it for credit and go see Long Day's Journey instead as I have no more free slots before that closes. Thoughts from anyone who's seen both would be appreciated! I would see "Long Days Journey." Patricia Clarkson is an absolute wonder and Eugene O'Neill's play is long (set on one long day) but great.
The main problem people have noted is some occasional line hesitancies by Brian Cox, allegedly being fed lines through an earpiece, but like with Michael Gambon when he started being unable to remember lines, and started doing plays with as few lines as possible, that just signaled to me to get out and see him pronto, because you don't miss a good actor just because they can no longer remember massive amounts of lines. You grab the chance while you can.
David Haig's play is not moving, in my opinion, being more preoccupied with staging some great action on a fantastic set, nor does he actually tell Philip K Dick's story (neither does the film, for that matter, as they both change it into something more humanistic).
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 4, 2024 23:20:29 GMT
Saw this tonight and felt it was absolutely magical. Some spoilers follow. . . It's wall-to-wall orchestral music, which I didn't remember from the film (I saw it in the cinema way back when) but which I'm a sucker for, as you can never pile on enough primal emotion for my tastes. Everything that happens on the stage seems to be underscored. The cast seem to vary each night, many being triple cast, so as a huge admirer of the film, I was beyond chuffed that we got Mari Natsuki as the principal villain, Yubaba, as she originated the part in the movie, and is simply wonderful. There's a big blue board as you go in that tells you who you're getting. The puppets are really colourful, evocative and special. It's War Horse style puppeteering for all the dragons, and stink monsters and sooties, which all seem to be alive. But the best effects, for me, involved a strong human element at their core, so Kamaji, played tonight by the ever-inquisitive, uber-compassionate, wide-eyed Tomorowo Taguchi, was really something, his long spider-like extra arms puppeteered to make him resemble an ever-active human spinning loom. Possibly one of the most commanding performances is by one of the very few single-cast characters, Hikaru Yamano, as No-Face, whose face, amusingly, given the character's name, you never see, until the bows. But, god, his physicality, his balletic movements, his sheer strangeness, the way he drifts and his body twists and turns unnaturally, and how he stops dead still to stare, Mona-Lisa-like at the audience, is gripping in it's ethereality. You'd swear he really wasn't human. And when the puppeteering starts, to grow his body by exponentially adding more and more people into his character's being, it's a wonder that tops even the wonderful Totoro, in my opinion. The other great fantastical character, with a human core, is the three green bobbing heads of Kashira, played by Yuya Igarashi (also single cast, thank goodness, so everyone can see him), hench creature of the principal villain, Yubaba. Igarashi gives the biggest performance in the show, an exaggerated comic performance, a performance that has to be so big it fills three heads, two of which he carries. Big performances can be risky because if they miss the mark they are embarrassing, but this one, for me, is downright hilarious, the funniest thing in the show, topping even the sooties. We had Mone Kamishiraishi, as Chihiro, the lead character, and one thing I would note is that it's a far more subtle, thoughtful and engaging lead performance than that in Totoro, where the character plays much younger. Here, there is simply no way to be pushed out of the story by wacky comic wailing and the like, with a tender believable emotive core to the performance at all times. As a reviewer noted above, the story told is absolutely faithful to the film (I imagine that's what Miyazaki wanted), so that does mean that to be surprised, you really need to have almost forgotten the film, or never seen it at all lol. Anyhow, this is a wonderful show. Its in Japanese, so you do have to read surtitles if you don't speak the language, but it's easy and natural enough to do if you are happy to read subtitles for films generally. For me, 4 and a half stars of sustained magical musical wonder.
|
|