750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 21, 2017 17:08:53 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat? *cough*sexism*ahem* This is the kind of insulting and superficial comment that does a disservice to the cause of "anti-sexism". Firstly, you have no idea what I do or what my values are, or even my gender- and so your jibe is based on virtually no evidence. But then, it's easier to try to close down dissenting voices with the use of loaded terms like "sexism", than actually engage in a discussion. Your comments, as demonstrated by Jan Brock, make it clear that you haven't understood the distinction between the actor and the character. I have no objection to gender-blind casting as displayed in the all-female 'Julius Caesar', where the director is saying, "let us neutralize the dynamics of gender across the whole play". In such cases, the play is usually sold as such, too- it becomes the raison d'etre for the production and, oftentimes, for the audience to attend. However, in this specific production, to have an inconsistent approach, where gender is apparently relevant to some of the casting but not to others, shows conceptual inconsistency and also risks confusing audience members who do not know how the play is usually cast. This might not be so problematical if gender politics were not so central to the themes of 'King Lear'. Kent is a man who is meant to represent the antithesis of Lear. They must be similar so we can see how one takes the wrong path, and one the right. If you add gender difference into the mix, you risk ending up with a weaker and simpler conclusion: "Lear got it wrong because he was male whereas Kent was right because she was female." This demonstrates the way the intention of the text can not only be identified, but should be served by directorial choices. If a director decided to cut off Gloucester's hand instead of blinding him, a crucial metaphor would be lost: physical blindness is meant to mirror moral/ emotional/ intellectual blindness in the patriarchs. To omit the blinding would impoverish the play. In the same way, to omit the deliberate parallels drawn by the author between two similar men with distinctive differences of temperament, also impoverishes the play's ideas. I would have less of a quibble with a female Kent, joined by a female Lear and a female Gloucester. And as previously mentioned, for those who can't distinguish between actors and characters, this is totally different to an all-male 'Twelfth Night' or all-female 'The Tempest'. It's not even about whether there should be more actresses in leading roles in British theatre- as has been pointed out, that is discussed elsewhere. What "got my goat", as it was so pejoratively put, was a questionable casting choice.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 21, 2017 6:23:19 GMT
I really dislike this fad for gender-bending the casting of Shakespeare. If you are going to re-invent the character dynamics and gender relationships, then call your production a play BASED ON 'King Lear', because it isn't what Shakespeare intended.
'Lear' is so delicately constructed with very intentional connections between Lear, Kent and Gloucester as paradigms of patriarchy and good sense, that to add gender into the mix is to have an entirely different discussion than the one Shakespeare wrote.
Do it, by all means, but don't call it Shakespeare's play.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 16, 2017 19:06:03 GMT
I fear the whole first series will be about coming to terms with the new body.
Let's hope they have some fun and suggest she was always a woman trapped in a male body, with a massive lesbian crush on Rose!
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 16, 2017 9:03:43 GMT
I suppose it is in the nature of an Old Guard to not recognize that it is one.
On my numerous visits to the Globe under the previous regime, I always endured the sense of smug superiority that was in the air, front and rear of house. Dromgoole's 'Dream' was a particularly tedious example of an audience laughing where it was meant to. I thank whoever it was who finally decided we'd seen Pearce Quigley's one joke enough.
Despite her many weaknesses, Emma Rice managed to dust away quite a few of the cobwebs, odd to be found in such a young venue.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 12, 2017 10:12:00 GMT
Martin Lowe is an incredibly talented musician and shaper of musical theatre material. I would expect him to do a fantastic job.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 10, 2017 6:20:11 GMT
Personally, I think she is a brilliant musical theatre actress- and can certainly hold her own in straight drama, too. However, she is known in the business to be fond of the grape and also to be big-headed.
For me, these do not seem like major flaws, but they give rivals the opportunity they are looking for to bitch about her.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 8, 2017 15:54:13 GMT
Michael Ball
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 1, 2017 12:21:24 GMT
Sunday makes me cry EVERY time
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 27, 2017 14:29:00 GMT
Well add me to the small list of people who found this production absorbing.
True, it's not a comfortable Alan Bennett comedy of manners or cozy star vehicle for a slumming-it movie star, but what this play offers is a challenging, thought-provoking piece of theatre. Farber's use of ancient rite and ritual, impressive physicality and provocative visual juxtaposition make for the kind of drama Peter Hall could pull off in his prime. The sequence leading to the Baptist's death was genuinely one of the most thrilling things I've seen in quite some time.
For those people who said that it was hard to follow, or that the sound was alienating, or that it wasn't like Wilde, that sounds to me like they think all drama is meant to be comfortable and easy. "Oh no he's speaking in a foreign language"- that's really a complaint? "Oh no, there aren't seven veils"- go and see Wilde's play as he invented that dance!
I've been very critical of a lot of work at the National under Norris, but this production is a work of art by a visionary theatre practitioner.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on May 26, 2017 9:08:45 GMT
Back in 1990 at the time of the first Gulf War, several shows closed citing security concerns affecting box office. Children of Eden was prime example.
Funny/ sad how much times have changed and how step by step, imperceptibly, our society and culture have changed and we just trundle on, tolerating the gradual diminishing of freedom (freedom to travel without fear, freedom to be trusted and to trust others, freedom to go about our ordinary lives).
At some point maybe we ought to reflect on why our way of life is deteriorating and do something about it.
Oh and maybe reflect on that at the election.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on May 14, 2017 8:33:07 GMT
Agreed! Dorothea Myer-Bennett excelled!
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on May 10, 2017 19:14:19 GMT
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on May 10, 2017 19:08:37 GMT
Why was my last post deleted? Did I commit a blasphemy in preferring this to Angels in America?
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on May 7, 2017 0:22:13 GMT
Adapted with economy and wit, I found this charming play, performed in the round at the intimate Orange Tree, a delightful evening. I believe Marivaux wrote many of his plays for his mistress muse, hence great leading roles for women.
With barely any set or props, the six actors offer 90 minutes of fun and a few insights into love, marriage and class.
I'm really glad I caught this production!
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Apr 16, 2017 14:16:13 GMT
What an awful step. Get your finance sorted BEFORE you announce a show. Amateurish and a terrible precedent to set!
Next we'll be having whip-rounds to cover the cost of follow spots!
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Mar 18, 2017 15:22:27 GMT
Sorry to hear that you still haven't find that grail!
Nowadays there would be 15 recordings on youtube but 1989 was a different world.
Martin Smith was such a talent- his recording of Funny in City of Angels is definitive! If you haven't heard him:
I seem to recall there was a lot of turbulence around 1989- 1990, with quite a lot of pressure for Michael Crawford to return to London from the L.A. company. Maybe Martin was the victim of politics- which would explain why his performance was buried, because they man who owned Valjean and a string of other roles, could certainly manage Phantom.
Good luck with your search! I'd love to see the performance, too!
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Mar 2, 2017 1:12:35 GMT
Let me confess from the outset that I consider The Wild Party to be one of the landmark musicals of the 21st Century. The score isn't always pretty, but it is intoxicating, sophisticated and true. Anyone who fails to hear the astonishing beauty and power in songs like Black is a Moocher and People Like Us, in my view, has cloth ears.
It's a little surprising that this title should be chosen to open a venue dedicated to "new" musicals- but it's a very welcome production and one that fires on almost every cylinder. As Mallardo pointed out, this cast is utterly astonishing, (I was totally owned by Tiffany Graves). The actors and excellent band are hard-working, focused and thoroughly interesting. The lighting is highly atmospheric and in the limited space the set evokes the right mood, (even though the banisters were of the wrong period).
I do have a few reservations, though. Despite all the gyrating, this is a surprisingly sexless show- there is little actual touching and very little heat between Queenie and Black. Similarly, there is no real chemistry between Burrs and Queenie and overall all the angst was only ever on the surface for the angry clown- John Owen Jones just didn't have it in his eyes even if he could hit the notes with power. There was no danger in his physicality.
Miss Ruffelle was game and looked a million dollars, but again, didn't really dig deep- it was a superficial and unconvincing performance.
In many ways it was a gripping show, though, with just the occasional mis-step: I am afraid the Brothers have to be male- the casting of women did not create a new daring revelation of trans-gender issues; it made the "adultery" with Jackie seem like a desperate longing for a more "conventional" heterosexual relationship- a wish to be "normal". That is not what that relationship is about.
On the whole, it's probably the best production we could hope for in the UK, but it's still a mere shadow of the original Broadway show.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 14, 2016 16:07:44 GMT
Well you have nerves of steel. I'm worried that they have revised their schedule again. Public dress rehearsals are a bit of a lose-lose, too. If it goes badly, the buzz is still out there; if it goes well, the positive buzz risks being qualified with a "considering it was a dress rehearsal" which is unhelpful
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 14, 2016 15:45:03 GMT
But then, the great atmosphere on the West End board on Broadwayworld was killed off by one persistently annoying and aggressive newcomer.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 14, 2016 15:42:06 GMT
Sounds worrying
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 14, 2016 14:44:26 GMT
He can always re-register under a new name- maybe a little older and wiser.
Yesterday my password wasn't working so I nearly had to make a new account- it was scary for a moment! This board is generally a great deal of fun!
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 13, 2016 20:18:59 GMT
I'm sorry to say it sounds horrible.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 13, 2016 17:40:21 GMT
Not arguing but Michael Crawford was the finest Phantom I ever saw- he acted the hell out of that role. I could almost forgive him many other things for the talent and skill he showed in that role.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 13, 2016 17:38:59 GMT
Ah- I thought wonder.land couldn't have been written by a native speaker of English
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 13, 2016 17:36:25 GMT
I don't mind a bit of banter, but what's stopping me visiting as much as I used to are the pornographic pop-ups I sometimes see when accessing this board on my phone. Do you have to use a phone or can you get them just using a normal desktop?
How annoying, loureviews.
I've never had any naughty pop-ups. Don't suppose you have any screen shots???
|
|