1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Jun 16, 2017 21:56:48 GMT
7-6. No, not the result of a John Isner set but the score between audience and cast members at this south London venue which was new to me. The audience scraped the win, just.
This is one of the most mystifying experiences in my life as a theatregoer. There was confusion as to who was selling tickets, when the performance would begin and I will never know who I have seen performing as there was neither programme nor cast-list. I suppose I could have asked their names but I didn't. I appreciate it was one night only but a printed sheet straight from the computer would have been nice as a memento.
When I first met this play it was generally known as The Bald Prima Donna and thought it was hilarious. Now it is known as The Bald Soprano and felt mostly dated and unfunny. Not entirely fair to blame the production, I have the feeling that much of the theatre of the absurd genre has suffered with the passage of time, and that what once seemed clever and fresh on paper is now exposed as somewhat of a one-trick pony which does not repay reviving, in the main. Ionesco's concern here with the meaninglessness of language may be academically interesting but when this is reduced to non-sequitur after non-sequitur all that happens is that you end up questioning the meaning of spending money to go to the theatre to see a plotless melange of lines strung together.
Unfortunately the production accentuated some of the play's intrinsic problems. I saw no logic behind turning Mr and Mrs Martin into Mr and Mrs Martinez beyond the fact the actors' playing the parts seemed to be Spanish. The idea of only using torches for lighting pales after a while and loses effect just making it hard to see at times. And I suspect a much more deadpan approach was needed to bring out such humour as may be extracted from the text, rather than big gestures and self-consciously comical deliveries.
And that's it really.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Jun 13, 2017 20:07:17 GMT
I am seeing both Common and Lettice and Lovage this weekend. Either Tristan saves it or the dinner at Joel Robuchon will have to do the biz,
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Jun 13, 2017 17:48:12 GMT
Isn't part of the problem that some theatre-makers want too much money and therefore sponsorshp rather than desirable becomes essential? I am of course not talking about the people on Equity minimum but some of the startling prices for straight plays with small casts and little or no scenery leads me to suspect that some actors are making loadsamoney.
Some of them go on to complain about the high cost of theatre tickets.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Jun 13, 2017 17:04:11 GMT
Ok, so I've got tickets. What's the running time for Lettice anyone?
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Jun 4, 2017 0:02:38 GMT
Things will get much worse before they get any better.
Unless there is a willingness to confront the issue head on, without caveats and euphemisms, you can expect much more than this.
Terrorism is only defeated by being more ruthless than the terrorists, and our flabby post-Summer of Love liberal societies are simply not prepared to countenance this yet. We instinctively search for compromise and negotiation even where none is possible.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on May 25, 2017 20:27:16 GMT
I have to say it's extremely annoying to read so many disgruntled comments about Lettice and Lovage when I was unable to get a ticket for it myself. Doesn't that make you feel better? I'm half thinking of selling mine if it doesn't pick up. It doesn't. It makes me feel worse. But you're probably right, not worth your going to it...... can I buy them off you?
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on May 25, 2017 19:23:56 GMT
I have to say it's extremely annoying to read so many disgruntled comments about Lettice and Lovage when I was unable to get a ticket for it myself. Bad karma.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on May 24, 2017 21:35:03 GMT
Seemed like a nice man and would occasionally, as in The Persuaders, find something to suit his rather limited range. For a while I stopped watching the Bond films as they became too silly by half.
A star rather than a great actor. RIP.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on May 6, 2017 20:10:45 GMT
I read history, biographies, modern fiction, some science-fiction and detective novels, plays, poetry, politics/current affairs etc.
At present reading:
"The Albigensian Crusade" by Jonathan Sumption (who has for the past 20 years been writing the defnitive history of the 100 Years War, 4 down and 1 to go) "Gods, Demons and Others" br RK Narayan - a retelling of some Hindu legends 4321 - Paul Auster, his latest novel which is about three times the length of all his others "Collected Poems" Tennyson "Earthly Remains" Donna Leon - the latest instalment in tne Brunetti detective series set in Venice (one of my weaknesses)
I just finished reading "Gulliver's Travels" some parts of which were brilliant
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on May 1, 2017 10:34:04 GMT
Not a huge expert on musicals but I do have a thought on this. I think the problem actually stems from the success of the British film industry. This has largely come from highly successful low budget films with a plucky underdog(s) fighting against the odds and, normally, winning. Brassed Off, The Full Monty (especially) etc
The second strain of success comes from quirky Britishness as seen through the eyes of Hollywood - Hugh Grant playing Hugh Grant in a succession of light romantic comedies and so on.
Unfortunately neither of these tallies too well with the traditional idea of the musical - big, bold and brassy. Ideas which work splendidly on the big screen at relatively little cost do not seem to catch the imagination of the worldwide audience for musicals - and adapting small films with a largely national audience is not a recipe for huge success. At least, that's my take on it.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 30, 2017 15:11:08 GMT
On way home from this. It was really good. Boxer superb in a role made for him. Natalie Simpson confirms the promise of her debut RSC season. Sad to see quite a few empty seats in a small auditorium. Also slightly spoilt by woman laughing like a drain as if it was Morecambe&Wise!! Recommended☺ Ah... my post somehow missed what I meant to say which was that I'd seen it the night before you Martin, on press night. It was packed and no loony women were in evdience.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 30, 2017 14:43:14 GMT
Decent watch. I didn't know the play but it does have huge similarities to Jacobean tragedies - I note how it it variously desribed as Caroline or Carolingian - with the bloodiness, the constant theme of revenge and the multiple asides. Stephen Boxer (looking remarkably like John Hurt here) was a suitably nasty villain, mixing religious bigotry with licentiousness and love for power. He wrung the right amount of humour from the odd line which threatens mass-corpsing, making it work for him rather than against him. The Richard III kind of bad guy who tells us from the word go how bad he is, Boxer's performance was a treat. Natalie Simpson as the serially widowed virgin Duchess started off edgily but grew into the part. Marcus Griffiths as Alvarez delivered the vese beautifully. Good performances all round. Staging: simple, stark look all iron-grey and white, with a thurible burning incense centre-stage. Good use of music (offstage) and visually appealing cotumes - though why the text twice refers to the red-robed cardinal as being in purple mystified me. Less textured and plotted than Shakespeare but with an easy to follow polt and elegant verse, I can see myself seeing more Shirley plys if they are ever staged. Didnt the loony woman annoy you? Which loony woman?
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 30, 2017 10:22:30 GMT
It is worth going to this for the technical side alone. Quite dazzling with its use of audio-visuals, sound and general trickery.
But then it has to be because otherwise it is a pretty static production. I cannot claim to have the answer, but in adapting this story to the stage the medium has been to a large extent ignored. The production, as does the story, relies heavily on a Narrator for information, continuity and (eventually) participation. The effect this has is to give the play, for long stretches, the semblance of a partly-staged representation of a novel - rather than a proper adaptation.
I was not expecting an easy afternoon's viewing and it isn't. This is a complex post-modern work which addresses (for me) fairly esoteric issues such as the relationship between the creator and the creation by playing about with forms and genre. On the surface a modern take on the hard-boiled Marlowe-style American gumshoe story, this is dispelled by the absurd nature of the case which is no case. Is it all in the mind? Make up your own.
Ultimately a flawed but brave effort which merits seeing. There is not enough serious literary content to much modern theatre and it is to be welcomed on the rare occasions it appears.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 29, 2017 23:08:07 GMT
Slight but entertaining play. This would not have been the play to revive Rattigan's reputation but now that it has been we can enjoy this.
Slick production, super acting - not least from Eve Best and Anthony Head who played together beautifully - and creative use of the space with the audio-visuals helping to both set the context and allow for scene changes. What's not to like?
Well worth its West End transfer.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 29, 2017 23:04:11 GMT
Decent watch. I didn't know the play but it does have huge similarities to Jacobean tragedies - I note how it it variously desribed as Caroline or Carolingian - with the bloodiness, the constant theme of revenge and the multiple asides.
Stephen Boxer (looking remarkably like John Hurt here) was a suitably nasty villain, mixing religious bigotry with licentiousness and love for power. He wrung the right amount of humour from the odd line which threatens mass-corpsing, making it work for him rather than against him. The Richard III kind of bad guy who tells us from the word go how bad he is, Boxer's performance was a treat.
Natalie Simpson as the serially widowed virgin Duchess started off edgily but grew into the part. Marcus Griffiths as Alvarez delivered the vese beautifully. Good performances all round.
Staging: simple, stark look all iron-grey and white, with a thurible burning incense centre-stage. Good use of music (offstage) and visually appealing cotumes - though why the text twice refers to the red-robed cardinal as being in purple mystified me.
Less textured and plotted than Shakespeare but with an easy to follow polt and elegant verse, I can see myself seeing more Shirley plys if they are ever staged.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 29, 2017 11:00:37 GMT
Mark Lawson (unsurprisingly since it was Press Night) and Jasper Britton - separately - at The Cardinal last night.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 29, 2017 10:57:19 GMT
There are far more people in UK who are opposed to th existence of the theatre for, for example, religious reasons than there are deaf people who go to the theatre. If every concern is to be addressed and acted upon, irrelevance of its merits, then surely this discussion on clapping, whooping, hollering or thumbs-upping is all academic? We should be closing down all the theatres.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 24, 2017 23:54:38 GMT
What better way to celebrate your birthday than by seeing a neglected classic you've never seen before? Yep, that's what I hope to do on Friday.
Anyone know the play or planning to see it?
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 23, 2017 12:59:14 GMT
Has anyone ever seen a play written by him? I haven't and I suspect no-one else has because I don't think there's been a production of any of his plays (rather than plays based on his poems) in well over a century. How are the mighty fallen! Ok, I don't think drama was ever his strongest medium but one would have thought that, out of curiosity if nothing else, someone would have produced a version of one of his plays. Ah well, I shall read them all and make up my own mind as to how turgid and unstageable they are.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 22, 2017 21:18:11 GMT
Has anyone ever seen a play written by him?
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 22, 2017 21:15:42 GMT
The acting was mostly very good - a distracting tendency from a couple of actors to ham it up, especially when the focus should be elsewhere. I thought this was good. A perfect piece for this venue (as it is almost entirely static). The acting was a bit uneven as you would expect for a cast of 13 on the fringe but generally good. However, I agree that one actor in particular was over-acting terribly the whole time, even when not speaking, drawing attention away from where it should have been - really that is a failure of direction and I am surprised it has been allowed to continue - rather uncharitably I kept hoping he'd be the next to be taken away by the SS. Yes! I had the same uncharitable thought!
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 17, 2017 21:30:03 GMT
I last saw Susan Penhaligon in 1976 when she was Britain's answer to Brigitte Bardot and playing the incest interest in the TV shocker Bouquet of Barbed Wire. Quite a surprise to see her in full Grande Dame mode here. It is a clunky museum piece but quite good fun. I last saw her in 1982 in Stoppard's "The Real Thing". When you see people getting old gradually it's less of a shock, I guess.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 16, 2017 20:30:16 GMT
Wth an interesting location and theme, the eroding coast of Suffolk and how much should be done to preserve it, this play has some decent writing but needs a bit more clarity and oomph to take it to another level.
The stage is wonderfully done; a cobble beach with a half-buried Second World War pillbox which, helped by a stiff breeze from a wind machine, almost smells like the sea. it helps get you in the mood of the piece. There is a lot of banter between Ruby and Lucy, the two teenage girls, which sort of establishes their relationship as the separate daughters of the two parts of an estranged relationship but is perhaps overlong.
The central issue in the play, the council's refusal to support the protection of the beach without which the two families will lose their houses to the sea, should be brought in earlier. Ruby is an interesting character, on the surface a couldn't-care-less, irresponsible girl with no solidarity but deep down possessing a huge sense of place and commitment to it. Her dad Jim is a paler version of "Jerusalem's" Johnny "Rooster" Byron - combining drug-taking with, in this case, singing old sea-shanties.
The problem is that it ain't easy to build an audience's sympathy on unympathetic characters and the characters here develop a bit too slowly. The second act is punchier, the characters are better defined by now and easier to identify with, and the narrative aspects build up a head of steam. The first act would benefit from being rewritten to take this into account and to give us more clarity and more flesh on the characters.
Far from unworthy effort.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 15, 2017 19:02:08 GMT
I went to this expecting to see a straight play about the First World War and ended up seeing a musical about the end of the Second World War. My bad, or so I thought. But to be fair on me the Bridewell's website clearly states the action takes place at the end of September 1918 whilst the action actually happens in May 1945. Looks like someone needs to revise their history.
This is actually a revival of a pretty bizarre seventies musical by Peter Link and Jacob Brackman. The story is based on a young US private who's had an uneventful war having a chance to be a hero on the last day of the war by saving the inmates of a lunatic asylum in French village from being blown up by the Germans. It is a fairly contrived story and is little more than a backdrop for the musical numbers.
When I was growing up I sort of divided in my mind the type of musicals I liked from those I didn't like. I always used as an example of musicals I didn't like stuff like where a guy is shaving and then starts to sing. This one starts with a guy shaving and singing, which wasn't a good omen for me.
Some of the numbers are not bad and the ensemble singing is good, stronger than than the solos. I wouldn't call it a disaster but the raw material is, well, bizarre. Not really sure why anyone would think this ould work. Gender-blind casting for those of you interested.
Not relevant to the production BUT a distinct whiff of dead meat kept coming into the auditorium at odd intervals.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 14, 2017 21:37:01 GMT
Paul Kieve may well hold another record - longest time in responding to an email. I got one from him about two years after I sent him an enquiry. To be fair he'd gone off to work on Broadway and at least he did reply.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 14, 2017 21:17:51 GMT
This was really good, very funny and quite perceptive. Deserves a bigger production, though this was pretty effective within the limitations imposed by the Park Theatre's budgetary constraints. Solid acting from the entire cast but especially honourable mentions for Siu-see Hung's nicely balanced perforrmance as the amorous Vice-Minister and Duncan Harte's impressive (to my untrained ears) Mandarin accent.
This is a play about language but, less overtly, it is about culture and about how strangely universal certain emotions can be even if the cultural trappings surrounding them are different. As someone supposedly bilingual (I don't really buy into it) people often don't understand how language is only one element, albeit an important one, of being bicultural - a much rarer phenomenon. To understand another language without understanding the culture it springs from is, to say the least, problematic.
This is not a modern take on "Mind Your Language". It is definitely a silk purse of a play, although to be fair the Chinese make a mean salad from a sow's ear.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 14, 2017 14:58:06 GMT
My mistake it isn't fraud, but then against is there for a good reason to stop these bad people. How would you feel if your card did get used fraudulently and you had to meet the cost of the fraud and it was exorbitant because they didn't have the software to detect illegal activities. You could use a different card, if you have on? The three occasions I've had fraudulent transactions the clever card people didn't pick them up. Even though they were all bizarre and totally out of synch with my spending patterns and, on one occasion, perpetrated thousands of miles from where I was. Yeah I could, but the annoying thing is having to write out all the details again and again. I'm a bit of a Luddite I'm afraid.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 14, 2017 14:32:49 GMT
Their fraud department will be open 24/7. I don't want to speak to any fraud.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 14, 2017 14:29:53 GMT
You could always just ring the bank... oops! Maybe Tuesday then! Yes! I can talk to the bank on Tuesday about the play I wanted to see on Saturday. Since it's got David Tennant in it the time-travel bit should be a cinch.
|
|
1,184 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 14, 2017 14:26:34 GMT
It is. Not the first time it happens. If you make several online purchases quite quickly it triggers an alarm but since this is all automated there is a complete absence of common sense. A human would see the pattern - theatre tickets being purchased by a regular theatregoer - but a computer just sees volume of transactions. If on the other hand my details had been compromised and someone bought a £5,000 ring with my card Mr Computer would happily wave it through.
|
|