2,742 posts
|
Post by n1david on Feb 28, 2024 21:34:48 GMT
I’m 99.9% sure I booked an aisle seat as I always do but when I checked the seating plan I was about 6 seats in to the row. One of many reasons I ended up not going! Here too - I have back problems and OH has a very dodgy knee so normally book aisle seat so he can stretch out. Checking the seatplan this week we were 4 seats in, and given the commentary on the seating in this thread (and the somewhat muted enthusiasm for the show) I decided that I could give this a miss. When it was announced it sounded like it could be exciting; reports from the auditorium suggested it wasn't. Annoyed to be losing the ticket money but worst case would have been trekking there and having to leave at the interval. |
|
19,657 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 5, 2024 8:25:39 GMT
Ticket on the Noticeboard for tonight 5th March.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardh on Mar 14, 2024 7:57:55 GMT
Went to this last night. As many have said the seating is truly awful - typical arena seating, which it's assumed people are prepared to put up with for sports events and concerts, but why should they? A few left early but most of us held out. Perhaps an "audience physiotherapist" should also be listed in the programme credits?
The show itself is a strange beast. I did enjoy it - the verse speaking from the two leads is superb - but I never realised that in the Shakespeare canon Macbeth was a comedy. Too many laughing at comments by M and Lady M which didn't feel right to me. At times I wasn't sure if Fiennes was playing Lear instead - when he was bellowing defiance at the top of the set at one point I half expected him to break into "Blow winds, crack your cheeks" - or whether the two of them were actually doing their Antony and Cleopatra. I didn't really get the full descent into evil in the first half that I usually expect in the play, it was more as if they were deciding whether or not to stage some prank as opposed to killing a king. The witches were ok but too ever present.
Which brings me to whether the Bard really needs an "adaptor", as Emily Burns is credited as being. Many of the witches' lines have been rewritten and the last lines of the play have gone completely, which rather threw me. Simon Godwin as director must have encouraged or been happy with this, but as Burns is directing the first RST production of the new regime in "Love's Labour's Lost" I trust that a more rigid approach to the text will be kept there. Or will it?
I sort of missed the Porter even though his in-jokes mean nothing to a 2024 audience and in a production with comedic touches the easing of tension between the murder and its discovery isn't really as necessary.
So a 6 out of 10 for me - elements that are really good but others that I felt really didn't work.
|
|
647 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by aspieandy on Mar 14, 2024 20:47:12 GMT
Went to this last night. As many have said the seating is truly awful - typical arena seating, which it's assumed people are prepared to put up with for sports events and concerts, but why should they? A few left early but most of us held out. Perhaps an "audience physiotherapist" should also be listed in the programme credits? The show itself is a strange beast. I did enjoy it - the verse speaking from the two leads is superb - but I never realised that in the Shakespeare canon Macbeth was a comedy. Too many laughing at comments by M and Lady M which didn't feel right to me. At times I wasn't sure if Fiennes was playing Lear instead - when he was bellowing defiance at the top of the set at one point I half expected him to break into "Blow winds, crack your cheeks" - or whether the two of them were actually doing their Antony and Cleopatra. I didn't really get the full descent into evil in the first half that I usually expect in the play, it was more as if they were deciding whether or not to stage some prank as opposed to killing a king. The witches were ok but too ever present. Which brings me to whether the Bard really needs an "adaptor", as Emily Burns is credited as being. Many of the witches' lines have been rewritten and the last lines of the play have gone completely, which rather threw me. Simon Godwin as director must have encouraged or been happy with this, but as Burns is directing the first RST production of the new regime in "Love's Labour's Lost" I trust that a more rigid approach to the text will be kept there. Or will it? I sort of missed the Porter even though his in-jokes mean nothing to a 2024 audience and in a production with comedic touches the easing of tension between the murder and its discovery isn't really as necessary. So a 6 out of 10 for me - elements that are really good but others that I felt really didn't work.
Nice - this is about where I am.
In fact, I was repeatedly reminded of Tennant's effort, perhaps inevitably as this comes so soon after. That production is moving to the West End, largely on the back of DT but it also, for me, has considerable merit, not least in the way thought and deed are delineated in an unexpected way by the use of ye olde - often dismissed - headsets.
Much here was okay, you can warm to it, and it's probably more accessible than some Ms. For me though, if you're coming to Macbeth quite new, the Donmar production is way, way more emotionally accessible and therefore engaging* And I preferred Tennant. Can't choose between the ladies.
ETA: sometimes it feels churlish to write like this; to forget how fortunate we are in this city.
* the curious non-interval comedy break notwithstanding
|
|
|
|
Post by solotheatregoer on Mar 18, 2024 23:33:50 GMT
I was a little underwhelmed by this. Fiennes and Varma are two of my favourite actors, especially on stage, and whilst they both give good performances and delivered their lines impeccably, this production seemed to lack the drama one would expect. Maybe it was the misplaced humour which didn’t work for me at all. Whenever I see Macbeth I want the drama, the tension, the darkness, the suspense. I didn’t get much of that at all.
Ben Turner was a standout. I had never seen his previous work but he was a great Macduff.
I also didn’t get the choice of venue. It really added no value to the production overall.
3 stars.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by sam22 on Mar 19, 2024 10:37:33 GMT
Can we have a poll for this one please?
It is four stars for me. I haven't seen a production of Macbeth for so so long (as sadly missed Tenant recently) so I have little to compare to, it might be 20 years since I last saw it in fact. I really liked it overall. Unfortunately Indira Varma was off - the poor understudy (Rebecca Scruggs) hearing an audible groan from the audience when it was announced - but I thought she was very good.
It felt like a Punchdrunk show in the foyer and walking through the initial part of the set, I thought the rubble and car etc were powerful, albeit after that the set itself was fairly sparse and there wasn't really an immersive element to it. The lighting and sound were excellent and added to the atmosphere (and the setting of war). I really liked Ralph Fiennes; it is the first time I have seen him on stage and he was impressive and I understood the lines.
I would put it in the good category and whilst I really enjoyed it at the time, I can't say that in years to come it will be a stand out show that I remember.
|
|
14 posts
|
Post by markmc on Mar 19, 2024 13:16:32 GMT
Thought this was pretty pedestrian. The "site specific" element added absolutely nothing save for the burnt out car at the beginning. The lighting and sound was good. Fiennes was on autopilot. Spoke the verse well but still left me cold. Indira Varma was off - her understudy did well. Horridly uncomfortable seats so I was very annoyed throughout. Not a production I'd recommend.
|
|
