|
|
Post by theatrelover97 on Feb 15, 2024 12:04:13 GMT
Booking open until the middle of .. June. Literally 100,000 seats put up in one tranche. [brI get that but it's annoying when it is other people not allowing you to go that costs you the money. |
|
5,138 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Feb 17, 2024 14:15:49 GMT
An interesting one this, and I think it's main 'issue' it's that a lot of the audience go in expecting another Jerusalem or Ferryman.
It's not trying to do that, but I couldn't help coming away feeling a bit short changed.
My main problem is it doesn't earn the three act structure in the way previous Butterworth plays have - it's simply there because of the need for a costume change and a set change. The scene at the top of act 3 can go, and it could trim another 5-10 mins, giving you a 2hr 45 minute play with one interval.
Pretty faultless casting though.
Laura Donnelly is just mesmerising to watch on stage, and she's utterly remarkable again here (get the woman in a Sondheim show for goodness sake.)
Ophelia Lovibond is pretty spectacular too, alongside Leanne Best and Helena Wilson they make quite a leading four -the younger versions of them are cast perfectly too.
It's just 4 stars for me, because I thought that the final scene was pretty much perfect, but it's not one I'd return to like I have with other Jez plays.
|
|
781 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Feb 17, 2024 19:57:42 GMT
Is this selling bad. Haven't been able to resell my tickets on a well known reselling website as I am not been able to arrange things so that I can go to the performance I brought for. Even at a heavy discount to what I paid for them. (My inability to be allowed to most of the shows I have brought for recently has cost me dear and is why I am only buying for subsidised theatre now where I can get a return/resale/credit easily.) I think with TT now you can add on 3 quid in order to return the ticket without any explanation 24 (or even less) hours in advance. I used this feature a couple of times and it’s handy as I am visiting UK for theatre flying in from another country and things get shifted sometimes. |
|
3,325 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Feb 19, 2024 15:04:00 GMT
I saw this with Rush last week. No luck at being offered Stalls tickets any of the times I've tried, but I settled for mid Dress Circle, which is a clear view, and apart from the person repeating jokes for her husband, had reasonable sound quality.
Some plays fail to grab my attention. For this one, no such problems, which is good going for a 3 hour run time. Yes, it is a bit predictable, but it's also keenly written. Not one I'd feel the need to return to see a second time, but well worth seeing. 4 stars from me.
|
|
al
Auditioning
|
Post by al on Feb 20, 2024 17:20:55 GMT
The front row seats (except for 4 seats) for the entire run now on sale. £39.50 midweek, £49.50 Fridays/Saturdays.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigredapple on Feb 20, 2024 18:03:58 GMT
The front row seats (except for 4 seats) for the entire run now on sale. £39.50 midweek, £49.50 Fridays/Saturdays. Is the stage high, is this a good deal? Tempted!! |
|
|
|
Post by clarefh on Feb 20, 2024 18:07:32 GMT
It’s pretty high but doable and you do get the extra legroom. You don’t particularly miss much just it’s a lot of looking up for a long play!
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Feb 20, 2024 18:12:23 GMT
It’s fine - sat there (row B), and you only miss the feet. Yes looking up but more across as the stage isn’t that high and they removed row A.
|
|
5,138 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Feb 20, 2024 18:28:49 GMT
I saw this with Rush last week. The progressive rock group? 😁 Always excellent sound quality at their gigs. |
|
|
|
Post by amyja89 on Feb 21, 2024 9:10:00 GMT
I was front of the circle last week and did think that the stage looked quite high for the front rows. At 5' 3'' I think I would have struggled.
|
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Feb 22, 2024 13:59:12 GMT
Got F4 stalls for this in todsytix rush
Thought it was ace. 3 hours flew by
|
|
|
|
Post by alessia on Feb 22, 2024 14:36:35 GMT
I was front of the circle last week and did think that the stage looked quite high for the front rows. At 5' 3'' I think I would have struggled. Just to say I'm 5' 3'' (158 cm for the pedantic lol) too and was in second row and absolutely fine- you don't miss a thing! in case somebody needs to know... |
|
|
|
Post by amyja89 on Feb 22, 2024 15:27:15 GMT
I was front of the circle last week and did think that the stage looked quite high for the front rows. At 5' 3'' I think I would have struggled. Just to say I'm 5' 3'' (158 cm for the pedantic lol) too and was in second row and absolutely fine- you don't miss a thing! in case somebody needs to know... Good to know! Perhaps an optical illusion from up where I was. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Feb 22, 2024 15:33:11 GMT
Best I could see, people of 5' 3" look mostly under the rail, people about 5' 8" to almost 6' are looking at the rail and have to decide up or down, and people over 6' are fine but upsetting the person sitting behind  |
|
287 posts
|
Post by singingbird on Mar 5, 2024 16:14:53 GMT
I saw this last night. I was quite surprised that there were a fair few empty seats, considering how hard it could be to get tickets for Jez Butterworth's last couple of plays. While watching this I quite enjoyed it. It never dragged, the acting was uniformly great, the script was quite sprightly and witty. But there were a number of things nagging at me about it, and afterwards, when I had time to think on it, I actually came to the conclusion that it was a fairly lazy piece of writing for such an esteemed and experienced writer. I will concede that it turns like a well oiled machine but, a few themes and plot points aside, it could have been written any time in the last 100 plus years. It was a solid, archetypal domestic drama, but there was absolutely nothing new or clever about it. I felt like I had seen it all before. There was certainly nothing for me to puzzle out afterwards, nothing I could not have predicted, and nothing daring in terms of structure, language or approach to making theatre. I thought that the Blackpool setting was woefully underused, as was the stiffing 1976 summer. I never felt the heat. I never felt like I was in 1970s or 1950s Blackpool. There were some perfunctory mentions, but no real sense of lethargy, decay, exhaustion. I was so looking forward to being enveloped in the atmosphere of time and place but it never happened. There were way too many characters. Cut the nurse. Cut most of the men. They're not needed. They can be referenced, but there's no reason to spend time with any of them. What did any of them add? Moreover, certain key plot points felt like they stretched credulity for something aiming to be naturalistic. {Spoiler - click to view} First up - Joan's baby. What?!? There was a baby in the porch through all those act 3 arguments and it never cried, never made a sound...  And Joan has flown over from America and made her way to Blackpool with a six-month old and a random suitcase with a few baby clothes and a bottle and two toys? Even if we are to infer from the Act 3 opening scene that she arrived earlier and has been waiting in Blackpool, trying to get the courage to return home, this whole situation is clunky and very badly handled. Secondly, are we really supposed to believe (or, at least, infer) that the mother had four daughters out of wedlock in the 1940s? One, or even two, is perfectly plausible, but four?!? That would have been a huge scandal, and the daughters would inevitably have known about it, unless they were born in anther town far away. Thirdly, what is the deal with Joan's career? Did the agent guy feel so guilty that he'd got her pregnant, that he paid for her to fly to America, set her up with a new home and arranged for her to make an LP? That seems very unlikely to me, I thought the four youthful daughters were acted and sung brilliantly but, aside from Joan, badly differentiated in the writing and almost without character. Personally, I would also have liked to see the past and present intermingle, and the big reveal, such as it is, implied much more subtly. It's unlikely it would shock audiences now, with what we now know about the world, but it could still have packed a punch, which I felt it definitely didn't. I know I'm in a minority, but to me this was a fairly enjoyable play but one that tackled well-worn material as though it thought it was being radical and new, and which had too many clunky elements for me to truly rate as more than two stars. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Mar 5, 2024 16:34:51 GMT
singingbird > I'm not sure we are supposed to believe that (about the 4 children). I don't think the circumstances you describe would have credibly led her to own and run a boarding house. Gov payoff for a dead husband, yes.
I can't help but wonder what you saw as the big reveal. |
|
287 posts
|
Post by singingbird on Mar 5, 2024 20:29:15 GMT
singingbird > I'm not sure we are supposed to believe that (about the 4 children). I don't think the circumstances you describe would have credibly led her to own and run a boarding house. Gov payoff for a dead husband, yes.
I can't help but wonder what you saw as the big reveal. Simply what happened to teenage Joan and how that changed her relationship with her mother. Not really much of a reveal, I guess, but it felt like it was the central 'mystery' of the play. |
|
1,254 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Mar 5, 2024 20:47:15 GMT
I saw this last night. I was quite surprised that there were a fair few empty seats, considering how hard it could be to get tickets for Jez Butterworth's last couple of plays. While watching this I quite enjoyed it. It never dragged, the acting was uniformly great, the script was quite sprightly and witty. But there were a number of things nagging at me about it, and afterwards, when I had time to think on it, I actually came to the conclusion that it was a fairly lazy piece of writing for such an esteemed and experienced writer. I will concede that it turns like a well oiled machine but, a few themes and plot points aside, it could have been written any time in the last 100 plus years. It was a solid, archetypal domestic drama, but there was absolutely nothing new or clever about it. I felt like I had seen it all before. There was certainly nothing for me to puzzle out afterwards, nothing I could not have predicted, and nothing daring in terms of structure, language or approach to making theatre. I thought that the Blackpool setting was woefully underused, as was the stiffing 1976 summer. I never felt the heat. I never felt like I was in 1970s or 1950s Blackpool. There were some perfunctory mentions, but no real sense of lethargy, decay, exhaustion. I was so looking forward to being enveloped in the atmosphere of time and place but it never happened. There were way too many characters. Cut the nurse. Cut most of the men. They're not needed. They can be referenced, but there's no reason to spend time with any of them. What did any of them add? Moreover, certain key plot points felt like they stretched credulity for something aiming to be naturalistic. {Spoiler - click to view} First up - Joan's baby. What?!? There was a baby in the porch through all those act 3 arguments and it never cried, never made a sound... And Joan has flown over from America and made her way to Blackpool with a six-month old and a random suitcase with a few baby clothes and a bottle and two toys? Even if we are to infer from the Act 3 opening scene that she arrived earlier and has been waiting in Blackpool, trying to get the courage to return home, this whole situation is clunky and very badly handled. Secondly, are we really supposed to believe (or, at least, infer) that the mother had four daughters out of wedlock in the 1940s? One, or even two, is perfectly plausible, but four?!? That would have been a huge scandal, and the daughters would inevitably have known about it, unless they were born in anther town far away. Thirdly, what is the deal with Joan's career? Did the agent guy feel so guilty that he'd got her pregnant, that he paid for her to fly to America, set her up with a new home and arranged for her to make an LP? That seems very unlikely to me, I thought the four youthful daughters were acted and sung brilliantly but, aside from Joan, badly differentiated in the writing and almost without character. Personally, I would also have liked to see the past and present intermingle, and the big reveal, such as it is, implied much more subtly. It's unlikely it would shock audiences now, with what we now know about the world, but it could still have packed a punch, which I felt it definitely didn't. I know I'm in a minority, but to me this was a fairly enjoyable play but one that tackled well-worn material as though it thought it was being radical and new, and which had too many clunky elements for me to truly rate as more than two stars. Interesting isn’t it? I completely value other people’s opinions but I didn’t agree with much of the above. I didn’t feel like it was professing to do anything radical, new or clever; I didn’t think the ‘mystery’ was sold as a ‘mystery’; I think the nurse and the surrounding characters, particularly the men were pivotal to giving a sense of place and time and how they slotted in to make up a broader tapestry around the female characters; I felt the heat, the place, the period and I’m not sure how they could have introduced more of Blackpool on that set; I thought the 4 sisters were clearly delineated and I think the points in the spoiler couldn’t have been done much differently without giving the game away and it’s clear that cover ups are universal. I think it could be argued that The Ferryman and Jerusalem didn’t do a huge lot more in terms of daringness of structure, language or approach. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Mar 5, 2024 21:35:12 GMT
I can't help but wonder what you saw as the big reveal. Simply what happened to teenage Joan and how that changed her relationship with her mother. Not really much of a reveal, I guess, but it felt like it was the central 'mystery' of the play.
It probably is the central relationship of the piece, certainly had enough build up. Fwiw, I did see it differently >>
<SPOILERS AHOY!!>
Joan hadn't come back to see her mother, didn't want to see her. Even when Dr Morphine was climbing the stairs, Joan might have seen her but she didn't. Instead, she'd taken the opportunity (of the letter informing her of their mothers illness) to press her sisters to take her own new-born in, while she continued with the rock and roll life. Informal in-family adoption, perhaps (did she tell them she didn't have the motherly instincts?).
That seemed the paradox, imo. Joan rightly resented her mother for allowing her to do what a 15-year old might do in those circs (exposing her to seedy men and potentially worse). But Joan also fell in love with the resulting lifestyle, and she did get the opportunities, even if they didn't work out. Also, it wasn't Blackpool.
I guess the reveal, if it wasn't that Joan hadn't come back to see her mother, was that we - the audience - assumed a particular conclusion to that narrative (heart-rendering closure, perhaps - after a proper banging shouting match ), though you can't predict anything with families and things rarely end neatly.
In the way that every small town has legendary characters (Jerusalem), every family has these baby stories somewhere in the not too distant past.
/opinions may vary. Or I may have got it completely wrong ...
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 6, 2024 0:44:45 GMT
I saw this last night. I was quite surprised that there were a fair few empty seats, considering how hard it could be to get tickets for Jez Butterworth's last couple of plays. While watching this I quite enjoyed it. It never dragged, the acting was uniformly great, the script was quite sprightly and witty. But there were a number of things nagging at me about it, and afterwards, when I had time to think on it, I actually came to the conclusion that it was a fairly lazy piece of writing for such an esteemed and experienced writer. I will concede that it turns like a well oiled machine but, a few themes and plot points aside, it could have been written any time in the last 100 plus years. It was a solid, archetypal domestic drama, but there was absolutely nothing new or clever about it. I felt like I had seen it all before. There was certainly nothing for me to puzzle out afterwards, nothing I could not have predicted, and nothing daring in terms of structure, language or approach to making theatre. I thought that the Blackpool setting was woefully underused, as was the stiffing 1976 summer. I never felt the heat. I never felt like I was in 1970s or 1950s Blackpool. There were some perfunctory mentions, but no real sense of lethargy, decay, exhaustion. I was so looking forward to being enveloped in the atmosphere of time and place but it never happened. There were way too many characters. Cut the nurse. Cut most of the men. They're not needed. They can be referenced, but there's no reason to spend time with any of them. What did any of them add? Moreover, certain key plot points felt like they stretched credulity for something aiming to be naturalistic. {Spoiler - click to view} First up - Joan's baby. What?!? There was a baby in the porch through all those act 3 arguments and it never cried, never made a sound... And Joan has flown over from America and made her way to Blackpool with a six-month old and a random suitcase with a few baby clothes and a bottle and two toys? Even if we are to infer from the Act 3 opening scene that she arrived earlier and has been waiting in Blackpool, trying to get the courage to return home, this whole situation is clunky and very badly handled. Secondly, are we really supposed to believe (or, at least, infer) that the mother had four daughters out of wedlock in the 1940s? One, or even two, is perfectly plausible, but four?!? That would have been a huge scandal, and the daughters would inevitably have known about it, unless they were born in anther town far away. Thirdly, what is the deal with Joan's career? Did the agent guy feel so guilty that he'd got her pregnant, that he paid for her to fly to America, set her up with a new home and arranged for her to make an LP? That seems very unlikely to me, I thought the four youthful daughters were acted and sung brilliantly but, aside from Joan, badly differentiated in the writing and almost without character. Personally, I would also have liked to see the past and present intermingle, and the big reveal, such as it is, implied much more subtly. It's unlikely it would shock audiences now, with what we now know about the world, but it could still have packed a punch, which I felt it definitely didn't. I know I'm in a minority, but to me this was a fairly enjoyable play but one that tackled well-worn material as though it thought it was being radical and new, and which had too many clunky elements for me to truly rate as more than two stars. I think you thought these things precisely because it is a dull and lazy play. Was it on here someone said Butterworth handed it to Mendes only half written. This makes sense of the non sensical line up of “plot” we get later on in the play. To us it felt like Laura Donnelly wanted to showcase her Northern and her American accents, maybe for tv and film work, and Jez said “Give me a few minutes” It’s such a plain piece. And you’re right: the nurse and all the men could be gone and it wouldn’t affect anything. And ZERO heat felt, or any notion of the heatwave. No effort at atmosphere. Those empty seats are for a reason and that is that word of mouth will be spreading, and not positively. You can always tell when a show is doing badly when they rebrand their marketing to make it look like a film, rather than a stage show. They’ve still got months and months to run as well. |
|
|
|
Post by sph on Mar 6, 2024 1:35:03 GMT
Interesting! It has indeed had a bit of a rebrand! Lots more "drama" inferred in the new style.
I didn't think this play reinvented the wheel necessarily, but I did enjoy it thoroughly. It zipped along nicely with an interesting story and characters, some very funny lines, and pitch-perfect performances.
A shame if it's ticket sales are dropping off a bit - so many shows around lately seem to disappear from the public's minds after the initial buzz dies down.
Is it a location thing too? The Harold Pinter is tucked down a side street. Butterworth's previous plays stood prestigiously on Shaftesbury Avenue.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Mar 6, 2024 2:26:03 GMT
The voting above your post suggests people here rate it as a 4.4* play (or 9/10).
Finite demand, maybe. I wonder, if people are having to pay £100+ a pop elsewhere, eventually something has to give.
I do also think we are blessed with a bunch of 4* and even 5* shows atm, and some top names.
Fwiw, it may have been luck but I was a little surprised to get a lottery ticket on the first day of trying (Dorian Gray) - do we know the extent promoters are using secondary markets like TodayTix, it's clearly a very flexible (day-to-day), seat filling tool ..
|
|
|
|
Post by capybara on Mar 7, 2024 22:29:09 GMT
I agree with what many others have said about this. Really enjoyable for two acts, then kind of loses its way in the third.
Leanne Best was fantastic in this. Laura Donnelly also a mesmerising watch.
Four stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by iwanttix on Mar 8, 2024 8:29:32 GMT
I thought the last 20 minutes was the weakest of the play. I'd happily go see it again, but would tempted to leave in the pause 🙈
|
|
287 posts
|
Post by singingbird on Mar 8, 2024 8:50:54 GMT
Interesting isn’t it? I completely value other people’s opinions but I didn’t agree with much of the above. I didn’t feel like it was professing to do anything radical, new or clever; I didn’t think the ‘mystery’ was sold as a ‘mystery’; I think the nurse and the surrounding characters, particularly the men were pivotal to giving a sense of place and time and how they slotted in to make up a broader tapestry around the female characters; I felt the heat, the place, the period and I’m not sure how they could have introduced more of Blackpool on that set; I thought the 4 sisters were clearly delineated and I think the points in the spoiler couldn’t have been done much differently without giving the game away and it’s clear that cover ups are universal. I think it could be argued that The Ferryman and Jerusalem didn’t do a huge lot more in terms of daringness of structure, language or approach. Agreed - I love how differently people see things! It's what makes art so interesting. And people naturally get so passionate about it all, in a wonderful way. I agree that it wasn't trying to be radical, new or clever. I just wish it had tried! I've seen four or five of his other plays and each of those at least had an unusual, thought-provoking story to tell. This felt like it was re-treading ground that many, many other plays, films, tv shows etc had covered. |
|
And Joan has flown over from America and made her way to Blackpool with a six-month old and a random suitcase with a few baby clothes and a bottle and two toys? Even if we are to infer from the Act 3 opening scene that she arrived earlier and has been waiting in Blackpool, trying to get the courage to return home, this whole situation is clunky and very badly handled.