547 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Apr 3, 2024 13:34:48 GMT
Its on papering sites already so surely its days are numbered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2024 14:00:23 GMT
Will the last performance be renamed "Closing Night?"
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Apr 3, 2024 14:09:48 GMT
If this does close early, I wonder if it could be an opportunity for 'Starter For Ten' which only just finished in Bristol. Although maybe that was an early version and its too soon for West End (I didn't see it) and cast may have gone to other contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladidah on Apr 3, 2024 14:37:12 GMT
I can't see it on any papering sites yet, still seems to be going for £25+
|
|
8,159 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Apr 3, 2024 15:14:49 GMT
And papering isn't a sure sign of something closing. I sometimes get offered Wicked and that ain't closing anytime soon.
|
|
211 posts
|
Post by justsaying113 on Apr 3, 2024 15:53:31 GMT
The Daily Mail really is a poisonous growth on our society. And any excuse to belittle a successful woman.
|
|
|
|
Post by bgarde on Apr 3, 2024 16:51:52 GMT
I really enjoyed this afternoon's matinee performance. I've never seen Smith on stage before and was impressed by her natural performance - unaffected and genuine. I like the film on which this is based, but it's messy and at times doesn't work. That's true here of course and we could go deeper into Myrtle's psyche - also some of the ghost scenes don't work and a few songs miss. But I'm glad to have seen a gutsy lead performance in something that is daring to be different.
|
|
|
|
Post by ix on Apr 4, 2024 9:13:06 GMT
Thanks so much for this. Any recommendations on seats for this as I understand screens are used a lot so I guess back stalls I would miss these screens? I’ll be going in with very low expectations!! Unfortunately for this production, most seats face the stage with a clear view of what's going on but I'm sure you could negotiate sitting in the box office or the toilets instead.  |
|
|
|
Post by mattnyc on Apr 4, 2024 21:40:04 GMT
|
|
547 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Apr 4, 2024 22:00:18 GMT
Do not feed The Sun
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by Rory on Apr 5, 2024 5:53:07 GMT
The Mail and the Sun are hammering this production with all of their so called 'articles' and will probably lead to it closing early. All published because Sheridan Smith is in it. Total scumbags. P*sses me off.
At least Baz has wellied in with a bit of positivity:
And Dominic Cavendish recognises its worth in the West End landscape even if he didn't particularly care for it:
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 5, 2024 7:16:41 GMT
To be fair (not that anyone has to be fair with the DM or the Sun) they’re making it very clear that this isn’t Sheridan’s fault. They’re specifically saying or quoting people saying her performance is good. Slagging off the production/concept is exactly what most people here have been doing since it opened and indeed saying way more critical things than the press have said. Double standards?
As for The Telegraph saying it should stay open after giving it two stars and calling it a “pretentious convoluted mess” is a bit rich. It’s behind the paywall so I can’t see his justification for it staying open, what’s his rationale?
|
|
1,484 posts
|
Post by theatrefan62 on Apr 5, 2024 7:48:21 GMT
To be fair (not that anyone has to be fair with the DM or the Sun) they’re making it very clear that this isn’t Sheridan’s fault. They’re specifically saying or quoting people saying her performance is good. Slagging off the production/concept is exactly what most people here have been doing since it opened and indeed saying way more critical things than the press have said. Double standards? As for The Telegraph saying it should stay open after giving it two stars and calling it a “pretentious convoluted mess” is a bit rich. It’s behind the paywall so I can’t see his justification for it staying open, what’s his rationale? Completely agree, I think people are letting their hatred for publications see something that isn't there. They are just reporting what is being said, if anything comments on here have been worse! As for Baz Bamigboye, him championing it actually makes me think it's in trouble more. He has a long history of championing shows that ended up flopping. |
|
1,499 posts
|
Post by Steve on Apr 5, 2024 8:29:01 GMT
To be fair (not that anyone has to be fair with the DM or the Sun) they’re making it very clear that this isn’t Sheridan’s fault. They’re specifically saying or quoting people saying her performance is good. Slagging off the production/concept is exactly what most people here have been doing since it opened and indeed saying way more critical things than the press have said. Double standards? As for The Telegraph saying it should stay open after giving it two stars and calling it a “pretentious convoluted mess” is a bit rich. It’s behind the paywall so I can’t see his justification for it staying open, what’s his rationale? I loathe The Sun, and wish Liverpool's defacto boycott would expand to the whole United Kingdom. And I loathe The Daily Mail as well. But you're right that they're not saying anything about this that hasn't been said here first.
Also, Cavendish's article doesn't actually live up to his headline.
For example, he writes: "How many of those who walked out of Opening Night will be returning to the West End any time soon?"
Taking Theatreboard's votes as representative of the General Audience, you've got 61 votes in 1 and 2 star territory and only 14 votes in 4 and 5 star territory, so you've got 4 people disliking the show for every 1 that likes it. That suggests that the sooner it closes, the fewer people will be put off from "returning to the West End any time soon." Thus Cavendish's headline is contradicted by the substance of his article.
What he is actually saying is that "No one wants a West End stuffed with tried and tested “safe bets” or old-fashioned star vehicles," and he is sad that this production makes that more likely.
He argues that "the blunt fact is that Opening Night wasn’t ready to open; and I’d argue that many of its flaws are remediable."
I'd probably take some issue with that in that I think the Cassavetes source material would throw general audiences for a loop even more than this show.
But assuming he is right, his prescription is that "We need dramaturgs to be more astute and hands-on. Writers’ egos notwithstanding, we also need people in the room early on, perhaps not even allied to the production so that complacent assumptions can be blasted, early decisions queried and group-think avoided."
So what he is actually saying is not what the headline says but that Ivo Van Hove should have hired a proper writer, just like he hired a proper songwriter, and that critics (in the broad rather than the narrow sense) should be allowed in early to warn creatives, of innovative material, where things might be going wrong before such shows open on the West End.
|
|
1,260 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Apr 5, 2024 8:36:30 GMT
I really didn’t rate Sheridan’s performance either. Seen it all before. Can spot all the same tics. And the American accent is always pretty terrible
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by Rory on Apr 5, 2024 8:53:00 GMT
To be fair (not that anyone has to be fair with the DM or the Sun) they’re making it very clear that this isn’t Sheridan’s fault. They’re specifically saying or quoting people saying her performance is good. Slagging off the production/concept is exactly what most people here have been doing since it opened and indeed saying way more critical things than the press have said. Double standards? As for The Telegraph saying it should stay open after giving it two stars and calling it a “pretentious convoluted mess” is a bit rich. It’s behind the paywall so I can’t see his justification for it staying open, what’s his rationale? I'm not a fan of either publication, it is true, but the reality is that the combined readership is massive, and all the negative articles being churned out on a seemingly daily basis will harm the production's prospects. It's an avant garde show, so it was never going to be a massively commercial audience pleaser. The point I was trying to make is that, had a lesser known actress been the lead, there would not have been the endless articles saying how crap it is. I accept that Sheridan Smith's performance has garnered some pretty good notices. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Apr 5, 2024 8:54:12 GMT
DC's article seems rather confused to me. On the one hand he seems to be saying ON is a brave experimental piece and on the other its not very good.(so why should it stay open?)
I don't buy in to the argument that ON is a daring and trail blazing show. As a regular theatregoer there was nothing I'd not seen before and done better in other shows.
|
|
8,159 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Apr 5, 2024 8:58:58 GMT
The articles are certainly having an impact. This week alone 2 friends who I would say are casual thestre goers contacted me to ask if I had seen the show and if it was as bad as the articles. They both asked me if Sheridan was bad and I had to point out that she was excellent. So I'm not sure everyone reads between the lines and just home in on the headlines so they think it's a bad show and Sheridan is bad as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Apr 5, 2024 10:09:12 GMT
The articles are certainly having an impact. This week alone 2 friends who I would say are casual thestre goers contacted me to ask if I had seen the show an as as bad as the articles. They both asked me if Sheridan was bad and I had to point out that she was excellent. So I'm not sure everyone reads between the lines and just home in on the headlines so they think it's a bad show and Sheridan is bad as well. I don't think there are many people in Britain who don't know that SS is a superb performer. Even the most vitriolic critics of this show have made it clear that SS is not the problem. However the publicity from the street filming was possibly unhelpful in making the distinction between breakdown Myrtle and Smith the actress. |
|
4,988 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Apr 5, 2024 10:42:17 GMT
DC's article seems rather confused to me. On the one hand he seems to be saying ON is a brave experimental piece and on the other its not very good.(so why should it stay open?) I don't buy in to the argument that ON is a daring and trail blazing show. As a regular theatregoer there was nothing I'd not seen before and done better in other shows. I havent read the article but surely, theatre can be brave and daring and also not very good ? |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Apr 5, 2024 11:59:45 GMT
DC's article seems rather confused to me. On the one hand he seems to be saying ON is a brave experimental piece and on the other its not very good.(so why should it stay open?) I don't buy in to the argument that ON is a daring and trail blazing show. As a regular theatregoer there was nothing I'd not seen before and done better in other shows. I havent read the article but surely, theatre can be brave and daring and also not very good ? True. But don't then defend it as a breath of fresh air to West End. |
|
7,189 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 5, 2024 12:04:39 GMT
TBH we can't lambast the Sun and The Daily Mail for criticising Opening Night when some on here have called it career ending for Ivo Van Hove. For Sheridan, she'll be fine, she is still in demand and one show not being a hit doesn't kill a career.
|
|
5,186 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Apr 5, 2024 12:15:05 GMT
Ivo has made stuff far worse than this - his career will be fine
|
|
|
|
Post by jackstage on Apr 5, 2024 12:22:01 GMT
Is it just rumours and baseless gossip that it'll actually close? Because I'd love to catch the show again
|
|
7,189 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 5, 2024 12:26:17 GMT
If Opening Night closes in say May then it'll just be a filler show because Frank Skinner is scheduled for August.
|
|
