2,813 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Feb 11, 2017 10:21:09 GMT
Yeah, they changed the line to include Fox's blonde hair, but in the pics outside the theatre he's still dark-haired, like Tzara was
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Feb 11, 2017 10:23:08 GMT
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
|
155 posts
|
Post by synchrony on Feb 11, 2017 22:52:17 GMT
Is this one of Tom Stoppard's better plays? Not pretentious tosh he normally does. I went to see this tonight. I thought the performances were great, but the play was sooooo boring. Agree pretentious tosh. What was the point of it? I hated it. I liked the "oh Gwendoline, oh Cecily" scene though. Maybe because it's a song. This once again teaches me to stick to musicals ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2017 23:02:23 GMT
Is this one of Tom Stoppard's better plays? Not pretentious tosh he normally does. I went to see this tonight. I thought the performances were great, but the play was sooooo boring. Agree pretentious tosh. What was the point of it? I hated it. I liked the "oh Gwendoline, oh Cecily" scene though. Maybe because it's a song. This once again teaches me to stick to musicals ;-) Oh dear sister I SO agree It's a play to be admired And respected Don't you know Just like Donald Trump
|
|
885 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Feb 12, 2017 2:22:52 GMT
Comparing TRAVESTIES to Donald Trump is so perverse and preposterous that it defies analysis - and doesn't need further comment.
This is actually a glorious production of a difficult play - MUCH better than the previous RSC one with the dreadful Antony Sher.
|
|
170 posts
|
Post by moelhywel on Feb 12, 2017 10:13:06 GMT
Well I'm doing a double Stoppard at the end of March with this in the evening and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in the afternoon. Given that they both refer to other plays I may be well and truly confused by the time I get my train home! I've never seen either play before either so don't even know what to expect.
|
|
853 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Feb 12, 2017 21:45:56 GMT
Comparing TRAVESTIES to Donald Trump is so perverse and preposterous that it defies analysis - and doesn't need further comment. This is actually a glorious production of a difficult play - MUCH better than the previous RSC one with the dreadful Antony Sher. Couldn't agree more with your first comment. Couldn't agree less with the second. Sher was just as good as Hollander in my view, if not better.
|
|
853 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Feb 12, 2017 22:04:30 GMT
Is this one of Tom Stoppard's better plays? Not pretentious tosh he normally does. I went to see this tonight. I thought the performances were great, but the play was sooooo boring. Agree pretentious tosh. What was the point of it? I hated it. I liked the "oh Gwendoline, oh Cecily" scene though. Maybe because it's a song. This once again teaches me to stick to musicals ;-) What does 'pretentious tosh' mean? Does it mean that talking about art, language, theories of art, the point of art, the damage done to art by politics, is intrinsically pretentious? That no one should be talking about these things? In other words the author was talking about things that were beyond you and so you feel aggrieved and a need to lash out? Or do you mean that these are legitimate subjects for treatment in a play but that Tom Stoppard doesn't have the knowledge or artistry necessary to make them into a satisfying play, with the implication that he's not able to create something that is intellectually up to your level?
The point of it is to make you laugh, to delight you (with the brilliant pastiche of Wilde, amongst other things), to make you think about issues relating to art and its functions, to admire the author's cleverness (he's a young man showing off a bit), to give you an entertaining evening in the theatre. It is a hymn of praise to Oscar Wilde and James Joyce and their views of art. The young Stoppard was trying to create something light and witty and yet also worthwhile and serious in a British theatre culture which was almost comically political in the sense that left-wing politics dominated so many of the plays of the period.
|
|
155 posts
|
Post by synchrony on Feb 12, 2017 22:36:04 GMT
The point of it is to make you laugh, to delight you (with the brilliant pastiche of Wilde, amongst other things), to make you think about issues relating to art and its functions, to admire the author's cleverness (he's a young man showing off a bit). [/p][/quote] Your latter comment is a big reason why I thought it was pretentious. Throughout, I remained more conscious of the playwright shouting "look how clever I am!!!" than of the play or characters themselves. And a playwright showing off is no more appealing to me than any other kind of show-off. I feel similarly about authors who are more interested in drawing their readers' attention to their 'clever' writing style than allowing them to be lost in the story. But, as I said, I thought the performances were excellent.
|
|
853 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Feb 12, 2017 23:46:37 GMT
Thanks for your reply, Synchrony. In today's Observer Tom Hollander says he studied the play at A level and he and his classmates found it rather pretentious but coming back to it at the age of 49 was impressed by its 'bravura'. It all depends on whether you like bravura or not - I can see why one wouldn't, though I like it myself on the page, on the stage or the football field. To be honest Hollander refers to it as 'dick-swinging bravura', which is not an attractive phrase. I don't like 'dick-swinging' but it suggests Hollander thinks there's something very male about that sort of showing off.
|
|
885 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Feb 13, 2017 0:12:09 GMT
Interesting that Bordeaux preferred Sher, who played Carr as if reciting the language to a metronome -- as par for the course with this actor, he didn't begin to connect with the part emotionally. Hollander, by contrast, is tremendously moving, as well as verbally deft.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 13, 2017 8:41:06 GMT
Of course there's some authorial showing off in Travesties but in the context of the piece it feels entirely justified. The main characters ARE show-offs, in love with their own ideas, the sound of their own voices. What counts tremendously in Stoppard's favour, with me, is that he gives Tzara (whom he clearly doesn't agree with) arguments every bit as intelligent and lucid and fun as Joyce (whom he does agree with). I'm not sure why anyone would want to resist or even be offended by a play so full of genuine wit.
BTW, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is, to me, a far more too-clever-by-half play than Travesties and not nearly as entertaining. It will be interesting to see the reaction that gets here.
|
|
853 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Feb 13, 2017 10:29:04 GMT
Interesting that Bordeaux preferred Sher, who played Carr as if reciting the language to a metronome -- as par for the course with this actor, he didn't begin to connect with the part emotionally. Hollander, by contrast, is tremendously moving, as well as verbally deft. I thought they were both wonderful in their different ways. It was 20 or so years ago but I don't remember Sher as being metronomic, but I suppose he played up the studied artificiality of the dialogue more. His memories of WWI and the 'in other words we're here because we're here because we're here' moment were very moving to me.
|
|
5,280 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Feb 28, 2017 9:13:58 GMT
I'm debating whether to see this and obviously the critical raves have piqued my interest BUT I'm rather concerned I'll sit there watching it feeling like I have at other Stoppard plays- that it's actually a bit boring and designed to make me feel stupid.
To go or not to go?
Rather unsure after reading a few "it's so boring" comments on here. I swore I'd never see a Stoppard after Rock N Roll
|
|
2,813 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Feb 28, 2017 10:21:18 GMT
I'm debating whether to see this and obviously the critical raves have piqued my interest BUT I'm rather concerned I'll sit there watching it feeling like I have at other Stoppard plays- that it's actually a bit boring and designed to make me feel stupid. To go or not to go? Rather unsure after reading a few "it's so boring" comments on here. I swore I'd never see a Stoppard after Rock N Roll I absolutely loved it, I have recommended it to everyone
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Feb 28, 2017 13:14:26 GMT
I am old enough to know what I like and don't like, unfortunately. I don't like Stoppard. Always bored and feeling stupid simply not getting the references which everyone around me seem to chuckle at in a knowing way! I will happily give this a miss.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Feb 28, 2017 14:03:19 GMT
I have mixed feeling about Stoppard but this is a lot more fun, once you stop feeling foolish for not knowing all about Lenin, Joyce and Switzerland in the first world war. It helps that Tom Hollander is utterly delightful and I particularly enjoyed Clare Foster as the Cecily the librarian. It flies by but I don't blame anyone for feeling Stoppard is pretentious but this was written before he got even worse and started chucking out poop like The Hard Problem.
I also saw Derek Jacobi (wrong thread-everybody) and he's utterly gorgeous.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 28, 2017 14:54:27 GMT
There is no other "poop" like The Hard Problem in the Stoppard canon. It was bad, admittedly. But it's not as if he'd been in decline before that. He has a body of work that's second to none among living playwrights in the English speaking world. It's not pretentious to pitch your work to an audience with a certain level of intelligence and information. The fact that he never deliberately writes down to an audience is worthy of approval, not disdain.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 28, 2017 15:15:24 GMT
The Hard Problem in the Stoppard canon. It was bad, admittedly. I still wonder if it was the play itself, or the direction and staging? The fact it was so wildly over-done as it was the "proper" opening of the Dorfman. A slimmer revival might reveal a little more of the text, perhaps?
Yes, perhaps. It would be interesting to see another production of The Hard Problem. But, having said that, I thought the play was the issue. The complex ideas were just not sufficiently dramatized.
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Feb 28, 2017 21:13:47 GMT
That depressing feeling when you look up a theatre on @theatremonkey 's website & every seat in your price range is marked red!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Feb 28, 2017 21:36:00 GMT
That depressing feeling when you look up a theatre on @theatremonkey 's website & every seat in your price range is marked red! Yeah I too did that last week and decided much as I liked the sound anything I could afford was going to be pretty awful and possibly pointless to buy.
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Feb 28, 2017 21:40:05 GMT
I'd like to see it again, having enjoyed it at the Menier, but after seeing it from front row at the Menier I'm not sure if I want to re-see it from a distant & restricted view seat. Before anyone says day seats, I don't live in London & can't get there by 10am unless I buy an expensive train ticket which would rather negate the theatre ticket saving!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Feb 28, 2017 21:52:52 GMT
Does anyone know how days seats for this are going please? Am tempted but at the same time in the middle of an ofsted inspection and struggling to imagine a time when i'll ever be fully awake again and wanting to jump out of bed early to get to London to sit outside a theatre in a queue.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Feb 28, 2017 22:47:54 GMT
I had a dayseat today. Got there about 10.30 and there was still a choice in the front row. All had gone by tonight and overall the theatre looked quite full.
I loved it, possibly because of the familiarity of the subjects, but also the structure and performances.
Front row requires a little looking up and I don't recommend the seats closest to the centre (the very centre of front row B is gone) as a bit of the set is a permanent obstruction in the sight line.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 0:06:35 GMT
I am not-so-secretly annoyed at how well this is selling, given how high the prices are. I'd love to see Hollander on stage but I'm not keen on paying £50 to sit in the back row of the stalls...
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 1, 2017 13:48:03 GMT
Jean, I'm assuming you missed the Menier announcement because you could have seen it there. To be honest I would miss a lot but for this Board. Just seen the Arcola thing about Greg Hicks. I didn't see that elsewhere. I don't know how far back the £50 seats are but it is a good production and much deepened by TH's performance. Opera glasses?
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Mar 1, 2017 13:50:27 GMT
Unsurprisingly no day seats remaining for today's matinee when I made it to the theatre at 1.30. I didn't think there would be but thought I'd ask on the off chance. Nabbed the last remaining day seat for Love's Labour's Lost this afternoon instead.
|
|
3,476 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 1, 2017 14:22:19 GMT
Got here too late for day seat but happy with premium stalls one for £35,so worth trying.
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Mar 1, 2017 14:25:15 GMT
I wasn't offered that, only £20 right at the back & I didn't want to sit so far back.
|
|
3,476 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 1, 2017 14:32:16 GMT
They offered me the same, but also the higher cost, better situated seat. So I figured worth it for a long play. That said, v small auditorium so back row not that distant from the stage.
|
|