256 posts
|
Post by frankubelik on Jun 8, 2024 16:17:51 GMT
A revival of Emlyn Williams 1950 drama seems to deal with incredibly modern themes. I can only wonder how it was received at the time! As a fan of the well-made old fashioned play, this ticked many boxes for me despite a miscast leading man. Delightful to see the cast largely acting "in period". A solid revival which deserves a better audience which was, on my visit, painfully thin. Do try and support our diminishing regional theatres and Windsor is delightful!
|
|
1,102 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by alicechallice on Jun 8, 2024 19:17:23 GMT
A revival of Emlyn Williams 1950 drama seems to deal with incredibly modern themes. I can only wonder how it was received at the time! As a fan of the well-made old fashioned play, this ticked many boxes for me despite a miscast leading man. Delightful to see the cast largely acting "in period". A solid revival which deserves a better audience which was, on my visit, painfully thin. Do try and support our diminishing regional theatres and Windsor is delightful! Why did you think he was miscast? This has got a few tour dates after Windsor. Bath and Richmond, I think... |
|
115 posts
|
Post by Sotongal on Jun 8, 2024 20:55:48 GMT
A revival of Emlyn Williams 1950 drama seems to deal with incredibly modern themes. I can only wonder how it was received at the time! As a fan of the well-made old fashioned play, this ticked many boxes for me despite a miscast leading man. Delightful to see the cast largely acting "in period". A solid revival which deserves a better audience which was, on my visit, painfully thin. Do try and support our diminishing regional theatres and Windsor is delightful! Agree with this review. It’s certainly worth looking up William’s biography, too. We thought the lead was miscast too. His character is referred to at one point as being Jekyll and Hyde, but the actor didn’t seem to deliver the extremes of the character in that way. Otherwise, as you say, a solid revival, with an otherwise good cast and set. We went on Wednesday and Sir Ian McKellen, Rupert Everett and Jenny Seagrove were in the audience. As far as the theatre itself goes, the frontage has been repainted and the rear is now having work and a repaint done to it. Just wish they would improve the seating there. I still remember a visit, just pre Covid, when the (not overweight by any means!) man sitting in a seat near us, suddenly half fell onto the floor as his whole seat disintegrated under him. (He and his wife were given free drinks and icecreams and moved to other seats!) |
|
3,575 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jun 9, 2024 2:12:43 GMT
Had booked for the Guildford date ages ago (no casting details at the time) & have never seen this nor even had the opportunity, so I was v hopeful, though less sure now in view of comments about the lead role. Windsor often seems to be papering but Guildford never is!
|
|
115 posts
|
Post by Sotongal on Jun 9, 2024 11:29:01 GMT
Had booked for the Guildford date ages ago (no casting details at the time) & have never seen this nor even had the opportunity, so I was v hopeful, though less sure now in view of comments about the lead role. Windsor often seems to be papering but Guildford never is! The lead’s not bad but just could be better! |
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jun 9, 2024 15:16:43 GMT
I live nearby and had been thinking of going along but no one in the cast really stood out to me so I hadn't got around to it. Maybe I'll try this week.
Yes Windsor is a nice theatre though it clearly doesn't have the money or success of nearby Richmond for example.
I went there recently for What The Butler Saw which was good but the audience was pretty small. I enjoyed looking at all the many photos and cast lists of old productions they have on the walls.
|
|
1,249 posts
|
Post by joem on Jun 14, 2024 23:21:58 GMT
This is a "well made play", interesting even if it appears to be very much of its time but the central device is perhaps more controversial now than it would have been then *SPOILERS ALERT* an author who gets inspiration from roughing it and organising orgies has sex with a fourteen year old girl and is blackmailed for it, yet somehow the audience is expected to sympathise with him.
I think the issue with the casting - or it might well be the Williams' writing, I don't know enough about this play - is that we are expected to believe that an actor (Ayden Callaghan) who is in his early forties but could easily pass for thirties (ironically a reversal of the plot) is already the proud holder of the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Williams seems to be supporting the notion that an artist must be free of the constraints of normal people. This has been exploded for decades and we don't really accept that artists should be able to indulge in murder, cannibalism, rape or the abuse of minors for their "art".
But whilst I will beg to differ with the playwright the characters are delineated enough to make for an interesting play and there are some good lines which rise above the sometimes prosaic dialogue.
Nice to see Honeysuckle Weeks on stage and working after those problems she had some time back.
I would like this theatre to flourish, and this really is not a bad offering at a decent price unless it's totally out of your way.
|
|
|
|
Post by jr on Jul 10, 2024 20:25:01 GMT
I couldn't get into this. I thought it was slow and dated and I didn't care about the characters.
I did not think the acting was very good either. Both main leads are not very natural and Honeysuckle Weeks' accent and high pitched voice was getting on my nerves (and I didn't understand half the things she said). Narinder Samar was quite good in his scene at the end of the first act. He might have more to do in the second half but I'll never know.
It might have been daring in its time but don't think it is very interesting today. They have spent money in set and costumes (terrible wigs though) but not sure if they'll recover the investment. Theatre was quite empty and lots of comps.
|
|
63 posts
|
Post by pledge on Jul 10, 2024 20:55:22 GMT
Agreed - frankly I'm amazed by the good reviews so far. I found the first half dramatically shambolic - several roles seem to have been written as part of a job creation scheme - and for me only Honeysuckle Weeks achieved a successful "period" performance. There are some very odd directing choices, including the main character appearing to shave in a cupboard in the main living area - but the chief problem is the massive miscasting of the central role. Given that this was Williams effectively leaking the conflicts in his own life and character (his autobiography is riveting and shockingly honest) it deserves a vastly more probing conflicted and complex reading. My heart always sinks when a character in a play is described as a "Great" Author/Artist/Composer etc as it adds an extra layer of unreality and implausibility; but it's fascinating to compare this with "Song at Twilight" down the road at the Orange Tree. There Coward created a character theoretically based on Somerset Maugham but coloured with notes of his own, and even as played by an actor with the depth of Stephen Boxer (or even Scofield in the past) only just makes him plausible as a Great Novelist. In Accolade the lead is supposed to be a Nobel Prize winner (!) but is played with all the depth and complexity of a greengrocer selling veg off a barrow, and the play just never recovers...
|
|
|
|
Post by jr on Jul 11, 2024 5:18:27 GMT
Agreed - frankly I'm amazed by the good reviews so far. I found the first half dramatically shambolic - several roles seem to have been written as part of a job creation scheme - and for me only Honeysuckle Weeks achieved a successful "period" performance. There are some very odd directing choices, including the main character appearing to shave in a cupboard in the main living area - but the chief problem is the massive miscasting of the central role. Given that this was Williams effectively leaking the conflicts in his own life and character (his autobiography is riveting and shockingly honest) it deserves a vastly more probing conflicted and complex reading. My heart always sinks when a character in a play is described as a "Great" Author/Artist/Composer etc as it adds an extra layer of unreality and implausibility; but it's fascinating to compare this with "Song at Twilight" down the road at the Orange Tree. There Coward created a character theoretically based on Somerset Maugham but coloured with notes of his own, and even as played by an actor with the depth of Stephen Boxer (or even Scofield in the past) only just makes him plausible as a Great Novelist. In Accolade the lead is supposed to be a Nobel Prize winner (!) but is played with all the depth and complexity of a greengrocer selling veg off a barrow, and the play just never recovers... Completely agree with you. Except for Honeysuckle Weeks' performance, much too forced verging on caricature. |
|
107 posts
|
Post by pws on Jul 11, 2024 11:53:04 GMT
Oh dear, I am seeing this tomorrow.
Very mixed reviews I see.
|
|
1,861 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dave B on Jul 11, 2024 14:21:23 GMT
Saw it last night, thought it pretty dreadful. A lot of empty seats at Richmond. Cast really poor and one night. The twists so utterly predictable and off. I heard someone at the interval say 'surely it will live up in the second half'... it did not.
|
|
|
|
Post by nottobe on Jul 11, 2024 17:32:34 GMT
Well I caught the matinee today and rather liked it. I've known of this play for a little while and was glad to finally see it.
I personally thought as a text it was very interesting, well written and somewhat still shocking, or at least shocking to think this was written in 1950. It also still feels like it holds the dreaded relenvece word with it's look at celebrity scandal and hidden sexuality.
As noted the lead is very much miscast and it felt like a missed opportunity to have an older actor who could get into the nitty gritty of the role. I personally liked Honeysuckle Week and found her to seem very much as she was from the period, another thing the lead lacked. The rest of the performers were good too and felt right for this staging.
It does feel like a play that maybe in a few years the NT or similar building should stage in a more in-depth production and would be a great role for a major actor I think. Andrew Scott maybe ( as it does seem a little similar to Present Laughter hence my mind going to him).Anyway I'm glad I've seen it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jr on Jul 12, 2024 6:29:54 GMT
Saw it last night, thought it pretty dreadful. A lot of empty seats at Richmond. Cast really poor and one night. The twists so utterly predictable and off. I heard someone at the interval say 'surely it will live up in the second half'... it did not. It usually doesn't. Glad I left at the interval and got home at a decent time. |
|
107 posts
|
Post by pws on Jul 12, 2024 21:28:04 GMT
I stayed to the end. That was not good, and the acting was pretty awful.
Downstairs was maybe one third full, middle floor had some in, top level was closed. Not good for a Friday, but did not see many people leave at the interval.
|
|
3,575 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jul 13, 2024 2:52:23 GMT
I did see this at Guildford but though I'd really looked forward to it and didn't find it as bad as those who've seen it recently - nor notice any walkouts - it was a disappointment and I understand now perhaps why this particular play had never previously been revived in my theatregoing lifetime. Given the plot it would always be difficult but particularly now and I don't know which lead actor and director could make this convincing. Ayden Callaghan, however - of whom I had never heard - was an absolute disaster. The character's behaviour would be hard anyway to render credible but AC either failed to try or if he did, to seem remotely plausible. Unlike others I thought the rest of the cast were decent, although Sara Crowe seems only ever to play the same character. I note from the publicity that she is listed as "starring" or similar, whereas hers is one of the many supporting roles.
|
|
63 posts
|
Post by pledge on Jul 20, 2024 8:59:29 GMT
As a PS I found a ticket stub yesterday reminding me that I'd seen the same play at the St James Theatre ten years ago! The fact that I'd completely forgotten it suggests the problems might not all lie with the current production..?
|
|
