196 posts
|
Post by rockinrobin on Feb 26, 2017 10:50:15 GMT
Saw it last night. Loved it - 3 hrs 45 mins flew by! It's very intimate and very intense. All the actors are fabulous, but Andrew Scott rules the stage really - his charisma is overwhelming. I could watch him peel potatoes. I've seen many "Hamlets", never really liked the main character - Andrew Scott made me root for the Danish prince.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Feb 26, 2017 23:02:36 GMT
New seats? Eh? Please clarify. They were same old for Mary Stuart.
|
|
|
|
Post by RudyGrey on Feb 28, 2017 5:32:59 GMT
|
|
1,499 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 28, 2017 14:49:56 GMT
I wonder actually whether the ending is still evolving night to night at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised; it didn't seem quite right to me. Does what I said about it seem familiar to others who've already seen it? (please use spoiler brackets) I loved the ending, as I recall it from last Wednesday night: {Spoiler - click to view}
The party motif is established at the beginning. A party takes place through curtains, at the back of the stage, to which Hamlet does not feel welcome. (He hides behind chairs, observing, his presence only known to Ophelia, which affords them a conspiratorial closeness).
Subsequently, Hamlet's father's ghost invites him to seek revenge against Claudius. . .
At the end, after the final confrontations, the curtains are rolled back once more, resuming the party motif, except we see that the first guests at this new party are the already dead: Ophelia and Polonius. Hamlet's father appears at the curtain entrance to this party of death, the man who invited everyone to this final party we are all invited to. One by one, the ghosts of the poisoned and killed get up and make their way through the curtains, accepting their invitations. Hamlet, who remains in a dying state in between life and death, makes contact with them, even taking Claudius' hand in a conciliatory gesture that accepts that after death the concerns of life are over, and that soon they will be together forever in death. Most movingly Hamlet is able to express his full love for his own father in an embrace. Soon, only Horatio and Hamlet are left, and final words spoken. This makes for a far more intimate ending, with just the dying man and his friend. Dead, Hamlet joins the party. The screen comes on, and all the final Fortinbras stuff is rendered as prerecorded screen images. Death is more real than life, it seems, which is the mood the whole production has been going for all along, which is why it is so tender and so sombre, and so resonant. After all, all us of will spend an infinity more time dead than alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Feb 28, 2017 16:11:14 GMT
Yes Steve, that's a blow by blow of the final scene (I sincerely hope no-one who clicked on the spoiler regrets it!), but you haven't addressed Gertrude dancing with Claudius (a step too far for me), and, especially, the watches. My OH didn't even notice the watch thing, but I was perturbed by Hamlet finding he wasn't wearing one and the significance of that, and it distracted me in the final scene. I also, unlike you, found the critical relationship between Hamlet and Horatio at the end went for very little because there was so much else going on. It felt like Icke wanted a big final motif as in Mary Stuart, but whereas that came off superbly, this seemed messy and distracting. I just wanted a beautiful simple "Good night sweet prince" etc etc., because Scott's performance was itself beautiful, simple and sweet. I do like a Fortinbras at the end though, so I was happy about that - I miss him when he's cut. |
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Feb 28, 2017 16:13:21 GMT
i think a great Hamlet the actor/the production
the rest is silence
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 1, 2017 10:55:32 GMT
Reviews for this are all over the place. Several 5 stars, one two star and everything in between. I'm surprised by Billington's (3 stars, though his review reads like a 4 star). I think he's missed the point. And to call Scott's a "good" performance is a woeful understatement.
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Mar 1, 2017 11:03:34 GMT
The two star really shocked me. Big range of reviews, but I'm sticking with my personal 5* - there were things that didn't work (looks like Angus Wright's not being, well quite right, is being noted) but the production overall has stuck with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 11:16:25 GMT
I'm surprised Dominic Cavendish only gave it 3 stars, it's got a white man in the central role, which is widely regarded as one of the greatest classical roles ever. Maybe he marked it down because Scott isn't straight?
Which reviewer gave it 2 stars, out of interest?
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Mar 1, 2017 11:19:18 GMT
Ann Treneman, The Times
★★
"Ben Whishaw gave us the ultimate angsty teen, David Tennant excelled as the neurotic and Cumberbatch mastered the cerebral. In some ways, you do feel that Moriarty has at least sent Scott a memo here."
"At times, [Scott] is mesmerising but there are times when he seems to lose his impetus and we just don't care about him. Indeed, the entire production, at almost four hours long, is uneven and sometimes the stage seems almost becalmed, especially towards the end when the TV screen is used to record a fencing match (more Bob Dylan)."
"Icke has gathered a gathered a mini-reunion of stars from his past production. Juliet Stevenson (who was just on stage here in Mary Stuart) is Gertrude. Claudius is played by Angus Wright and Ophelia by Jessica Brown Findlay, both of whom starred in Oresteia."
"But it is only Scott and Stevenson who really work here and Wright, in particular, never seemed believable."
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 1, 2017 11:19:52 GMT
Ann Treneman in the Times.
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Mar 1, 2017 11:20:30 GMT
I have to say that if one of my A level students had written something as lazy as 'we just didn't care about him' they would have been asked to rewrite.
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Mar 1, 2017 11:22:36 GMT
'Time Out' and 'What's on Stage' gave 5*
'Evening Standard' 4*
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 1, 2017 11:26:09 GMT
The Stage and theatrecat.com (Libby Purves) also 5 stars. The split is curious; the broadsheets meh, everyone else raving.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 11:31:18 GMT
That almost certainly says more about what a broadsheet reviewer expects from a Hamlet than the production itself. I look forward to making up my own mind next week, but I'm not exactly worried that the likes of Billington and Cavendish have been rather underwhelmed.
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Mar 1, 2017 12:07:43 GMT
The Stage and theatrecat.com (Libby Purves) also 5 stars. The split is curious; the broadsheets meh, everyone else raving. The Theatrecat one isn't by Purves but by one of her 'underlings. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 12:50:15 GMT
I don't understand the need to criticise other peoples opinions and reviews
We aren't living in a communist regime
Critics at least get paid for offering their reviews as opposed to the people on this forum
I don't find it necessary to then further dissect their thoughts
For the director and actor the mixed reviews just means it's not going to be a Hamlet which goes down in history as any sort of definitive offering
I am sure this will displease fans of Andrew Scott
Who whilst being a good actor
Is rather affected in his manner and doesn't really have that many stage credits to his name
Actors like Nancy Carroll and Amanda Drew (2 random ones offhand) have demonstrated much more versatility and range on the live stage
Many of the reviews comment on the protracted duration of this version
If it does transfer the running time and early start will play heavily against any commercial success
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 12:52:57 GMT
The Stage and theatrecat.com (Libby Purves) also 5 stars. The split is curious; the broadsheets meh, everyone else raving. The Theatrecat one isn't by Purves but by one of her 'underlings. OT Polly I've just noticed your signature- A-plus Cabin Pressure reference.
Back on topic, to argue with our learned friend, I think it is worth talking about critics, as we can discuss how why and wherefore we agreed or disagreed.
This is one where I'm actually waiting to see it before reading reviews, because I want to go in with no preconceptions (other than my arse is going to be sore!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 12:57:06 GMT
I would add
That whilst better reviewed than the dismal Barbican offering
This has been much more poorly received than both the Kinnear and Tennant versions
Those who have given high ratings- WOS, Time Out (the Primarks of the theatre world) are generally younger or more sympathetic reviewers as a rule
One could argue that Cumberbatch and Scott just aren't in the same league as actors certainly where live performance is under scrutiny
One could argue people are sick of the director constantly meddling with classic plays and mutilating them
Increasing the running time whilst taking away from the whole
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 13:03:05 GMT
The two star really shocked me. Big range of reviews, but I'm sticking with my personal 5* - there were things that didn't work (looks like Angus Wright's not being, well quite right, is being noted) but the production overall has stuck with me. Perhaps some people are just more generous than others In general and across all aspects of life And willing to see the good or positive more readily I for one find Angus wright a terrible actor His voice and face are always constipated and strained And (although I realise he can't help his stature) he seems clumsy and misplaced on the stage Like he is cluttering it up |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 1, 2017 13:40:48 GMT
AT says Cumberbatch was the 'cerebral' Hamlet, does she? Short memory then. SRB was the ultimate cerebral Hamlet of course. Cumbersome not so much, somewhat overwhelmed by the stage set.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 1, 2017 13:52:34 GMT
I for one am neither particularly young nor particularly sympathetic (and Sherlock bores me), but I consider this an outstanding Hamlet. Just wasn't fond of the ending.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 13:52:58 GMT
I don't understand the need to criticise other peoples opinions and reviews We aren't living in a communist regime We do so precisely because we aren't; a 'communist regime' requires a neutered press and cowed people, as does a fascist one, for either the press is 'an enemy of the people' and 'the people' only useful as an amorphous 'mob' without individual and varied opinions.
As for criticising critics - given that they are the ones touting their opinion they are the most necessary to challenge and dissect. Treneman, for example, is the prime example of someone given a voice to generate heat rather than light in the pursuit of page views. Knowing why Billington has his opinions is also necessary, for example, otherwise his views exist, without worth, in a sea of nothingness. The fact that they are paid should also lead them to expect being held up to a high standard, the same as any journalist should.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 14:03:18 GMT
There appears to be, again, a bit of a disconnect between the 'dead tree press' and the online reviews (now joined by The Independent after its print demise). This happens at times, most famously at the Lyric Hammersmith 'Three Kingdoms', which created its own commentary on that fact.
It tends to be when a production does something unusual and deliberately divisive, that this occurs. I just knew that you were going to get complaints about verse speaking for this, as soon as the decision to work with naturalistic delivery that obscures the written rhythm became clear, similarly with staging elements that blur (deliberately) the clarity of action. It's as predictable as Letts giving Simon Stephens the worst review that he can muster.
In the end, no review is worth anything, however, they are just opinions and the only opinion that matters is the one of the person holding it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 14:06:06 GMT
Of course the critics are allowed their own opinions, but they're the ones that are going to go on record in the future for people looking back to study these productions, they should be holding themselves to a higher standard. Billington's apparent not-getting-it would be able to be examined in context with the other reviews and any archive recording, but Cavendish's "Elsi-snore" and Treneman's "just don't care" are going to be significantly less helpful in the long run. If I wanted pithy snootiness and apathy towards a play, I could come here and read everyone's opinions for free for heaven's sake.  |
|
