2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 3, 2016 22:21:53 GMT
For a brief moment got very excited that I was going on the same night at Lynette and that if we both wore our badges I might track her down and just stand in awe of her Lynetteness (i'm not sure what that would look like exactly) and then realised i'm going on the 19th. Do'h. On well, there's Geoffrey to look at I guess. |
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Dec 3, 2016 23:58:11 GMT
It was 30 years ago at the Lyttelton - and was brilliant !
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 4, 2016 8:42:05 GMT
For a brief moment got very excited that I was going on the same night at Lynette and that if we both wore our badges I might track her down and just stand in awe of her Lynetteness (i'm not sure what that would look like exactly) and then realised i'm going on the 19th. Do'h. On well, there's Geoffrey to look at I guess. You mean you're not excited I'll be there on the 19th too ? |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 4, 2016 17:13:42 GMT
So tempted to change my tix....but sorry I'm stuck on 17 th. I'll wear the badge in case anyone is there. (My 'ness' is usually scuttling to the loo and locating my jelly babies or my polo mints and tut tutting about dolts who leave on phones to last second..)
|
|
5,056 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 4, 2016 19:31:50 GMT
Is this a revival then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2016 19:56:37 GMT
Ohhh yes, it's an adaptation of Platonov but even as an adaptation it's existed for donkey's years.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2016 19:56:37 GMT
|
|
5,056 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 4, 2016 21:26:49 GMT
Going on Friday.
Asked because I thought Hampstead was like the Royal Court and Bush and only presented new writing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2016 21:51:36 GMT
They largely do seem to, but even the Royal Court will bust out a Seagull or a Road when they feel like it, sooo...
|
|
901 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Dec 4, 2016 21:54:32 GMT
It seems to be a once a year treat - Hapgood last year, for example.
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Dec 4, 2016 23:34:51 GMT
If this is as good as their HAPGOOD, we are in for a treat - one of the best productions of 2015!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 5, 2016 7:48:06 GMT
Going on Friday. Asked because I thought Hampstead was like the Royal Court and Bush and only presented new writing? Under Ed Hall they have pushed the boundaries on that to breaking point - very wisely in my view to attract a more diverse audience and make more money. For example they staged an adaptation of a Chekov short story as a "new" play, and this one is a revival of a 1984 adaptation of Platonov. Mr Foote's Other Leg was also technically a new play, but not really. The Royal Court policy on new plays only is quite recent, in its heyday they still staged classical revivals. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 9:55:35 GMT
The Royal Court policy on new plays only is quite recent, in its heyday they still staged classical revivals. is revived, thirty years on, at the Royal Court this summer. Also, they often do UK premieres of plays premiered elsewhere. And also London premieres of plays seen elsewhere in the UK. And some of the classical plays staged in the early years of the English Stage Company were done for financial reasons. At the Court, the heyday is always today, or perhaps tomorrow, but should never be yesterday. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 5, 2016 13:53:25 GMT
For a brief moment got very excited that I was going on the same night at Lynette and that if we both wore our badges I might track her down and just stand in awe of her Lynetteness (i'm not sure what that would look like exactly) and then realised i'm going on the 19th. Do'h. On well, there's Geoffrey to look at I guess. You mean you're not excited I'll be there on the 19th too ? Really? Possibly more daunted, I think I might be star struck with Lynette  . Are you identifiable with a badge. I'll be the one wearing an excessive amount of clothing against the cold but am back row circle so won't be easily spottable, now if I get bored I can scan the audience wondering who you are. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 5, 2016 14:47:38 GMT
The Royal Court policy on new plays only is quite recent, in its heyday they still staged classical revivals. is revived, thirty years on, at the Royal Court this summer. Also, they often do UK premieres of plays premiered elsewhere. And also London premieres of plays seen elsewhere in the UK. And some of the classical plays staged in the early years of the English Stage Company were done for financial reasons. At the Court, the heyday is always today, or perhaps tomorrow, but should never be yesterday. Their heyday was the decade which started when the English Stage Company under George Devine staged Look Back In Anger in 1956. They have never been as relevant since. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 5, 2016 14:49:38 GMT
You mean you're not excited I'll be there on the 19th too ? Really? Possibly more daunted, I think I might be star struck with Lynette . Are you identifiable with a badge. I'll be the one wearing an excessive amount of clothing against the cold but am back row circle so won't be easily spottable, now if I get bored I can scan the audience wondering who you are. I only ever sit in the expensive stalls seats so should be easily visible from the gods. One time at the Silk Street Theatre I occupied the very same centre-stalls seat as Lynette but at the performance immediately before her - two stern critics in a row for the benighted actors. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 16:08:30 GMT
.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 5, 2016 16:58:37 GMT
😉
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 5, 2016 17:05:14 GMT
Really? Possibly more daunted, I think I might be star struck with Lynette . Are you identifiable with a badge. I'll be the one wearing an excessive amount of clothing against the cold but am back row circle so won't be easily spottable, now if I get bored I can scan the audience wondering who you are. I only ever sit in the expensive stalls seats so should be easily visible from the gods. One time at the Silk Street Theatre I occupied the very same centre-stalls seat as Lynette but at the performance immediately before her - two stern critics in a row for the benighted actors. I will be on the look out for a possible Jan Brock, the evening is already sounding more interesting.
Quality control is very important!
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 18, 2016 16:29:51 GMT
Just read Jane Edwards's review in Times Culture section. I couldn't agree with her less! I saw the Planonov at the National and I think it was by far the better adaptation of this early piece. She has Hampstead as better. What Chekhov left is anyone's guess but it had some resonance at the NT. Hampstead has a different ending which doesn't work and a set and lighting that do not convey what the script is saying, hot beautiful night etc..and old estate. Most of the cast seem unsure what they are playing, comedy or tragedy and so it falls flat with the farce and goes too deep with the tragic moments though you can't help but think that the tragic moments are what interested Chekhov more. It drags especially in the first half, falling into the trap of conveying tediousness tediously. Geoffrey Streitfeild is an actor I usually admire but here he seems to be lost and not in a good way. He isn't presented as sexy enough, clever enough or funny enough. Even physically he is awkward. I was very disappointed. Luke warm reception at the end. Maybe the death of Howard Davies affected this production although Jonathan Kent is a brilliant director and I'm surprised he didn't pull this together.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 18, 2016 17:15:21 GMT
Just read Jane Edwards's review in Times Culture section. I couldn't agree with her less! I saw the Planonov at the National and I think it was by far the better adaptation of this early piece. She has Hampstead as better. What Chekhov left is anyone's guess but it had some resonance at the NT. Hampstead has a different ending which doesn't work and a set and lighting that do not convey what the script is saying, hot beautiful night etc..and old estate. Most of the cast seem unsure what they are playing, comedy or tragedy and so it falls flat with the farce and goes too deep with the tragic moments though you can't help but think that the tragic moments are what interested Chekhov more. It drags especially in the first half, falling into the trap of conveying tediousness tediously. Geoffrey Streitfeild is an actor I usually admire but here he seems to be lost and not in a good way. He isn't presented as sexy enough, clever enough or funny enough. Even physically he is awkward. I was very disappointed. Luke warm reception at the end. Maybe the death of Howard Davies affected this production although Jonathan Kent is a brilliant director and I'm surprised he didn't pull this together. Well I guess I hope that i'm more of Jane Edward's view than yours Lynette though frankly your opinion probably carries more weight. I really enjoyed the NT Platonov so seeing so soon again was always a bit of a gamble and was largely based on Geoffrey Streitfeild's involvement so i'll hope it had an off night and lower my expectations accordingly. 'Conveying tediousness tediously', that's a great bad quote. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 18, 2016 18:45:09 GMT
Just read Jane Edwards's review in Times Culture section. I couldn't agree with her less! I saw the Planonov at the National and I think it was by far the better adaptation of this early piece. She has Hampstead as better. What Chekhov left is anyone's guess but it had some resonance at the NT. Hampstead has a different ending which doesn't work and a set and lighting that do not convey what the script is saying, hot beautiful night etc..and old estate. Most of the cast seem unsure what they are playing, comedy or tragedy and so it falls flat with the farce and goes too deep with the tragic moments though you can't help but think that the tragic moments are what interested Chekhov more. It drags especially in the first half, falling into the trap of conveying tediousness tediously. Geoffrey Streitfeild is an actor I usually admire but here he seems to be lost and not in a good way. He isn't presented as sexy enough, clever enough or funny enough. Even physically he is awkward. I was very disappointed. Luke warm reception at the end. Maybe the death of Howard Davies affected this production although Jonathan Kent is a brilliant director and I'm surprised he didn't pull this together. Well I guess I hope that i'm more of Jane Edward's view than yours Lynette though frankly your opinion probably carries more weight. I really enjoyed the NT Platonov so seeing so soon again was always a bit of a gamble and was largely based on Geoffrey Streitfeild's involvement so i'll hope it had an off night and lower my expectations accordingly. 'Conveying tediousness tediously', that's a great bad quote. Don't worry. The Michael Frayn text is way better than Sir David Hare's tin-eared effort. Interestingly enough the "Chekovian" first half is mostly Frayn whereas the farcical second half is mostly Chekov. See you tomorrow !! |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 18, 2016 19:49:26 GMT
O I'm sorry I posted this before you guys had seen it. I forgot you were seeing it this week. Should have tried to post together. I hope I haven't spoilt anything for you. Yes, Jan I did think there were moments when Frayn's script seemed sharper than Hare's but overall I preferred the NT version.
|
|
830 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Dec 18, 2016 19:58:15 GMT
Just read Jane Edwards's review in Times Culture section. I couldn't agree with her less! I saw the Planonov at the National and I think it was by far the better adaptation of this early piece. She has Hampstead as better. What Chekhov left is anyone's guess but it had some resonance at the NT. Hampstead has a different ending which doesn't work and a set and lighting that do not convey what the script is saying, hot beautiful night etc..and old estate. Most of the cast seem unsure what they are playing, comedy or tragedy and so it falls flat with the farce and goes too deep with the tragic moments though you can't help but think that the tragic moments are what interested Chekhov more. It drags especially in the first half, falling into the trap of conveying tediousness tediously. Geoffrey Streitfeild is an actor I usually admire but here he seems to be lost and not in a good way. He isn't presented as sexy enough, clever enough or funny enough. Even physically he is awkward. I was very disappointed. Luke warm reception at the end. Maybe the death of Howard Davies affected this production although Jonathan Kent is a brilliant director and I'm surprised he didn't pull this together. Do you have a link to this article, lynette? Failed to find it online somehow.. Haven't seen Hampstead version to compare yet but it's always interesting to observe. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 18, 2016 22:13:24 GMT
Don't worry. The Michael Frayn text is way better than Sir David Hare's tin-eared effort. Interestingly enough the "Chekovian" first half is mostly Frayn whereas the farcical second half is mostly Chekov. See you tomorrow !! I will be on the look out for an informed looking person heading towards the stalls, I apologise to everyone else in advance if I stare at you wondering if you're Jan Brock. |
|
. Are you identifiable with a badge. I'll be the one wearing an excessive amount of clothing against the cold but am back row circle so won't be easily spottable, now if I get bored I can scan the audience wondering who you are.