1,238 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 15, 2016 21:45:16 GMT
I can't understand the negative comments above. I thought this was excellent, easily the best National production under Rufus. It's stylish, tense, hugely cinematic with great performances. As added bonuses we have a lift on stage and Liz Debicki gets her kit off....what's not to like? This was David Hare channeling Arthur Miller and American Beauty, with many parallels between Mark Strong's character and Lester Burman. Amazing staging, brilliant performances and thought provoking story. Highly recommended "and Liz Debicki gets her kit off....what's not to like?" Wow. They/Trump actually just wrote that about the play and Elizabeth Debicki. Wow. |
|
403 posts
|
Post by altamont on Oct 15, 2016 22:25:33 GMT
I can't understand the negative comments above. I thought this was excellent, easily the best National production under Rufus. It's stylish, tense, hugely cinematic with great performances. As added bonuses we have a lift on stage and Liz Debicki gets her kit off....what's not to like? This was David Hare channeling Arthur Miller and American Beauty, with many parallels between Mark Strong's character and Lester Burman. Amazing staging, brilliant performances and thought provoking story. Highly recommended "and Liz Debicki gets her kit off....what's not to like?" Wow. They/Trump actually just wrote that about the play and Elizabeth Debicki. Wow. Some members of this forum think it is perfectly acceptable to make similar comments about male actors - I think those comments are just as regrettable as this one |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 15, 2016 23:00:05 GMT
Yes, please, nudity may be mentioned but only in reference to macaroons and dogs. Don't ask.
|
|
3,575 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Oct 16, 2016 4:19:37 GMT
I agree with altamont, except that rather than "regrettable" I would say comments of this type re either sex are unacceptable. Furthermore, they skew the discussion and focus it on one aspect or one person, whereas surely most of us are interested in whether the play or show is any good as a whole?
This is particularly noticeable in the Musicals section, where it is common for even preliminary posts - i.e. when a show has only just been announced or rumoured - to relate only to comments on the physique of (possible) cast members. This unwelcome emphasis is prevalent enough in the other section; I do hope it doesn't spread to this one, too.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 16, 2016 5:56:28 GMT
What??? Gazzaw13 tells us that an actress "gets her kit off" and someone compares him to Donald Trump for that??? Ridiculous. It is information and it is stated in a light inoffensive manner. The comparison to Trump is what's truly offensive. Try to find something to object to that's actually objectionable.
|
|
5,896 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Oct 16, 2016 8:21:59 GMT
Can't wait to see this now after reading this heated exchange! It's certainly dividing opinion.
|
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Oct 16, 2016 8:38:14 GMT
Difficult to sum up last night's (final?) preview performance...
Production:
Excellent, very inventive, varied, I thought the partial use of the stage for small portions really works. The Connecticut house interior and Manhattan apartment were spot on. Must have cost a fortune.
Play:
It held my attention but is a long sit at 1hr 55. Strange opening scene at opticians and ending a bit forced. Not sure whether Hare is aiming for a Mousetrap like mystery or Pinterish enigma.
Acting:
It's a fine cast but they seem a bit bewildered as to whether they are playing Christie or Pinter and consequently fail to nail either. It seems like they're striving for great depth that's not really there in the play and so it comes over a bit melodramatic.
Sight lines:
No problem in centre of row C stalls
Audience reaction:
Very positive - even a few standing ovators!
Conclusion:
Somewhat guiltly enjoyed it more for the production values than the play/performances.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 16, 2016 11:20:29 GMT
Also there last night and mainly baffled, there were a few times when I wanted to laugh but because I thought it was so bad. Can anyone explain how much the language is linked to the original text as surely people don't actually speak like this? Woke up this morning wondering if the opening scene was meant to be symbolic and i'd missed something. The sets are impressive though probably not best seen from the front row. Tmesis' post above is probably just about where I
was at, perhaps someone can explain if I missed something crucial or was trying to impose something on this that it wasn't?
|
|
374 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Oct 16, 2016 21:42:43 GMT
Another night for Forum badges, I was there too. And I really didn't enjoy it. I'm not a Hare dissenter, I am actually a big fan of the Icke and with that cast, how can we possibly go wrong?
Well, let's start with the terrible Marcel Marceau acting during the storm sequence. My heart sank during that moment and it didn't really un-sink for the next 2 hours. You don't even need that scene, since in the following scene, they talk the audience through what happened in the storm. It should have been cut.
Speaking of cuts, they'd be well advised to remove the word "tense" from the signs outside the Lyttleton. The play is anything BUT tense. If you take the signs at face value and go in expecting something Hitchcock-esque, you'll be so very disappointed. It's adapted from a French novel and it sure sounds like the dialogue has been badly translated into English. It's awkward, it's stilted, it's mannered. People don't speak like this, and none of the poor people on the stage made me believe otherwise. And yes, the sets are impressive, but when the lengthy scene changes leave the audience staring at nothing and listening to some pre-recorded dialogue? No. I don't really understand why they did this as a play, when it's been staged and directed as if it's a film.
I was really looking forward to this. But for me, this was a big old dud.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2016 22:33:15 GMT
Another night for Forum badges, I was there too. And I really didn't enjoy it. I'm not a Hare dissenter, I am actually a big fan of the Icke and with that cast, how can we possibly go wrong? Well, let's start with the terrible Marcel Marceau acting during the storm sequence. My heart sank during that moment and it didn't really un-sink for the next 2 hours. You don't even need that scene, since in the following scene, they talk the audience through what happened in the storm. It should have been cut. Speaking of cuts, they'd be well advised to remove the word "tense" from the signs outside the Lyttleton. The play is anything BUT tense. If you take the signs at face value and go in expecting something Hitchcock-esque, you'll be so very disappointed. It's adapted from a French novel and it sure sounds like the dialogue has been badly translated into English. It's awkward, it's stilted, it's mannered. People don't speak like this, and none of the poor people on the stage made me believe otherwise. And yes, the sets are impressive, but when the lengthy scene changes leave the audience staring at nothing and listening to some pre-recorded dialogue? No. I don't really understand why they did this as a play, when it's been staged and directed as if it's a film. I was really looking forward to this. But for me, this was a big old dud. 100% agree with you Nothing tense about it And god knows why that is cited as the reason for "no readmission" More likely they are worried people will come back And die of boredom |
|
1,238 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 16, 2016 23:01:44 GMT
Another night for Forum badges, I was there too. And I really didn't enjoy it. I'm not a Hare dissenter, I am actually a big fan of the Icke and with that cast, how can we possibly go wrong? Well, let's start with the terrible Marcel Marceau acting during the storm sequence. My heart sank during that moment and it didn't really un-sink for the next 2 hours. You don't even need that scene, since in the following scene, they talk the audience through what happened in the storm. It should have been cut. Speaking of cuts, they'd be well advised to remove the word "tense" from the signs outside the Lyttleton. The play is anything BUT tense. If you take the signs at face value and go in expecting something Hitchcock-esque, you'll be so very disappointed. It's adapted from a French novel and it sure sounds like the dialogue has been badly translated into English. It's awkward, it's stilted, it's mannered. People don't speak like this, and none of the poor people on the stage made me believe otherwise. And yes, the sets are impressive, but when the lengthy scene changes leave the audience staring at nothing and listening to some pre-recorded dialogue? No. I don't really understand why they did this as a play, when it's been staged and directed as if it's a film. I was really looking forward to this. But for me, this was a big old dud. You've nailed it. Icke seems to be obsessed with making theatre become film. Which it's not. If he loves tv and film so much he needs to stop putting long (sometimes LIVE) video on the stage, and in the staging making everything look like its a film, and go away and make tv or film. That's obviously where his heart lies. See the Times article last week for ref. |
|
116 posts
|
Post by alexandra on Oct 16, 2016 23:21:27 GMT
The opening scene: she sees everything. Hence the ending.
I found it hugely enjoyable. Extremely stylish, smart, definitely tense (thanks partly to superb sound), great theatre noir. Completely forgot Mark Strong was in it and only realised it was him really quite near the end. Chilly, but highly entertaining.
|
|
1,238 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 17, 2016 2:02:36 GMT
The opening scene: she sees everything. Hence the ending. I found it hugely enjoyable. Extremely stylish, smart, definitely tense (thanks partly to superb sound), great theatre noir. Completely forgot Mark Strong was in it and only realised it was him really quite near the end. Chilly, but highly entertaining. We actually laughed out loud at the ending. It's ridiculous and hilarious all at once. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 17, 2016 8:21:47 GMT
Another night for Forum badges, I was there too. And I really didn't enjoy it. I'm not a Hare dissenter, I am actually a big fan of the Icke and with that cast, how can we possibly go wrong? Well, let's start with the terrible Marcel Marceau acting during the storm sequence. My heart sank during that moment and it didn't really un-sink for the next 2 hours. You don't even need that scene, since in the following scene, they talk the audience through what happened in the storm. It should have been cut. Speaking of cuts, they'd be well advised to remove the word "tense" from the signs outside the Lyttleton. The play is anything BUT tense. If you take the signs at face value and go in expecting something Hitchcock-esque, you'll be so very disappointed. It's adapted from a French novel and it sure sounds like the dialogue has been badly translated into English. It's awkward, it's stilted, it's mannered. People don't speak like this, and none of the poor people on the stage made me believe otherwise. And yes, the sets are impressive, but when the lengthy scene changes leave the audience staring at nothing and listening to some pre-recorded dialogue? No. I don't really understand why they did this as a play, when it's been staged and directed as if it's a film. I was really looking forward to this. But for me, this was a big old dud. You've nailed it. Icke seems to be obsessed with making theatre become film. Which it's not. If he loves tv and film so much he needs to stop putting long (sometimes LIVE) video on the stage, and in the staging making everything look like its a film, and go away and make tv or film. That's obviously where his heart lies. See the Times article last week for ref. Yeah, but like Katie Mitchell no-one is actually going to ask him to make a film are they - hardly any theatre directors can make decent films and failures are legion (Rupert Goold, Trevor Nunn etc. etc. etc.) and a common mode of failure which is pedestrian pacing is one that Icke is all too likely to embrace. I have not seen this yet - probably will - but one question: If the NT had received this as an unsolicited script do you think they would have done anything other than chuck it straight in the bin ? |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 17, 2016 8:59:59 GMT
Well, they got Mark Strong and Hope Davis to be in it so the script must have had something going for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 17, 2016 11:35:52 GMT
Well, they got Mark Strong and Hope Davis to be in it so the script must have had something going for it. It had at least three words going for it. Anyway I will wait until I see it. |
|
91 posts
|
Post by gazzaw13 on Oct 17, 2016 11:56:40 GMT
I can't understand the negative comments above. I thought this was excellent, easily the best National production under Rufus. It's stylish, tense, hugely cinematic with great performances. As added bonuses we have a lift on stage and Liz Debicki gets her kit off....what's not to like? This was David Hare channeling Arthur Miller and American Beauty, with many parallels between Mark Strong's character and Lester Burman. Amazing staging, brilliant performances and thought provoking story. Highly recommended "and Liz Debicki gets her kit off....what's not to like?" Wow. They/Trump actually just wrote that about the play and Elizabeth Debicki. Wow. Just recovering from being likened to Trump and directly responded to by Parsley - what a day! Can't believe no-one else has commented on the lift |
|
330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on Oct 17, 2016 12:45:10 GMT
The play is based on a novel by Simenon - that already explains a lot about some of the mentioned criticism. And Icke did the very obvious thing to create a production in style of a movie. Well done. I enjoyed the first preview and I am looking Forward to see it again in January and thought it was tense. But it might also partly have been the atmosphere - I heard the dress rehearsal was a total disaster.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 17, 2016 12:47:16 GMT
The opening scene: she sees everything. Hence the ending. Oh. Ok. I found the ending acceptable as I was annoyed by this character so it seemed a 'reasonable' response rather than the release of tension.
Popcultureboy I pretty much agree with your summary AND a failure to spot badges, Latecomer suggested bobble hats on Saturday, or perhaps badges on the end of the bobble hats as easier to spot, obviously to be removed before play starts to prevent impeding of view of people behind.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 17, 2016 12:48:34 GMT
Well, let's start with the terrible Marcel Marceau acting during the storm sequence. My heart sank during that moment and it didn't really un-sink for the next 2 hours. You don't even need that scene, since in the following scene, they talk the audience through what happened in the storm. It should have been cut. This was unintentionally funny, I thought they all had very poor skills for dealing with a blizzard, honestly do up your coat before you go outside! |
|
1,238 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 17, 2016 14:33:03 GMT
Well, let's start with the terrible Marcel Marceau acting during the storm sequence. My heart sank during that moment and it didn't really un-sink for the next 2 hours. You don't even need that scene, since in the following scene, they talk the audience through what happened in the storm. It should have been cut. This was unintentionally funny, I thought they all had very poor skills for dealing with a blizzard, honestly do up your coat before you go outside! Yes! AND there's a fire on when they eventually get inside and no one stays by it to get warm! |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 17, 2016 19:09:13 GMT
Yes! AND there's a fire on when they eventually get inside and no one stays by it to get warm! Yes fire building skills not up to much, that amount of wood would never see you through the night (though if it had been me I'd have gone and got my own wood by then!) and so sleep the person by the fire would take all the heat? I blame the long pauses, I had too much time to think these through. |
|
374 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Oct 17, 2016 22:11:19 GMT
The opening scene: she sees everything. Hence the ending. I found it hugely enjoyable. Extremely stylish, smart, definitely tense (thanks partly to superb sound), great theatre noir. Completely forgot Mark Strong was in it and only realised it was him really quite near the end. Chilly, but highly entertaining. But again, they REALLY labour the point in later scenes about how Hope Davis's character never misses anything, so do we really need an entirely ludicrous opening scene in an optician's office? We do not. Similarly, do we need a ridiculous A Level mime acting exercise of them trying to get through the storm? The play could and should have started with the first scene in the farmhouse living room. Lord knows there is ENOUGH EXPOSITION then thrown at us after that. Stylish, I'll agree with. Superb sound, yes, absolutely. Tense? No. I can't agree. There just is nothing to be tense about. To market this as a thriller and then bang on about how the tense atmosphere means you can't come back if you leave the auditorium is madness. It is, at best, a massively flawed drama about the lives of some not very interesting people. At worst, it's a laughably bad load of tosh, so poorly plotted and characterised that when the ending comes hurtling in OUT OF NOWHERE APPARENTLY, it's only going to cause bafflement or mirth. |
|
77 posts
|
Post by adolphus on Oct 17, 2016 22:47:19 GMT
I find it baffling that anyone could watch this and think the ending came out of nowhere. Still. The thriller marketing is definitely misleading though - Deathtrap it ain't (thankfully - that's true tedium)
|
|
3,575 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Oct 18, 2016 4:04:11 GMT
Reviews I've read so far this morning have been polarised like the comments above: either raves or write-offs. Still unsure whether to return my ticket or go just to see into which camp I fall.
|
|
