423 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Oct 14, 2017 7:57:18 GMT
I saw it in NYC and found it rather dull as well as perplexing and the whole $15,000 thing very arbitrary and unbelievable. It's one of those plays where in order for it to be over all one character has to do is leave the room. I love Anne-Marie Duff but I think she needs to employ a script consultant. Her choices are challenging and that's to be celebrated but I find I'm no longer willing to see a play simply because she is in it. As for it's selection by Ms Elliott for the first play in her season, between her on-going and fruitful collaboration with Simon Stephens and the inexpensive needs for the production, this one was a no-brainer. Unfortunately I found the play itself that as well.
|
|
5,139 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 14, 2017 12:34:12 GMT
Listening to the radio this afternoon, it seems that Anne-Marie Duff agreed to be in the first Elliott Harper production, before even Elliott or Harper knew what it was going to be.
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 14, 2017 13:56:54 GMT
Well a short play and not up to much it seems so I need to organise decent eats as going with other people on my suggestion. Sheekey's it is.
|
|
5,139 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 14, 2017 13:59:37 GMT
Well a short play and not up to much it seems so I need to organise decent eats as going with other people on my suggestion. Sheekey's it is. At least you won't have far to walk, and if the weather holds, you can all sit outside and watch the world go by! |
|
529 posts
|
Post by jampot on Oct 14, 2017 20:49:47 GMT
Stalls bar a few seats full pm today and this went down a storm...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 8:13:32 GMT
Playing catch up on my weekend's theatre- going today. Reviews later (hopefully)
I really liked this. Is it the best thing Stephens has written? no. Do I have some issues with the script? yes. But any issues I have I think make for interesting questions about the characters/story so I don't mind. Overall I'd say I found this an interesting reflection on relationships and relationship dynamics. An interesting set up that leads to some nice scenes and some nice ideas. I question some of the plausibility, but then again there's nowt as queer and folk and whose to say it wouldn't happen? I've seen stranger ideas passed off as plausible. Despite the slightly questionable set up I found the dialogue between the two characters and the conversations they have to be 'real' and 'interesting' in the issues, questions etc they create.
The performances were as expected universally excellent, and they both made their characters funny and engaging. And the direction/staging was, again as expected really wonderful. It's not a play that NEEDS a big flashy set, but hell if you can sometimes you should and the abstract feel really worked I felt. Again with the movement transitions-a bit of an Elliott trait obviously but in this play I felt that really worked to link together those snapshots of their lives.
Overall a really engaging interesting 70 minute play. I could have happily sat through more pieces of their lives but actually it's a marker of some good instincts from Stephens that he knew when enough was enough.
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Oct 18, 2017 8:22:40 GMT
Playing catch up on my weekend's theatre- going today. Reviews later (hopefully) I really liked this. Is it the best thing Stephens has written? no. Do I have some issues with the script? yes. But any issues I have I think make for interesting questions about the characters/story so I don't mind. Overall I'd say I found this an interesting reflection on relationships and relationship dynamics. An interesting set up that leads to some nice scenes and some nice ideas. I question some of the plausibility, but then again there's nowt as queer and folk and whose to say it wouldn't happen? I've seen stranger ideas passed off as plausible. Despite the slightly questionable set up I found the dialogue between the two characters and the conversations they have to be 'real' and 'interesting' in the issues, questions etc they create. The performances were as expected universally excellent, and they both made their characters funny and engaging. And the direction/staging was, again as expected really wonderful. It's not a play that NEEDS a big flashy set, but hell if you can sometimes you should and the abstract feel really worked I felt. Again with the movement transitions-a bit of an Elliott trait obviously but in this play I felt that really worked to link together those snapshots of their lives. Overall a really engaging interesting 70 minute play. I could have happily sat through more pieces of their lives but actually it's a marker of some good instincts from Stephens that he knew when enough was enough. Am seeing this next week so really pleased to read such a positive review.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 13:52:54 GMT
And the direction/staging was, again as expected really wonderful. It's not a play that NEEDS a big flashy set, but hell if you can sometimes you should and the abstract feel really worked I felt. Again with the movement transitions-a bit of an Elliott trait obviously but in this play I felt that really worked to link together those snapshots of their lives. Oh no, all those moving walls! It just seemed like they were padding out what was already an incredibly slight play and couldn't think of anything else to do except faff around with some fancy set. It's like they wanted to be like that play that was at the Nash about the man who killed his wife in the eye but they didn't have the same budget. Some of the sightlines must have been dreadful with some of the scenes too. Having said that, the set changes did allow for the nifty interpretive dance moves which added some much needed levity to the proceedings so I may forgive the director a little bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 14:00:27 GMT
And the direction/staging was, again as expected really wonderful. It's not a play that NEEDS a big flashy set, but hell if you can sometimes you should and the abstract feel really worked I felt. Again with the movement transitions-a bit of an Elliott trait obviously but in this play I felt that really worked to link together those snapshots of their lives. Oh no, all those moving walls! It just seemed like they were padding out what was already an incredibly slight play and couldn't think of anything else to do except faff around with some fancy set. It's like they wanted to be like that play that was at the Nash about the man who killed his wife in the eye but they didn't have the same budget. Some of the sightlines must have been dreadful with some of the scenes too. Having said that, the set changes did allow for the nifty interpretive dance moves which added some much needed levity to the proceedings so I may forgive the director a little bit. hahaha it is a valid point! I enjoyed the furniture moving out of the floors more than the moving walls- like how they'd suddenly appear sitting etc and I am a sucker for a bit of stylized movement. I do get as a company what they're trying to do, but I do also agree that this feels like a play for a different venue. But hey, my love is at least semi blind in this case so I'm being forgiving. (to the production I will be honest about the play when I finally write this review) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 19:40:43 GMT
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Oct 19, 2017 5:54:16 GMT
Lovely review thank you ! Appetite more than whetted for seeing this next week now. |
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Oct 21, 2017 13:36:15 GMT
Just got an upgrade to front of Royal Circle. Will let you know what I think of the play later!
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Oct 21, 2017 15:45:40 GMT
It's fantastic. Shame it is clearly not selling that well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 15:55:35 GMT
It's fantastic. Shame it is clearly not selling that well. Hooray! another Heisenberg fan, if I was in London I'd 100% see it again too. Such a shame it's not selling. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 16:03:34 GMT
It's fantastic. Shame it is clearly not selling that well. To be honest, I'm stunned that anyone involved in this production thought that it would sell in this venue. You have to question their judgement here. It smacks a touch of a vanity project. The Park Theatre or somewhere like that would have been more suitable. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 16:23:09 GMT
It's fantastic. Shame it is clearly not selling that well. To be honest, I'm stunned that anyone involved in this production thought that it would sell in this venue. You have to question their judgement here. It smacks a touch of a vanity project. The Park Theatre or somewhere like that would have been more suitable. While I love the play, I have to agree. It's not a show that really needs or can sell a big theatre. |
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Oct 21, 2017 21:41:39 GMT
The Wyndhams is hardly a 'big' theatre though (746 seats in total and half of those are in the stalls). I would say though that this play is probably weaker at a distance, as most two-handers are!
I haven't been to The Park but could that accommodate the complexities of the set?
|
|
4,975 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 22, 2017 0:50:18 GMT
The Wyndham Theatre is the perfect play house.
Played a similar size theatre on Broadway, where it sold well.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Oct 22, 2017 9:00:35 GMT
The Wyndhams is hardly a 'big' theatre though (746 seats in total and half of those are in the stalls). I would say though that this play is probably weaker at a distance, as most two-handers are! I haven't been to The Park but could that accommodate the complexities of the set? It could have accommodated the set as it's laid out in the stage directions of the play, yes. Those have been ignored for the Wyndhams production. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 22, 2017 10:55:46 GMT
What are the stage directions as in the play text please?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2017 11:10:12 GMT
|
|
2,323 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Oct 22, 2017 14:25:10 GMT
Bench, butchers counter and dinner table white that rise from the floor of stage.
Bed also but has covers. Staging and lighting on the light side but a lot more elaborate than NY
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Oct 23, 2017 7:27:48 GMT
What are the stage directions as in the play text please? The opening line in the text is something like "two chairs on an otherwise empty stage". And like Xanderl says, the entire set was two chairs, two tables, one pillow. This allowed for a very fast pace, the scene changes required nothing more than a lighting cue, there was nothing fancy or ornate about the staging or the direction, so it allowed you to really focus on the play and performances (which I loved). I really want to see this production, but I'm a little disappointed that Elliot seems, from the reviews and what I'm reading here, to have somewhat gilded the lily, all of it unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 23, 2017 8:21:01 GMT
It's fantastic. Shame it is clearly not selling that well. To be honest, I'm stunned that anyone involved in this production thought that it would sell in this venue. You have to question their judgement here. It smacks a touch of a vanity project. The Park Theatre or somewhere like that would have been more suitable. Not sure it would sell out in the Park Theatre either, it is not just about size, it is also about location, level of subsidy, history of the venue, fashion etc. It would probably have sold out in the Dorfmann, or Donmar. The Park struggles for an audience, so does the Arcola, and now so does the Lyric Hammersmith. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 23, 2017 17:17:12 GMT
The Wyndham Theatre is the perfect play house. Played a similar size theatre on Broadway, where it sold well. It may well have. But it's often the case that hit plays on Broadway don't do so well over here (and hit musicals in London don't do so well on Broadway). |
|
