|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2017 22:18:09 GMT
Breakfast At Tiffany's came out in 1961 and seemed to be fairly popular, it really doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that at least ONE baby born the following year might have been named Audrey.
|
|
2,520 posts
|
Post by n1david on Oct 25, 2017 22:35:34 GMT
The major problem is that absolutely no 55 year old in 2017 is called Audrey. Sorry, just no. I haven't seen the play yet but I have to counter with Audrey Gillan, with whom I was at University, former Guardian journalist now freelance, and would be around 50 now. www.audreygillan.com/?page_id=2
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Oct 25, 2017 22:41:38 GMT
There's Audrey Horne from Twin Peaks who is about 50 I think I had a couple of contemporaries at University called Audrey but I'd agree it's an unusual name for someone born in the 60s.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2017 23:21:12 GMT
I may be the lone dissenting voice but I found Victoria Hamilton to be hugely mannered and actressy in this; so much strain and effort all over her face and body it was like she was pulling the play all over the stage.
Nicholas Rowe was beautifully understated (in a part that really required him to be) and I also thought Charlotte Hope and Luke Thallon gave very good accounts of themselves and look to have bright futures.
The play should have been something I really went for - people were citing Chekhov, Turgenev, Ayckbourn - but the lack of subtlety left me rather cold. Sadly I didn't really believe that any of it was real and it was just a literary response to the world as it is rather than an accurate and moving depiction of it.
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on Oct 26, 2017 10:15:15 GMT
I may be the lone dissenting voice but I found Victoria Hamilton to be hugely mannered and actressy in this; so much strain and effort all over her face and body it was like she was pulling the play all over the stage. Nicholas Rowe was beautifully understated (in a part that really required him to be) and I also thought Charlotte Hope and Luke Thallon gave very good accounts of themselves and look to have bright futures. The play should have been something I really went for - people were citing Chekhov, Turgenev, Ayckbourn - but the lack of subtlety left me rather cold. Sadly I didn't really believe that any of it was real and it was just a literary response to the world as it is rather than an accurate and moving depiction of it. I wouldn't fault Ms Hamilton here. The problem is the play. Much of the time she's trying to pull it along where the writing asks her to behave in certain ways, but doesn't give her any substantial action to support this behaviour. Despite the long playing time, very little of significance actually happens. This is perhaps why the play feels 'literary' and unengaging?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 26, 2017 10:58:24 GMT
I may be the lone dissenting voice but I found Victoria Hamilton to be hugely mannered and actressy in this; so much strain and effort all over her face and body it was like she was pulling the play all over the stage. Nicholas Rowe was beautifully understated (in a part that really required him to be) and I also thought Charlotte Hope and Luke Thallon gave very good accounts of themselves and look to have bright futures. The play should have been something I really went for - people were citing Chekhov, Turgenev, Ayckbourn - but the lack of subtlety left me rather cold. Sadly I didn't really believe that any of it was real and it was just a literary response to the world as it is rather than an accurate and moving depiction of it. I wouldn't fault Ms Hamilton here. The problem is the play. Much of the time she's trying to pull it along where the writing asks her to behave in certain ways, but doesn't give her any substantial action to support this behaviour. Despite the long playing time, very little of significance actually happens. This is perhaps why the play feels 'literary' and unengaging? Not according to pretty much every review. It’s understandable that it doesn’t please everyone but praise appears to cross the political divide so it appears to clear that very difficult hurdle. There is an issue with seeing it as a play about other things than what is in the surface, however, as people at the moment bring diverse knowledge and interest to that. As such it could get a response that sees things as obvious because of those is being at the forefront of someone’s thoughts. In months or years I see it as having a continued resonance though. To me, there is a lot that happens, all significant but nearly all internal.
|
|
2,955 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 26, 2017 11:06:57 GMT
"praise appears to cross the political divide so it appears to clear that very difficult hurdle." I haven't seen it yet, but I can see why the setting and social class of the characters would give it Telegraph/Standard appeal, as does the big country kitchen of The Ferryman.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 26, 2017 12:04:54 GMT
"praise appears to cross the political divide so it appears to clear that very difficult hurdle." I haven't seen it yet, but I can see why the setting and social class of the characters would give it Telegraph/Standard appeal, as does the big country kitchen of The Ferryman. It’s more a case of ‘tackling the subject’ without Tackling The Subject, I think. Within Chekhov there is an undercurrent of politics, often generational, making him a good mirror of today; undoubtedly obvious at the time but lost unless a director foregrounds it (as has happened in societies wishing to skewer the bourgeoisie). I can see this here, it may look ‘so obvious’ but only for a very short time. Six months on and we are somewhere else. Frankly if anyone says ‘nothing happens’ about a play or film my likelihood of enjoying it multiplies so, you know, horses for courses and all that.....
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 26, 2017 12:05:44 GMT
Repeat post deleted......
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 12:33:28 GMT
I wouldn't fault Ms Hamilton here. The problem is the play. Much of the time she's trying to pull it along where the writing asks her to behave in certain ways, but doesn't give her any substantial action to support this behaviour. Despite the long playing time, very little of significance actually happens. This is perhaps why the play feels 'literary' and unengaging? Not according to pretty much every review. It’s understandable that it doesn’t please everyone but praise appears to cross the political divide so it appears to clear that very difficult hurdle. There is an issue with seeing it as a play about other things than what is in the surface, however, as people at the moment bring diverse knowledge and interest to that. As such it could get a response that sees things as obvious because of those is being at the forefront of someone’s thoughts. In months or years I see it as having a continued resonance though. To me, there is a lot that happens, all significant but nearly all internal. I think a significant amount happens... {Spoiler} {Spoiler - click to view}even if the play has a circular shape which means that a lot of what happens ends up being reversed; the purchase then "sale" of the house then final last minute change of heart, the making and unmaking of the garden and then the final beginnings of remaking the garden at the very end, Gabriel and Zara's artistic ambitions going from nothing to something then back to nothing, Katherine and Zara being single - then together - then single again. I appreciate that the play is looking at the nature of change, and the inescapable lure of the past (both good and the bad), but my problem was that so much of these happenings were HAPPENINGS rather than happenings, but that's a personal taste thing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 13:02:19 GMT
Victoria Hamilton is magnificent but in truth I was a little disappointed in this. Too many ideas/themes, a bit overlong and veered between cliche and improbability. The major problem is that absolutely no 55 year old in 2017 is called Audrey. Sorry, just no.Poppycock.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 14:12:51 GMT
Oh heavens to Betsy, how could I forget? *smacked hand* She'd certainly be over 55 now.
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Oct 26, 2017 15:11:27 GMT
She'd be about 80 now, sort of proving my point! However for my own peace of mind I looked on FreeBMD and it turns out there were a couple of hundred Audreys born 1962. I must have been the wrong demographic...
|
|
2,955 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 26, 2017 15:57:50 GMT
Given his TV background, I bet it was Mrs Forbes-Hamilton rather than Hepburn he had in mind.
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on Oct 26, 2017 16:06:00 GMT
Not according to pretty much every review. It’s understandable that it doesn’t please everyone but praise appears to cross the political divide so it appears to clear that very difficult hurdle. There is an issue with seeing it as a play about other things than what is in the surface, however, as people at the moment bring diverse knowledge and interest to that. As such it could get a response that sees things as obvious because of those is being at the forefront of someone’s thoughts. In months or years I see it as having a continued resonance though. To me, there is a lot that happens, all significant but nearly all internal. I think a significant amount happens... {Spoiler} {Spoiler - click to view}even if the play has a circular shape which means that a lot of what happens ends up being reversed; the purchase then "sale" of the house then final last minute change of heart, the making and unmaking of the garden and then the final beginnings of remaking the garden at the very end, Gabriel and Zara's artistic ambitions going from nothing to something then back to nothing, Katherine and Zara being single - then together - then single again. I appreciate that the play is looking at the nature of change, and the inescapable lure of the past (both good and the bad), but my problem was that so much of these happenings were HAPPENINGS rather than happenings, but that's a personal taste thing. These things happen, true, but none of them involves much visible effort or any difficult choices or high costs for the protagonists. And people do these things and then just sort of give up. So it's difficult for an audience to believe they mean very much.. And this isn't just a case of quiet things happening. More that there's an effort from the production (thunderstorms! rain! sunsets!) to give what does happen more emotional resonance than maybe it deserves. As for the politics. The play certainly Tackles the Subject. But more in a sense of waving things around than actually structuring the action to make some kind of an argument..
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 26, 2017 17:31:47 GMT
I think a significant amount happens... {Spoiler} {Spoiler - click to view}even if the play has a circular shape which means that a lot of what happens ends up being reversed; the purchase then "sale" of the house then final last minute change of heart, the making and unmaking of the garden and then the final beginnings of remaking the garden at the very end, Gabriel and Zara's artistic ambitions going from nothing to something then back to nothing, Katherine and Zara being single - then together - then single again. I appreciate that the play is looking at the nature of change, and the inescapable lure of the past (both good and the bad), but my problem was that so much of these happenings were HAPPENINGS rather than happenings, but that's a personal taste thing. These things happen, true, but none of them involves much visible effort or any difficult choices or high costs for the protagonists. And people do these things and then just sort of give up. So it's difficult for an audience to believe they mean very much.. And this isn't just a case of quiet things happening. More that there's an effort from the production (thunderstorms! rain! sunsets!) to give what does happen more emotional resonance than maybe it deserves. As for the politics. The play certainly Tackles the Subject. But more in a sense of waving things around than actually structuring the action to make some kind of an argument. The weather stuff is there as it reflects the national obsession. I’d also suggest that the play definitely makes an argument, it just makes a number of different, contradictory ones (and I take that as a plus, whereas others maybe wouldn’t). As for an overarching argument I took away that the actions are taken because of supposed certainties, ones that fall apart when they come into the contact with the messy reality of life. From that I take Bartlett as suggesting that the divide is the danger, the division of yes or no, of this or that. Others may, again, take different messages (and I take that as a plus, whereas others maybe wouldn’t).
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 28, 2017 19:44:54 GMT
Who'd have thought a lot of plant potting action would be so absorbing?!
Lovely set and those two changes were just delightful, I was quite cross with the people's heads in front who impeded my view and got in the way of all that compost. I think this is a play I need to ponder a bit and read some other views and let them filter through, there were so many ideas and themes that I don't think I really picked up on them all and having now read the board reviews am looking to playing spot the Chekhov character. I felt it was a bit too long and could have done with a bit of pruning, no pun intended, but great acting, surprisingly funny and whilst I thought several times 'I don't know why you would love this person' I did then immediately think 'but I often think that with real people too so actually that's probably about right. Loved Victoria Hamilton, beautifully understated Nicholas Rowe and Margot Leicester's portrayal just wonderful. Will be interested to read what more people think.
|
|
1,315 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Oct 28, 2017 22:50:00 GMT
Well -
the brexit references were a bit unsubtle
the Cherry Orchard parallels were a bit obvious
but
it was extremely enjoyable and satisfying on many levels: acting, gardening, humour, production and music.
A very strong cast and Victoria Hamilton was outstanding.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Oct 29, 2017 10:21:28 GMT
I saw it on Friday. I really wanted to love it and the first scene in the first half made me think I would. And then Bartlett oh so slowly flew the plane right into the side of the mountain. It felt like he wrote that opening scene and then thought "I have NO idea where to take this". I didn't buy a single sub-plot, either because they were anaemically underdeveloped, or because they were so ludicrous and poorly constructed that suspension of disbelief wasn't an option. Same can be said for some of the characters in it as well, and their relationships with each other.
Victoria Hamilton as Audrey was all very Celia Imrie as Miss Babs. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but was it ever really explained how she'd come to acquire the house, or why she cared so very much about it? Anna has a line where she's talking about how her boyfriend always told her that "eventually I'll get to see what's underneath her exterior, and I'll like her". Or something along those lines. Well, I didn't feel the surface Audrey was unpleasant enough to merit this kind of line and we never really got to see underneath her exterior to make that judgement for ourselves. I'm sure the last scene is going for heartbreaking, but it just made me roll my eyes, especially in the last few moments.
Yes, there is some great writing here. Yes, there are some brilliantly witty one liners here. But they're surrounded by acres and acres of stuff that is very far from brilliant. And most of the moments that were great were mostly down to Helen Schlesinger investing Katherine with far more depth than is there on the page. It failed to make me care about any of the supporting characters at all (even Katherine), so when Bartlett felt the need to parade them all back in (apart from Katherine), unconvincingly, at the end, to give them their own little bit of closure, all I could think was "oh get on with it, I've got a train to catch".
This really is not the play Britain needs right now. Britain does not need to see more privileged people being awful. And we certainly don't need thinly drawn caricatures parading around braying at each other for three hours. That said, it will likely transfer and the staging really isn't an obstacle to that. Re-staging it for a proscenium house is the easiest thing ever.
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Oct 31, 2017 19:49:08 GMT
A QUICK POLL
I have a big fat man-cold and a £10 ticket for this tomorrow. I read it's 3hrs long and I will probably want my bed after a day sniffling at my desk. SHALL I GO?
|
|
1,187 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Oct 31, 2017 20:45:16 GMT
I had a semi restricted view seat for tonight. Was feeling knackered and just wanting my sofa tonight. Called this afternoon and they changed my ticket for a clear view £32 seat for next week. As it's nearly sold out there now doesn't seem to be any qualms about swapping or reselling tickets. I would say life is too short to be miserable in a theatre (however long it is) when you're not in the mind and it wouod compromise your overall enjoyment. Plus you might not be thanked for spreading your germs to fellow theatregoers. I would say that if you can make any other dates, keep an eye on the site and call them with a selection of dates and I reckon you could swap fairly easily.
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Nov 4, 2017 9:18:44 GMT
Anyone know if this might get a transfer? Despite the mostly negative comments here tickets seem to have flown.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Nov 4, 2017 12:07:59 GMT
Anyone know if this might get a transfer? Despite the mostly negative comments here tickets seem to have flown. Look at the wider response, a few people on a chat board aren’t going to be representative of theatregoers as a whole! My own view chimed in with that of reviewers (excellent), for example, and a transfer is likely to sell very well also. Theatre and cast availability might nix that though, so don’t rely on it happening. The reason I prefer chat boards like this rather than blogs is that you get a truly varied response rather than likeminded groups congregating together (99% of the time that’ll happen). Take the first post on this thread saying that they were ‘expecting the critics to tear it apart’ - result being five and four star reviews across the board! There’s perspective for you....
|
|
3,471 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Nov 7, 2017 4:15:52 GMT
Anyone know if this might get a transfer? Despite the mostly negative comments here tickets seem to have flown. You do know that the Almeida is now doing "Tuesday Rush" for this? Though those Rush/day seat options rarely work for me, regardless of day or venue, as they're always either at the start or in the middle of the working/volunteering day. However, when I looked last night, some availability had appeared, so there must have been some returns - worth checking again? Also, before I do this and if anyone is interested, I'm going to have to return a cheap (£10, so probably evil view) seat for the evening of Saturday 18 November, as I booked it before the running time was known and just can't cope with so late a finish when I have the same the next evening. (I rarely do Sat and Sun now but it was the only way I could accommodate Quaint Honour, which has very limited performances.)
|
|
3,471 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Nov 12, 2017 0:10:52 GMT
I enjoyed this today and though it seemed long (I had expected nearly 3 hours but it was actually 3 hours 15, so quite a marathon), it barely outstayed its welcome despite seeming to flounder a little towards the end of the second act. Full house by the look of it and lots of people standing at the end. Given the running time I was even more glad that I'd managed to exchange my evening ticket for a matinee, although it cost a lot more, and I had a better view than my £10 seat would have offered - though frustratingly, for the second time in a week, I was seated directly behind an unusually tall man who also had a very big head - he towered above everyone else in the row, such that at first I thought he wasn't actually sitting down properly.
Lots to ponder and enjoy, even if the plot was rather over-egged and the treatment melodramatic at times. It's always good to see new writing, even if it doesn't succeed 100%, and as the young man behind me remarked at the interval, a play which has received mixed reviews can be more rewarding to watch than those everyone agrees on.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Nov 12, 2017 0:37:04 GMT
I enjoyed this today and though it seemed long (I had expected nearly 3 hours but it was actually 3 hours 15, so quite a marathon), it barely outstayed its welcome despite seeming to flounder a little towards the end of the second act. Full house by the look of it and lots of people standing at the end. Given the running time I was even more glad that I'd managed to exchange my evening ticket for a matinee, although it cost a lot more, and I had a better view than my £10 seat would have offered - though frustratingly, for the second time in a week, I was seated directly behind an unusually tall man who also had a very big head - he towered above everyone else in the row, such that at first I thought he wasn't actually sitting down properly. Lots to ponder and enjoy, even if the plot was rather over-egged and the treatment melodramatic at times. It's always good to see new writing, even if it doesn't succeed 100%, and as the young man behind me remarked at the interval, a play which has received mixed reviews can be more rewarding to watch than those everyone agrees on. Where has this fallacy that it got mixed reviews come from? These are facts, not opinions, for once, there isn’t any argument to be had! 4* Guardian 4* The Stage 4* Time Out 4* Evening Standard 4* What's On Stage 4* Shenton – londontheatre.co.uk 4* Radio Times 4* Times 4* Observer 4* Financial Times 4* Mail 4* Arts Desk 4* Sunday Express 5* Telegraph 5* Independent 5* City AM
|
|
3,471 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Nov 12, 2017 6:28:41 GMT
I'm not suggesting that the ratings, opinion-based as they are, aren't facts - as if! I had however definitely seen far more mixed views on blogs - which obviously I tend to see before press reviews - than the broad agreement you list above, Cardinal Pirelli, and as I mentioned, the audience members with whom I discussed this briefly (more than one, actually) had had the same impression.
Furthermore, you have only to look back in this thread to see some here predicting disaster. So on balance I was expecting to see something other than the sure-fire hit which the ratings suggest, and indeed I think I did, but as I've said, it was all the meatier for its flaws.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 9:57:02 GMT
I happened to be walking past the theatre yesterday and went in to enquire about returns. I was able to purchase a fairly inexpensive ticket for tomorrow evening, which I am really looking forward to. I often do this with shows that sell out - just turn up at an odd time and it's amazing how my enquiry often coincides with a ticket that's just been returned.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Nov 14, 2017 13:46:17 GMT
Looking forward to this on saturday. The supposedly long running time doesnt faze me given the amount of shakey ive seen.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 14:20:18 GMT
I would have been more fazed by the run time had they not replaced the benches with significantly more comfortable seats. Frankly they deserve prizes for having the consideration to fix the seating situation before Hamlet started.
|
|