|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 21:45:39 GMT
They missed a trick not getting the Monkey on stage to prove even a (theatre) Monkey can win it. Not the pub quiz, it didn't. I failed miserably on that. Even the team name. "Quiz Team Aguilera" is too obvious and a cliché now, but my "Quiz Team A Bennington" was, on reflection, trying too hard as well. I did a quiz tonight. We were Agatha Quiztee I thank you.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Apr 23, 2018 22:15:37 GMT
I had a great time and I won't hear a single word against the production. I mean, the play itself was just plain ol' bad, and I don't know that manipulating the audience in one direction for one act then in the opposite direction for the second act is the same thing as presenting an unbiased account, but the cast were great, and I got a free ice cream and a nice chat at the interval, so I've definitely had worse afternoons out. I didn't get a free ice cream, but that's more or less exactly what I felt: a superb production of a rather shallow play. I had a good time, and it's superficially entertaining, but it takes a scenario that's more complex than it first appears and basically just spends two hours skimming the surface. Possibly in my case it wasn't helped by the fact that I saw it the day after I saw both parts of The Inheritance: at that production, there was almost too much to think about, and at this one, once you looked past the video monitors and the flashing lights, there was too little.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Apr 24, 2018 11:43:33 GMT
Of course the audience is manipulated, that’s the whole point, to show how easy it is to be made to believe something. Yes, but it just felt so blunt. There was no sense that they were innocent right up until she started waving that tape around - and when she did that, it felt totally wrong to me - though at the time I couldn't put my finger on exactly why, so I just ignored what she was saying until I worked it out later. That mirrors the way it was portrayed in the media (and how people were actually manipulated) doesn't it? I remember just thinking 'oh, guilty' and not even bothering to read much about it at the time. I just thought it was mirroring the way that it had happened. It felt over-written, with a slight story stretched for an extra hour and the elements clashing somewhat. In particular the "warm up" was unnecessary, I thought, and the game show bits lacked detail and felt tacky in context of the rest of the play, to me. Maybe because I didn't follow it at back then but I felt it gave me a lot of information in a short space of time that I didn't otherwise know. On the TV warm up and game shows bit we do part company, I thought they were really entertaining digressions and reminded me of television of the past and how the use of 'ordinary people' has ballooned from things like them. I was watching some old Sunday Night at the London Palladiums recently in a Brucie homage and the people on 'Beat the Clock' reacted so differently to how people having their fifteen minutes do nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Apr 26, 2018 3:57:04 GMT
The play very much felt like let's throw a load of stuff at a wall and see what sticks. Some of it painfully bad like the karaoke (not least because there was never a WWTBAM music round), some of the court stuff excellent. Would have liked a proper examination of the evidence which I don't feel we got, but the audience seemed to like the naff showbiz stuff so what can you do.
I thought it was a big omission that there was never the distinction made between whether you thought them guilty of cheating or not, and whether if yes you thought that a crime. It was alluded to by the guy in the anachronistic Chelsea scarf (that wasn't their badge until 2005, how often plays gets sporting details wrong) but never expanded on as a serious point.
Couldn't help but think how rare it is to see a biographical play in which the main male and female leads are less good-looking than their real life counterparts.
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 28, 2018 21:52:52 GMT
James Graham is becoming a master at writing docudramas of this type. For me this was a very unpromising subject, I had no interest in this programme (beyond liking quizzes in general) and didn't follow the case. But Graham has become a must-see playwright for me, quite rare in that he is alive and his best work may still be yet to come, so I went. Love the boxes at this theatre, very helpful if you want to avoid the handshaking and high-fiving.
I don't think this will rank as a classic in years to come, it doesn't have the depth of his last two plays, but to say that it is not written is not to understand what the play is about. It is highly entertaining as a play, despite the rather humdrum narrative, and it does make us think about the nature of truth and how our concept of what the truth is has evolved.
Of course it is manipulative - it is not a documentary! But the manipulation is geared at making us understand how manipulation works, not at exonerating what the alleged cheats did.
Rock on, James Graham. Long may he continue.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Apr 28, 2018 23:23:04 GMT
I thought it was a big omission that there was never the distinction made between whether you thought them guilty of cheating or not, and whether if yes you thought that a crime. No distinction in the play, either, between whether you think they actually did it, and whether you think the prosecution proved their case against them. There's an enormous gulf between the two.
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 28, 2018 23:47:15 GMT
I thought it was a big omission that there was never the distinction made between whether you thought them guilty of cheating or not, and whether if yes you thought that a crime. No distinction in the play, either, between whether you think they actually did it, and whether you think the prosecution proved their case against them. There's an enormous gulf between the two. I don't think the play has to make these distinctions, it is clear from the programme notes that Graham expects everyone to make up their own minds about what constitutes cheating and did they cheat or not. It also seems clear from the way the voting goes that many people do make up their minds during the course of the play that, regardless of their first impressions, the prosecution does not prove the case. If the action had been a civil one then it would have been decided on balance of probabilities but this was a criminal case and the prosecution is supposed to prove they were guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Not on the evidence provided here.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Apr 29, 2018 0:08:18 GMT
No distinction in the play, either, between whether you think they actually did it, and whether you think the prosecution proved their case against them. There's an enormous gulf between the two. I don't think the play has to make these distinctions, it is clear from the programme notes that Graham expects everyone to make up their own minds about what constitutes cheating and did they cheat or not. It also seems clear from the way the voting goes that many people do make up their minds during the course of the play that, regardless of their first impressions, the prosecution does not prove the case. If the action had been a civil one then it would have been decided on balance of probabilities but this was a criminal case and the prosecution is supposed to prove they were guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Not on the evidence provided here. I suppose my point is that the play was big on flashing lights and surface gloss, but provided very little actual depth. All the way through I felt there was a more interesting story somewhere in the source that the playwright wasn't telling. I might, I suppose, feel differently if I'd followed the story at the time - I was living abroad, and I see from the dates that I was sitting exams during the trial, so the whole thing passed me by, which meant I knew next to nothing about the story going in. I found the play superficially entertaining, but it seemed like a triumph of style over substance.
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 29, 2018 0:35:16 GMT
I don't think the play has to make these distinctions, it is clear from the programme notes that Graham expects everyone to make up their own minds about what constitutes cheating and did they cheat or not. It also seems clear from the way the voting goes that many people do make up their minds during the course of the play that, regardless of their first impressions, the prosecution does not prove the case. If the action had been a civil one then it would have been decided on balance of probabilities but this was a criminal case and the prosecution is supposed to prove they were guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Not on the evidence provided here. I suppose my point is that the play was big on flashing lights and surface gloss, but provided very little actual depth. All the way through I felt there was a more interesting story somewhere in the source that the playwright wasn't telling. I might, I suppose, feel differently if I'd followed the story at the time - I was living abroad, and I see from the dates that I was sitting exams during the trial, so the whole thing passed me by, which meant I knew next to nothing about the story going in. I found the play superficially entertaining, but it seemed like a triumph of style over substance. Yes. I found this play to be primarily an entertainment and found it very entertaining, which given I had no interest in the story was no mean feat.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Apr 29, 2018 6:49:48 GMT
I really really liked this. I was particularly moved by the scenes addressing the dedication to each other of Charles and Diana.
|
|
7 posts
|
Post by plaskett on May 1, 2018 21:54:54 GMT
At the risk of annoying Theatreboard members still further, may I qua co-author of Bad Show - the book upon which QUIZ was based - be permitted a final contribution? Commentators query whether the prosecution made its case - sf said: No distinction in the play, either, between whether you think they actually did it, and whether you think the prosecution proved their case against them. There's an enormous gulf between the two. I don't think the play has to make these distinctions, it is clear from the programme notes that Graham expects everyone to make up their own minds about what constitutes cheating and did they cheat or not. It also seems clear from the way the voting goes that many people do make up their minds during the course of the play that, regardless of their first impressions, the prosecution does not prove the case. If the action had been a civil one then it would have been decided on balance of probabilities but this was a criminal case and the prosecution is supposed to prove they were guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Not on the evidence provided here. I suppose my point is that the play was big on flashing lights and surface gloss, but provided very little actual depth. All the way through I felt there was a more interesting story somewhere in the source that the playwright wasn't telling. There are two points which have not been included in Bad Show. These pertain to - a) Timing and acoustics and b) Legitimacy Essentially the trial was almost solely about timing and acoustics. a) Timing and acousticsI have now made this unpublished point to James Graham... but, and I am not meaning to be a tease - cannot divulge it further! Not yet. b) LegitimacyMany had doubts: what exactly did they do to merit a criminal prosecution? Detective sergeant Ian Williamson said, “This trial is about protecting the integrity of the Millionaire format. Celador has sold it to over one hundred countries. Thousands of jobs depend on its success.” Celador too claim they called in the Police to “protect the integrity of the show and against the possibility of any wrongdoing”, and afterwards said they were "happy that the reputation and integrity of WWTBAM? remains intact." But they could have just refused to pay Ingram and settled their differences in a civil court. Prosecution witness, Larry Whitehurst, thought they ought to have done. Ray Mallon, former head of Middlesborough CID, also thought no charges should have been pressed. He drew a comparison with prosecuting a soccer player for diving in the penalty area and wrote, in his Northern Echo column, "I still feel there was no need for the case to come before the criminal courts at massive cost to the public in terms of money and police and court resources. I...repeat my call for Celador to donate an amount to cover the public costs." They have yet to. Mallon wondered whether Celador themselves were not also guilty - of greed? My second consideration re legitimacy I am afraid - once again - has to remain something I cannot yet reveal. Sorry. And, as I have already posted here, this trial was not justice. It was more like theatre. Indeed, a farcical burlesque. That the denouement should fall to comedic theatricals to portray in the West End is almost preternaturally apposite. The two unpublished points have registered with the playwright. But, I must be wary about further public disclosure. Lastly, re innocence, please not to forget this trial left Ingram despondent and penniless. He then declined Piers Morgan´s offer of 675,000 pounds for a spill-the-beans exclusive for the Daily Mirror.
|
|
590 posts
|
Post by AddisonMizner on May 7, 2018 18:08:59 GMT
I saw this on Saturday evening, and absolutely LOVED it!
Firstly, I loved the whole-concept, and how theatrical the whole story had been made. The use of quizzes throughout the production, as well as the warm-up act at the start of both acts, made the audience feel like a real community experiencing this together, which is what theatre is all about. The audience participation added to the feeling that you were watching a “one-time-only” performance, and the use of voting whether Ingram was guilty or not guilty was a masterstroke.
The writing was excellent, and I loved how each act was framed for either the prosecution or defence. James Graham is proving to be quite the writer - I saw THIS HOUSE when it was on tour as well, but didn’t write about it at the time. I adored that as well, for how gripping, funny and entertaining it made a period of time of which I knew nothing about, and had not even been born. I’m really sad now that I missed both INK and LABOUR OF LOVE.
The performances and direction were equally as stunning.
JUST GO!
5 stars.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on May 7, 2018 18:28:58 GMT
Saw this on Tuesday last week but forgot to post, however seeing Addison Mizner's rave reminded me that I agree with every single word! Sat on stage and loved, loved, loved every second. Theatre was quite empty, though. On-stage seats practically full, stalls 3/4 and people dotted around the dress. No U/C or balcony.
|
|
2,529 posts
|
Post by n1david on May 10, 2018 10:20:55 GMT
This would do well in London, but the challenge may be finding the right theatre - the Minerva looks like the WWTBAM studio, and the staging of the TV show is referred to in the text. I’m not sure it would work in a traditional theatre. But it’s great fun and was a real tonic last night. Thoroughly enjoyed this when I saw it last year in Chichester, but sorry to say my concerns about staging (which others also expressed at the time) were proven right - this was lost on a West End stage, and the brio and energy I saw in Chichester dissipated in a half-empty theatre with an audience that didn't feel engaged in the same way as we did in the smaller Minerva. It just seemed to flow less well, with Kier Charles' Chris Tarrant playing a broader version, with more gurning and less subtlety. I'm sorry I saw it here as it's damaged the memory I had of the very fun night in Chichester...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 6:08:46 GMT
I had forgotten quite how big Millionaire was. And because of that, I am surprised that it hasn’t sold better. This is popular theatre and it should be packed to the rafters with people who don’t usually go.
Perfect starter theatre. What is their marketing team doing???
I quite liked this. It built up a head of steam during act one, from a slow start, but act two dragged on a bit for me. I didn’t love the “classic” quiz shows bit. I’m not sure that the impressions were that good. And it has nothing at all to do with me completely failing at Take Your Pick. Oh no!
It has made me want to read the book and watch the documentary. Husband and I disagreed on a piece of evidence. I am going to learn how to do spoiler tags before I post more.
|
|
4,962 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on May 12, 2018 13:04:37 GMT
I wonder if Millionaire being back on TV has led to an uptick in bookings over the last week, @theatremonkey ?
|
|
821 posts
|
Post by ensembleswings on May 12, 2018 14:01:29 GMT
Saw this on Thursday evening, I enjoyed it, as did those around me, it was a fun evening out for sure. Shame to see the theatre so empty, balcony and upper were closed and dress was only half full but I don't feel the atmosphere suffered too much, it was an enthusiastic audience. Shame for the show but it worked well for me, lovely upgrade from the balcony down to central row c of the royal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 19:12:18 GMT
Saw this on Thursday evening, I enjoyed it, as did those around me, it was a fun evening out for sure. Shame to see the theatre so empty, balcony and upper were closed and dress was only half full but I don't feel the atmosphere suffered too much, it was an enthusiastic audience. Shame for the show but it worked well for me, lovely upgrade from the balcony down to central row c of the royal. I was there too! Were you a little sceptical that the ladies who got the Bullseye section completely wrong, then went on to win the pub quiz? Or am I just being very cynical? I was expecting them to be accused of cheating!
|
|
3,059 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on May 12, 2018 20:29:15 GMT
At the risk of annoying Theatreboard members still further, may I qua co-author of Bad Show - the book upon which QUIZ was based - be permitted a final contribution? I'm finding your contributions interesting, so please do hang around and keep sharing. In the process of reading your book too.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on May 26, 2018 16:14:16 GMT
I went to today and bumped up from balcony to stalls and the stalls were pretty empty.
I think the quiz show interactive elements distract that this isn't a strong story or play. Personally I think the Ingrams did cheat, I think there route there was pretty suspect and they had notice/desperation for the money.
I think it has lost something from page to the stage, the entertainment value of the court room should work better, Keir Charles is a great imitator but his performance sums up my issue. It is very glossy, very keen to look at why audiences loved millionaire but seems afraid to go into the depths of the Ingrams as Graham finds himself distracted by the interactive elements and the political climate at the time.
A fun afternoon but not one of Graham's finest works.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on May 26, 2018 23:33:30 GMT
I hope this sounds like I mean it to, Snciole, because I want it to: I think you've really become quite a reviewer. That's a really thoughtful, mature and focussed bit of writing, if I may say so . Aww, thanks. I am trying to get better at snappier, sexier reviews 😀
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on May 27, 2018 9:40:31 GMT
I hope this sounds like I mean it to, Snciole , because I want it to: I think you've really become quite a reviewer. That's a really thoughtful, mature and focussed bit of writing, if I may say so . Aww, thanks. I am trying to get better at snappier, sexier reviews 😀 If you get much better you will bury Billington.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2018 10:30:34 GMT
I rather fear he's planning to live forever.
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on May 27, 2018 10:45:10 GMT
I rather fear he's planning to live forever. Might need Charlie Spencer to return and hunt him down as Van Helsing? I hope he does. Live forever, I mean.
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by herculesmulligan on May 31, 2018 7:40:37 GMT
Does anyone know of any ticket offers for the last week of shows?
|
|
81 posts
|
Post by addictedtotheatre on Jun 9, 2018 10:02:16 GMT
For those willing to take a chance - if you buy a balcony ticket, there's a good chance the Box Office may move you to the Royal Circle, as that's what happened to me last night!
Clever and well-staged play though some of the audience interaction did take one out of the drama. Nevertheless, recommended.
|
|
|
Post by westendnewbie on Jun 13, 2018 0:26:36 GMT
Hi, I'm a complete newbie to the West End so apologies but this is going to sound thick but I noticed this show ends on Saturday and am a huge game show geek so fancy a trip from Yorkshire to see the 2:30PM show on Saturday, but have no idea where the best place is to sit! Is there a best place?! Ideally I'm looking at the £15 or £27.50 tickets, my nightmare is just being sat behind a lot of heads and not being able to see the action! Many thanks
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Jun 13, 2018 0:59:56 GMT
^^^
Your best bet would be to download the Today Tix app and get some of the £20 rush tickets that go on sale on the day at 10am, which when I bought were prime stalls seats (otherwise £67.50). Looking at the seating plan, there is no way that performance will sell out.
|
|
3,079 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 13, 2018 2:54:40 GMT
Hi, I'm a complete newbie to the West End so apologies but this is going to sound thick but I noticed this show ends on Saturday and am a huge game show geek so fancy a trip from Yorkshire to see the 2:30PM show on Saturday, but have no idea where the best place is to sit! Is there a best place?! Ideally I'm looking at the £15 or £27.50 tickets, my nightmare is just being sat behind a lot of heads and not being able to see the action! Many thanks Hi, Having seen the show, if you can get some of the £15 tickets in the Royal Circle, you will have a great view. I got a centre seat on the back row there back in April for £15 and had a great view. Though as others have said, you will be able to pick up a very good seat at that price in the stalls as well.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jun 13, 2018 5:43:26 GMT
Hi, I'm a complete newbie to the West End so apologies but this is going to sound thick but I noticed this show ends on Saturday and am a huge game show geek so fancy a trip from Yorkshire to see the 2:30PM show on Saturday, but have no idea where the best place is to sit! Is there a best place?! Ideally I'm looking at the £15 or £27.50 tickets, my nightmare is just being sat behind a lot of heads and not being able to see the action! Many thanks You could go for the on stage seating - back row there is £27.50. Great view even from the back row, you're right in the middle of the action (you are forming part of the "TV audience") and you might get invited to take part in one of the quiz shows!
|
|