84 posts
|
Post by jasper on Apr 14, 2018 13:26:22 GMT
Having sat through The Inheritance and AIA, 3 hours 40 minutes is nothing. When the start time is 7pm, you know it’s not going to be 90 minutes no interval |
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Apr 14, 2018 17:49:10 GMT
The NT publicity for this specifically mentions 1940s Soho...
|
|
|
|
Post by basi1faw1ty on Apr 15, 2018 18:41:55 GMT
I've seen behind the scenes pics of props and costumes and part of the set, and it all seems close in keeping with the time period at least. Where JHG's supposed maverick direction will come into play with this I'm not sure.
(Side note: turns out AH is not the longest play I'd've seen so far. When you take out the intervals, it falls 5 minutes short of the Simon Godwin-directed Strange Interlude, which is/was also a Lyttelton prod.)
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Apr 16, 2018 15:01:34 GMT
"Powder Her Face"
I'd forgotten about the Almeida's production of this, years ago. The Duchess of Argyll and the Headless Man and all that (source of the immortal joke: "What do you give a Headless Man?") It was a fabulous production.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 15:12:30 GMT
I found a review of a US production of this which was 3 hours 15 minutes with one interval. So given the two intervals, this running time sounds about right.
|
|
|
|
Post by basi1faw1ty on Apr 19, 2018 6:12:44 GMT
First preview reviews coming in:
Mixed to slightly leaning more on the positive side, overall.
Positives are it's funny and heartbreaking with great acting from everyone involved.
Negatives are mainly about the run time. Also there were some fluffed lines. Some people left at interval 1.
But even the not so enthusiastic commenters did like the song the ensemble sing at the beginning. A rendition of "La Vie En Rose", which is also the name of the club AH is set in for those unaware.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2018 6:21:06 GMT
^ Thank you for that...
With regard to La Vie En Rose, the play was originally called The Pink Room* (subtitled The Escapists) until it was rewritten in parts and revived in 1988 under the new title Absolute Hell.
*original production financed by Terence Rattigan
|
|
|
|
Post by basi1faw1ty on Apr 19, 2018 9:51:36 GMT
^ Thank you for that... With regard to La Vie En Rose, the play was originally called The Pink Room* (subtitled The Escapists) until it was rewritten in parts and revived in 1988 under the new title Absolute Hell. *original production financed by Terence Rattigan Pleasure  Didn't know the original was financed by Rattigan! Also is it true that I read the original had no Christine, and Hugh Marriner had a wife? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2018 13:20:48 GMT
I think the part of Christine must have always been the main character- she’s on stage more or less throughout and most of the other characters have scenes with her. The original played down all the gay references that Ackland had wanted to put in, but he reworked them into the rewrite. I found this which might be of interest. www.lgbtarchive.uk/wiki/Rodney_Ackland |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Apr 19, 2018 22:51:42 GMT
2nd preview: they say 3 hours 45 minutes, but curtain down at 3 hours 26 minutes. 1st interval was after 90 minutes.
The place was packed to start with but thinned out after the first interval. Those of us in the front stalls got to spread out as a result!
I liked Charles Edward’s performance, but his was the only character I cared for. Rambling and drawn out. Audience started out quite engaged, but I felt this declined over the 3.5 hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by basi1faw1ty on Apr 20, 2018 7:29:11 GMT
Thanks for that review. Yeah I've seen similar comments from last night, and it was a more negative to positive ratio of reviews this time round. Same complaints that it's too long and/or there's too much going on and/or they didn't care for most of the characters. I mean I am glad its duration has had somewhat of a chop, but I’m sad it’s not going down well with people. But as we're still in previews I'd like to preserve some optimism until press night.
Also (not being biased, this is just from what I've read on social media) I'm seeing a trend that Charles' Hugh Marriner seems to be the only real stand out here. Not a lot of mentions (if at all) of the other characters, not even the lead role of Christine Foskett. True, very few people can match or even surpass Judi Dench, but I hope Kate Fleetwood has made at least a good stab at it.
|
|
3,578 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Apr 20, 2018 8:25:21 GMT
Yes, a muted social media response to this so far. It seems a few further cuts wouldn't go amiss. We need to be fair as it's only previewing but I had hoped this might be up there with After the Dance but that seems unlikely.
|
|
256 posts
|
Post by frankubelik on Apr 20, 2018 8:49:53 GMT
My heart sank when the cast filed onto the stage in front of the curtain and began to sing "La Vie en Rose"........There is so much "Acting" going on that it detracts from the poorly directed and overlong version of the play. I do not recall it being so long originally and cuts are certainly required. I am sure they all had a great time in rehearsal "exploring" their roles. Charles Edwards is outstanding and makes sense of his character but Fleetwood never comes close to exploring Christine's desperation - she is very unfocused and frequently slips into caricature. The rest is overblown with one or two staggeringly bad performances. It's extraordinary that with the the available talent pool in London that this is the best the National's casting department can do. Shame on you. One poor actress has to spend the evening walking around the stage with no lines at all. The expected shattering finale never materializes either. A very muted response with swathes of the audience leaving after each interval. One wonders why they bothered to revive this piece.
|
|
|
|
Post by audrey on Apr 20, 2018 9:12:25 GMT
Afraid I didn't make it past the first interval. After an hour and half watching the various overblown characters , all equally vile and loathable, and nothing to spark an interest for the next act - plus no discernible plot at all - a glass of wine by the Thames seemed much more preferable. One wonders why the National bothered to revive this play - it seems very much a product of its time and it feels very outdated now. Am sure there are critics who will love it but there are much better uses of three and a half hours. The only good thing was the set which was intriguing with little back rooms and eccentric wall decoration - sadly sat too far back to see much of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2018 9:19:13 GMT
^^  |
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Apr 20, 2018 14:31:22 GMT
The comments on here mean that it is almost certain to be 4 stars all the way when the critics see this! Let's see...
Still, I think I am glad I booked, and will see for myself. Even Macbeth wasn't so bad after lowering expectations...
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 20, 2018 14:36:51 GMT
I find it rather dispiriting that people aren't finding the play as engaging as I do. I haven't seen this production yet (and still have reservations about the central casting choice) but I have always loved the larger than life characters and their interactions. It is a play, for me, that has always had a lot of heart.
Perhaps it does require Christine to hold it all together and if that performance isn't yet working then the play will suffer as a result. But her collapse at the end should still tug at the heartstrings of even the most hardhearted of audiences.
I have long had it on my list of shows to direct - so I clearly believe it is worthy of revival. If this production isn't making the case for the play then I would say that it is the director at fault not the script.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 20, 2018 15:33:40 GMT
I think this play is one which might appeal to real theatre enthusiasts but might fail to engage a general theatre audience. I’m telling you now that Exit The King is another and has commercial flop written all over it.
What’s with all the walking out at the interval ? Seems to be a new fashion. I strongly disapprove of that - plenty left at the Macbeth interval and it really wasn’t bad enough to justify that at all.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 20, 2018 15:57:22 GMT
How can they mess this up?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 20, 2018 17:32:37 GMT
How can they mess this up? Shouldn't the question be how can they make it succeed ? When they did it in the Lyttelton in 1995 with Judi Dench it only played to 68% capacity (55% commercial capacity). What's different now ? |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 20, 2018 17:39:28 GMT
In 1995 it was a very little known piece from a neglected author. Yes, the TV version helped raised profile and having Dame Judi in the cast helps - but it was still a risk.
Now, Ackland has a slightly higher profile and the piece itself has become better known.
The success of the project is not just measured in ticket sales.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 20, 2018 17:47:18 GMT
In 1995 it was a very little known piece from a neglected author. Yes, the TV version helped raised profile and having Dame Judi in the cast helps - but it was still a risk. Now, Ackland has a slightly higher profile and the piece itself has become better known. The success of the project is not just measured in ticket sales. Hence my other comment above about it appealing to theatre enthusiasts who have actually heard of the play. Somewhat different to reviving a Rattigan that at some point in the past WAS a massive hit, this one never was. |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Apr 20, 2018 22:05:56 GMT
Absolute Hell!
Forget about escaping real life, just escape.
Two opportunities to leave, only regret is that I did not take advantage of one of them.
Incoherent, rambling, stereotypes, so many left, at the end there were more on stage than in the audience (only a slight exaggeration)
Could have been so much more, the club encompasses the distractions we use to avoid our lives, the lines on Ouspensky (obscure reference to a long lost follower of the Russian mystic Gurdjieff) Proust and Buddhism are the counterpoints to the drunken revelry and in this production merely throwaway lines before the next drunk stereotype takes centre stage.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 20, 2018 23:10:56 GMT
Oh dear.
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 20, 2018 23:57:54 GMT
Hmmmm....I was there tonight. I had seen the play, years ago, at the Orange Tree and remember liking it - rather. The actor who played Maurice Hussey in that version said 'Horror camp' in such a memorable way - it was funny and chilling at the same time.
I didn't hate this and I think there are a lot of talented people involved....but it was a bit all over the place at this preview. Hugh Marriner is very much the lead in this production (and Charles Edwards does a great job) and his was the only story which seemed to have some sort of logical development. I also thought Joanna David did some nice work as his mother, rendering the character surprisingly sympathetic. I got talking to the nice man next to me and we were both puzzling over Christine's role. She didn't seem to be on stage very much - she was constantly running upstairs or retreating behind a door with some serviceman or frantically serving drinks. She has two important plot developments - one at the end of Act 2 and one at the beginning of Act 3, but they just seemed to come out of nowhere. (Actually I'm wondering if I missed something important about her in Act 1 - I lost focus a bit for some of it and found myself puzzling over the big Labour posters or the crowds of people.) If you are going to see it, I think you might have better luck sitting closer. It is dimly lit and some of us mid-circle were struggling to make out facial expressions - even, occasionally, being unsure who was speaking. The set looks great, but the exciting-seeming upper level isn't really used for any acting, people just disappear up there and you can kind of make them out in the gloom, eating or whatever. Stage left, a typist sits in a little high room, well, typing. I'm not sure what that signified - she didn't speak and I don't think anyone referenced her. Perhaps it was to show someone actually working, since no one else in the play seemed to.
I think this will improve - it felt very much like a preview, with a number of messy lines and people being called by the wrong name, that sort of thing. Quite a few interval leavers in the circle - all four people to my left vanished at the first opportunity. The end of each act was greeted with slight puzzlement by the audience, but Nice Man Next To Me and I ending up rather enjoying ourselves - you just have to give in a bit to its chaos.
My takeaway: I worried about the livers of all the characters and decided to forego an interval drink to preserve mine.
Running time: roughly 3 hours 25 minutes.
|
|
