|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 13:16:42 GMT
More tickets have been released - seems to be mostly the £10 seats at the far edge of the side circle.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 30, 2018 13:39:05 GMT
They have dedicated the show to Alex Bennett and the programme has his bio and photo at the front.
I really enjoyed this. I don’t understand why some people think the first half is hard going. It starts with a beautifully clear exposition of the two men's circumstances, characters and intentions and I’ve never heard work of this period more clearly spoken, in fact spoken in as modern a way as possible. In this respect Tom Mison is remarkable making it seem he is actually thinking of the words as he goes which avoids all that 'delivering' that this kind of play often produces. Geoffrey Streatfeild is super too. I think Haydn Gwynne is very good but misses a touch of the pathos I think. Yes, she is a ridiculous figure to be laughed at but the play is also about the treatment of women and how they manoeuvre in such a restrictive society. The ending is a part of this. How can a modern audience accept the reconciliation possibility of the Fainalls? I wish this play was in the school syllabus and this production one that they take kids to. It really does throw up challenges.
Costumes, set, general direction all really good. Great the Donmar saw fit to put this on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2018 8:23:58 GMT
Well. I just loved this. It was scrumptious. I laughed, I drank, I laughed some more. It did throw up several probing questions for me though.
1. Could Haydn Gwynne actually be one of the best actresses we have around nowadays? 2. Is there a scene that Fisayo Akinade can't steal? 3. What competition did Jenny Jules win in order to get the one utterly delicious frock in the whole show? 4. Is Tom Mison quite possibly the most beautiful man acting in London's glitzy West End at the moment? 5. Should it be a rule that Justine Mitchell is the leading lady in at least 50% of the theatre output next year?
and more importantly,
6. Why isn't Haydn Gwynne a Dame?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 11, 2018 6:21:40 GMT
I really enjoyed this. I don’t understand why some people think the first half is hard going. Costumes, set, general direction all really good. Great the Donmar saw fit to put this on. Yes I agree. Good acting and direction, the problems such as they are (bit too long, bit too complicated) are all in the play. Quite a few leavers at the interval - not justified in my view. Fisayo Akinade particularly good as the fop - quite an unusual reading of it, delicate and restrained, very effective. Justifies my view that the way to do these plays is set them in period and employ the best actors you can afford - the frantic mugging and 1920s setting we had at Southwark recently also supports the view.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 11, 2018 10:58:17 GMT
Agreed, let em rip just as they are! Seeing again tonight. From a better seat!
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 12, 2018 14:54:00 GMT
Me again. This really is a good production. I got to enjoy more of the subtle points this time such as the little nods and acknowledgements of the audience which lead to that pay off line about all the characters being together there like the end of a play from Witwoud. Last night someone cackled so loud at one of the lines in the Millament - Mirabelle scene that she looked up at the person in the gallery and nearly lost it. But her 'edge', that is being on the point of laughing, was a joy throughout the performance.
Saw the Follies of Mrs Rich last week in Stratford. The programme for that says that it was produced in same season. Fascinating light on position of women. Congreve darker.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 12, 2018 21:01:29 GMT
It looked excellent, was played well, but I admit I found the plot confusing enough to need a Google reminder when I got home. Yes, makes you wonder if all that stuff about the dreadful audiences at the time are right. They are supposed to have talked and gawped and been more interested in themselves than the play but no, they must have concentrated pretty well to follow the second part of the plot, I feel, the part when Fainall and Marwood try to counter plot. Not to mention the financial set up.
|
|
1,260 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on May 14, 2018 11:06:51 GMT
I now have a work commitment tonight which clashes with my The Way of the World trip ;( So I have a great Circle seat ticket (B11 which is close to the middle) which is now available. Paid £20 for it. Shout if interested and I can arrange for a reprint or can drop off the ticket. Gutted. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 14, 2018 11:59:44 GMT
It looked excellent, was played well, but I admit I found the plot confusing enough to need a Google reminder when I got home. Yes, makes you wonder if all that stuff about the dreadful audiences at the time are right. They are supposed to have talked and gawped and been more interested in themselves than the play but no, they must have concentrated pretty well to follow the second part of the plot, I feel, the part when Fainall and Marwood try to counter plot. Not to mention the financial set up. The play is unusual in that complicated key bits of the plot have already happened at the start of the play (the marriage of the servants for example) and it is hard to work them out just by listening to the dialogue when you also don't know who all the characters are yet. It is harder in this play even than many Jacobean tragedies where if you don't listen very carefully to the first 20 minutes you have no clue what's going on. This is one of the rare cases where I think reading in advance the basic set-up at the start of the play is worthwhile.
|
|
423 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 17, 2018 8:37:20 GMT
I saw this last night ( Wed) and it was tough going. As seems to be the usual case with the Donmar these days there were quite a few empty seats ( The York Realist being the notable exception). The sheer general lifelessness of the production had many in attendance fast asleep. As has been noted here I don't think Mr McDonald had a clear "take" on the play so the acting styles were all over the place and the complex plot wasn't well communicated . The set design was totally uninspired as well. Ms Rourke has clearly lost interest in this building. If you're going to produce a rarely produced classic there should be some passion for the property evident in the production. There wasn't any here. Even the essays in the programme were from dull academics.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 19, 2018 17:22:44 GMT
Read the synopsis before going and was thoroughly perplexed, fortunately while I can't claim to have followed every nuance it was much easier watching it though if I hadn't spent the first ten minutes staring wistfully at an empty central front row seat from row c circle I might have understood it more. Seemed to just miss the spark to really make it fly but I moved downstairs for the second half so I was much less distracted and had more fun. Have not seen much restoration comedy and was a little surprised by how much I had to concentrate and all the twists and turns but cast really rather lovely and I do like a villain getting their comeuppance. Subdued audience, suspect comedy might bounce off better from a noisier audience. Goodness I miss sitting in the stalls.
|
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on May 19, 2018 17:52:03 GMT
I almost walked at the interval but glad I didn't. The second half was much more entertaining, with a great deal more 'broad' comedy. I agree with peggs that the cast didn't quite take off but it was worth it just for Haydne Gwinn's performance.
|
|