2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 23, 2019 11:43:57 GMT
So if I only last the first few minutes from the front row I will at least have seen Cate's feet! Disappointed, I hoped the bloody bits would be in the car and then I would be nicely unaware.
|
|
|
|
Post by shelbee on Jan 23, 2019 12:09:27 GMT
Can anyone tell me what happens in that car, then? I'll be sitting at the front row  Cate and Stephen do their first scene in there. They have microphones. You'll hear everything. And you'll see Cate's feet pop up onto the dash at some point. Later, Cate and the one-line young muscly guy sit in there (not talking) listening to a Ke$ha song. Cate & Stephen attempt sex in the back of it after this, until the onlooking girls stop it happening. At the end of the play Stephen sits in it and applies lube to his arse. Ready for the (never actually used) strap onnnnnnnn. Best use of the car is Cate sliding down it from top to bottom. It induced an eyebrow raise of joy. But only an eyebrow raise. I've seen a lot of people mention the microphones. What is the purpose of it and do they use it through out the play? |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 23, 2019 17:47:44 GMT
Well those production photos aren't making it look any better.
|
|
1,244 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jan 23, 2019 20:38:27 GMT
Cate and Stephen do their first scene in there. They have microphones. You'll hear everything. And you'll see Cate's feet pop up onto the dash at some point. Later, Cate and the one-line young muscly guy sit in there (not talking) listening to a Ke$ha song. Cate & Stephen attempt sex in the back of it after this, until the onlooking girls stop it happening. At the end of the play Stephen sits in it and applies lube to his arse. Ready for the (never actually used) strap onnnnnnnn. Best use of the car is Cate sliding down it from top to bottom. It induced an eyebrow raise of joy. But only an eyebrow raise. I've seen a lot of people mention the microphones. What is the purpose of it and do they use it through out the play? Unfortunately the purpose just appears to be...to use microphones. They're mainly used at the start of the piece for the inside-the-car scene. (But they could have just mic'd the inside of the car?!) Jessica Gunning sings into one later. I think they might have been used at other moments, but only moments. It came across as an idea they'd had in rehearsals, early on, which then got used less. But they kept it just because they'd used them. If that makes sense? They're totally surplus to requirement though. Press Night TONIGHT! (Waits at computer with popcorn) |
|
5,910 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jan 23, 2019 20:52:14 GMT
I’m scared to even read the reviews !
|
|
1,244 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jan 23, 2019 22:01:49 GMT
Shenton has slaughtered.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 23, 2019 22:13:17 GMT
And she pulled out of All About Eve for this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 22:31:58 GMT
If she's willingly taking a role in a Katie Mitchell production of a Martin Crimp play, I think it's reasonably safe to say that La Blanchett doesn't give a single solitary hoot for what the critics might have to say...
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Jan 23, 2019 23:47:41 GMT
Ann Treneman has given it one star. Normally I disagree with her but she's spot on with this one -- total tripe. It may well also be the first ever twice mic'd show, since the actors' own head mics are then amplified at times with hand-held mics. But the fainting stories MUST have been a desperate plant. The only way anyone would faint at this is out of sheer stupefaction: it's totally anodyne and banal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 23:51:31 GMT
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 23, 2019 23:56:43 GMT
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 24, 2019 0:03:03 GMT
Gives an idea of what some might not have tuned into. Hmm, this makes me want to see it a bit more. But I can't, so... (Edit - Broadway World has a similarly thoughtful review but doesn't like it) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 0:28:27 GMT
Three stars - Guardian, Two stars - Stage.
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Jan 24, 2019 0:39:00 GMT
That Independent review is totally out of left field. Not in a million years is there the slightest sense of FUN about the production, which mostly plods along in self-serious, humorless fashion, Dillane flubbing his lines at regular intervals and Blanchett probably pondering how much better Jean Genet and Strindberg have handled much the same material. Not to mention Samuel Richardson. A total dud.
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 24, 2019 0:43:19 GMT
When We Have Sufficiently Tortured The Critics.
|
|
|
|
Post by cat6 on Jan 24, 2019 3:05:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Jan 24, 2019 6:59:10 GMT
Another triumph for Norris!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 8:05:41 GMT
He's achieving full houses for a Katie Mitchell/Martin Crimp play and mainstream news articles out the wazoo. I think he's probably managing just fine.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jan 24, 2019 8:17:45 GMT
For me this is the sort of play that should be put on as part of the Dorfman’s schedule, we should be challenged and need a place where ‘difficult ‘ / niche plays can be prominently staged.
The star casting has certainly proved a box office hit but believe it is at the detriment of the play and production. This play was never going to be mainstream and has likely pulled in a mainstream crowd and given an opportunity for the critics to review as such.
Hope the newbies find enough in it to see further productions and join our appreciative Theatrical community.
|
|
1,244 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jan 24, 2019 9:10:05 GMT
For me this is the sort of play that should be put on as part of the Dorfman’s schedule, we should be challenged and need a place where ‘difficult ‘ / niche plays can be prominently staged. But the problem with this play is that it's neither challenging OR difficult. It's just a very boring, repetitive night in the theatre, mainly because of the terrible writing. I agree that we need work that stirs the pot up a bit, and the National is the place where funding can enable and encourage this, but this one really isn't it. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 24, 2019 9:15:45 GMT
[Kwame Kwei-Armah] just got made AD at the Young Vic - shouldn't we give him a chance to prove himself as an AD before judging his suitability for the role at the Nash? After all, it *is* a different skill to acting and directing, and thus far the Young Vic programming has received enthusiastic reviews.
Few were complaining about Norris's appointment when it was made - it's only his failure to programme a big new 'hit' in the Olivier that is causing complaints now, really. Otherwise his tenure has been pretty successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 10:18:56 GMT
[Kwame] just got made AD at the Young Vic - shouldn't we give him a chance to prove himself as an AD before judging his suitability for the role at the Nash? After all, it *is* a different skill to acting and directing, and thus far the Young Vic programming has received enthusiastic reviews. Few were complaining about Norris's appointment when it was made - it's only his failure to programme a big new 'hit' in the Olivier that is causing complaints now, really. Otherwise his tenure has been pretty successful. Kwame has BARELY started at the YV. I hear great things about his community engagement/new/young company nurturing, but of his commercial, main stage success we can't make any judgements because his programming has barely begun. It may be a total disaster, but short of psychic abilities we can't know that yet. And Old Rufus indeed got very little complaint when he was appointed. He's doing a solid job on the 'sell out the Dorfman, get a short West End run' side of things, personally I think his programming has been that of an new AD experimenting, and I've not hated any of it in principle. The only thing, as Kathryn said, is failing to deliver the 'big hitters' commercially. Which giving him the benefit of the doubt, under all the AD's there's been runs of disaster in that side as well, so he may still pull it back. |
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jan 24, 2019 10:41:57 GMT
Posts removed and thread locked for the time being to allow everyone to cool down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 7:54:27 GMT
I go to see Mystery of the Bulgarian Voices and miss all the fun.
I thought the Independent review was useful. The BDSM framing was new info for me. Still going to be interesting to see this. I predict now that my theatre-obsessed neighbour, who is taking me, is going to hate this.
|
|
1,291 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Jan 25, 2019 8:35:27 GMT
I went yesterday with an open main but thought this was awful. So far the worst thing I've seen at the National -and I saw Salome which was absolutely diabolical-.
This was dull and boring beyond belief. I thought it was really badly written and the direction was abysmal. The actors do what they can with the given material. Without the star power of Cate Blanchett this would have played to empty houses even at the Dorfman. There's really no much point in seeing this unless you are a fan of Blanchett and want to see her in the flesh.
About the returns queue. It was all very organised. I arrived at 5pm, my name was added to a list, sixth in the queue. At 6pm there were 17 people waiting and the first 4 people were taking to the box office. About 10 minutes later another 4 people were called, myself being one of them. I was offered either top price at the back of Stalls or Restricted View Side Stalls for £10.
Bought the £10 ones and yes, you miss a corner of the stage but at least 80% of the action takes place centre stage so you don't miss a lot. I recognised people who were quite far back in the returns queue, so probably everybody got in, and the majority of us were in the £10 side view seats. My guess is that all the £10 seats are being held and sold as returns.
|
|
