5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 21, 2019 16:24:24 GMT
I saw it last night. I think it is very good and Andrew Scott, Sophie Thompson and Indira Varma are excellent. It was my first time seeing the play and the friend I went with told me that there is a relevant change in this version. I am just not sure about the housekeeper... The only problem is the clash between the plot and the context which this change brings about. It would never have been put on in 1942 in this form tho I’m sure Coward would have loved it this way.
|
|
529 posts
|
Post by jampot on Jun 21, 2019 16:53:45 GMT
Is this still finishing at 22.15? My train leaves waterloo at 22.20...
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 21, 2019 22:38:06 GMT
Had a blast watching this tonight!
Obviously still some work to do before press night - the scene changes need to be quicker and there’s a couple of dodgy accents going on. That should be fixable though - the bigger problem is that Enzo Cilenti is miscast as Joe, I think. Too old, and not quite handsome enough, and his costume does not flatter him at all. With Gary obsessing about his age and thinning hair Joe really needs to be a gorgeous young thing.
But still, Andrew Scott is having great fun chewing up the scenery, and finding the small quiet moments of sincerity amidst the explosions. His energy really carries the whole thing. Not sure how he’ll manage on 2-show days - might be worth avoiding the matinees.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jun 21, 2019 22:42:05 GMT
I saw it last night. I think it is very good and Andrew Scott, Sophie Thompson and Indira Varma are excellent. It was my first time seeing the play and the friend I went with told me that there is a relevant change in this version. I am just not sure about the housekeeper... The only problem is the clash between the plot and the context which this change brings about. It would never have been put on in 1942 in this form tho I’m sure Coward would have loved it this way. So why is this a problem? Thank god, say I, for a production that isn't simply an attempt to replicate the 1942 original--Matthew Warchus's version felt vividly fresh and exciting, a huge revelation of a play that up until now didn't seem especially interesting to me. And Andrew Scott is simply a comic genius.
|
|
1,280 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Jun 21, 2019 23:51:23 GMT
This was quite wonderful. I love the changes they have done to some of the characters. In the recent version of Company Bobby became Bobbie and Amy become Jamie. In this new production of Present Laughter Joanna becomes Joe and Henry becomes Helen . Seems to be fashionable but it really works, and it adds the gay twist to the plot. I think Noel Coward would have approved of this new version of his classic play.
The acting is generally top notch. Andrew Scott is excellent, he has brilliant comic timing, hope he gets to do Private Lives sometime in the future. Sophie Thompson had me in stitches a few times. Luke Thallon was also very funny. There was so much energy on stage! The audience seemed to be having a blast. Hope to see it again later in the run.
|
|
5,139 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Jun 22, 2019 0:49:50 GMT
Had so much fun at this tonight. Didn’t know the plot, but realised very quickly about the gender swaps and thus the gay relationship and that this was this production specific - which I thought was a great take on the piece! Andrew Scott is, of course, delightful, delicious and damn-right dastardly. Nice to see him doing something that is more light hearted and doesn’t involve insidious amounts of crying and heartache. Sophie Thompson runs with her bits to the nth degree, and I also thought Indira Varma was spot on too. Loved the feel and stylistically thought it was great - scene changes need a LOT of work though, very long and clunky (lots of people assumed it was the interval and tried to leave at the first one) and one of the actor’s accents went on a round-the-world-tour at a few points in Act 2 - all things Matthew Warchus (who was frantically scribbling notes next to me for Act 2) will no doubt iron out in time for Press. Solid 4 stars from me - and lovely to see kathryn too !
|
|
898 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Jun 22, 2019 8:27:06 GMT
You've convinced me. I've just bought a slightly restricted Dress Circle ticket. Will form an interesting double-bill with Rosmersholm, followed by Night of the Iguana and Sweat the day after.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 22, 2019 10:06:41 GMT
|
|
1,254 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jun 22, 2019 10:16:06 GMT
Scott, Varma, Thompson, Thallon, Hill all fantastic. The rest of the cast miscast. The first 45 mins absolutely brilliant and hilarious then it dipped and I thought never really recovered same levels. I thought the second scene with Scott and Cilenti was interminable. Their use of modern versions of Toxic and Rise Up added little to the play and felt like a director being all pretentious. Set functional. Costumes good. Scott delivered his lines brilliantly but was too angry a lot of the time and tried too hard to make you care about a character who is not likeable and was loved by many. If it had kept up what was in the first scene/45 mins then I would have enjoyed it more but overall I would go for 7/10.
|
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 22, 2019 14:46:48 GMT
The only problem is the clash between the plot and the context which this change brings about. It would never have been put on in 1942 in this form tho I’m sure Coward would have loved it this way. So why is this a problem? Thank god, say I, for a production that isn't simply an attempt to replicate the 1942 original--Matthew Warchus's version felt vividly fresh and exciting, a huge revelation of a play that up until now didn't seem especially interesting to me. And Andrew Scott is simply a comic genius. Sorry, I didn’t really explain it properly. The play is set just before WWII and the room decor and the costumes all good for that, the phone joke and the general social setting all good for that time. But not the liaison which at that time even in theatrical circles would have been v difficult to own to. So what we accept, not even accept, no conflict for us, doesn’t sit with the context thus preserved. Sorry, still not clear. I’m trying.....v trying 😁
|
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jun 22, 2019 17:37:46 GMT
So why is this a problem? Thank god, say I, for a production that isn't simply an attempt to replicate the 1942 original--Matthew Warchus's version felt vividly fresh and exciting, a huge revelation of a play that up until now didn't seem especially interesting to me. And Andrew Scott is simply a comic genius. Sorry, I didn’t really explain it properly. The play is set just before WWII and the room decor and the costumes all good for that, the phone joke and the general social setting all good for that time. But not the liaison which at that time even in theatrical circles would have been v difficult to own to. So what we accept, not even accept, no conflict for us, doesn’t sit with the context thus preserved. Sorry, still not clear. I’m trying.....v trying 😁
It's clear to me what you're saying. I'm glad I didn't get a ticket for this as the sort of situation you describe tends to annoy me when I've seen inconsistent updatings in other pieces.
|
|
629 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Jun 22, 2019 20:51:19 GMT
OK so I had pretty much the exact opposite response to the above post!
Thought this was absolutely hilarious from start to finish - wasn't expecting it to be quite so funny, despite the name. I thought the cast were uniformly excellent (save for a couple of dodgy accents), and it was a joy to watch Scott play such a different character to anything I'd seen him do previously both on stage and screen.
Maybe the fact that I only paid £10 for a premium seat heightened my enjoyment, but I really thought this was great.
Full standing ovation in the stalls Friday night. Someone earlier asked what time it finished - we were out not long after 22:00 I think.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jun 22, 2019 21:50:11 GMT
Another attempt by large section of the audience to leave in the pause, it's very clearly dark so why they were determined that it was the interval. Was having quite a blue day so this was something of a light relief. I've not seen Andrew Scott do comedy before and it was all rather a delight, Sophie Thompson was the most dialled down I've seen her and bang on the money, loved her timing and Indira Varma for whom I booked is just perfect in this kind of role. Also rather liked Joshua Hill's Fred. Did think there were some weak links, seemed quite a gulf in the performances of a few actors. Lovely set and all played at a whip pace. Looked like full ovation. Sat next to someone who pre performance was singing along to the music and had an elbow firmly in my seat and my heart sank but turned out to be lovely when I ventured into conversation.
|
|
3,302 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 22, 2019 22:48:43 GMT
Watched this tonight and had an absolutely brilliant time. Some top quality performances on show, though Andrew Scott was just on a different level. His entire performance was that good and his comic timing superb. I enjoyed him in Fleabag as the Priest, but his stage comedy was something to savour. The fact that it’s non stop and being delivered at 100mph is an amazing feat of endurance to keep that energy level going for 2hrs+ was worth the standing ovation alone.
A special mention to Sophie Thompson as the Secretary and Luke Thallon as Rolland Maule who were the other standouts for me.
I loved the set design used.
If there are any criticisms of this production, then the use of the music has to be one of them. Like others have stated and which I agree with, it’s use doesn’t really add anything to the production of drive the plot forward. I would certainly get rid of it if given the choice.
Another issue are the scene changes in each Act. As it’s already been noted, it certainly applied to tonight’s audience as I saw a few people trying to make a dash to the loos during these pauses until some helpful FOH staff told the patrons the interval wasn’t due yet.
Casting wise, I really couldn’t buy into Enzo Cilenti as Joe unfotuntately.
Apart from the few issues, I’d certainly give this production a solid 4⭐️.
|
|
1,081 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jun 23, 2019 11:18:30 GMT
I was also at the Saturday night performance. I had my head in my hands in response to all the patrons rushing out of their seats and charging out the doors, turning their phones on, starting their act 1 reviews when it was only a scene change! I mean come on, a good rule of thumb is to wait for the lights to come up before literally pushing the fire doors open out onto the street, just to make sure you're not accidentally leaving mid-act. On the positive side of last nights audience though, it was nice to brush past Hans Zimmer, whom I'm a big fan of.
Andrew Scott is such a great stage presence, I really hope he doesn't slip into the world of never-ending film roles and hangs around a bit in the West End. I realised tonight this was the third time I've seen the excellent Luke Thallon on stage, so I'm becoming a bit of an accidental fanboy of his, and it was nice to see Indira Varma in something not as awful as Exit The King. I found Sophie Thompson absolutely hilarious as the secretary, I have a feeling she was creating laughs where none exist in the script.
The gender swapping element was fine, like others have written it took me a few minutes to piece together that this wasn't perhaps in Noel Cowards script, and where the changes might have been made. I don't want to make a big deal of it, it's interesting but not groundbreaking. And comparisons to the changes in Company are not exactly justified, it doesn't feel like any weight or new ideas is added to the play by way of the re-written roles.
The quality of this is high but the 'escalating farce' genre just isn't really my style, and as much as I thought everyone was doing a great job I just didn't love the play. The first scene was very funny, but after this it just wears on a bit, and my interest waned, and my laughter subsided. I really enjoy a good chuckle at the theatre, but I like it best when it comes with some genuine drama underneath. Judging by the rest of the audience's response I think that's a minority opinion - people were on their feet as soon as the first supporting actors came on for the bows.
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Jun 24, 2019 14:34:36 GMT
I realised tonight this was the third time I've seen the excellent Luke Thallon on stage, so I'm becoming a bit of an accidental fanboy of his, and it was nice to see Indira Varma in something not as awful as Exit The King. Totally agree about Mr. Thallon. I've seen him in Albion, in which he gave quite a moving performance; in the reading of Bent as the National; and in small roles in The Inheritance. The first time I saw him was in Crazy for You, his final year performance at the Guildhall School, in which he played the singing and dancing lead. He was amazing -- get that boy into a musical!
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 24, 2019 15:10:31 GMT
I thought Luke Thallon was great in Albion and he was also the young Walter in The Inheritance. Looking forward to seeing this on Wednesday.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Jun 25, 2019 1:32:50 GMT
He was also wonderful in Misalliance at the Orange Tree last year.
|
|
330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on Jun 25, 2019 12:57:14 GMT
And he was also great in the Pinter Play and fantastic in Cock!
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Jun 25, 2019 23:48:38 GMT
The 5 star raves are beginning to roll in (whatsonstage.com, Times, Telegraph), and deservedly so. The production is a sensation, and Andrew Scott may well sweep the season's theatre awards: time will tell. It's a major performance. Sophie Thompson, Indira Varma, Joshua Hill, and Luke Thallon are pretty great, as well -- especially Thallon.
|
|
|
Post by justfran on Jun 26, 2019 18:10:28 GMT
I’m really interested to see this on NT Live after reading all of the 4 and 5 star reviews. Shame it’s a little way off in November. I saw Andrew Scott a few years in the Dazzle and he was excellent, such stage presence.
|
|
167 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jun 26, 2019 21:07:43 GMT
Yes I think Present Laughter is very entertaining and certainly has its moments. Andrew Scott is very good as always, and Indira Varma, Joshua Hill and Luke Thallon are class acts.
The rest of the cast are really weak and miscast. Enzo Cilento is just bizarre casting: not remotely sexy or handsome - and he looks old enough to be Scott's father. Suzie Toase and Abdul Salis are cringingly bad, and Kitty Archer pretty annoying.
The histrionic pitch of the show becomes a bit exhausting in Act 3. It could do with more light and shade, more underplaying and quieter moments. All of which sounds much more negative than I mean it to be. Andrew Scott's charisma really does do an awful lot to rescue the show!
(Really didn't get the point of the modern pop songs over the LONG scene changes either...)
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 27, 2019 8:35:15 GMT
Loved this - and, god, it felt good just to sit in a theatre and laugh. (ADs, more genuine comedies, please.)
Andrew Scott gave a magnificent performance - the sort of performance that is so daring, quick-witted and varied that you feel lucky to have witnessed it, thinking it couldn't possibly be just like this night after night. I thought most of the rest of the performances were good, especially Luke Thallon (so different from other performances of his I've seen where he was gentle and introspective) and Sophie Thompson - particularly wonderful in her last scene. But there was a dip with the Morris, Helen and Jo scenes. However, overall a really terrific evening - oh - and the writing: 'here is your sordid little comb', etc.
Seats: we were in Q34/Q35 in the stalls having paid £21 for each. There really is no obstruction at all to Q34's view (which is probably why the price has shot up for that seat for other performances.) Q35 does have a pole which blocked a bit of the stage but could be worked around leaning to one side or the other.) A big plus of both seats is that there is tonnes of legroom - actually stretch out your legs comfort! For £20, Q35 seems a very decent choice for future productions if they keep the configuration like this.
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Jun 27, 2019 9:05:43 GMT
The rest of the cast are really weak and miscast. Enzo Cilento is just bizarre casting: not remotely sexy or handsome - and he looks old enough to be Scott's father. Completely agree, especially when the character is first mentioned along the lines of "oooh, yes, that delicious young man". When he first appeared, I thought it was odd a character described that way looked like an over-the-hill gigolo. I also thought the ending was.... odd. {Spoiler - click to view} After all the laughter and romps that preceded it, it seemed flat and out of place. And when the scene changes went on so long, I too started wondering if it was the interval, but then common sense prevailed and I figured the lights would go up if it were. In other plays where they do this type of blackout, I've seen a notice on the running times posted that warned not to leave your seat during the scene changes.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 27, 2019 9:45:58 GMT
Loved this - and, god, it felt good just to sit in a theatre and laugh. (ADs, more genuine comedies, please.) Yes, comedies seem to be looked down upon by the puritan worthies running the subsidised sector these days. Look at Rufus Norris, not only has he never directed a single comedy in his life (has he ?) but he doesn’t seem to like programming them either - I can think of a couple of Simon Godwin revivals, one or two new plays, and that’s it. I suppose in his achingly earnest quest for “relevance” mere entertainments don’t feature. Nick Hytner programmed quite a lot.
|
|