|
|
Post by learfan on Jul 12, 2019 15:52:47 GMT
They already have........discuss. Too true so far, though the hanging pendants in the RSC foyer shows all 3
They also show Pericles which of course isnt in the folio. I have pointed this out to them, not sure if its been removed yet. Pretty basic error by their marketing dept! |
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Jul 12, 2019 15:55:05 GMT
Here's hoping the RSC don't cop out They may compress it into two plays which has been done before but cannot imagine them going this far. Unless it last over four hours its going to be incomprehensible. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 12, 2019 17:07:15 GMT
Here's hoping the RSC don't cop out They may compress it into two plays which has been done before but cannot imagine them going this far. Unless it last over four hours its going to be incomprehensible. I feel compressing to 2 is acceptable but only if R-III is added to make it a trilogy. |
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Jul 12, 2019 23:40:20 GMT
The three Henry VI productions in 2000 with David Oyelowo as Henry were so good they made me reappraise my view of the plays and persuaded me they were cracking action-plays which must have helped make Shakespeare's name rather than glorified juvenilia.
I wouldn't trim a line off these plays and certainly wouldn't dispense with Margaret - the only decent female role in the trilogy. When Edward Hall did his all-male "Rose Rage" two play version, apart from the pointlessness of the exercise, one felt cheated of important chunks of history which informed the rest of the plays.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Jul 13, 2019 0:47:13 GMT
The three Henry VI productions in 2000 with David Oyelowo as Henry were so good they made me reappraise my view of the plays and persuaded me they were cracking action-plays which must have helped make Shakespeare's name rather than glorified juvenilia. I wouldn't trim a line off these plays and certainly wouldn't dispense with Margaret - the only decent female role in the trilogy. When Edward Hall did his all-male "Rose Rage" two play version, apart from the pointlessness of the exercise, one felt cheated of important chunks of history which informed the rest of the plays. Totally agree that Michael Boyd's productions were terrific, although my favorite performances of the plays were directed by Adrian Noble for the RSC. Over three nights, The Plantagenets gave us thrilling productions of these amazing plays, from Henry VI Part I through Richard III, with great performances, particularly from Penny Downie as Queen Margaret (Ralph Fiennes was Henry VI). I also remember Michael Bogdanov's cycle of the history plays, from Richard II through Richard III. June Watson was Margaret in that production, which I saw at the Young Vic. |
|
5,840 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 13, 2019 1:09:48 GMT
I saw the revival of the RSC H6 trilogy in one day - and it was an outstanding day in the theatre. The plays can work on their own terms - with the right director at the helm.
I did much enjoy Rose Rage - it was a visceral experience.
I know someone who has tried to cut them down into 1 play - which he then staged with reversed gender casting and giving everyone t-shirts with their character names on.
Too much is lost to go down from 9 hours to 2.5.
The H4 plays, on the other hand, can work when cut together (at least I think so because I did it!) - far easier to go from 5 to 2.5 (and there is a lot of repetition in those plays)
|
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Jul 13, 2019 6:35:51 GMT
I didnt see Rose Rage but i did see the 3 recent RSC productions, Margaret is a massive part and Penny Downie, Fiona Bell (what happened to her?) and Katy Stephens were all superb. Apparently R3 will be played by an actress but not Terry.
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Jul 13, 2019 7:33:19 GMT
and Margaret played by a male....
true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 13, 2019 8:31:44 GMT
Apart from the Michael Boyd production have the three Henry VI plays ever NOT been compressed to two ? Billington is under the illusion the ESC Pennington/ Bogdanov cycle was three but I saw it and it wasn’t. Maybe the Terry Hands cycle from the 1970s ?
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Jul 13, 2019 9:00:18 GMT
Pennington /Bogdanov
House of Lancaster first play
House of York second play
Richard 111 final part
Lancaster was amalgum HV1 1/2
York HV1 2/3 began on dockside with York returning from Ireland before big Cade sequences.
Lancaster did include full Joan story line.
Many trilogy days across tours.
Think its a tall order to do the plays as one 'epic'...need to lose much and that could suggest Joan storyline out of window.
Bogdanov work had massive influence on histories that followed.Very contemporary towards end of cycle...started with R 11 in a Regency period ending in a modern pre-Van Hove studio with cameras etc at the Richmond end speech uniting both houses.
Barbers Adagio For Strings underscored the Richard/Richmond fight and continued into Press Conference.
Great company ESC......
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2019 9:03:07 GMT
The Globe did all three in the Globe to Globe season (each by a company from a different country from the former Yugoslavia) and also did their own production of the full trilogy in 2013, at the Globe and touring. When you see all three they each work well as individual plays and it’s a shame they’re so rarely done. My favourite aspect is the evil super villain version of Joan of Arc.
If I ran the RSC ... I’d programme part iii under its original title in a double bill with Richard iii
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 13, 2019 13:15:26 GMT
What about the RSC 1964 and also RSC much later in the Courtyard when it was first erected? Were they not 3 parters?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Jul 13, 2019 14:13:55 GMT
The Bogdanov/ESC series was called "Wars of the Roses." Bogdanov did great work. I remember being deeply moved by his production of de Musset's Lorenzaccio at the NT. It was not particularly well received, as I recall, but it was a noble and (I think) successful attempt to stage a play that perhaps was intended to be read, rather than staged.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 13, 2019 14:44:51 GMT
I found Bogdanov very patchy. For the ESC his history cycle was brilliant but Macbeth (for example) was ludicrous, actors staggering around in the fog wearing kilts. At NT I remember his “Strider: The Story of a Horse” with Pennington which was a work of genius and one of the best things I’ve ever seen.
|
|
8 posts
|
Post by hedda4897 on Jul 13, 2019 21:23:17 GMT
I want Emma Rice back. I loved what she put on. This season looks tedious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 14, 2019 9:34:42 GMT
What about the RSC 1964 and also RSC much later in the Courtyard when it was first erected? Were they not 3 parters? The Wars of the Roses RSC production in 1963-4 compressed Henry VI into two plays. Michael Boyd's Henry VI (your Courtyard one I assume) was always in three parts - originally and when it was revived, I saw the original in the Swan as part of a history cycle by different directors but he later revived it as part of his own history cycle. The 1977 Terry Hands/Alan Howard production was three parts. The NT has never done any of the plays, one of the few Shakespeare's they haven't done. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 14, 2019 13:23:48 GMT
Yes thanks. I didn’t see their 64, only the RIII. But saw the Boyd with the dead guys getting up and walking off into the back double door. To return as someone else... it was good. Doubt whether i saw the 77, as I was otherwise engaged
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jul 22, 2019 10:04:40 GMT
Booked Swive this morning as it opened to the public. Not cheap but Ella Hickson is pretty interesting, imo.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 22, 2019 19:24:50 GMT
So in lower gallery front row forward facing seat with restricted pillar view is a bit cheaper than those in the second row or on the sides, anyone have any experience as to whether it's worse please? My side restricted views have been fine but I suspect rather depends on whether the whole row sells/turns up and how much people shuffle along.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jul 22, 2019 20:41:46 GMT
Ha, so am I! A14, to be exact  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2019 8:25:29 GMT
I usually sit in one of those (more often than not A11), it's basically fine. As you're looking at the stage, the pillar technically cuts off the corner that is furthest left (or furthest right if you're in A14) and not a lot else. Leaning forward doesn't seem to block anyone's view because the stage is suitably elevated, or you can of course lean slightly over whenever someone disappears behind said pillar if you do want to see them, or if you arrive early enough you can sit juuuuust slightly off-centre of your allocated number and that *really* minimises the pillar's effects. (This last one does presume that other people in your row don't require the full width of bench allocated to them, though I've been very lucky with that so far.)
It's also nice because there's a bend in the bench between you and the unrestricted seat nearer the centre so if you hate feeling crammed in among all the people then that provides a very helpful amount of breathing room between the two of you.
|
|
