The Boys in the Band - London and tour

It's more like an extension of the tour, than a full-blown West End transfer. I believe it's slotting in between Dead Funny (closing early?) and Stepping Out.

If it's only 1-2 weeks between Dead Funny and Stepping Out then it would make sense. 

However it is very funny. The straights may like it too? Thou I'd work on that ending....

Confirmed, Vaudeville. 2 weeks from 7 Feb.

15 shows, over 150 tix for each show at £20.

www.gaytimes.co.uk/culture/54478/

I shouldn't imagine it will cost very much, no? The show already exists!

I hope it does well.

Because the theatre's only free for two weeks. Eight shows a week is standard.

And sophisticated polling data has indicated that just 10,215 people want to see this in the West End.

Would be interested to know how the producers intend to make money on this. I assume they're spreading the costs of the West End run around and the tour costs since they'd never make a profit if they were just running in the West End. The difference in the Equity minimum alone is enough to put most producers off.

They're going all out for these 2 weeks - posters on the tube of the lovely Jack Derges and Mark Gatiss!

Are the whole cast transferring with it? Hoping Ben Mansfield is staying on.

End of act 1, it's only 45 minutes.

Programmes are 5£

I'm in the grand circle and it's only 3/4 full

Uhm, I have mixed feelings. I liked it, but it has some structural issues. The tones of the first and the second act are totally different and there is no explanation for it, it turns from fun and games to murder time in a blink of an eye. Same for Michael, the character of the first act and the character of the second act are totally different. We never see the shifting point from one to the other, and it's not Ian Hallard's fault, it's a flaw of the text. And the interval is not helping.

What makes "The God of Carnage" so good is that the tension boils up so slowly that you don't even notice it until it's too late, while in this play we have a sudden and rather unjustified 180° rotation. Yes, we know that Michael gets hostile when he's drunk, but this doesn't explain the almost bipolar changing of his behaviour. I don't know, the two acts are so different that without a proper connection they just seem juxtaposed rather than complementary.

But I liked it, I didn't find it very dated - or at least not as dated as the movie (whose arch, on the other hand, was more organic). A bit patronizing at the times, maybe. The cast is very good, particularly James Holmes as Emory and Gratiss with his killer one-liners. And I loved the set!

I'm glad I saw it, I wouldn't rush back and I'm sure it must have been incredible to see this in the 60s.