1,582 posts
|
Post by anita on Sept 11, 2019 9:10:38 GMT
Usually gut feelings right. However it's usually the things I think will be great that are a letdown & those I'm thinking I shouldn't have booked [9 to 5 last night] that I really enjoy. Bit of a contradiction there but you know what I mean.
|
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Sept 11, 2019 9:26:54 GMT
I'm usually good with avoiding shows that don't seem promising to me. So I have quite a few "went to see it just to tick off the list and was moved a lot, loved it" shows and consider myself lucky.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 11, 2019 18:51:05 GMT
I have made a few booboos in my time, usually omissions and I’m prepared to confess the main two - Warhorse and Festen. Should have seen both. Otherwise I go on experience and yes, a gut feeling.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 11, 2019 22:37:41 GMT
Nope my sucks...
I've seen things I avoided for years (Great Comet) and absolutely loved them and things that should've been an easy win (Midler in Hello Dolly) and hated every second of it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 23:12:53 GMT
Generally speaking, yes, the gut instinct can be useful.
But thankfully it’s rare I see something genuinely terrible, without any sort of redeeming aspect to appreciate. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen something so terrible that I’ve had to admit defeat and fall asleep in my seat to make better use of the time.
In fact my gut is telling me not to book for Pretty Woman... but the mother has overruled that. How she heard tickets were on sale I’ll never know, but in the space of 5 minutes I had text messages today hinting at how much she wants to see it (‘I really want to see this son’), to full on panic that she was being too subtle (‘Please book for me ASAP. Please. Thank you. Love you’).
Clearly the woman is scared I’ll mess up the Christmas gift again this year.
|
|
19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 11, 2019 23:19:36 GMT
I have made a few booboos in my time, usually omissions and I’m prepared to confess the main two - Warhorse and Festen. Should have seen both. Otherwise I go on experience and yes, a gut feeling. You missed nowt with Warhorse in my very humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Sept 11, 2019 23:26:04 GMT
I don't think I've been to anything I really wanted to see and not liked it. I've definitely been brought to things that I've hated (All or Nothing for my dad's birthday) but I think that's the only legitimately bad show I've seen so this far my gut has been pretty kind to me. It helps that I don't really see musicals without having listened to at least part of the cast recording beforehand anymore. Matilda is probably the reason as I went in blind and came out not remembering any songs and being underwhelmed but I've since listened and found how clever a lot of the lyrics are and come to appreciate it more, so now I get to know the songs (at least the early ones so as not to spoil myself) so that I know if I'll enjoy it and so that I don't have to learn anything new which would have caused me to disengage with the show. Obviously you run the risk of the cast not living up to your expectations like say Bridges of Madison County recently (I was acutely aware of mistakes because I knew the score so well) but even in that case the acting won me over instead (and the singing was only rarely disappointing).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2019 10:27:47 GMT
What a delightful thread topic. It made me realize there are different objects of my gut's attention that come to bear. My gut feeling about:
-the show/source material -this treatment or production of it -the casting -the theatre's track record -the anticipated audience
I've avoided some shows where I think I would have enjoyed the cast and the production, but not the audience who others had reported to be over-the-top, singing along, inappropriately enthusiastic.
Some choices I will see no matter who is in the cast or who is doing the production because I simply trust that the source material is so good, I will enjoy the show enough. This is true for much of Sondheim, classic musicals and plays, and Angels in America.
As I've gotten older I more regularly trust my gut that I will appreciate seeing a production more than once, particularly from different spots in the theatre, most recently Follies and Company.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2019 10:38:39 GMT
I tend to have a decent instinct if I'd like a show or not. Often I can see favourite shows again on subsequent productions some of which may be better or worse.
Also certain performers and producers, you can have a good idea will always give you a good show.
|
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Sept 12, 2019 11:37:31 GMT
You missed nowt with Warhorse in my very humble opinion. Feeling very ill... I actually agree with the bear... I concur with The Monkey and The Bear (hey that almost rhymes.) I went to see His Dark Materials at NT many years ago and was bored senseless. However, the main thing that annoyed me about it was the puppetry. I found the mechanics of it really got in the way of the storytelling. Therefore when I read that Warhorse was heavily dependent on this 'device' I decided to give it a miss. But then it got rave reviews and I weakened. Should have gone with the gut. I found it shallow, long-winded and an emotion-free zone. But still I didn't learn and later went to the NT Pinocchio which I hated and had more puppetry moments.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 12, 2019 15:26:35 GMT
Due to the cost of getting to and potentially staying over in London, I have to be pretty sure I at least think I'm going to enjoy a play before spending out. I wish I could take more punts but that's just the reality. The casting goes a long way, for example I always wanted to see Adrian Lester onstage so the minute he was announced in Cost of Living at Hampstead earlier this year, I booked. As it turned out the play wasn't great bar a few exceptional moments, but I got to sit on the front row and witness Lester's acting, so I came away very happy. And no doubt one day I will book a cheap NT ticket so I can finally say I've been to the NT, but hopefully it;ll be for a good production! (Of course with the advent n NT Live even this has become more and more of a moot point).
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Sept 12, 2019 16:13:11 GMT
Due to the cost of getting to and potentially staying over in London, I have to be pretty sure I at least think I'm going to enjoy a play before spending out. I wish I could take more punts but that's just the reality. The casting goes a long way, for example I always wanted to see Adrian Lester onstage so the minute he was announced in Cost of Living at Hampstead earlier this year, I booked. As it turned out the play wasn't great bar a few exceptional moments, but I got to sit on the front row and witness Lester's acting, so I came away very happy. And no doubt one day I will book a cheap NT ticket so I can finally say I've been to the NT, but hopefully it;ll be for a good production! (Of course with the advent n NT Live even this has become more and more of a moot point). & Juliet is a great example, why ignore your gut feeling.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 12, 2019 19:17:58 GMT
I have made a few booboos in my time, usually omissions and I’m prepared to confess the main two - Warhorse and Festen. Should have seen both. Otherwise I go on experience and yes, a gut feeling. You missed nowt with Warhorse in my very humble opinion. Agreed, one of the most disappointing things I've ever seen.
|
|
2,422 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on Sept 12, 2019 20:18:03 GMT
My theatre-going is now such an obsessive mission of 'ooh I must tick that title off' that neither my gut nor reviews will stop me from booking anything, but I have found that if I go in thinking 'I'm not going to like this', there's a stronger chance that I won't, so I try to go in with an empty brain (not much of a challenge!). I do generally have a pretty good idea of what I'll like and what I won't. I love a surprise though 😀
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 12, 2019 20:32:54 GMT
This is a very interesting thread. I’m also thinking about what I don't want to see again. For example I don't want to see The Duchess of Malfi or Endgame again. If you have not seen either, then yes, go, they are both essential in the drama canon. I would like to see new work which isn’t preaching. I fear that although we have the most brilliant actors and can stage work with theatrical effects, not always needed of course, we don't have the writers. I’m watching Succession on the telly at the moment and it is written utterly amazingly with set pieces Chekov style and twists. So are our writers writing for the telly now? An old discussion I realise but part of the bigger picture.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Sept 12, 2019 20:51:07 GMT
This is a very interesting thread. I’m also thinking about what I don't want to see again. For example I don't want to see The Duchess of Malfi or Endgame again. If you have not seen either, then yes, go, they are both essential in the drama canon. I would like to see new work which isn’t preaching. I fear that although we have the most brilliant actors and can stage work with theatrical effects, not always needed of course, we don't have the writers. I’m watching Succession on the telly at the moment and it is written utterly amazingly with set pieces Chekov style and twists. So are our writers writing for the telly now? An old discussion I realise but part of the bigger picture. I would love Jed Mercurio to write for the stage - he has proven he can handle extended scenes. I am sure he could do something really amazing - and theatrical. But it is easy to understand why TV is getting the better writers right now - we are going through a period in theatre where the DIRECTOR is king. The writing feels very much secondary to the CONCEPT - just a vehicle for the director and their big idea/house style.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 12, 2019 21:47:22 GMT
I’m sure in the past there were plenty of plays that reflected the times, the scandals and political stuff and we wouldn’t have a clue now. Even the serious plays, Macbeth is a good example, have contexts and internal language we need to have explained to us ( by good teachers or programme notes) but the best plays capture us through that magical thing, ‘drama’. Are the play readers missing plays because they are looking for the concept, ‘now’ work?
|
|
|
Post by marob on Sept 12, 2019 23:52:59 GMT
A huge benefit of going to the theatre on my own is not having to see something just because someone else wants to see it. If I don't like the sound of something, or it doesn't have a performer I'd like to see, then I just don't go. But even then, there's still the odd dud. Biggest let-down I've had is Jeeves & Wooster in Perfect Nonsense. I've enjoyed the few PG Wodehouse novels I've read so was quite looking forward to it. Saw it on tour and I just did not find it at all funny. I was bored to the point where I struggled to keep my eyes open, and I think I might have actually fallen asleep at one point. I've never left at the interval, but if I see one like this again, I think I'm going to have to. lynette Funny you should mention Macbeth. I've seen the Ian McKellen/Judi Dench TV version and the Roman Polanski film, but somehow never seen an actual stage production of it. It's opening around now in Manchester at the Royal Exchange, so this should be a good time to finally see it. But my gut is telling me no. I've a slight suspicion that it will be a bit "worthy" (for want of a better word.)
|
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on Sept 13, 2019 5:50:25 GMT
But it is easy to understand why TV is getting the better writers right now - we are going through a period in theatre where the DIRECTOR is king. The writing feels very much secondary to the CONCEPT - just a vehicle for the director and their big idea/house style. Oh sweet summer child. Welcome to what Germany has been like for the last 40 years and drove people away in masses until theatre became a tiny little bubble for an intellectual (wannabe) elite. Believe me, there's room for things to get way way worse. At least Britain still HAS writers who write new plays on a wide range of topics and pick up current subjects for the stage, occasionally creating something truly amazing like The Jungle. Over here all they do is forever and ever rehash the same classics in a variety of idiotic "concepts". I find TV just as much hit and miss as theatre, to be honest. Didn't last more than 2-3 episodes of Succession for example, because I just can't be bothered to care for rich privileged people and their fighting over money. I also think that it must be easier to get into theatre-writing, you can start small on the fringe, in Edinburgh, regional theatre, etc. and hope to go on to better things. But to get your stuff picked up and produced by a television channel must be hard as there's so much money involved from the get go. PS: Interestingly, my gut feeling told me "Hell no!" about &Juliet, but with the first positive reports from Manchester I'm now starting to sway. Having heard about the "frame" of Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway bickering over the story makes it appear to make a lot more sense. Sometimes an initial gut reaction is based on being unaware of something important, so I'm willing to change my mind.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 13, 2019 11:12:22 GMT
we don't have the writers. I’m watching Succession on the telly at the moment and it is written utterly amazingly with set pieces Chekov style and twists. So are our writers writing for the telly now? An old discussion I realise but part of the bigger picture. But it is easy to understand why TV is getting the better writers right now - we are going through a period in theatre where the DIRECTOR is king. I think for years we've had jokes about the low status of writers (that nasty old one about "the actress so dumb she slept with the writer") but longform TV is really giving them a chance to shine, and social media, podcasts etc. giving them a voice and a following (e.g. Craig Mazin's podcasts on Chernobyl, a series that's been a proper word-of-mouth success). It's also picking up on great emerging actors quickly (all three of my "always book for" young stage actors were in Screen International's Stars of Tomorrow list last year - good call!). Also, as you say, too many plays these days seem to rely on concept instead of character, rather than letting themes emerge through drama or characters: I haven't seen many plays recently where I've felt moved by the plight of the characters - too often, they seem to be just vehicles for a statement, like watching a thesis on stage.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 13, 2019 13:20:04 GMT
we are going through a period in theatre where the DIRECTOR is king. The writing feels very much secondary to the CONCEPT - just a vehicle for the director and their big idea/house style. I think a more obvious cause is probably the money they get paid for TV! With every tech company thinking that they need to get into content creation for their own streaming services there’s a real need for good writers to actually create all that ‘peak tv’. And it’s easier to jump from TV into feature film writing than theatre - there’s more cross-pollination. The two situations are probably intertwined - if all the strongest writing is going to TV, because that’s why the money is and where reputations are made, then theatre Directors have leeway to play with their own conceptual ideas because there’s not the depth in the writing they are working with to create a compelling production on its own. And if writers see the theatre is becoming more director-led and TV more writer-led the they may well find the latter more appealing creatively, too. Plus a TV series is genuinely a much longer form of storytelling than theatre - even the big 2-part theatrical epics like Angels in America and The Inheritance are only as long as a limited series - if you truly have a story you want to tell over 10 hours or more then TV is the only place to do that.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 13, 2019 20:03:39 GMT
I am a aware of theatre in Germany, viserys. My daughter worked at the theatre in Koblenz for a year and we went to visit. Not the worst offender but very much all about the concept. The director there was aware of the Almeida where my daughter had done some work experience. He cut a dramatic figure himself in a full length black leather coat. Can the English speaking theatre survive this concept dictatorship?
|
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on Sept 15, 2019 5:44:02 GMT
I am a aware of theatre in Germany, viserys. My daughter worked at the theatre in Koblenz for a year and we went to visit. Not the worst offender but very much all about the concept. The director there was aware of the Almeida where my daughter had done some work experience. He cut a dramatic figure himself in a full length black leather coat. Can the English speaking theatre survive this concept dictatorship? I'm sure it will. English theatre is at its heart commercial and needs a paying audience to come for it to survive. A quick Google search tells me that UK Theatre receives state funding to a tune of £364 million p.a. in total. German theatre receives... get this... 3.5 BILLION Euro. So directors don't care if people stay away. They've never cared how many people they've driven away (and often into the arms of commercial bright fun musical theatre) since Regietheater became a thing in the 70s. Their biggest problem is that the audience, who accepted all of that stuff willingly over the decades, is now dying away and they failed to rope a younger generation in. There'll be interesting times ahead. I haven't seen much "concept" staging in Britain - I mean, I come travelling from Germany so often to AVOID that kind of thing - but what little I've seen, I still thing that British directors manage to put the actors center stage. And there are still plenty of new interesting plays written about contemporary issues and not just classics mauled about time and again to drive some bizarre concept home. Not sure if anyone here has seen this, which says it all:
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 15, 2019 12:38:14 GMT
A quick Google search tells me that UK Theatre receives state funding to a tune of £364 million p.a. in total. German theatre receives... get this... 3.5 BILLION Euro. So directors don't care if people stay away. Gosh I didn't know that! I commented on this site a while ago about the lack of modern contemporary continental plays staged in London, odd given how London theatremakers (if my Twitter feed is anything to go by) are 99% 'remain'. London's more trendy theatres seem to be stuffed with contemporary American, or dead Scandinavians/Russians with a twist. Are directors' egos pushing theatre writers and actors out of the picture? Are writers going elsewhere, or not being given the chance to emerge? Btw, I generally prefer studio theatre, minimal set and just a couple of strong actors. I think some British theatre, like British indie filmmaking, makes a virtue out of low-budget necessity.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 15, 2019 17:36:23 GMT
Maria Aberg , not my favourite director, has worked in Sweden and Germany.
|
|