1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Jan 23, 2017 10:31:42 GMT
Sorry, one last thing... was the speech even about Trump? I thought the poster said it was about the Women's March, which wasn't (solely) about Trump. His provocative language was the stimulus for it, but the March was in protest of / to raise awareness of all women's rights, and equal rights in general. We're not all American citizens on this board/in the audience at the NT, but hearing a world leader speaking so vilely about women is going to justify his words to some people, therefore protesting Trump over here makes sense anyway. And just because he's president now doesn't mean people can't disagree with him.
Saying that all women and men should be equal doesn't seem that outrageous to me.
Really though, 99% of us didn't hear this speech anyway.
Back to Hedda, I'm finally seeing this next weekend. Was initially excited because I like the play and the cast looked good, but it seems people's verdicts are mixed. still.. looking forward to it!
|
|
183 posts
|
Post by bee on Jan 23, 2017 10:33:55 GMT
I was there on Saturday night. I thought Ruth Wilson’s speech was fine. It was actually only a few sentences – I doubt it lasted more than 2 minutes – and was about the Women’s march and not about Trump at all (other than by implication I suppose). Generally though, given the subject matter of the play and what was happening in London during the day it seemed not inappropriate.
Regarding the play, on the whole I enjoyed it. It was a bit self-consciously arty-farty at times (the musical interludes, the stapling of flowers to the walls, the entering/leaving the stage via the audience) but the cast all gave wonderful performances.
I do think updating to the present day was a waste of time though, and made some parts of the story seem a bit odd. Would any writer actually carry around a paper manuscript these days, and not have it on a laptop or a USB stick? In the modern world would Lovborg really be such a pariah after a night on the lash as he is in this story? I know these things don’t really matter but if an update just leads to these irritating inconsistencies then why bother?
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by ldm2016 on Jan 23, 2017 14:41:15 GMT
Self entitled wealthy actors Making political speeches NOT a good thing Embarrassing and inappropriate What a shame she didn't channel such emotion into the performance people have paid to see Agree. She's paid to perform and she shouldn't abuse her position to hector a captive audience (99.99% of whom agree with her anyway). It's like travelling on Southern Rail and having the driver come on the intercom and denounce the government's transport policy. Just incidentally it seems her commitment to women's rights didn't extend as far as questioning the director's motivation for his handling of this play which could easily be argued to be misogynistic. She's better than Benedict Cumbersome using the Barbican stage to tell everyone that we should let in more refugees when he doesn't live in an area which will be affected by their arrival or restricted to using the services which will be affected....
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 23, 2017 16:05:34 GMT
Callum, you can't make assumptions about what the Board thinks as a whole. That will stop people from expressing views they think might not be acceptable and that would defeat the point of this Board. Usually we express our views politely with some irony and joshing and people feel confident that they can say what they think about shows and other topics which relate to theatre, our abiding interest. This might be the only place we can express our views and it might just be making a healthy contribution to discussion in the wider community.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jan 23, 2017 16:32:14 GMT
Can other forum members be blocked? Does Parsley know where the theatre board bodies are buried or something? Why is he tolerated? Why should he not be tolerated? I rarely agree with him but I enjoy being provoked by his posts, he is often witty and always a stimulating read. He obviously cares about the theatre and he's right about actors making speeches at the end of plays. Yeah! Leave @parsley alone. The only problem I have with his posts is knowing when to breathe - I can end up hyper-ventilating by the end if I'm not careful! I've not seen him make personal comments so why shouldn't he be 'tolerated' just because he has strong views? Have you people baying for his head never accidentally stumbled into the Wicked thread?  (You'll only do that once!) |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jan 23, 2017 16:47:05 GMT
Callum, you can't make assumptions about what the Board thinks as a whole. That will stop people from expressing views they think might not be acceptable and that would defeat the point of this Board. Usually we express our views politely with some irony and joshing and people feel confident that they can say what they think about shows and other topics which relate to theatre, our abiding interest. This might be the only place we can express our views and it might just be making a healthy contribution to discussion in the wider community.
Personally, as a glass half-full kind of guy, my default position is that everyone on theatreboard does agree with me. So, have sympathy for my pain when I find tis not so.
Never fear, I have been developing the solution and am soon to launch some very nice re-education centres where those unfortunate not to share my opinions will receive enlightenment and inner peace.
As an added bonus, those completing the course will receive a free ticket to Ghost the Musical (at a venue of their choice)!
Note that anyone sitting at the back attempting sneakily to write up a PhD on Angels in America (or similar texts like the book of Half a Sixpence) will be made to sit the course twice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2017 19:00:43 GMT
I was there last night. Ruth's speech was not self-indulgent or inappropriate. People need to get over themselves. The show was so-so, but I've come to expect this from the National. Sometimes, they really get it right, but most of the time their productions sit somewhere in the middle. Ruth & Rafe, I liked. She needs to get over herself And accept some things as they are Nothing should ever be accepted, humanity must remain in a constant state of flux by questioning what is. Even the commonly agreed needs to be constantly tested to remind us of its veracity. Only by doing this can we live truthfully and honestly. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2017 19:06:08 GMT
I do agree with her, indeed and I fully believe "moaning to an UK audience" is really not what was happening last night at the NT... I doubt anyone will find a theatre speaking up for Trump considering his views on arts and values that are generally represented in the theatre community. And furthermore what she was doing was trying to undermine the outcome of a democratic vote in a country she isn't a citizen of which is apparently a very very bad thing when Russians do it but not when she does it. I may have missed it but I can't put my finger on when Ruth Wilson has interfered in foreign elections, assassinated her opponents, jailed those who speak against her and propped up dictators to serve her agenda at the expense of the people that they rule over. As I say, I might have somehow tuned out when she did that. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on Jan 23, 2017 20:46:45 GMT
Callum, you can't make assumptions about what the Board thinks as a whole. That will stop people from expressing views they think might not be acceptable and that would defeat the point of this Board. Usually we express our views politely with some irony and joshing and people feel confident that they can say what they think about shows and other topics which relate to theatre, our abiding interest. This might be the only place we can express our views and it might just be making a healthy contribution to discussion in the wider community. I apologise Lynette if I've upset anyone. My point is not so much about Parsley being tolerated himself (don't wish to make anything personal) but his frankly bizarre and irrelevant divergences into some kind of political fantasy world, with people often dismissing what he says as 'silly Parsley isn't he a laugh'. With current events I guess I'm perhaps a bit more vigilant against 'alternative facts' as they're now called being permitted without being challenged. And his writing style is extremely annoying! Other than that I can't wait to see Ruth on Valentine's Day - hope she's getting her curtain call speech ready! |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 25, 2017 21:02:31 GMT
Yes you can block people. Click on someone's name and it takes you to the summary page of their profile. There's a block button on the far right of the page, appropriately enough. Genius that. Thought it needed highlighting, so I did |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 26, 2017 7:41:27 GMT
Callum, you can't make assumptions about what the Board thinks as a whole. That will stop people from expressing views they think might not be acceptable and that would defeat the point of this Board. Usually we express our views politely with some irony and joshing and people feel confident that they can say what they think about shows and other topics which relate to theatre, our abiding interest. This might be the only place we can express our views and it might just be making a healthy contribution to discussion in the wider community. I apologise Lynette if I've upset anyone. My point is not so much about Parsley being tolerated himself (don't wish to make anything personal) but his frankly bizarre and irrelevant divergences into some kind of political fantasy world, with people often dismissing what he says as 'silly Parsley isn't he a laugh'. With current events I guess I'm perhaps a bit more vigilant against 'alternative facts' as they're now called being permitted without being challenged. And his writing style is extremely annoying! Other than that I can't wait to see Ruth on Valentine's Day - hope she's getting her curtain call speech ready! That is a classic non-apology. I'm sorry if anyone is upset ..... A fact, alternative or otherwise, is that she forced her politics down the throat of the audience who had no option but to listen. It would be massively tedious if actors started doing this, I can only think of one occasion it has happened before, the few curtain call speeches I have seen have been limited to: 1) Praising the author who is in the audience 2) Mentioning someone connected with the production who has died 3) Rattling the collecting bucket for the building of the new café Of course Cumberbatch set a bad precedent by wittering on about refugees every night at the end of Hamlet. Some actors make the mistake of imagining that because we pay to hear them speak on stage then we're also interested in hearing what their opinions are. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2017 8:38:05 GMT
The audience weren't forced. They could have got up and walked out if they didn't want to hear it. Heaven knows, lots of people on here walk out of a show halfway through if they aren't enjoying it! It's like people who eat their entire meal at a restaurant and only complain how bad they thought it was afterwards. She was hardly strapping people to their seats and brainwashing them before indulging in a touch of water torture.
The best way of telling the NT to stop allowing actors to make "political speeches" after a show is to contact Rufus Norris and stop going to see any show at the NT. Hit him in his pockets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2017 9:42:14 GMT
Politics affects everyone, but the politicians like it best when people step back, close their eyes and ears and mouths, and leave the politicians to do what they want without any questions being asked or any accountability demanded. Anyone with any sort of platform has shared their political views - we all seem to do it CONSTANTLY on here! - and if there's no job-related reason why an actor shouldn't say something at curtain call, then they have the same right to use their platform to share their opinion as all of us here do.
I find it really genuinely disturbing when people are so quick and so vehement in saying that celebrities shouldn't involve themselves in politics. We should ALL INVOLVE OURSELVES IN POLITICS, and just because gaining celebrity means you lose the levels of privacy and anonymity you enjoyed before, it doesn't automatically follow that you should lose all other basic fundamental human rights.
Also, as a species, we really lost the right to complain about celebrities having political views when the United States of America elected a reality TV star with numerous movie and TV cameos as their Commander-in-Chief. (And he's not even the first president to come from a more showbizzy background, so I guess we actually lost that right back in the early 80s.)
Disagree with someone's views if you disagree with them, but wanting people to shut up and not share their views at all... that idea just does not sit comfortably with me AT ALL. It's not like Ruth Wilson dominated a sophisticated dinner party by aggressively challenging people on their views all evening and ruining the host's plans for a nice night with all their friends, she gave a brief speech, and she didn't even do it before the show when people who do have a problem with actors expressing opinions would *have* to sit through it if they wanted to see the play they paid money for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2017 9:58:27 GMT
We should ALL INVOLVE OURSELVES IN POLITICS This deserves all the likes. One of the most depressing things about both the EU referendum and the US election is the number of people in the respective countries who rushed to the Internet afterwards to search for the meaning of what they'd just voted for. I still run into people today who think the referendum was like a general election where each side sets out the policies it will implement if it gets into power, and I'm sure there are people in the US right now who are suddenly realising that Trump's proposed policies will affect them personally rather than just being a general "make everything better" magical spell. The right to vote comes with an implied duty to know what that vote will actually do. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on Jan 26, 2017 12:38:21 GMT
I apologise Lynette if I've upset anyone. My point is not so much about Parsley being tolerated himself (don't wish to make anything personal) but his frankly bizarre and irrelevant divergences into some kind of political fantasy world, with people often dismissing what he says as 'silly Parsley isn't he a laugh'. With current events I guess I'm perhaps a bit more vigilant against 'alternative facts' as they're now called being permitted without being challenged. And his writing style is extremely annoying! Other than that I can't wait to see Ruth on Valentine's Day - hope she's getting her curtain call speech ready! That is a classic non-apology. I'm sorry if anyone is upset ..... A fact, alternative or otherwise, is that she forced her politics down the throat of the audience who had no option but to listen. It would be massively tedious if actors started doing this, I can only think of one occasion it has happened before, the few curtain call speeches I have seen have been limited to: 1) Praising the author who is in the audience 2) Mentioning someone connected with the production who has died 3) Rattling the collecting bucket for the building of the new café Of course Cumberbatch set a bad precedent by wittering on about refugees every night at the end of Hamlet. Some actors make the mistake of imagining that because we pay to hear them speak on stage then we're also interested in hearing what their opinions are. Yep - I'm sorry for the upset I might've caused but definitely am not apologising for what I said! Personally I would like more curtain call speeches. Only a couple of minutes. Just a nice way to finish off an evening. Makes the audience feel special to hear from 'the actor'. Plus - there is starting to be an authoritarian grip on information coming from the US now. I think it's right for people to be a lot more open and decisive with their politics, and as posters above have said, actors have an excellent platform to do this. By all means walk out or equally go to the riverbank and bury your head in the sand. |
|
379 posts
|
Post by ctas on Jan 27, 2017 7:39:36 GMT
Saw this last night and I tried to be open-minded but there's something about van Hove's directing style that I can never get behind. And it's one of my favourite plays  |
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Jan 29, 2017 23:22:52 GMT
Hmm.... I saw this on Saturday. There were lots of bits which I liked but overall this wasn't my favourite thing I've afraid.
In the final few minutes I was so uncomfortable (in the centre of row A of the stalls, aka the splash zone) that I felt almost violated. The ending was affecting but it just felt wrong to me.
Also, transporting this play to the 21st century doesn't really work, and Hedda came off as a bratty child rather than a woman ahead of the curve. A shame, as I love Ibsen's strong women normally and Hedda is one of my faves.
The cast was good. I really like Ruth Wilson and Rafe Spall so when this was announced I knew I'd have to see it. Wilson was really brilliant - she even made Hedda's conniving seem kind of delicious for lack of a better word. Her Hedda had a kind of catlike quality and I really enjoyed that. Really enjoyed Spall as Brack in act 1, less so in act 2, but I think it was more the direction that his acting that I didn't warm to so much. Kyle Soller was altogether too nice, and likable, and caring as Tesman, but gave a really excellent performance nevertheless. Chukwudi Iwuji was suitably downtrodden and weary as Lovberg. Didn't warm to Thea or Aunt J so much.
Overall I'm really glad I saw this as there were some excellent moments, and towards the end the intensity was electric, but I also couldn't shake the sense that by transporting this play to present day Hedda wasn't treated fairly, and came across looking a lot less likeable that she usually does.
(Saw The Glass Menagerie afterwards and would recommend that over this any day of the week. Spectacular... I've been raving about it ever since!)
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Jan 31, 2017 22:58:07 GMT
I'll elaborate another time when it's not so late but I saw it tonight. Loved the actress playing Hedda, but otherwise hated the production. Staging was not effective. Repeated use of the Joni Mitchell song was borderline ridiculous. Thing with the flowers was comical and cheap.
Weird modernisations, some very clunky dialogue, no chemistry between the characters.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Feb 4, 2017 23:09:30 GMT
Bemused. I loved it. I don't why I seem to be odds with the last few posters. Up there with Medea, almost. Maybe after all the Edwardian high neck costume versions I've seen I'm ready for something else. I did wonder about the maid being on the stage at the beginning and what she was doing at the burning. But there you go, I took that because all the rest, especially the end, worked for me.
Smashing performances.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 5, 2017 9:08:06 GMT
Bemused. I loved it. I don't why I seem to be odds with the last few posters. Up there with Medea, almost. Maybe after all the Edwardian high neck costume versions I've seen I'm ready for something else. I did wonder about the maid being on the stage at the beginning and what she was doing at the burning. But there you go, I took that because all the rest, especially the end, worked for me. Smashing performances. The Almeida Medea ? Plenty here hated that too. In general it seems younger people (and Sir David Hare) are less able to accept the non-literal aspects of productions than us old heads - they are quite conservative. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 5, 2017 9:53:23 GMT
Bemused. I loved it. I don't why I seem to be odds with the last few posters. Up there with Medea, almost. Maybe after all the Edwardian high neck costume versions I've seen I'm ready for something else. I did wonder about the maid being on the stage at the beginning and what she was doing at the burning. But there you go, I took that because all the rest, especially the end, worked for me. Smashing performances. A colleague went to see it last week and hated it so much she apparently was ranting and raging about it in the office. I was working from home so missed the spectacle but heard all about it the day after. Said everything about it was wrong for the text. Oh, she is in her 50s/60s probably and had seen lots of traditional productions. Don't think it's an age thing - sometimes a production just rubs you up the wrong way. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 9:55:49 GMT
A colleague went to see it last week and hated it so much she apparently was ranting and raging about it in the office. I was working from home so missed the spectacle but heard all about it the day after. Said everything about it was wrong for the text. How old are they? |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 5, 2017 9:57:05 GMT
A colleague went to see it last week and hated it so much she apparently was ranting and raging about it in the office. I was working from home so missed the spectacle but heard all about it the day after. Said everything about it was wrong for the text. How old are they? Not young. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 9:58:10 GMT
Oh well, at least they'll be dead soon. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Feb 5, 2017 18:24:51 GMT
HG: The NT Medea with Helen McCrory. Also outrageously modern with supposedly unmodern material.
|
|
(You'll only do that once!)
