|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 13, 2020 7:13:13 GMT
I was speaking to a German who has seen the original German-language version of this several times, they were horrified when they heard the NT running time, they said it is around 2hrs +/- 20 minutes for the original. This has put them off seeing this version. It is a pity, I feel this is a missed opportunity by the NT.
|
|
318 posts
|
Post by MrBraithwaite on Feb 13, 2020 8:38:25 GMT
I was speaking to a German who has seen the original German-language version of this several times, they were horrified when they heard the NT running time, they said it is around 2hrs +/- 20 minutes for the original. This has put them off seeing this version. It is a pity, I feel this is a missed opportunity by the NT. Can't have seen much theatre in Germany then.  The current trend is cutting down plays, that is true. Checking random German productions I can see running times of 2.30, 2.10, 1.50 and even 80 minutes for the play. But does that make it 'better'? I remember seeing King Lear at a theatre over here, under 90 minutes, 9 actors sharing all the roles, meaning everyone played Lear at some point. After that I remember thinking: I may have seen a version of it, but I can't say I have seen Shakespeare's King Lear. The Visit is an adaptation, not a translation. And I will read the original again before watching it and then make up my mind about it.  |
|
1,239 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Feb 13, 2020 13:28:14 GMT
They got the wrong Jeremy in for this.
Should have given it to Jeremy Sams and played it at break neck as a farce, for that’s what the show/main plot is.
2hrs inc interval.
Everyone happy!
|
|
902 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Feb 14, 2020 12:08:01 GMT
|
|
318 posts
|
Post by MrBraithwaite on Feb 14, 2020 12:31:07 GMT
|
|
105 posts
|
Post by youngoffender on Feb 14, 2020 13:46:39 GMT
|
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Feb 14, 2020 23:27:37 GMT
An interesting play and I can see why it has been revived and given a new ease of life. It has certain structural problems which will never take it beyond good to great whatever you do with the production and however good the acting might be. You start off thinking this is the rich returnee's (Lesley Manville) play but then there are long periods when she is offstage or onstage but not participating in the action and then it looks like, the unfortunately named, Ill (I thought it was Alfred the Third from the programme notes) played by Hugo Weaving who is going to take over. And it turns out they are a tragic couple except tragically, they don't spend enough time together on stage.
Lesley Manville is excellent - she starts off looking and sounding like Gillian Anderson, moves to Bette Davis (circa Baby Jane) and ends up somewhere around Barbara Stanwyck.
The silliness of the premise of the story is camouflaged by the earnestness with which the ideas are debated - justice, revenge, love etc - but this production really needs cutting. It is well overlong and has too many pontificating speeches. It isn't, to be fair, boring and doesn't drag as much as it could considering the three and a half hours length.
One of the actors got that rare boon tonight - a line which is only funny because of the day in which is uttered, viz: "T=You would think it's Valentine's Day!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Forrest on Feb 15, 2020 13:46:55 GMT
I so wanted to love this but somehow just... didn't. It felt overly self-indulgent, tedious, much overlong for what it was trying to say and it just failed to move me.
Perhaps my biggest regret is that it failed to draw out/build on either the suspense or the humour that do seem to exist somewhere in the text: there was never any doubt for me how the story would end, no sense of a great dilemma, no feeling of a pressure cooker atmosphere in the town... And why Herrin chose to make it so solemn is beyond me, since the general idea and the pretty absurd core of the plot offered many opportunities for humour. I could imagine loving it if it was directed by Goold or someone with a similar feeling for pace and absurdity, but this version just didn't feel moving at all. Some elements before the first interval had a strong Twin Peaks, absurdist feel (and aesthetic) to them, and I kept hoping it might progress in that direction, but it didn't...
Manville is, admittedly, consistently excellent, but Weaving is no match for her: his character seemed devoid of passion, or fear, and flat. The rest of the cast weren't really memorable at all, because they got lost in the grandioseness of the production. I failed to even like the music: it felt like it was there to remind me just how ambitious the project was.
(As a sidenote: I'd recently watched a recording of The Nether, and was surprised by how much I loved the technical/visual aspects of it, but really disliked the acting style. I thought that might be down to the actors. Seeing this has made me realise that it might be that Herrin and I just don't really click, after all.)
|
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by tonyloco on Feb 15, 2020 14:26:54 GMT
I am coming a little late to this party but I am fairly sure I saw a production of The Visit in London back in the 1960s or 1970s but I can find no reference to this on the internet and I no longer have access to the bulk of my collection of diaries.
Does anybody know anything about this production, like who was in it, where was it done, what version was used and who directed it? Is there anything about previous London productions in the current NT programme?
I don't recall there being anything special about the length of the performance so maybe the version used was somewhat trimmed. I do believe I enjoyed it and it seemed to be a vehicle for one of our distinguished older actresses, but which one I cannot remember.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 15, 2020 14:57:46 GMT
I am coming a little late to this party but I am fairly sure I saw a production of The Visit in London back in the 1960s or 1970s but I can find no reference to this on the internet and I no longer have access to the bulk of my collection of diaries.
Does anybody know anything about this production, like who was in it, where was it done, what version was used and who directed it? Is there anything about previous London productions in the current NT programme?
I don't recall there being anything special about the length of the performance so maybe the version used was somewhat trimmed. I do believe I enjoyed it and it seemed to be a vehicle for one of our distinguished older actresses, but which one I cannot remember.
My first thought is that this might have been the Peter Brook production with Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne (The Lunts) which is generally recorded as a Broadway production but afterwards played the (then) new Royalty Theatre (Kingsway) in June 1960. Actually the production had toured England in 1957/8 but had failed to find a London home then and that was why it went next to Broadway. Is this the production you saw ? I have some information I can send you on this production if you DM me an email address. If this wasn't the one you saw I can research further. |
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Feb 15, 2020 16:01:43 GMT
I am coming a little late to this party but I am fairly sure I saw a production of The Visit in London back in the 1960s or 1970s but I can find no reference to this on the internet and I no longer have access to the bulk of my collection of diaries.
Does anybody know anything about this production, like who was in it, where was it done, what version was used and who directed it? Is there anything about previous London productions in the current NT programme?
I don't recall there being anything special about the length of the performance so maybe the version used was somewhat trimmed. I do believe I enjoyed it and it seemed to be a vehicle for one of our distinguished older actresses, but which one I cannot remember.
My first thought is that this might have been the Peter Brook production with Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne (The Lunts) which is generally recorded as a Broadway production but afterwards played the (then) new Royalty Theatre (Kingsway) in June 1960. Actually the production had toured England in 1957/8 but had failed to find a London home then and that was why it went next to Broadway. Is this the production you saw ? I have some information I can send you on this production if you DM me an email address. If this wasn't the one you saw I can research further. I had no idea about the history of the theatre on that site (now the Peacock). The original looks very grand indeed, and makes me wonder what it would be used for nowadays. This link actually has a photo from the opening production of The Visit, if that rings a bell... www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Stoll.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Feb 15, 2020 16:13:31 GMT
I had no idea about the history of the theatre on that site (now the Peacock). The original looks very grand indeed, and makes me wonder what it would be used for nowadays. I saw two excellent productions at the Royalty in 1987: The Importance of Being Earnest, with Wendy Hiller and Denis Lawson; and a benefit production of Noel Coward's Semi-Monde, with Judi Dench, Kenneth Branagh, Joyce Carey, Elisabeth Welch, Evelyn Laye, Barry Humphries, Joanna Lumley, and just about everyone else. Noel Coward's After the Ball played there in a centennial production in 1999, but the theatre may have been re-named by then. |
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by tonyloco on Feb 15, 2020 17:50:28 GMT
I am coming a little late to this party but I am fairly sure I saw a production of The Visit in London back in the 1960s or 1970s but I can find no reference to this on the internet and I no longer have access to the bulk of my collection of diaries.
Does anybody know anything about this production, like who was in it, where was it done, what version was used and who directed it? Is there anything about previous London productions in the current NT programme?
I don't recall there being anything special about the length of the performance so maybe the version used was somewhat trimmed. I do believe I enjoyed it and it seemed to be a vehicle for one of our distinguished older actresses, but which one I cannot remember.
My first thought is that this might have been the Peter Brook production with Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne (The Lunts) which is generally recorded as a Broadway production but afterwards played the (then) new Royalty Theatre (Kingsway) in June 1960. Actually the production had toured England in 1957/8 but had failed to find a London home then and that was why it went next to Broadway. Is this the production you saw ? I have some information I can send you on this production if you DM me an email address. If this wasn't the one you saw I can research further. Yes, Dr Jan Brock, that is absolutely correct – The Lunts in a production by Peter Brook. I remember it now! I wonder why the production does not get a mention online as playing in the UK as well as on Broadway in the Wiki article about the play? The Peter Brook production with the Lunts does however get mentioned in the Wiki article on the Peacock Theatre I will send you a DM. As to the dreadful Peacock Theatre, originally opened as the Royalty on the site of what seems to have been a glorious old theatre, the Stoll, that was demolished not long before I first came to London from Sydney. I hear from my opera-loving pals that in addition to occasional big musicals like Kismet, one of the last uses of the Stoll was for seasons by visiting opera companies including one that performed Porgy and Bess, and, it seems to me, that the destruction of this splendid theatre was an act of sheer vandalism although I can also imagine that to keep a theatre that large filled in what was a rather difficult location away from the rest of the main West End theatres would have caused economic problems and the building of a large commercial office block made more sense financially. I have attended a few different shows at the original Royalty ( Bubbling Brown Sugar and a nude revue) and later at the renamed Peacock (a few dance productions) and found the theatre itself to be particularly unattractive. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 15, 2020 18:18:05 GMT
As to the dreadful Peacock Theatre, originally opened as the Royalty on the site of what seems to have been a glorious old theatre, the Stoll, that was demolished not long before I first came to London from Sydney. I hear from my opera-loving pals …. I wonder whether any of your opera-loving pals remember the Glyndebourne presentation of the play as the opera "The Visit of the Old Lady" in May 1973 (I think it originated in Vienna the previous year) ? |
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by tonyloco on Feb 15, 2020 18:24:05 GMT
Good question – I will ask them, or at least the ones who are still around as most of those who might have seen it are now attending opera in the big opera house in the sky!
|
|
1,260 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Feb 15, 2020 18:40:26 GMT
I am coming a little late to this party but I am fairly sure I saw a production of The Visit in London back in the 1960s or 1970s but I can find no reference to this on the internet and I no longer have access to the bulk of my collection of diaries.
Does anybody know anything about this production, like who was in it, where was it done, what version was used and who directed it? Is there anything about previous London productions in the current NT programme?
I don't recall there being anything special about the length of the performance so maybe the version used was somewhat trimmed. I do believe I enjoyed it and it seemed to be a vehicle for one of our distinguished older actresses, but which one I cannot remember.
WHY IS YOUR FONT SO MUCH BIGGER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE’S?  |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 15, 2020 18:55:09 GMT
I am coming a little late to this party
WHY IS YOUR FONT SO MUCH BIGGER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE’S? An welcome accessibility feature to ensure the post is fully available to a diverse audience some of who may be visually challenged. |
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by tonyloco on Feb 15, 2020 19:32:43 GMT
WHY IS YOUR FONT SO MUCH BIGGER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE’S? An welcome accessibility feature to ensure the post is fully available to a diverse audience some of who may be visually challenged.
A few years ago I lost the sight in my left eye after a routine cataract operation went wrong and now that I have reached the advanced age of 82, the sight in my good eye is deteriorating. Even with my prescription spectacles, I find it something of a strain using my PC and I take advantage of the facility to increase the font size here on Theatre Board so that I can continue to enjoy my participation.
I suppose I could reduce the size of my text after I have written it – like this – but I choose to leave it large. Also, the choice is between 10pt and 12pt and if there was an 11pt type size then I would probably use it....but it's not there! |
|
1,260 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Feb 15, 2020 19:34:38 GMT
An welcome accessibility feature to ensure the post is fully available to a diverse audience some of who may be visually challenged.
A few years ago I lost the sight in my left eye after a routine cataract operation went wrong and now that I have reached the advanced age of 82, the sight in my good eye is deteriorating. Even with my prescription spectacles, I find it something of a strain using my PC and I take advantage of the facility to increase the font size here on Theatre Board so that I can continue to enjoy my participation.
I suppose I could reduce the size of my text after I have written it – like this – but I choose to leave it large. Also, the choice is between 10pt and 12pt and if there was an 11pt type size then I would probably use it....but it's not there!Oh that’s interesting. I wasn’t aware this feature existed. Thanks |
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by tonyloco on Feb 15, 2020 19:42:08 GMT
Yes, theatrelover123. The facility to change the type size is available only when using the 'Reply' facility. Anyone using 'Quick Reply' automatically gets the 10pt size, like this.
|
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by tonyloco on Feb 15, 2020 20:30:52 GMT
I can also imagine that to keep a theatre that large filled in what was a rather difficult location away from the rest of the main West End theatres would have caused economic problems and the building of a large commercial office block made more sense financially. 1) Tony, you use the font you are happy with, that's a direct order from the admin team on here .
2) I think part of the problem was that there were grand plans to sweep away entire blocks in that area to put major trunk roads. It would have taken out every theatre from Kingsway to Charing Cross Road, more or less. Also, I recall reading the Stoll was structurally unsound as well, which didn't help. Would love to have seen it in its glory.
As regards the demolition of the Stoll Theatre, I think I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, as a lover of theatre in all its forms, it is sad to see what was once a large and impressive theatre being demolished but it seems to have had a chequered history and never really established itself as a fully used London theatrical venue.
And we should all take comfort in the fact that there are so many wonderful theatres in London that are surviving successfully and new ones are also opening.
|
|
|
|
Post by zackpolanski on Feb 28, 2020 8:20:33 GMT
Saw this last night and feel very mixed.
There's an earlier comment that said it had a slight tone of Twin Peaks. And I agree. At its best was when it really took the absurdist elements and played with them...
Sadly it descended often into very earnest, philosophical speeches which are something I generally enjoy but it just all jarred with the silliness of the plot and just felt unnecessary.
I have to confess I wasn't as crazy about the performances of Lesley and Hugo as everyone else..they were fine and certainly not bad performances but they won't ring in my ears. I thought the actor playing the head teacher on t really did connect with the audience and gave a really beautiful performance.
All in all its a solid 3/5 for me. I'm glad I went (although I literally go and see everything at the National!) But it definitely wasn't a memorable production.
Oh and for all the criticism of Kushner - I generally love his stuff but I couldn't really see his mark on this production.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2020 17:49:15 GMT
Is this is a sit in the stalls or sit in the circle play? Do I want to be close to see the acting, or a little further back to take in the whole of the Olivier stage?
Also, TodayTix has circle seats as part of a Theatre week special offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by cartoonman on Mar 11, 2020 10:40:59 GMT
I was in Row C of the stalls last night and apart from being in smoke for a minute when a special effects train came into the station had a good seat for this production.
The show did have some good points, a big cast, well acted, good use of the drum revolve, good music, but it was too long and some points did not seem to work. It was set in a town in the "rust belt" in the USA in the 50s yet the main character says she lost a leg due to a sabre cut in a duel!
After the second interval there were a lot of empty seats. Up to the first interval I was held but after that I found myself looking at my watch more and more.
|
|
318 posts
|
Post by MrBraithwaite on Mar 11, 2020 11:31:38 GMT
Just read the original in preparation for this...it is quite short really. Still looking forward to this, but wonder if I will be able to go to London next week...
|
|
