3,577 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 10, 2021 4:55:55 GMT
Would love to see this so I wish anyway that the Menier would change their performance times: a 3.30 pm matinee is great but an 8 pm start for the evening performance is always an ordeal, especially if it's a longish performance and as the restaurant isn't even open at the moment, I can't see the need. It looks to me as though matinee performances are more popular which, with Sunday engineering work on the railway (we have no trains at all this Sunday), means there's only one - Saturday - matinee each week which is viable for me. Of course I left it too late to book the Todaytix deal as I have bad memories of a long-ago amateur production but now word-of-mouth is good, my caution has worked against me; shame I didn't play similarly safe with Manor!
If anyone does know why the Menier persist with their late evening starts, I'd be interested to hear why, please?
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Dec 10, 2021 9:02:04 GMT
showgirl If it helps, we were out the door by 10.05pm.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 11, 2021 14:41:52 GMT
Sounds awful - like a Carry On film. Depends which one 😁
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 11, 2021 16:14:13 GMT
Sounds awful - like a Carry On film. Depends which one 😁 Emmannuelle
|
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Dec 13, 2021 18:30:05 GMT
I saw the Saturday matinee of this and hated every second (and I'm a Bennet fan.) It's not so much Carry On as Benny Hill. So dated it's cringe-worthy and not remotely funny.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 13, 2021 21:10:37 GMT
I saw the Saturday matinee of this and hated every second (and I'm a Bennet fan.) It's not so much Carry On as Benny Hill. So dated it's cringe-worthy and not remotely funny. If it had not been written by Alan Bennett do you think they would have dared to have staged it ?
|
|
547 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Dec 13, 2021 21:12:10 GMT
I saw the Saturday matinee of this and hated every second (and I'm a Bennet fan.) It's not so much Carry On as Benny Hill. So dated it's cringe-worthy and not remotely funny. Pretty much my word for word thoughts too, except I didn't last past the interval.
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Dec 14, 2021 16:05:49 GMT
2 stars from The Times, Standard, Guardian
3 from WOS, BWW, londontheatre.co.uk
4 from the Telegraph
hmmmm ......
|
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Dec 14, 2021 16:32:10 GMT
I saw the Saturday matinee of this and hated every second (and I'm a Bennet fan.) It's not so much Carry On as Benny Hill. So dated it's cringe-worthy and not remotely funny. If it had not been written by Alan Bennett do you think they would have dared to have staged it ? Almost certainly not - it was one of the longest two hours of my life; a laugh-free zone from beginning to end.
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Dec 16, 2021 3:38:40 GMT
What with this outdated tosh and the execrable’Highly Offensive’ Play ‘the Artistic Director of TMCF seems to be making some decidedly strange programming choices of late. If the idea is to give their audience a proper laugh in these troubled times, how about a revival of their first and I think only original musical ‘Paradise Found’?
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Dec 16, 2021 5:54:15 GMT
And quite the investment - the run is 3 months. I think it was on TodayTix for a couple of days in early preview but hasn't been seen on any discounting sites that I know of. The prices seem to be the highest on the fringe, as well - concession seats are £37.50. It's billed as 'a filthy farce from a less enlightened age' which suggests they know exactly what they're doing. You might think Patrick Marber would (recent credits include Tom Stoppard's Leopoldstadt). I suppose the strapline is just a reminder of what to expect from an Alan Bennett farce of the early 70s. Difficult to think it will continue to sell well at £40 a go for the entire 3 months but things seem to be going better than at the National down the road where all three productions were trying to sell £10 seats this week before resorting to the unmentionable.
I have to say, in broad terms, I found it difficult to distinguish the type of humour seen in this farce, allbeit with a more sophisticated framing, with what's happening at the Palladium in front of 2,200 punters and would be interested in views of those who do.
|
|
901 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Dec 16, 2021 11:21:54 GMT
Well, I haven't seen the play since Sam Mendes' superb revival in the mid-90s at the Donmar, but what I remember is the brilliance of the writing (Mrs. Wicksteed ruefully saying 'My body, lying there wasted, night after night, in the pale moonlight; now I know how the Taj Mahal feels’), lots of good jokes and some very clever plotting. It's interesting to compare two reviews of Peter Hall's 2006 Bath Theatre Royal production (lots of really talented people do want to put the play on, it appears): Billington praises its radical approach to farce, its suggestion that sex is a way of warding off death and he describes it as being 'as if Aristophanes were invested with a sense of human transience.' He says the play deserves to be much better known that it is. Pete Wood in the British Theatre review agrees with most reviewers of this production that it is absurdly dated. It could be an age thing, of course. Paul Taylor in the Independent gives the Marber revival 5 stars!
|
|
3,349 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr Tom on Dec 22, 2021 12:13:33 GMT
I saw this on Monday. Not keen on the crammed seating in these times on Covid-19, but thankfully there was enough space for people to spread out along the row.
I found myself laughing, so there were definitely jokes that hit the spot, but this is also rather dated and the second half drags a bit. It is more farce than comedy and relies on the idea that everyone involved is sex mad.
All performed with a lot of energy by the talented cast. Ria Jones commands the stage as always and even gets to sing a bit. Great to see Dan Starkey as well who I mostly know as a Doctor Who voice actor.
|
|
4,987 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jan 15, 2022 13:48:25 GMT
I thought as play it's very average. Some good observations but nothing that is very satisfying. My friends did not return after the interval due to the forced medication scene, is this colour blind casting gone wrong?
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Jan 23, 2022 20:15:27 GMT
I saw this last night. Catherine Russell tested positive for COVID-19 on Friday so the show was cancelled then. Before the show started, David Babani made an appearance on stage to reveal Louise Gold would be taking on the role of Muriel Wicksteed and be reading from her script and proceeded to thank the audience.
Ria Jones was fabulous as Mrs Swabb and we got to hear her sing a little bit which was nice. The play definitely got laughs throughout the evening and I got the sense most of us just wanted to have some comic relief from everything that's been going on in the world. The cast had great energy throughout and there was one joke about a "vaccination certificate" which felt very relevant today (was shocked to see it was in the playtext!). The audience was mainly made up of middle class white people which I thought reflected the newspaper's critics standings. On the whole though, I found the evening very enjoyable - light-hearted, very tongue-in-cheek.
|
|
1,249 posts
|
Post by joem on Feb 13, 2022 22:24:58 GMT
Yes, this is a bit dated. But then so's Moliere and Lope de Vega even.... whisper it.... Shakespeare!!!
But the reason why this is revived is because Alan Bennett is a modern great, and the burden of proof is not on me to prove this but on you to refute it. So even when we are talking of an early work which does not overtax the intellect, this is still worth a revival. After all, no one begrudges Shakespeare his Falstaff plays?
My take on this is that Bennett, a developing playwright at the time, not only inhabits the genre of bawdy farce but also lampoons it, and that dichotomy is at the heart of this play which - with apologies to Canon Throbbing - is a bit of a curate's egg but which overall provides more laughs than groans. And in the mix there are some preciously wonderful lines which can be up there with vintage Bennett.
One person left at the interval, most of the rest of the audience enjoyed the performance very vocally. Nuff said.
|
|
901 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Feb 14, 2022 12:59:49 GMT
Yes, this is a bit dated. But then so's Moliere and Lope de Vega even.... whisper it.... Shakespeare!!! But the reason why this is revived is because Alan Bennett is a modern great, and the burden of proof is not on me to prove this but on you to refute it. So even when we are talking of an early work which does not overtax the intellect, this is still worth a revival. After all, no one begrudges Shakespeare his Falstaff plays? My take on this is that Bennett, a developing playwright at the time, not only inhabits the genre of bawdy farce but also lampoons it, and that dichotomy is at the heart of this play which - with apologies to Canon Throbbing - is a bit of a curate's egg but which overall provides more laughs than groans. And in the mix there are some preciously wonderful lines which can be up there with vintage Bennett. One person left at the interval, most of the rest of the audience enjoyed the performance very vocally. Nuff said. Interesting points, but there's dated and dated. I think the one reason some have found this so unappealing is that to quote another Alan Bennett play (or two, I think) it comes from that 'remotest of eras, the recent past.' Somehow because it's so close to us, it seems offensively old-fashioned rather than just old in the way, say, Shakespeare or Moliere do, when we understand people didn't think like us. We can't quite get our heads around the fact that we used to think like that (whatever that may be, depending on the play), find that funny or acceptable, within living memory.
|
|
1,485 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by mkb on Feb 26, 2022 11:55:58 GMT
In a week where world events have left us all despairing at man's inhumanity to man, was it right to be enjoying something as frivolous as a farce? Well, absolutely I say! Habeas Corpus was the perfect tonic to forget about the world's ills, if only for a couple of hours. It's the only way of coping in fact; full-on depression the other way lies. Escapism has always been essential at times of war.
It helped that we had taken liberal advantage beforehand of the free alcohol in our hotel's lounge. I can imagine that approaching this 1973 Alan Bennett work in a serious mood, stone-cold sober, might not be rewarding. If, on the other hand, you are prepared to have some fun, it's a real hoot.
I am not surprised at the two-star reviews from certain sections of the press. This tale "from a less enlightened age", as the poster warns, pushes all the wrong buttons, and is all the more delicious for that. Director Marber and the full cast know exactly what they're doing, and it's pitch perfect.
In truth though, there is nothing to offend here. Marber does not even deliver on the title's promise to "show me the bodies": all nudity takes place off stage. Instead, we are confronted by an array of absurd Orton-esque characters, who have in common their desperate need for sexual fulfilment. It's played out as a parable about how all we need is to be loved, in that frighteningly short window between birth and the grave. The latter hangs over proceedings portentously in the form of a coffin, centre stage.
Louise Gold was back last night, this time as Lady Rumpers, script in hand, having had just one hour's rehearsal, we were told. Her performance was glorious; the rest of the cast uniformly excellent. Farce must be one of the hardest genres to pull off successfully (double entendre intended), and no-one misses a beat.
Bennett's script is a joy. I haven't laughed this much in a while; proper belly laughs too, not just chuckles and grins. Matthew Cottle, as the debauched, upskirting man of the cloth, treats us to a few lines delivered as a spot-on impersonation of Mr Bennett, and brings the house down.
Have fun, while you still can, seems to be a very timely message to take home right now.
Four stars.
Act 1: 20:03-20:53 Act 2: 21:11-22:03
|
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jan 24, 2023 11:05:42 GMT
Yes, this is a bit dated. But then so's Moliere and Lope de Vega even.... whisper it.... Shakespeare!!! But the reason why this is revived is because Alan Bennett is a modern great, and the burden of proof is not on me to prove this but on you to refute it. So even when we are talking of an early work which does not overtax the intellect, this is still worth a revival. After all, no one begrudges Shakespeare his Falstaff plays? My take on this is that Bennett, a developing playwright at the time, not only inhabits the genre of bawdy farce but also lampoons it, and that dichotomy is at the heart of this play which - with apologies to Canon Throbbing - is a bit of a curate's egg but which overall provides more laughs than groans. And in the mix there are some preciously wonderful lines which can be up there with vintage Bennett. One person left at the interval, most of the rest of the audience enjoyed the performance very vocally. Nuff said. Interesting points, but there's dated and dated. I think the one reason some have found this so unappealing is that to quote another Alan Bennett play (or two, I think) it comes from that 'remotest of eras, the recent past.' Somehow because it's so close to us, it seems offensively old-fashioned rather than just old in the way, say, Shakespeare or Moliere do, when we understand people didn't think like us. We can't quite get our heads around the fact that we used to think like that (whatever that may be, depending on the play), find that funny or acceptable, within living memory.
Bravo! That's a superb way of reflecting on it. (I was at a play reading for a forthcoming am dram production of it, recently, and even though I am not the most "right on" person - love Carry On as much as the next person - I found many elements of it ghastly - the attitudes, the fascination with breasts.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 24, 2023 13:32:02 GMT
Fwiw, I thought it was quite smooth to put on The Sex Party a little after this. A healthy juxtaposition, even.
|
|