|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 17:48:09 GMT
Yes, I agree that "stupid prices for bad seats" is tantamount to mis-selling. But dynamic pricing of excellent seats, and even of good seats, is now generally accepted as a reasonable way for producers to improve their financial stability, to balance their less successful shows. And extreme premiumification has the benefit of increasing availability and access, for those willing and able to pay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 18:11:26 GMT
You have access to much data on ticket purchasing and I'm just making assumptions. But I would think there are many people who attend theatre only occasionally, and like it to be an excellent event on those irregular occasions. So premium pricing is a good way for theatre producers to maximise their income from these attenders whilst also giving them easier access to excellent, and good, seats.
There are plenty of alternatives for the frequent and value-seeking attenders.
|
|
367 posts
|
Post by Jonnyboy on Feb 8, 2016 20:45:35 GMT
Interesting points here!
It's harder, I suppose, for people who don't live in London. I come down from Manchester several times a year and there's just no way I can plan ahead to book tickets that far in advance. Consequently, I'm finding myself being 'targeted' by price hikes nearer the time.
Just checked on the dates I was considering for this - the seats have pretty much all gone! So somebody is buying them! And who can blame the theatre for trying to get as much money as possible? It might not be ethical but it's a business at the end of the day.
Oh, what's this I see? Row T seats available in the stalls... £100 each. What?! And I'm sure they were £90 just yesterday!
Oh well...
|
|
1,052 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 8, 2016 21:37:43 GMT
I'm really engrossed by this
A real psychological character study, with so much to listen to
Ralph Fiennes is superb in this
|
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Feb 8, 2016 23:55:17 GMT
Yes looks like the prices have gone up again today. It saddens me that the Old Vic which used to be THE example how an artistically programmed building putting on a programme that was far from easy or purely populist could thrive in the commercial sector while charging little more than the National and offering commercially subsidised seats to young people and local non-theatregoing communities has been turned into a venue greedier than the most aggressively commercial of West End theatres. Rather than making me want to book early in future this has put me off going back at all.
|
|
295 posts
|
Post by fossil on Feb 9, 2016 10:07:25 GMT
It is not just the commercial sector that goes in for dynamic pricing. The RSC does this, albeit on a far more modest scale. From the RSC August 2016 - February 2017 season brochure "Prices are guaranteed throughout the priority booking period until Monday 29 February 2016. After this date, prices may vary by performance."
Checking brochure against current web prices for a couple of dates. Cymbeline 6 May increased from £42.50 to £47.50 and Don Quixote 22 March from £37 to £45.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 9, 2016 11:15:11 GMT
It is not just the commercial sector that goes in for dynamic pricing. The RSC does this, albeit on a far more modest scale. From the RSC August 2016 - February 2017 season brochure "Prices are guaranteed throughout the priority booking period until Monday 29 February 2016. After this date, prices may vary by performance." Checking brochure against current web prices for a couple of dates. Cymbeline 6 May increased from £42.50 to £47.50 and Don Quixote 22 March from £37 to £45. Interesting. I suppose another cruder form of dynamic pricing is the NT' and Trafalger where you start stupidly high to soak your regular audience then dump them onto TKTS later (wonder.land, Waste, As You Like It, Homecoming). |
|
152 posts
|
Post by alnoor on Feb 10, 2016 7:35:40 GMT
Have returned a Dress Circle ticket for today's matinee.
Theatre will try and resell.
I paid £21 row A 29
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2016 20:02:11 GMT
Delays for us this afternoon- five minutes late starting, and then the House Manager went on stage during the second interval to announce "technical problems" and gave apologies for a later than planned start to Act Three.
Good overall, not brilliant... Not convinced by the actress playing Hilda, but not because of hand-waving as this seems to have stopped. Nice set and clever little coup at the end!
|
|
|
|
Post by vickster51 on Feb 19, 2016 14:58:26 GMT
Well I'm relieved to see others on here weren't particularly fussed about this production. after seeing so many reviews calling it a masterpiece I thought there was something wrong with me! I saw this last night, from behind a slim pillar that cost me £50 (but by now may have gone up even more). The acting was all very good. Fiennes was great, but more impressive in my view in Man & Superman, which despite the long running time had me engrossed from start to finish. Last night I was simply bored and almost left after each interval (I've still never done it, as I always hope it'll improve).
Ultimately I just wasn't bothered about the story. It all seemed a bit pointless to me and I didn;t really like any of the characters. Also, I didn't think the set changes added anything to the play and so only added unnecessary time on to the running time.
As for the pricing, I have to agree it's put me off the Old Vic. I'll try and go to the £10 previews but other than that I think it'll be one I downgrade on my list of theatres to visit. Under Spacey, it wasn't cheap but I never felt the audience was getting ripped off. £140 for the front row and half the stalls is just dreadful. I think I find it more offensive after hearing all Mr Warchus's talk about wanting the Old Vic to be seen as less posh under his watch. If that was the way he saw it before (which always seemed a bit rude to his predecessor who did such a great job of building its reputation and making it successful), then charging such high prices for everyone other than those who book immediately isn't going to help.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Feb 19, 2016 15:59:24 GMT
Absolutely nothing stopping The Old Vic bringing back under 25 tickets or doing what the Young Vic do and have free/cheaper tickets for local residents in Borough and Lambeth to make it accessible and "not posh" but he has done the exact opposite.
The £10 tickets will go to those in the know and the high priced tickets are aimed at rich tourists or older patrons that perhaps already spend a lot in sponsorship. I have a friends membership but unlikely I will renew beyond August if I can get £30 or under Glenda tickets before then.
|
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Feb 19, 2016 16:25:56 GMT
I am happy with their new system...real theatre fans can book for the £10 previews (if you can fathom out how to get a seat on the website that no-one else has just nabbed!) and as I am not under 25 (by quite a long way) but not yet a senior (also by quite a long way!) I used to have to give most stuff a miss! I will take my chances on previews and probably see more than I used to here!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 18:21:29 GMT
Heavens, Monkey, whatever have you been drinking?
I spoke to a colleague the other day who loves theatre and adores Fiennes, and even she said she'd only award it 3 stars out of 5...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 19:13:29 GMT
Heavens, Monkey, whatever have you been drinking? I spoke to a colleague the other day who loves theatre and adores Fiennes, and even she said she'd only award it 3 stars out of 5... Perhaps it was the pillar...? Only joking,  Monkey. |
|
2,323 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Feb 22, 2016 20:47:41 GMT
Always lose concentration when Fiennes is acting. Don't know one actor who plays up the hammy actor as much as Fiennes.
I can hear the Fiennes commentary in his head. It goes something like... walk from table to bench purposefully, and pose. And deliver lines.
Walk from bench to chair, how shall I walk? Yes let's do it purposefully and don't forget to hold chair in the pose that you only ever see on stage. And deliver lines, wow that was powerful text.
Now walk from chair to table, I must do this purposefully and remember that pose as I lean on the table in a completely unnatural manner. Deliver lines and repeat.
Hope this is not giving away a spoiler for anyone who has not seen see The Master Builder but I was dreading the set in act 1 with so many props for Fiennes.
|
|
1,052 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 22, 2016 23:45:51 GMT
He certainly has a thing about bending forward and brushing aside his jacket to put his hands on his hips like he means business every minute
Perhaps the bending is him preparing for Richard III or something
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Feb 23, 2016 2:20:46 GMT
Always lose concentration when Fiennes is acting. Don't know one actor who plays up the hammy actor as much as Fiennes. I can hear the Fiennes commentary in his head. It goes something like... walk from table to bench purposefully, and pose. And deliver lines. Walk from bench to chair, how shall I walk? Yes let's do it purposefully and don't forget to hold chair in the pose that you only ever see on stage. And deliver lines, wow that was powerful text. Now walk from chair to table, I must do this purposefully and remember that pose as I lean on the table in a completely unnatural manner. Deliver lines and repeat. Hope this is not giving away a spoiler for anyone who has not seen see The Master Builder but I was dreading the set in act 1 with so many props for Fiennes. I do and don’t agree.
Fiennes definitely has that kind of ‘house style’ you describe, and at his worst, when he’s on auto-pilot, he absolutely does just by rote come on, enunciate the lines, deliver to the front and speak the speech, almost like those Victorian ‘acting’ scenes in Red Velvet. Apparently his Oedipus was hammy and actor-ly, and I agree that his Master Builder is too – over-mannered, over-studied and over-thinking every moment (esp. next to the vivacious Sarah Snook, I’ll say more on the overall production when I have the time but in a nutshell a bit MOR, I did like Fiennes well enough in it but it was a Fiennes-by-numbers performance).
But when he’s not on auto-pilot he’s able to toy with that actorliness in a really canny way, and it’s because he’s so classical and methodical that his best roles work. It’s why Man and Superman was great (part of the character was posturing and pretention, so performing as you describe set himself up as a punchline) and why Grand Budapest was great (everything you say about Fiennes is how that character lives his life, Fiennes brings depth and dignity to this pretentious ham), but also goes through everything from the terrifying, focused, recognisable precision of Amon Goeth to the precise poshness of Wallace and Gromit (and I’m going to go give myself a pat on the back for linking Schindler’s List with Curse of the Were-Rabbit). If you’ve seen the trailer for the new Coen Brothers film you’ll see it’s something, again, only someone with his classical skill-set and self-aware irony could pull off (and if you’ve not seen it, do yourself a favour: I've put it in a spoiler thing as I can't find a way to stop it putting the video in the middle of this all-important spiel, but it's well worth a watch {Spoiler - click to view}
).
On that note worth mentioning his current performance in A Bigger Splash, which is well worth watching to wash away (bad pun) the stiltedness of his Solness – he plays what could be a tedious ex-punk old-rocker trying to keep cool, but Fiennes, that classical behemoth, playing it wholly animalistically gives it a weird gravitas, makes his rambling rock anecdotes minor soliloquies, and makes the moments where he rocks out quite stunning indeed. There’s a scene where he preens along to a Rolling Stones song, and Fiennes brings with it a tragic methodicalness as if this really is his life, a dignity that it doesn’t deserve. So in short (ha!) I agree that Fiennes is everything you say he is, I just also think that mostly (this being a rare exception) that’s to his credit and to his favour – he’s good enough to tinker with that house style to give really canny, humane performances.
Plus, in Man and Superman you only see him behind a pillar, whilst in A Bigger Splash you see plenty of full frontal shots of his pillar.
Did I write all this just to make a bad penis joke? Quite possibly, yes.
|
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Feb 23, 2016 19:17:41 GMT
I know what you mean Theatremonkey.....I was right up in the Gods and I just loved it! I think the fact that I had no clue where it was going was quite exciting and I really enjoyed all the performances....it was one of my highlights too!  |
|
2,323 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Feb 23, 2016 21:06:08 GMT
Always lose concentration when Fiennes is acting. Don't know one actor who plays up the hammy actor as much as Fiennes. I can hear the Fiennes commentary in his head. It goes something like... walk from table to bench purposefully, and pose. And deliver lines. Walk from bench to chair, how shall I walk? Yes let's do it purposefully and don't forget to hold chair in the pose that you only ever see on stage. And deliver lines, wow that was powerful text. Now walk from chair to table, I must do this purposefully and remember that pose as I lean on the table in a completely unnatural manner. Deliver lines and repeat. Hope this is not giving away a spoiler for anyone who has not seen see The Master Builder but I was dreading the set in act 1 with so many props for Fiennes. I do and don’t agree.
Fiennes definitely has that kind of ‘house style’ you describe, and at his worst, when he’s on auto-pilot, he absolutely does just by rote come on, enunciate the lines, deliver to the front and speak the speech, almost like those Victorian ‘acting’ scenes in Red Velvet. Apparently his Oedipus was hammy and actor-ly, and I agree that his Master Builder is too – over-mannered, over-studied and over-thinking every moment (esp. next to the vivacious Sarah Snook, I’ll say more on the overall production when I have the time but in a nutshell a bit MOR, I did like Fiennes well enough in it but it was a Fiennes-by-numbers performance).
But when he’s not on auto-pilot he’s able to toy with that actorliness in a really canny way, and it’s because he’s so classical and methodical that his best roles work. It’s why Man and Superman was great (part of the character was posturing and pretention, so performing as you describe set himself up as a punchline) and why Grand Budapest was great (everything you say about Fiennes is how that character lives his life, Fiennes brings depth and dignity to this pretentious ham), but also goes through everything from the terrifying, focused, recognisable precision of Amon Goeth to the precise poshness of Wallace and Gromit (and I’m going to go give myself a pat on the back for linking Schindler’s List with Curse of the Were-Rabbit). If you’ve seen the trailer for the new Coen Brothers film you’ll see it’s something, again, only someone with his classical skill-set and self-aware irony could pull off (and if you’ve not seen it, do yourself a favour: I've put it in a spoiler thing as I can't find a way to stop it putting the video in the middle of this all-important spiel, but it's well worth a watch ).
On that note worth mentioning his current performance in A Bigger Splash, which is well worth watching to wash away (bad pun) the stiltedness of his Solness – he plays what could be a tedious ex-punk old-rocker trying to keep cool, but Fiennes, that classical behemoth, playing it wholly animalistically gives it a weird gravitas, makes his rambling rock anecdotes minor soliloquies, and makes the moments where he rocks out quite stunning indeed. There’s a scene where he preens along to a Rolling Stones song, and Fiennes brings with it a tragic methodicalness as if this really is his life, a dignity that it doesn’t deserve. So in short (ha!) I agree that Fiennes is everything you say he is, I just also think that mostly (this being a rare exception) that’s to his credit and to his favour – he’s good enough to tinker with that house style to give really canny, humane performances.
Plus, in Man and Superman you only see him behind a pillar, whilst in A Bigger Splash you see plenty of full frontal shots of his pillar.
Did I write all this just to make a bad penis joke? Quite possibly, yes.
Firstly, so proud that Nicholas quoted me. On cloud nine 'ere. Even if he did piss on my bonfire.
Secondly, this must already be the largest quote of a quote post on the new board. When replying to this thread you must only use the quote button. Is there a limit of quotes that can be used?
Thirdly, love Fiennes really. At his best he is very good. Why I preferred Man and Superman. As long as Indira Varma was on stage I wasn't watching Fiennes ham it up.
|
|
2,047 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Mar 11, 2016 23:38:15 GMT
Have to agree with Parsley with this one (not helped by the plonker sat next to me who came in about 30 seconds before the start,obviously been biding his time in one of the Old Vic bars, then spread his legs out wide as if he was auditioning for Buster Gonad: The Movie then proceeded to sit there chewing gum, moaning about God knows what to his wife sat the other side, and nodding off before snapping to on the off-chance it was drinks time) but I'd had enough by the time the first interval came around, it wasn't particularly bad but I didn't care what happened to Solness, a play where a 23 year old girl comes back and asks our 'hero' to remember the time 10 years ago when he kissed her and called her princess made me think that this really wasn't the play for me so I left (Fiennes acting was OK, but some of the other actors seemed to be over doing it with some Acorn Antiques style acting too (not mentioning any names, #cough cough 'James Dreyfus' and the old bloke who had the 'attack at the the beginning))
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Mar 12, 2016 23:57:54 GMT
I have for many years considered this one of my favourite players, and have been lucky to see it with some heavyweights (Alan Bates, Patrick Stewart), so was keen to see what Mr Fiennes would make of the rather nasty Mr Solness - the Macbeth of the fjords, a plausible but fatally ambitious protagonist. The answer is quite well, although without the depth achieved by the aforementioned. With Patrick Stewart of course authenticity wasn't a problem - it was art imitating life, Lisa Dillon (his then paramour) played the youthful interloper into the unhappily empty family nest.
If you analyse the text carefully I believe it is impossible to take a literal view of the action without concluding that the girl is a bonkers bunny burner and the master builder a gaga old goat. Nothing else can explain the ridiculous obsession of a preteen girl with a much older man, nurtured for ten years and then galvanised into action. Or the older man's belief that there are dark forces helping him realise his unspoken desires. Once you accept this then the problem of realism is resolved. Or the girl's constant demands for him to give her a castle, "Now!".
Unfortunately the production does seem to make a literal interpretation of events, reducing its credibility. There are some bad decisions which undermine it further, notably having a girl in her twenties speak with an abrupt, child-like delivery. This is no longer a twelve year old, she is a woman in her twenties who knows what she wants and has come to get it and one would expect a more mature way of trying to seduce the old goat.
Fiennes acting style is the triumph of charisma over detail. What this means is that whilst he seems to telegraph some of his moves in advance he gets away with it because he is so watchable. He is also good at the sideways look and the raised eyebrow; you do have to be quite close to the stage to get this though.
Interesting set which I suppose is meant to mean something but haven't quite worked it out yet - except for the final collapse which seems obvious.
I stood for the standing ovation, reluctantly, because it was the only way to see the stage. The audience clearly loved it. I enjoyed it, but it is a flawed production.
|
|
Monkey.
