|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 0:06:51 GMT
I'm not defending gratuitous rudeness and this silly bickering but I would like to make a couple of points. First of all when you feel the pain you have to leave. Leaving in the interval isn't a capital offence. And secondly we are an unofficial group of self appointed critics on this Board and if someone thinks a show is crap, then what is the problem with that? We can disagree. We should try to keep our comments about the play, avoid being too rude about individual actors ( some directors are fair game though) and please do not insult another poster. An insult is a comment you wouldn't like made about you. Well said Thanks An actress asked me a few weeks ago if I ever leave at the interval And was approving at my honesty She thought It's honourable to leave if you aren't enjoying the show Like putting a dying animal out of its misery This is an actress who has been on stage at the NT Almeida West End and extensively on prime time TV Defending the audience right to walk out
|
|
3,476 posts
|
Post by showgirl on May 30, 2016 4:24:41 GMT
I sometimes leave at the interval. I would rather not, but it is my choice, my time, my money. I cannot recall an occasion when it has ever been a reflection on the cast or even the production as a whole; it is always about the writing. Besides, if I show my approval by applauding, it follows that I may indicate disapproval by departing, as obviously I wouldn't direct my dissatisfaction at the actors.
|
|
2,536 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on May 30, 2016 7:29:03 GMT
I have sometimes left at the interval and think it's absolutely my prerogative to do so, but I am always careful to qualify my views on the production because I didn't see all of it. I don't think you can say you have seen a show unless you sit through all of it.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on May 30, 2016 10:18:00 GMT
I have sometimes walked out midscene when I just couldn't stand it any longer. To extremely disapproving looks from other audience members.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 10:45:03 GMT
I have sometimes walked out midscene when I just couldn't stand it any longer. To extremely disapproving looks from other audience members. God Do what you like You have paid or been given the ticket so can do as you please Patients don't turn up for about 10% of GP appointments yet can then just rebook and waste another slot immediately if they make a fuss without even bothering to apologise and last week a patient left A&E mid way through being treated and couldn't even be arsed to tell anyone he had gone I don't seen many people protesting about this criminal and blatant waste of resources People on the board need a reality check
|
|
18,830 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 30, 2016 10:46:32 GMT
I don't think I'd ever walk out mid-scene but an interval departure is totally fine in my book. I was listening to Tim Minchin being interviewed on a podcast yesterday and he was recounting how as a child his father would sometimes walk out at the interval while he and his mother never would. His mother used to say "there's always something worth staying for, even if it's only the costumes". I couldn't disagree more. And I do wonder why we're expected to indulge these creative types in a way that we wouldn't dream of indulging people working in any other industry.
|
|
81 posts
|
Post by addictedtotheatre on May 30, 2016 11:02:17 GMT
I know its only had its first preview but has anyone seen this? Is it worth booking? I'm going on Saturday and will let you know what I think. I'm particularly looking forward to seeing Pippa Nixon on stage again. vickster51 - do you concur with parsley's review?
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 30, 2016 11:03:03 GMT
I have never known any of the professional critics to walk out in the interval and then report that the play is crap or rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on May 30, 2016 11:04:24 GMT
The strongest argument against walking out midscene is that it is disruptive and so spoils other people's enjoyment. I only do it when the production is making me so agitated that I can't contain my irritation and so would be even more disruptive (and for longer) if I were to remain there.
It's usually the style of production that gets to me. Examples are an RSC production in the Swan which was incomprehensible with its archaic language so that I eventually realised that I had no idea who any of the characters were and so it was pointless staying. And a Shared Experience show where the received pronunciation of one character was excruciatingly unbearable to listen to.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 11:21:55 GMT
I have my suspicions about professional critics apparently not leaving at the interval. If you cast your mind back to the Ernest Hemingway musical Too Close To The Sun, the critics either thought it was too terrible for words, or so bad you could get a lot of enjoyment out of it. Having seen the show myself and noted a marked tonal difference between the two acts, I rather suspect the first camp of critics didn't bother hanging around. I don't suppose any of them will admit it, but I'd be willing to put money on all the professional critics having left one or two shows at least during the interval.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on May 30, 2016 11:29:48 GMT
Anything that spoils the enjoyment of others is just plain wrong, whether that be muttering, leaving during a scene or whatever, if someone can't not react then they have a big ego problem. Doing that is saying that they are more important than anyone else in the theatre who, because of the nature of taste, will be having a completely different, and likely more positive, reaction. Leaving quietly at an interval is fine but it does reflect badly on that person's choices; in the age of the internet you can do your homework before a show and so should rarely get it so disastrously wrong. If someone leaves frequently then they really need to get a grip on their decision making.
Having said that I tend to like productions that have people walking out, usually it is about matters other than quality and if a show can anger people in that way then it can be doing something very much right for a number of others.
I doubt I'll see this particular play as there wasn't much that appealed to me about it but positive reviews might change that. I find that positive reviews make me interested in seeing something as they are rooted in a commonality of joy whereas negative reviews usually just reflect the misery of the individual.
|
|
749 posts
|
Post by horton on May 30, 2016 12:34:24 GMT
I can't agree with that "you've paid so do what you like" attitude: everyone else has paid too and there is no need to disturb them. I can't believe that the realization that a play is intolerable comes on that suddenly- surely it's possible to wait for a convenient break between scenes before leaving?
I have sometimes made a judgement call and not returned after the interval- Elaine Paige's 'Anything Goes' springs to mind when I realized I was at a party that everyone else seemed to love whilst I was just getting increasingly irritated. I also left halfway through Judi Dench's 'The Seagull'- I don't think anything at all had happened by the time I left- dull, dull, dull!
I also left the infamous Day Lewis 'Hamlet'- just before he did apparently.
|
|
18,830 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 30, 2016 12:53:00 GMT
I also left halfway through Judi Dench's 'The Seagull'- I don't think anything at all had happened by the time I left- dull, dull, dull! I have it on good authority that Judi noticed you'd left and has never quite got over it...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 13:08:36 GMT
I can't agree with that "you've paid so do what you like" attitude: everyone else has paid too and there is no need to disturb them. I can't believe that the realization that a play is intolerable comes on that suddenly- surely it's possible to wait for a convenient break between scenes before leaving? I have sometimes made a judgement call and not returned after the interval- Elaine Paige's 'Anything Goes' springs to mind when I realized I was at a party that everyone else seemed to love whilst I was just getting increasingly irritated. I also left halfway through Judi Dench's 'The Seagull'- I don't think anything at all had happened by the time I left- dull, dull, dull! I also left the infamous Day Lewis 'Hamlet'- just before he did apparently. I usually always leave at the interval Very rarely during the show only in exceptional cases And even then during scene change To be honest The row can manage It's hardly a major drama I usually go alone Take no bags And agile and slender And so slim people don't even need to stand up to let me paSs
|
|
749 posts
|
Post by horton on May 30, 2016 13:58:26 GMT
I also left halfway through Judi Dench's 'The Seagull'- I don't think anything at all had happened by the time I left- dull, dull, dull! I have it on good authority that Judi noticed you'd left and has never quite got over it... I'm not surprised- I was playing Konstantin...
|
|
1,868 posts
|
Post by Marwood on May 30, 2016 14:06:11 GMT
I haven't left that many theatre shows (3 or 4 over the last 10 years or so), and always at the interval, never during a performance as I think that is rude both to the performers and your fellow audience (although in the case of some of the audience members I've had sat next to me, I have been tempted to leave and stomp/shove my way past). At the end of the day, it's my money that paid for it, if I'm not enjoying it or at least getting something out of it, I'm going to cut my losses and leave.
I used to always sit through films at the cinema regardless of the quality of the film, Black Mass at the London Film Festival last year was the first time I've ever walked out of a film, I thought it was bloody awful and bailed after about 45 minutes or so - I didn't care if Depp and Cumberbatch were lurking in the shadows, life is too short to sit through dreck.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 30, 2016 15:08:22 GMT
I am not complaining that people who leave during the show (which is inconsiderate), or leave during the interval, disqualifies them from having a valid opinion on the very show.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on May 30, 2016 15:22:29 GMT
I had an intent to leave theatre once or twice but never did. Something in me was hoping it gets better in the second half (and sometimes it does indeed!).
Cinema is different.. No live audience/acting so it's not that rude and hurts nobody's feelings I guess.. Left on a couple occasions when I could not endure anymore.. I remember once (Tree of Life it was) I really wanted to but my friend I went with was curling in the chair fast asleep beside me so I hated to wake her up and continued the torture. But yeah, life is to short for a crap film.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on May 30, 2016 15:26:06 GMT
Returning to the topic - anyone seen this apart from Mister I-Hate-Everything? I fancy it because of Sam Crane & Ben Miles and 20 quid front row Friday Rush seats but it if proves to be that awful by everyone I might give it a miss.. Not too many days in London to spare and so much I want to see!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 17:23:34 GMT
Yes, Ben Miles is the draw for me, too. Will have to check out auditorium configuration and see if I can find something reasonable in the sightline nightmare that is the Dorfman.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 17:56:01 GMT
Yes, Ben Miles is the draw for me, too. Will have to check out auditorium configuration and see if I can find something reasonable in the sightline nightmare that is the Dorfman. He is FIT But I think for this play the character is too annoying to overlook And also he has dyed his hair and it looks too obvious
|
|
416 posts
|
Post by schuttep on May 30, 2016 18:54:51 GMT
I usually always leave at the interval Very rarely during the show only in exceptional cases And even then during scene change To be honest The row can manage It's hardly a major drama I usually go alone Take no bags And agile and slender And so slim people don't even need to stand up to let me paSs Are you studying haiku? It's not quite a 3 line poem of 5, 7 and 5 syllable, but it feels as though that's what you're aiming for.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 21:53:12 GMT
Yes, Ben Miles is the draw for me, too. Will have to check out auditorium configuration and see if I can find something reasonable in the sightline nightmare that is the Dorfman. He is FIT But I think for this play the character is too annoying to overlook And also he has dyed his hair and it looks too obvious I hear you, parsley. But I might still give him a chance. ;-) Configuration seems odd for this one. I assume the £20 seats are priced that way because you'd spend a lot of time looking at the back of actors' heads? The £39 end-of-row dress I usually sit in may not actually be looking too bad for this one, I'm thinking...
|
|
1,206 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 30, 2016 22:49:45 GMT
Returning to the topic - anyone seen this apart from Mister I-Hate-Everything? I fancy it because of Sam Crane & Ben Miles and 20 quid front row Friday Rush seats but it if proves to be that awful by everyone I might give it a miss.. Not too many days in London to spare and so much I want to see! Sam Crane and Ben Miles are very good in this, so if you like them, I would see it. It's Chekhov-lite for much of the running time, a sort of reverse-Cherry Orchard, with the prospective purchase of a perpetually sunlit Villa Thalia, on a Greek Island in 1967, by a young British Couple (Sam Crane's Theo and Pippa Nixon's Charlotte) for a song from two departing Greeks, being the action that drives the play. Like in Chekhov, most of the running time involves characters making small talk, enjoying themselves and socialising, in various states of obliviousness to monumental changes happening around them. As in any play where the playwright is not confident of getting huge amounts of exposition out in an elegant way, a note on the free cast list tells us that Act 1 is set on the island of Skiathos, Greece, in April 1967 (the year a right wing coup d'etat overthrew Greece's democracy), and Act 2 is set in 1976 (after democracy was restored). But you don't need to worry about Greece, or it's history too much, because the play is about the British couple, a liberal pair, who have retreated to Greece to stimulate playwright, Theo's creative juices. Theo, played with consumate naturalism and affability by Sam Crane, is plainly the artistic stand-in for Alexei Kaye Campbell himself, seeking to change the world for the better through his writing. In the world of this well-meaning couple explode an American couple, that Charlotte has befriended, Ben Miles' Harvey and Elizabeth McGovern's June. Harvey says he works for "the American Government," so it's boo-hiss from the audience from the very beginning, assuming him to be the most dastardly villain, despite Ben Miles imbuing him with immense cheer, learning and general all-around charm. Miles is terrific, accent impeccable, veering Harvey between the twin poles of creepy-controlling-omniscience and compelling-hail-fellow-well-met-charisma effortlessly. In my favourite scene from the play, Miles' Harvey teaches everyone how to do a Greek dance. That's right, Harvey even knows how to Greek dance. The question of what he is up to, who he is, and what that will mean for everyone else, remains in flux right up until the play's final reveal. Elizabeth McGovern's June, a middle aged woman who likes bacardi, is thinly drawn, but McGovern is delightful as a vacant comedy foil to her husband's overwhelming presence, though she is unable to bring the serious underpinning of a genuine alcoholic to bear on the role, as Campbell fails to sufficiently develop her character until too late in the running, and when he tries to do so, it's clumsy. This leaves her dreadful fake-looking blonde wig, which contrasts so utterly with her otherwise perfect 1960's showpony glamour, to do much of the work of deepening her characterisation. Despite some implausible turns that briefly threw me out of the story, despite the creaking mechanics of story contrivances, despite some on-the-nose dialogue, I was seduced by the sunlit set, I was gripped by Miles' characterisation, I utterly believed Sam Crane and Pippa Nixon, I was never ever bored, and I felt that Campbell's ultimate point was well-earned and spot on. I really liked this production. 3 and a half stars
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on May 30, 2016 22:54:36 GMT
I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with Parsley. This is bad. The second act is worse than the first. It's not the worst play I've ever seen by a long shot. It's mainly inoffensive and it's vaguely amusing in a BBC3 sitcom kind of way. There's just nothing positive about it. It's the kind of thing which if you saw it at a pub fringe theatre, or an A Level student showcase, you'd clap politely while groaning. I can see what the playwright was getting at (there's an interesting play to be written about privileged tourists in underprivileged countries and the levels to which we are complicit, but it's not this play), but it mainly felt like he wanted to write a naice play about having fun in Greece with a bit of lip service to drama and politics. I have to question ending the first half with the military coup that subjugated an entire country to horrific oppression, torture and mass-murder for years, then starting the second act a decade later when everything's all lovely again. Greece lived under the Junta for seven years. Jumping straight over that time period so you don't have to spare a single thought for it or for any actual Greeks leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's a bit like deciding to write a WWII play but then skipping straight from Hitler's invasion of Poland to VE Day so you don't have to actually write any icky war stuff. The scene where the couple have a hysterical sobbing breakdown over their white middle class guilt at having *shock* legally purchased a house from someone who wanted to sell itis unintentionally hilarious and kind of offensive (would they have felt the same guilt if they'd bought a house from a white working class English couple?)worst because I felt the playwright wasn't questioning their self-indulgent "white guilt superiority" but uncritically stating that they were guilty. OMG the scene where Nixon's character throws a tantrum about them committing "cultural appropriation" by daring to dance to the Greek music rather than solemnly contemplating the plight of the ancient refugees who originally invented that style of music. It felt like that whole speech was copied and pasted from someone's Tumblr blog that has "person ~~ feminist ~~ social justice warrior ~~ cisfemale ~~ uses gender neutral pronouns ~~ NTJP ~~ otherkin" in their bio. The final scene is unnecessary in the same way the final scene of Elegy is unnecessary. We've already seen the girl detail the conversation, we don't need to see it. I don't think "my gran once told me never to sell her house but once she was dead I thought, stuff it, I want the money so I can move somewhere much better" is anywhere near as poignant as the playwright thinks it is. The acting is very good. 2 points, The Pride is in my top 20 all time favourite plays. And the discussion here made me readdress my opinions on X (which I also thought was dire). I'm ready to be convinced of its good points!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 23:26:54 GMT
I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with Parsley. This is bad. The second act is worse than the first. It's not the worst play I've ever seen by a long shot. It's mainly inoffensive and it's vaguely amusing in a BBC3 sitcom kind of way. There's just nothing positive about it. It's the kind of thing which if you saw it at a pub fringe theatre, or an A Level student showcase, you'd clap politely while groaning. I can see what the playwright was getting at (there's an interesting play to be written about privileged tourists in underprivileged countries and the levels to which we are complicit, but it's not this play), but it mainly felt like he wanted to write a naice play about having fun in Greece with a bit of lip service to drama and politics. I have to question ending the first half with the military coup that subjugated an entire country to horrific oppression, torture and mass-murder for years, then starting the second act a decade later when everything's all lovely again. Greece lived under the Junta for seven years. Jumping straight over that time period so you don't have to spare a single thought for it or for any actual Greeks leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's a bit like deciding to write a WWII play but then skipping straight from Hitler's invasion of Poland to VE Day so you don't have to actually write any icky war stuff. The scene where the couple have a hysterical sobbing breakdown over their white middle class guilt at having *shock* legally purchased a house from someone who wanted to sell itis unintentionally hilarious and kind of offensive (would they have felt the same guilt if they'd bought a house from a white working class English couple?)worst because I felt the playwright wasn't questioning their self-indulgent "white guilt superiority" but uncritically stating that they were guilty. OMG the scene where Nixon's character throws a tantrum about them committing "cultural appropriation" by daring to dance to the Greek music rather than solemnly contemplating the plight of the ancient refugees who originally invented that style of music. It felt like that whole speech was copied and pasted from someone's Tumblr blog that has "person ~~ feminist ~~ social justice warrior ~~ cisfemale ~~ uses gender neutral pronouns ~~ NTJP ~~ otherkin" in their bio. The final scene is unnecessary in the same way the final scene of Elegy is unnecessary. We've already seen the girl detail the conversation, we don't need to see it. I don't think "my gran once told me never to sell her house but once she was dead I thought, stuff it, I want the money so I can move somewhere much better" is anywhere near as poignant as the playwright thinks it is. The acting is very good. 2 points, The Pride is in my top 20 all time favourite plays. And the discussion here made me readdress my opinions on X (which I also thought was dire). I'm ready to be convinced of its good points! Thanks for your thoughts I enjoyed reading them It sums up the nothingness of the play well The NT should be giving us the best possible writing Not the writing of whoever is shagging or married to the directors who are known to the place Their track record for commissioning BAME is shocking
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 23:30:00 GMT
I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with Parsley. This is bad. The second act is worse than the first. It's not the worst play I've ever seen by a long shot. It's mainly inoffensive and it's vaguely amusing in a BBC3 sitcom kind of way. There's just nothing positive about it. It's the kind of thing which if you saw it at a pub fringe theatre, or an A Level student showcase, you'd clap politely while groaning. I can see what the playwright was getting at (there's an interesting play to be written about privileged tourists in underprivileged countries and the levels to which we are complicit, but it's not this play), but it mainly felt like he wanted to write a naice play about having fun in Greece with a bit of lip service to drama and politics. I have to question ending the first half with the military coup that subjugated an entire country to horrific oppression, torture and mass-murder for years, then starting the second act a decade later when everything's all lovely again. Greece lived under the Junta for seven years. Jumping straight over that time period so you don't have to spare a single thought for it or for any actual Greeks leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's a bit like deciding to write a WWII play but then skipping straight from Hitler's invasion of Poland to VE Day so you don't have to actually write any icky war stuff. The scene where the couple have a hysterical sobbing breakdown over their white middle class guilt at having *shock* legally purchased a house from someone who wanted to sell itis unintentionally hilarious and kind of offensive (would they have felt the same guilt if they'd bought a house from a white working class English couple?)worst because I felt the playwright wasn't questioning their self-indulgent "white guilt superiority" but uncritically stating that they were guilty. OMG the scene where Nixon's character throws a tantrum about them committing "cultural appropriation" by daring to dance to the Greek music rather than solemnly contemplating the plight of the ancient refugees who originally invented that style of music. It felt like that whole speech was copied and pasted from someone's Tumblr blog that has "person ~~ feminist ~~ social justice warrior ~~ cisfemale ~~ uses gender neutral pronouns ~~ NTJP ~~ otherkin" in their bio. The final scene is unnecessary in the same way the final scene of Elegy is unnecessary. We've already seen the girl detail the conversation, we don't need to see it. I don't think "my gran once told me never to sell her house but once she was dead I thought, stuff it, I want the money so I can move somewhere much better" is anywhere near as poignant as the playwright thinks it is. The acting is very good. 2 points, The Pride is in my top 20 all time favourite plays. And the discussion here made me readdress my opinions on X (which I also thought was dire). I'm ready to be convinced of its good points! This sounds awful now But I do love Ben Miles Can you tell me the ending please As a hidden spoiler Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 23:31:48 GMT
I bet Michael Billington gives it 4 stars
|
|
1,206 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 30, 2016 23:36:31 GMT
I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with Parsley. This is bad. I have agreed with Parsley many times, though usually on the things he likes lol. Love your thoughts! 1. {Spoiler - click to view} I have to question ending the first half with the military coup that subjugated an entire country to horrific oppression, torture and mass-murder for years, then starting the second act a decade later when everything's all lovely again. {Spoiler - click to view} That works for me. We stay with the blithe enjoyment of the couple, who deep down don't give a damn about what happened. Greece's pain doesn't really matter to them, so why allow us to experience it. I feel Campbell wants us to gloss over Greece's pain as well, until Miles' Harvey makes that speech about the fate of the house sellers.
2. {Spoiler - click to view} I felt the playwright wasn't questioning their self-indulgent "white guilt superiority" but uncritically stating that they were guilty. {Spoiler - click to view} He was, and although the words he puts in their mouths are obvious and creaky and manipulative, he's right. They are guilty of saying they believe this and that, when in fact, they don't. Campbell knows that he himself, and many he knows, claim to care, and bleed their hearts out, but really never put more than lipservice towards the beliefs they claim to have.
3. {Spoiler - click to view} OMG the scene where Nixon's character throws a tantrum about them committing "cultural appropriation" by daring to dance to the Greek music rather than solemnly contemplating the plight of the ancient refugees who originally invented that style of music. It felt like that whole speech was copied and pasted from someone's Tumblr blog that has "person ~~ feminist ~~ social justice warrior ~~ cisfemale ~~ uses gender neutral pronouns ~~ NTJP ~~ otherkin" in their bio. {Spoiler - click to view} It is. Campbell thinks people who talk like that are full of crap. Pippa Nixon's character is deflecting to hide her hypocrisy from herself. Maybe Campbell himself talks like that, so he knows. 4. {Spoiler - click to view} The final scene is unnecessary in the same way the final scene of Elegy is unnecessary. We've already seen the girl detail the conversation, we don't need to see it. I don't think "my gran once told me never to sell her house but once she was dead I thought, stuff it, I want the money so I can move somewhere much better" is anywhere near as poignant as the playwright thinks it is. {Spoiler - click to view} I think Campbell returns to them so that we can end with the victims, and contemplate them. It really doesn't matter what they say. But Campbell's real ending happens earlier: that Faustian hug between Crane and Miles, where Miles thanks Crane for his "loyalty" lol. At the end, liberal do-gooder and the doer of "disgreeable things" are mirrored, symbiotic creatures.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on May 31, 2016 13:22:52 GMT
Returning to the topic - anyone seen this apart from Mister I-Hate-Everything? I fancy it because of Sam Crane & Ben Miles and 20 quid front row Friday Rush seats but it if proves to be that awful by everyone I might give it a miss.. Not too many days in London to spare and so much I want to see! In my favourite scene from the play, Miles' Harvey teaches everyone how to do a Greek dance. That's right, Harvey even knows how to Greek dance. Now I absolutely MUST see this! Steve, thank you for the review and for helping me make up my mind x I don't mind Chekovish plays, I usually like them more than epic ones.
|
|