11 posts
|
Post by jacklondon on May 31, 2023 22:50:10 GMT
Saw this tonight with my better half and we were just in awe of what we had just seen as we stumbled out into the night at 10.15pm - terrific acting, gorgeous sets and a wonderful script. It had me completely spellbound and the time just flew by. The standing ovation at the end was much deserved and felt all the more powerful for the connection between the audience and the actor that had just been described in the play. I can't remember when I last came out of theatre with such a warm glow.
In short - I thought this was one of the best things I've seen on stage for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2023 23:04:37 GMT
I found the first half of the play tested my patience a bit tonight, but thought the second half was much stronger. Overall, though, I really enjoyed it. Some wonderful moments throughout - the closing scene particularly.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 3, 2023 11:00:39 GMT
Yes a standing ovation, manipulated skilfully. I’m sure Mendes had the last scene down before anything else. I enjoyed this but I thought it was unbalanced. Gatiss gave us Gielgud so perfectly and interpreted the man so well, as it seemed to me, that the others didn’t have anywhere to go - impersonation, interpretation, no idea, etc? In that light I thought JD was very good with her Elizabeth Taylor except for the accent. Did Taylor have that southern American drawl? She was British as a child and in Taming of the Shrew for example her accent is lighter, much lighter. Did we need to be told about how difficult it was to be gay? Dunno. I’m not sure about Burton. Did he actually arrive so drunk? If this is so, well, I’m surprised he treated his fellow actors so badly. We hadn’t heard that before, had we? I haven’t read the book.
And again that ending - so full of irony, the comments written up BUT are we now going to have it all spelt out for us? Can’t the play do the work? If we clever enough to get hamlet as Mendes assumes, aren’t we clever enough to know what happened to Burton and Gielgud? Or is this an age thing? Asking for the elderly.
All in all, worth the money. I hope it does well America.
Little thing : I bought a programme which has a couple of interesting articles in it but it was difficult to understand who was who in the minor roles. Little pics with name and role and also a teeny bio would have been nicer than the full splurge imo. And of course although they had tow bios of guys who were in the original, it would have been nice to know more about all of them.
|
|
1,243 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 3, 2023 13:37:18 GMT
That manipulated standing ovation was something else, wasn’t it. I remember sitting there thinking well this is dragging on a bit now as Act 2 rolled on; looking around and seeing similar faces. Then as soon as Zadok the Priest started up I literally shook my head thinking, well that’s cheap. But it worked. The National Theatre old school Faithful stood instantly a la Pavlov’s dog. I would have stood for Gatiss performmace, which was masterful, but little else. Yes a standing ovation, manipulated skilfully. I’m sure Mendes had the last scene down before anything else. I enjoyed this but I thought it was unbalanced. Gatiss gave us Gielgud so perfectly and interpreted the man so well, as it seemed to me, that the others didn’t have anywhere to go - impersonation, interpretation, no idea, etc? In that light I thought JD was very good with her Elizabeth Taylor except for the accent. Did Taylor have that southern American drawl? She was British as a child and in Taming of the Shrew for example her accent is lighter, much lighter. Did we need to be told about how difficult it was to be gay? Dunno. I’m not sure about Burton. Did he actually arrive so drunk? If this is so, well, I’m surprised he treated his fellow actors so badly. We hadn’t heard that before, had we? I haven’t read the book. And again that ending - so full of irony, the comments written up BUT are we now going to have it all spelt out for us? Can’t the play do the work? If we clever enough to get hamlet as Mendes assumes, aren’t we clever enough to know what happened to Burton and Gielgud? Or is this an age thing? Asking for the elderly. All in all, worth the money. I hope it does well America. Little thing : I bought a programme which has a couple of interesting articles in it but it was difficult to understand who was who in the minor roles. Little pics with name and role and also a teeny bio would have been nicer than the full splurge imo. And of course although they had tow bios of guys who were in the original, it would have been nice to know more about all of them. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jun 3, 2023 22:27:51 GMT
I believe RuNo is leaving end of 2024 It seems to be accepted wisdom that he's leaving in summer 2025 (but planning to announce two years in advance), but then accepted wisdoms are often wrong, so wait and see I guess. I'm reasonable sure the press launch is to announce his eventual exit. |
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by mkb on Jun 4, 2023 16:55:38 GMT
Little thing : I bought a programme which has a couple of interesting articles in it but it was difficult to understand who was who in the minor roles. Little pics with name and role and also a teeny bio would have been nicer than the full splurge imo. And of course although they had tow bios of guys who were in the original, it would have been nice to know more about all of them. The NT programmes always have a lot of interesting content, and are good value, especially with the 10% Amex discount, but I'm with you on the bios. You see an actor listed alphabetically and then wonder, well which one was he/she?, and you have to search through various pics, which are nearly always on different pages to try to work it out. Please put a colour pic next to each cast member. And, this applies to all theatres, please use narrower columns for the bio text so that you can then list each production from the actor's CV on a separate line. Trying to scan lists on prose format across long lines is not so easy. |
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by mkb on Jun 4, 2023 17:27:24 GMT
I saw this from the front row of the stalls at the matinée the Saturday before last. Before the start, I much admired the chutzpah of the lady just behind who tapped the lad to my left on his shoulder announcing he was far too tall and would he mind slouching throughout. Only the very elderly could get away with that, and she did, and he duly obliged.
How much of what Jack Thorne has written is authentic from the secretly recorded rehearsal tapes, and how much is artistic licence, I don't know. I do know that reality is often less credible than fiction. In any case, it matters not much. What we have is absolutely riveting from beginning to end. I was mesmerised.
Everyone on stage is at the top of their game, as, presumably, were the characters they are playing. Some veer more towards interpretation rather than impersonation. I was surprised to see so many in this thread favouring Gatiss's Gielgud over Flynn's Burton. While both exhibit masterly mimicry, Flynn blew me away. It was as if he was inhabited by the ghost of the Welshman.
Act 1 builds gradually, and then Act 2 nails it. A simple tale of two artists -- three if you include "Uncle Will" -- all flawed humans in their own way, demonstrates how human artistic endeavour can be so enlightening and richly rewarding for both performer and viewer.
Yes the finale may be emotionally manipulative -- what great drama isn't guilty of this? -- but I was willingly taken along for the ride.
Five stars.
Act 1: 14:24-15:40 (9 minutes late starting; unexplained)
Act 2: 16:00-17:05
|
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Jun 5, 2023 22:40:15 GMT
Then as soon as Zadok the Priest started up I literally shook my head thinking, well that’s cheap. But it worked. The National Theatre old school Faithful stood instantly a la Pavlov’s dog. I saw this tonight and the standing ovation (or even just applause) didn't happen at Zadok the Priest but at the curtain call. Also, maybe it's because I'm an American, but I don't understand why that anthem would trigger an automatic standing ovation. (I know its association with the recent Coronation, but don't see any parallels within the play, other than the brief reference Gielgud makes to using it as a pacing cue. And I don't see that tie-back triggering an ovation.) I had trouble understanding many of Burton's speeches (Shakespearian or not). I think in some of the scenes he wasn't necessarily meant to be understood because he was drunk, but if the line for the ladies' loo hadn't been so long, I was going to request the closed captioning glasses at the interval. But when he gives Gielgud his 'To Be' speech.... wow! |
|
3,579 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jun 6, 2023 19:25:20 GMT
Does anyone know if the transfer Baz said was very likely to be happening at the Noel Coward is still going ahead, now that 'The Ocean at the End of the Lane' is going there from 11th Oct - 25th Nov?
|
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Jun 6, 2023 20:12:25 GMT
I enjoyed this but ultimately it is a slight play about the theatre made more intriguing by the on-stage portrayal of three important actors (in different ways).
Gielgud v Burton is a clash more interesting in the mind than in the flesh because Gielgud was by nature a fighter. So the occasional barb hits home but he is best operating from a distance whilst Burton (drunkenness permitting) is more of a close fighter. Thorne has to bring in other issues to pad the play out and in the end it does move along pleasantly and gives us some laughs and some interesting, subtle, dramatic moments. Nothing new of course, we all know about Burton's drink problem and the volcanic nature of his relationship with Taylor is hinted at here. Gielgud's problems with the law, cottaging etc, are also well known and were well presented in "Plague Over England". I have to say that good as Gatiss is, Michael Feast was perfect, especially in his capturing of Gielgud's voice, in the latter play.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndyc4ne on Jun 6, 2023 20:49:17 GMT
Does anyone know if the transfer Baz said was very likely to be happening at the Noel Coward is still going ahead, now that 'The Ocean at the End of the Lane' is going there from 11th Oct - 25th Nov? Ocean is only doing a slender run so that might just be to pad the time before all the cast are available. Mark Gatiss' interview with the evening standard podcast recently seemed to suggest it was looking likely. |
|
1,243 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 6, 2023 20:52:16 GMT
I fear you have taken what I wrote a bit too literally. What I meant to infer was that, even with the slight ness of the play prior, adding the rousing Zadok the Priest at the end, in this year of Coronation, seemed designed to prompt a SUBSEQUENT standing ovation at the curtain call, with the music, in a way, hypnotising an audience into forgetting what had come before. It really irked me. Then as soon as Zadok the Priest started up I literally shook my head thinking, well that’s cheap. But it worked. The National Theatre old school Faithful stood instantly a la Pavlov’s dog. I saw this tonight and the standing ovation (or even just applause) didn't happen at Zadok the Priest but at the curtain call. Also, maybe it's because I'm an American, but I don't understand why that anthem would trigger an automatic standing ovation. (I know its association with the recent Coronation, but don't see any parallels within the play, other than the brief reference Gielgud makes to using it as a pacing cue. And I don't see that tie-back triggering an ovation.) I had trouble understanding many of Burton's speeches (Shakespearian or not). I think in some of the scenes he wasn't necessarily meant to be understood because he was drunk, but if the line for the ladies' loo hadn't been so long, I was going to request the closed captioning glasses at the interval. But when he gives Gielgud his 'To Be' speech.... wow! |
|
|
|
Post by jr on Jun 6, 2023 21:49:30 GMT
Just out of this. Long and boring. I save Mark Gatiss. Middlebrow nothingness. Don't even feel like writing in more detail.
2 stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forrest on Jun 7, 2023 16:58:26 GMT
I love how polarising this seems to be! :)
I must admit I loved it: mostly, admittedly, for Mark Gatiss, who I would happily watch read the ingredients list off a can of soup, and would still, without a doubt, find it enjoyable. Perfect casting and an incredible performance in my book.
But I also really enjoyed the meta-side to it: the world of creating a play caught on stage, the little glimpses of insight into the rehearsal process, the struggles of the artists surrounding who they want to be and who they really think they are... I genuinely did think it was wonderful.
I am too young to be truly invested in the real-world relationship between the two protagonists, so I almost feared that I wouldn't have anything to hold on to, but I was delighted to have been proven wrong.
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Jun 7, 2023 20:11:19 GMT
Quite a few dates on sale now (having been all sold out) - including those illusive £20 stalls seats.
|
|
3,579 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jun 7, 2023 22:55:16 GMT
Saw the matinee today and I'm firmly in the 'loved it' camp. Brilliantly acted, stylish, elegant and in turns moving and gripping. I thought Johnny Flynn pretty much nailed Burton's voice. Gatiss was just superb as ever.
|
|
4,806 posts
|
Post by Mark on Jun 7, 2023 22:58:05 GMT
Saw the matinee today and I'm firmly in the 'loved it' camp. Brilliantly acted, stylish, elegant and in turns moving and gripping. I thought Johnny Flynn pretty much nailed Burton's voice. Gatiss was just superb as ever. Was there too and totally agree. Mesmerising at times. Front row was wonderful. Gatiss delivering an award worthy performance. Flynn too. Just great. |
|
3,579 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jun 7, 2023 23:01:49 GMT
Saw the matinee today and I'm firmly in the 'loved it' camp. Brilliantly acted, stylish, elegant and in turns moving and gripping. I thought Johnny Flynn pretty much nailed Burton's voice. Gatiss was just superb as ever. Was there too and totally agree. Mesmerising at times. Front row was wonderful. Gatiss delivering an award worthy performance. Flynn too. Just great. I really, really liked it. One of the best things I've seen in a long time. Quite moved by the end. |
|
3,579 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jun 7, 2023 23:05:50 GMT
They were filming it today and the cameras took up quite a bit of space. My original seat in Row H became restricted view so I was offered alternative dates after I had booked, but to be fair the NT found me another really good seat in Row E of the stalls when I said I couldn't do the other dates.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrnutz on Jun 8, 2023 9:13:23 GMT
NT now charging £99 top price for this - think that's the most expensive ticket I've ever seen there!
|
|
|
|
Post by frauleinsallybowles on Jun 8, 2023 10:44:19 GMT
Has anyone done Friday rush for this/know where the available seats would be located? I'm hoping to try my luck and snag a good seat but not sure how difficult it'll be to get
|
|
4,806 posts
|
Post by Mark on Jun 8, 2023 10:46:40 GMT
Has anyone done Friday rush for this/know where the available seats would be located? I'm hoping to try my luck and snag a good seat but not sure how difficult it'll be to get I got £20 front row through Friday rush. There was £10 seats rear circle. |
|
547 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Jun 8, 2023 11:11:24 GMT
Has anyone done Friday rush for this/know where the available seats would be located? I'm hoping to try my luck and snag a good seat but not sure how difficult it'll be to get Did it last week, by the time I got through the queue there were only £10 seats in the back two rows of the circle but those seats were fine (and a steal for £10) |
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Jun 8, 2023 18:36:53 GMT
... adding the rousing Zadok the Priest at the end, in this year of Coronation, seemed designed to prompt a SUBSEQUENT standing ovation at the curtain call... Yes, I've been told before that I sometimes take things too literally. I wonder what they would use if this ended up being staged in New York? |
|
77 posts
|
Post by adolphus on Jun 8, 2023 23:39:47 GMT
... adding the rousing Zadok the Priest at the end, in this year of Coronation, seemed designed to prompt a SUBSEQUENT standing ovation at the curtain call... Yes, I've been told before that I sometimes take things too literally. I wonder what they would use if this ended up being staged in New York? Quite. The play was written and developed before the Queen's death. The music is referenced in the text with good dramatic reason, and I'm glad they kept it. Its offensive to suggest it was inserted at a late stage to generate a cheap audience reaction.
The music is bye the bye anyway. The acting and the script, particularly the focus on the father/son experience for actors tackling Hamlet, merited full applause.
|
|
