|
|
Post by blaxx on Feb 18, 2024 19:35:03 GMT
Assumes knowledge of the characters and works referred to. Uninspiring script. Static production. No dramatic development or surprises. 4 equally unsympathetic characters. On the plus side, you may come out of this with one or two cookery tips. 2 stars as it was raining during the performance and Hampstead theatre provided adequate shelter. Yes, some biographical dramas require some knowledge of the subject. We are educated people, we can go by the interest of the subject or our own research. |
|
|
|
Post by parsley1 on Feb 18, 2024 19:48:36 GMT
Assumes knowledge of the characters and works referred to. Uninspiring script. Static production. No dramatic development or surprises. 4 equally unsympathetic characters. On the plus side, you may come out of this with one or two cookery tips. 2 stars as it was raining during the performance and Hampstead theatre provided adequate shelter. Lion King is still running no fear! |
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Feb 18, 2024 20:04:31 GMT
Assumes knowledge of the characters and works referred to. ... I disagree. I thought Logan did a good job of relaying all necessary information, and without falling into the trap of the dialogue sounding unnatural or purely expositional. |
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Feb 19, 2024 17:31:54 GMT
I felt this was a mildly interesting experiment, with the two parallel characters. I suspect like many of the audience, I knew more about Hitchcock/Hendren than the Reeves/Price pairing.
It didn’t move me though, as there was no character development (it assumed some prior knowledge) or much plot and was far more about power play between each actor/director.
John Logan can clearly write - I was reminded of the power of the two handler of Red at the Donmar, which was far more involving and less static.
5/10 for me.
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Feb 20, 2024 15:49:16 GMT
Reviews are out - mixed:
4 stars - Telegraph, Times, Broadway World
3 stars - Stage, Time Out,
2 stars - The Guardian, Evening Standard
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Feb 20, 2024 16:23:38 GMT
Ha ha. Telegraph and Guardian in permanent counter idealogical orbits.
Makes sense; both readerships only want to be entertained by versions of their blinkered world.
|
|
901 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Feb 20, 2024 18:33:06 GMT
Ha ha. Telegraph and Guardian in permanent counter idealogical orbits. Makes sense; both readerships only want to be entertained by versions of their blinkered world. Except that last week they both gave King Lear four stars, they both gave the Picture of Dorian Gray five stars, Dear Octopus four stars. Sometimes their critics agree, sometimes they don't. It usually has nothing to do with what you call ideology, simply on how the critic assesses the quality of the play. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Feb 20, 2024 20:11:57 GMT
In a zeitgeist context, is there an ideological dimension to any of those three named?
Certainly, when based on the artistry of a piece, there is agreement.
|
|
1,249 posts
|
Post by joem on Mar 6, 2024 9:14:35 GMT
Interesting play which entertains and has some good lines. At its best when moving quickly between the two pairs in an Ayckbournesque manner, drawing parallels and sharing lines. In the latter half the two halves tend to drift and the conjunction is less felicitous.
Good performances but slightly disappointed they didn't try to get the voices of the characters, especially Vincent Price's. I thought this was cerebral rather than emotional.
One needs to always remember that this type of play is speculative, the writer uses certain characters and events, chooses which to highlight and extrapolates and, where necessary, takes sides in conflicting accounts. it's a work of fiction. I wouldn't get too excited about the conclusions drawn by a writer without further research.
|
|
|
|
Post by prefab on Mar 7, 2024 22:19:32 GMT
I thought this was excellent, although I was generally more engrossed in the Vincent Price/Michael Reeves storyline than the Alfred Hitchcock/Tippi Hedren one (at least until Joanna Vanderham's stunning monologue at the end). Once I got home and read a bit more about what happened to both Price and Reeves after Witchfinder General, their scenes about aging and their careers seem even more poignant.
|
|
|
|
Post by colelarson on Mar 10, 2024 11:43:20 GMT
Saw this yesterday afternoon and throughly enjoyed it, I found it fascinating with the two stories happening on stage at the same time.
It was mesmerising, engaging and that final speech by Joanna Vanderham as Tippi was sublime....a real tour-de-force.
I have ended up going down a rabbit hole afterwards reading lots about the people and films and I now have Marnie to watch!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 13, 2024 21:31:27 GMT
Mildly entertaining. 3*
|
|
|
|
Post by lt on Mar 16, 2024 18:23:31 GMT
Saw this last night, well acted and the way the two scenes interacted was quite clever. But it didn't really seem to be about anything and felt devoid of plot. Disappointing.
|
|
5,156 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Mar 17, 2024 15:08:19 GMT
When was the last time you watched a new play, Jan? |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 18, 2024 6:50:10 GMT
When was the last time you watched a new play, Jan ? More than 10 years ago. I think 2009 for a wholly new play not adapted from a book. I only watched this as I had a Covid credit. I chose it because I knew in general terms about both stories and I like Vincent Price and Jonathan Hyde. As it turned out it didn’t tell me anything new. I thought the two strands could have been more tightly integrated and the theme of “control” was rather banal. But it was OK and I may go to another new play in another ten years time. |
|
