433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Sept 30, 2016 21:22:29 GMT
It's a real mixed bag.
The first two hours are fine. Not incredible, but fine. Basically it's like one long restoration-era Blackadder episode. Fairly funny, but sitcom funny, not Play That Goes Wrong funny. A lot of space to potentially subtle explore more serious themes within the comedy (status; the desire for fame; theatre as a mirror to nature; republican politics; the responsibilities of power) but the writer doesn't commit enough to them.
The last half an hour is deadly serious. I found it jarring, and frankly boring. Not all plays about sex and depravity need to end in moral lessons! (And the final line is cringe to the extreme.)
The acting is mostly fine, some decent performances, some not so great. Cooper is perfectly adequate.
The writing is weak. Some decent jokes, but the language has no poetry or spark and a pretty limited vocabulary except for the multitude of euphemisms for the vagina. The soliloquies especially are awful. If you told me a secondary school pupil had written them, I would have believed you. Very plodding and "I will now explain to you exactly what is happening even though you've just witnessed it, and then use words of not more than two syllables to explain how that makes me feel." It brings the play to a crashing halt every time, completely interrupting the momentum. I know how the wife feels about her husband's behaviour (the 'monkey scene' is actually as well-written a portrait of marital cruelty as I've seen, and manages to get across a lot of serious subtext within a very funny comedy scene); I don't need her to physically then say to the audience "when my husband does this it makes me feel sad" like it's her turn with the Feeling Wheel in group therapy.
The one thing it is not is sexy. At all. I don't see how there was ever any intention of creating any kind of eroticism on stage, it's just not that sort of play, so a major error in promoting it as such.
|
|
32 posts
|
Post by deadyankee on Sept 30, 2016 21:29:09 GMT
That complete marries with my experience. Saw it early on in Bath (when Cooper was still calling for his lines) and found it entertaining enough for £20 but it really is lacking in spark and finesse. The dildo song and the monkey shouldn't be the standout highlights.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Oct 2, 2016 11:38:29 GMT
Both The Libertine and Shopping and F***ing were first directed by Max Stafford-Clark for his touring company Out of Joint, and both co-produced by the Royal Court Theatre. With Terry Johnson's Theatre Royal Haymarket production of The Libertine amd Sean Holmes's imminent Lyric Hammersmith production of Shopping and F***ing both running at the same time, it will be interesting to see how the two plays now appear to us, free of the particular, unique rigour of Max Stafford-Clark.
|
|
994 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 2, 2016 14:15:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 19:34:47 GMT
Susannah Clapp really is our most underrated critic.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Oct 3, 2016 9:29:36 GMT
Interesting review - we're going to see this tonight.
|
|
196 posts
|
Post by rockinrobin on Oct 4, 2016 7:36:31 GMT
Saw it this evening and enjoyed it. I just haven't got the first idea what the story was. Everything was really good, but I feel like the story was completely missing. Just a bunch of scenes about theatre, prostitues, alcohol and monarchy (3 of which are some my favourite thing actually...) Had the very same feeling - the story was missing! I enjoyed it overall but it wasn't an evening to remember. Loved the staging, though.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Oct 4, 2016 7:45:07 GMT
We were there too, Kevin. Well, I say we were there, but my companion slept through whole swathes of it, so present in body if not spirit.
It looked very handsome indeed and I liked the early coffee house scene when they were finding the good bits and bad bits in the latest work by Dryden and the opening rehearsal scenes of the second act. But I thought the direction and some of the acting were actually poor. Ophelia Lovibond seemed entirely miscast as Mrs Berry, at times her stage presence was more a stage absence - which surely has to be a problem when playing someone who is meant to become a great actress and Alice Bailey Johnson (the director's daughter, I believe - I shouldn't mention it, but it is fun to at least pretend acting is a meritocracy, isn't it?) was very dull as Rochester's wife. This is going to seem a silly example, but she had what should have been an impassioned speech to the audience about the problems of being married to Rochester. She delivered this like a head girl addressing an assembly. At the end, she turned and flatly trudged off stage - no character, no style, nothing. It's the sort of thing that, were it, say, an A level drama exam, the student would be awarded a D. There was an ensemble member in the Dildo song who was really funny and charming - moved beautifully, had the right attitude - I couldn't help but think she might have been better in one of the larger roles.
There was also some dull/awkward staging - I'm not sure Johnson actually has a great eye for stage pictures or movement. At one point, a character is lying on stage and some watchmen gather around him in what, I think, was meant to be a comic manner, but just looked amateurish, like something out of 'The Art of Coarse Acting.' I saw the Stafford-Clark production of this at the Royal Court and remember thinking it flawed then, but also loving the way he combined the Restoration veneer to this gritty, nastiness.
Cooper needed more light and shade and excitement - Rochester was the ultimate irresistible bad boy. I can't help but wonder if, with better direction, he could have got it.
Still for the production values (set/costumes/lighting), some decent supporting performances (the coffee house group) and a collector's item of a script, this just shades into 3 stars.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 14, 2016 7:50:22 GMT
I liked the chaos of no real story, just a "rake's progress." Olivia Lovibond really divided people, from the reviews I read. I think it depends how you see the character to start with, as to whether you liked her performance or not. Foxa's take that she should become great, yes, she isn't right. I felt she would be more a "reality TV star" type, a wannabe without anything there ever, and it worked for me like that. Also loved Alice Bailey Johnson, because it amused me that she was obviously a clever woman who had his measure at all times. Was the Dildo woman Lydia Piechowiak - dark hair? She works in burlesque, according to the programme, and I agree she was outstanding. My own opinion is on my site now, btw, if anyone needs some sleeping matter.
I think you're right about the Rake's Progress feel to the show, TM, but my problem was that there just wasn't much (or any) progress. Rochester is the same guy at the end as he was at the beginning, just a little the worse for wear. I quite loved Dominic Cooper in the role and thought he did everything humanly possible to make us care (despite his prologue warning) but cynical self-indulgence and self-pity and utter disregard for everyone else in his life could only carry him so far. Full marks to him, however, for being thoroughly watchable - and for whatever success the play has.
I don't think the play is bad, just empty. Rochester is so one note that he turns out to be not a very good dramatic subject. I generally liked Terry Johnson's production and generally liked the cast although the men were superior to the ladies, possibly because their characters were so much more interesting. I had an additional issue with Alice Bailey Johnson in that she's virtually a double for my ex-wife, which totally threw me. Not her fault, obviously.
But, btw, the fifteen pound front row days seats are a steal. Yes, some of the bits in the back are blocked but most of the show is played down front and the view is excellent.
|
|
668 posts
|
Post by westendcub on Oct 20, 2016 23:27:20 GMT
Was at the afternoon matinee today.
I had a few mixed feelings going in after mixed reviews.
The first act is a little overlong but act 2 was far sharper and tighter.
Some of the performances felt flat in places but this is Dominic's show and he delivers. You can't help but find this character endearing throughout (I like that ruse of a prologue) and a tear or two rolled down my cheek at the end.
Lovely set, overall a nice matinee 3/5
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2016 10:36:58 GMT
Well. I'm sorry but there was nary a hint of a Dominipple which was most disappointing.
It's all rather a jolly affair and romps along nicely but not a lot really happens. I guess it's because of the period but it did remind me of 'Nell Gwynn' except that play was a lot better.
Dominic Cooper was delicious. He does look like he knows a few filthy boudoir moves of his own and I actually rather liked Rochester all the way through it as much as he tried to make me think the opposite. The rest of the cast were good and there's a great picture frame bit of set which works very well I thought.
Nice to see Ophelia Lovibond channeling a young Millicent Martin too.
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Nov 25, 2016 7:19:57 GMT
Saw this yesterday and enjoyed it but with reservations : Domonic Cooper and Ophelia Lovibond were excellent, the set desigb was lovely but I could have dome with less of Rochester's pals,
Overall enjoyable and glad I saw it.
|
|
1,874 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Dec 4, 2016 0:57:20 GMT
Saw this tonight and enjoyed it, I thought it was better than the film (the monkey made me decide that within 10 second of its appearance), but the whole thing just felt a bit shapeless plot/story-wise, and never seemed to decide what it wanted to be. Dominic Cooper was good, he had a nice bit of banter with the front few rows of the audience at the beginning, just a shame the play didn't really give him more to do beyond a bit of innuendo and falling over pissed during the end of the second act.
|
|
22 posts
|
Post by iamian on Jul 11, 2017 9:58:52 GMT
Will Merrick is wasted (not in the Skins sense). He definitely isn't going to be wasted (in either sense) in the play he is doing at Theatre503 in August: boom
|
|