|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 18:46:50 GMT
With something like this with plenty of four star reviews and positive comments, if I didn’t like something I wouldn’t go on about how ‘terrible’ it was as, clearly, the opposite view is widely held. Do others not think about their reaction and rationalise it, and what stopped them from doing so. Or is that just me? I find it a way of learning more about your own failings and limitations and I think that sort of self interrogation is very helpful. Don't be so patronising. It's a theatre discussion forum in which people discuss, amongst other things, what they thought of things. I happened to hate this, but I'm perfectly well aware, without you having to tell me, that many, many others held a different view. That doesn't invalidate my opinion, nor does it tell me about my 'failings'. Jesus! I made no comment about you personally at all. Throw around words like ‘pretentious’, however, and the least you can expect is a general riposte from those who did like and understand what was being done. If I wanted to attack someone’s views personally I’d be much more direct. The letter writer, who I did comment on, is, however, just typical of a certain reactionary mindset and any self knowledge seems to be very much absent from their thinking. Following on from that, I do think that in any situation, that what we feel tells us about ourselves much more than it does about others. That’s not really controversial is it? |
|
3,535 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Jan 30, 2019 19:20:40 GMT
I didn't "throw" any word around. I said that, in *my* opinion, and it is only that, this was a pretentious production. That is not necessarily the same as saying that I didn't understand the directorial intent behind it.
And yes, I agree with you that the letter earlier in the thread deployed a tone which I would not have (and I certainly don't share the writer's views).
Your post did come across, to me, as supercilious, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 19:41:49 GMT
And stating that opinion repeatedly in combative terms comes across, to me, as the same.
I saw it the theatre, however. Maybe the NT Live version gave it a different feel.
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Jan 30, 2019 19:54:33 GMT
I had misgivings but did believe it was a very serious deconstruction of the play and certainly good performances. With this and the Windrush inspired Globe version coming up,at least we have a discussion about the play today. Don't feel any of that at RSC .
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jan 30, 2019 20:48:15 GMT
With something like this with plenty of four star reviews and positive comments, if I didn’t like something I wouldn’t go on about how ‘terrible’ it was as, clearly, the opposite view is widely held. Do others not think about their reaction and rationalise it, and what stopped them from doing so. Or is that just me? I find it a way of learning more about your own failings and limitations and I think that sort of self interrogation is very helpful. It's clearly the view-from-the-ground that it's terrible too. You can't just live by the "official" critics. We're lucky in here that we get to discuss and voice other verdicts, including thinking a production is bad, like this one. And it's important to challenge work that isn't great and not follow the 4* opinions, just because they've printed them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 21:23:24 GMT
'The view from THE ground'?
Really?
'The view from YOUR ground' maybe.
And that's the point, isn't it? Differences of opinion, not sweeping statements of hit or miss.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jan 31, 2019 0:22:03 GMT
'The view from THE ground'? Really? 'The view from YOUR ground' maybe. And that's the point, isn't it? Differences of opinion, not sweeping statements of hit or miss. I shall let you continue to baffle me 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 0:27:07 GMT
'The view from THE ground'? Really? 'The view from YOUR ground' maybe. And that's the point, isn't it? Differences of opinion, not sweeping statements of hit or miss. I shall let you continue to baffle me 😂 It’s a simple, yet important, distinction. Anyway, feel free to plough on as the self appointed ‘voice of the people’. |
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jan 31, 2019 9:33:52 GMT
I shall let you continue to baffle me 😂 It’s a simple, yet important, distinction. Anyway, feel free to plough on as the self appointed ‘voice of the people’. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 |
|
397 posts
|
Post by altamont on Jan 31, 2019 9:45:33 GMT
Well, the "view from the ground" at the matinee yesterday was resoundingly positive. SRB as good as expected, and backed up by a strong supporting cast clearly realising the director's vision for the play. Now looking forward to seeing what the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse production is like
|
|
5,691 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 31, 2019 12:12:47 GMT
Well, the "view from the ground" at the matinee yesterday was resoundingly positive. SRB as good as expected, and backed up by a strong supporting cast clearly realising the director's vision for the play. Now looking forward to seeing what the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse production is like You are a darling. Keeping theatre going almost single handed. I don’t think even as a Shakespeare lover of more years than I’m tellin, I could face another RII this year. To my chagrin, I bet it will be good. I am seeing the Henrys. |
|
|
|
Post by MrsCondomine on Jan 31, 2019 13:11:03 GMT
I've only just got over it. Just thought it was total GCSE-level crap. SRB on impeccable form but mired in sh*te. Edited to add that Leo Bill clearly has something on the director, as he can't act. Worst Bolingbroke ever? Nay, worst performance in a Shakespeare play, ever. Yikes! Im going this Saturday. Well - you might really like it! I love RII, but I don't love plays being re-engineered to make a comment on the Hot Political Issue of the Day - just my personal preference. To be entirely truthful and fair, I really don't like Joe Hill-Gibbin's broad strokes style of directing, or his ideas, which he seems to think are really edgy and cool. I walked out of his Edward II (first walk-out ever!), and I thought his sex doll Measure for Measure was blunt and pointless. Here are some factors I did really like - - SRB (he can't do anything wrong to be fair) - Robin Weaver makes a very good Northumberland - There's an inclusion of a speech from Henry IV Part II which I thought worked spectacularly in context... even if it is Leo Bill saying it. |
|
397 posts
|
Post by altamont on Jan 31, 2019 15:22:16 GMT
Well, the "view from the ground" at the matinee yesterday was resoundingly positive. SRB as good as expected, and backed up by a strong supporting cast clearly realising the director's vision for the play. Now looking forward to seeing what the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse production is like You are a darling. Keeping theatre going almost single handed. I don’t think even as a Shakespeare lover of more years than I’m tellin, I could face another RII this year. To my chagrin, I bet it will be good. I am seeing the Henrys. Ha! I must admit I don't think there are many Shakepeare histories over the last few years that we have missed - and RII is probably my favourite. We'll be there too for the Henrys in the Globe this summer and in the SWP over the winter. |
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Feb 2, 2019 17:09:17 GMT
I wanted to like this i really did! Sadly it was a right royal load of rubbish. SRB looked appropriately embarrassed and the supporting cast, some of whom are good actors looked like a team of local council park keepers ready to do some clearing. Once he is finished with Lehman Trilogy (which i didnt like either) SRB had better do something decent. One star for effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Feb 2, 2019 17:10:44 GMT
Forgot to mention Ralph Fiennes and Nicholas Woodeson in the audience which was, incidentally by no means full.
|
|
392 posts
|
Post by lichtie on Feb 3, 2019 17:01:22 GMT
So I'm going to sit on the fence with this one. I don't know RII as a play well, but do know the actual history, so there was no problem with the doubling etc. Thought SRB was excellent, his ability to get Shakespeare's text across without mangling everything is a joy to behold. On the other side... A set that gurgles at you as liquid is thrown about is to put it mildly silly. The shuffling around of the cast to form little cliques ditto. But for the price of a cheap seat, and at only 1 hour 40, worth it for SRB.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Feb 3, 2019 18:53:05 GMT
Much to my surprise I really rather enjoyed this.
There were some important factors that made this possible, I knew what to expect from reading on here and fully expected to not like it which meant this production had less to live up to, I have seen the play four times before so was able to keep up with who was who and what was going on and probably most importantly I love SRB and thought he just was a sort of sublime central presence through the madness that was this.
I found it rather funny in parts, rather liked the fact that the ever changing ensemble meant that Richard did seem very alone and isolated, I thought Martins Imhangbe as Bagot had a lovely presence and dignity about him and was the only one who spoke at a measured speed, i'd be interested to see him again. Bolingbroke is a character I tend to route against, Richard may be a hopeless king but i'm always on his side, and in Leo Bill's portrayal he was so limp, so not a king but rather a man who just seemed to have stumbled into the position, I'm not sure this fits really with the text and you wouldn't have given him 10 minutes as a ruler.
The set and everyone being on stage all the time seemed to make it both claustrophobic and isolated at the same time. I could have lived without the sound track quite happily and the rush of the speaking of the lines meant you lost much of the beauty of the language, if you didn't know to look out for certain speeches you could miss them completely.
I fully understand why people loathed this, if it had been any other actor as Richard I think I would have probably thought the same and I regretted the fact that we didn't have another hour in which to allow him to properly investigate the character. And if you weren't familiar with the play it must have been very hard to keep up. It didn't make me think of current situations, if it was meant to that passed me by and I think after not liking his Measure for Measure I wouldn't be rushing out to book for this director again. But mainly it was just wonderful to see SRB give us his Richard II when we thought we'd missed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrsCondomine on Feb 4, 2019 9:31:04 GMT
Forgot to mention Ralph Fiennes and Nicholas Woodeson in the audience which was, incidentally by no means full. Oh God, Ralph. I wouldn't be able to concentrate. I don't go all starry-eyed for anyone, but for Ralph, I find myself oddly distrait. |
|
