5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Dec 5, 2019 13:37:11 GMT
Arthur Scargill jogging? How very bourgeoisie! There was, I seem to remember, some controversy around these parts when he tried to buy the flat under the Conservatives right to buy policy.
The late John Smith was also a resident, I believe.
For the few, and all that!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2019 15:50:50 GMT
Matthew Horne lives there too (supposedly)
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 5, 2019 17:41:40 GMT
A rare occasion lynette and I are in disagreement. I love the Barbican and it is one of my favourite London Theatres, outside the RSC season there is always an interesting and rather eclectic range of plays especially the surtitled European imports, of which Medea was in my top five this year and I never get bored of those automatically closing doors. On a tour earlier this year and asking about the difficulty in finding your way around it was explained that the marked walkways naturally take you to the main entrance on the ground floor and the Silk Street entrance which I always use was never meant to be used as a general entrance, did try the route advised and it did make sense but as a creature of habit reverted back to using the tunnel and Silk Street entrance. The flats are also on my if I ever win the lottery list, would be my perfect central London abode (Theatre / Concert Venue / Cinema just down the stairs) even if finding my way home could be a bit of a puzzle. I said the flats are good. I’ve not seen much there that wasn’t RSC in the olden days. Saw the Cumbie Hamlet which was destroyed by that football pitch of a stage. Yes, I also like the doors...... |
|
4,993 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Dec 5, 2019 17:53:53 GMT
I do wonder if one of our wonderful mods should move this to a seperate thread on the Barbican Centre? Or perhaps I should just relax!
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 5, 2019 19:19:40 GMT
I do wonder if one of our wonderful mods should move this to a seperate thread on the Barbican Centre? Or perhaps I should just relax! Sorry, perhaps as we have run out things to say about this below par production. So people, go back tot he Shrew if you want to. Personally I would prefer to consign it to the bin. In that kind of mood.... |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 5, 2019 20:22:25 GMT
The theatre itself is too wide The stage is only 2ft wider than the Lyttelton |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 5, 2019 20:41:19 GMT
The theatre itself is too wide The stage is only 2ft wider than the Lyttelton Really?! It feels much wider. Interesting. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 5, 2019 21:04:29 GMT
The stage is only 2ft wider than the Lyttelton Really?! It feels much wider. Interesting. The Lyttleton is also too wide. It’s like watching a tennis match from the side. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 6, 2019 7:56:08 GMT
Really?! It feels much wider. Interesting. The Lyttleton is also too wide. It’s like watching a tennis match from the side. The Lyttelton is a big canvas for a good director and designer to use - it is Rupert Goold's favourite theatre space, he says it is "a box of tricks". His staging of Time and the Conways there made very good use of the stage, also Robert Icke's Red Barn for example. There are very few shows that have ever been designed specifically for the Barbican stage, the vast majority of them are transfers, that does not make best use of the space. |
|
4,993 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Dec 6, 2019 8:15:41 GMT
The stage is only 2ft wider than the Lyttelton Really?! It feels much wider. Interesting. The Nash seems to spend a lot more money on sets. Possibly that's why shows fit more comfortably? |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 6, 2019 8:47:38 GMT
Really?! It feels much wider. Interesting. The Nash seems to spend a lot more money on sets. Possibly that's why shows fit more comfortably? RSC sets at the Barbican are now from their thrust stage in Stratford. I can't remember one that has been anything other than mediocre - about the best was the last scene in the current Measure for Measure where they used projection and lighting to represent a railway station. Normally they go for a fixed set with a generic selection of flats/gates/doors at the back that can be moved around a bit and a big empty stage at the front, the actors say their lines from a relatively small section of stage at the front. This is particularly restricting for a play like Antony and Cleopatra where there are two specific different locations for the action (Rome & Egypt) - compare and contrast the last RSC production where there was very little difference between the two places and the last NT production in the Olivier (submarine and all). I think it is a combination of cost, equipment and design problems. At the Barbican their stagings remind me of opera where one big priority seems to be always to keep the scenery out of the way of the singers so they shove it all at the back of the stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 16, 2019 22:48:10 GMT
Thought this was poor. Boring, not funny, badly directed, he even managed to make the gender swapping uninteresting. Plus, this play is set in several distinct different locations so why have the same fixed set for all of them ? Why have a set at all ? Hopeless.
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Jan 12, 2020 1:16:56 GMT
Dragged my heels about going to this and wish I had heeded my instinct. Instead, I saw it last night (Friday) and thought it was excruciating, doubly so given the fine talent onstage. The gender flip seems mean-spirited and actually perversely sexist (oh, look, a woman can be gain control by being a harridan -- how fun!) in addition to nonsensical: Katherine is male but called Katherine and is played so passively that I began to wonder whether we were supposed to glean that he is transitioning. Lots of awful RSC-style knees-ups and the supporting cast are almost to a man (well, mostly women) embarrassingly OTT and should all know better. No naming names of anyone since these are fine actors, all, who soon will leave this nonsense behind them.
|
|
