|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 8:47:22 GMT
I had this to say about the play last September (a whole year ago? Already?), and assuming the production hasn't materially changed, I'm sure it still stands even though I haven't seen it this year: So yeah, I didn't empathise with it as such, 'cos I've been sure for a long time now that not only do I not want children, I actively want *no* children, but I still engaged with it because the performances were extremely good and the production wasn't bad either. It's not compulsory to personally identify with every story you watch/read, and it's still possible to enjoy a show even if you can't entirely fathom where the characters are coming from. To use this to clarify my other comments- I obviously fully see how I can see a show where I don't understand or empathise with the character (to use my favourite example I'm not a whiny Danish Prince but I keep seeing Hamlets). I just ....didn't go out of my way to see this one because I was generally a bit indifferent. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 6, 2017 18:33:39 GMT
I was generally a bit indifferent. I booked because of the award Piper got last year, which piqued my curiosity, and I managed to get lucky dip tickets and advance train tix so it wasn't going to break the bank. As with The Ferryman, I'm glad I saw it because I might have been wondering for ages if I'd really missed out, like Digory hitting the bell in The Magician's Nephew (I am still p-d off about missing The Dazzle - it was being p-d off about The Dazzle, and then seeing relatives tweet about it, that really made me get my arse in gear to see London theatre again!) |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Sept 6, 2017 18:42:53 GMT
That said, if I'd been in the room for it maybe I'd appreciate it, maybe not. I'm not sure you had to engage so much on an emotional level with a particular character - the play was the thing, and it was more about acting as a jury being presented with evidence from all sides and testing the weight of everything as a picture builds, perhaps. Oh! I really don't think much it seems, rather just react, it's what makes the board so interesting, reading people's thoughts, especially those who can articulate well. Thanks TM, I am inwardly digesting and nodding. |
|
5,183 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Being Alive on Sept 7, 2017 22:01:01 GMT
Just seen an encore screening and was not as taken by it as I expected. I quite liked the concept. But bits of it jarred a little for me.
Billie Piper is a wonderful actress, but she has possibly been slightly overhyped for me - I think I expected to come out flawed by her, and I didn't feel that (not like I did with Andrew Garfield in Angels).
|
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Sept 9, 2017 0:11:25 GMT
I'm always turned on when someone who hasn't seen something decides to give their opinion on why they wouldn't like it Welcome back that was what 0-dick in how many posts? I was tagged in the thread by @theatremonkey until then, as I said, I was reading the thread but not posting because I hadn't seen it. As someone tagged me in it I decided to give some thoughts. Those thoughts were 'I didn't see it but on reading the reviews and other comments these are my thoughts...' And my thoughts (for the hard of listening) are: This looks like a really interesting production and I'm intrigued by the set up. However I feel from the subject matter I may not emotionally engage with it as much as others do. Does anyone else think that's an unreasonable summary? I haven't seen Follies yet, but I've offered thoughts on that based on other's comments...is it a new forum rule where I have to show my ticket in order to enter a thread? The answer lies in the script - though many people seem to have missed it. By the close what she says she wants is to be with the child she aborted - there's a lot more going on than just wanting a child. The ghastly husband , and the detached mother explain much too. The Cinema production, I think, wasn't as engaging as the live version - not least because, where it might have added closer up views, and views from the other side of the stage, the audience couldn't see , the camera seemed to add istance, and tended to focus in odd places at key moments, and didn't seem to use both sides of the theatre - you got far more just focusing on Biliie in the live show. Here, there were some bizarre cut outs - ncuding one where Billie vanished mid speech as the camera found itself looking up her skirt. And the ending seemed weaker -because the building tension was cut, by a cut out before the last deed - possibly because someone realised that there might be a ratings issue? They also failed to make anyone audible for the first 10-15 minutes. |
|
19,778 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 28, 2023 19:46:05 GMT
Back in cinemas in December.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kubrick on Dec 2, 2023 19:14:31 GMT
My second favorite theatrical experience. Billie Piper was astonishing when I saw this production at Park Avenue Armory. I’m so happy the filmed production is available, it’s not to be missed.
|
|
