1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on May 1, 2024 17:27:46 GMT
There was an incident when the water god is meant to fly out over the audience except it detached from the wiring and fell over some audience members. Thankfully no one was hurt and staff were prompt to remove it
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on May 1, 2024 17:19:06 GMT
Really enjoyed this. Reluctant to spend high prices nowadays but this was £96 well spent
Only occasionally did I feel the running time. But this is such an engrossing production. Well performed and it was glorious hearing the theme music with a full orchestra
4.5 stars
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 30, 2024 22:04:53 GMT
The production uses mainly the book and songs from the original and first tours. Certainly happy to hear the Overture in full swing. I was surprised to see them use most of the original 'Grand Prix' song from the Palladium production. Did not expect to see that again.
A new thing they have done is open the second act with Chitty flying again, whilst Truly Scrumptious sings Lovely Lonely Man.
You do notice the small orchestra here, with music playing unmistakably on the keyboard.
You can tell they spent their money on the car. There's dog puppets, Grandpa's hut only goes up and down the wing, and the balloon with the hut hanging beneath is brought on a rod by a cast member. They even have cast members with models of attractions for the fun fair.
Me Ol' Bamboo was a highlight with the full ensemble in full swing. Which is good as it's not a big cast.
The best performance came from Ellie Nunn as Truly Scrumptious. Sang beautifully and was a delight to watch during 'Truly Scrumptious' and 'Doll on a Music Box'. Adam Garcia has charm as Caractacus and Liam Fox is good as Grandpa. Baron Bomburst, Boris and Goran are the usual pantomime villain and sidekicks. Jenny Gayner is enjoying herself as the Baroness.
Charlie Brooks is fine as the Childcatcher but not memorable. Her comeuppance in this version is underwhelming as well (not that I was expecting her to be whisked away in a net over the auditorium)
Overall I had minimal expectations and was pleasantly happy with this touring production. Seeing the car fly had me smiling and nostalgic for the original. Better than the last tour anyway. Just don't expect something on the scale of the original.
3.75 stars
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 30, 2024 20:06:19 GMT
At the opening night
This is in good shape, Tom Sutherland came out to say they may stop if chitty gets nervous flying, but there was nothing to worry about
And yes the car is flying thank goodness. On the crane mechanism as usual. It’s range of movements is limited by the space but it’s better than just bobbing up and down like the last tour
The one noticeable thing is how economic the show is. The odd clever moment where Coggins scrap place turns into the windmill, but there’s a lot of crates moved around to constitute sets. Also couldn’t help notice the cars back wheels pivoting up and down to avoid hitting the cyclorama
Also odd that Caractacus is not singing hushabye mountain whilst putting kids to bed. Thought maybe they could afford beds but then they set Posh in the children’s bedroom so I don’t know
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 29, 2024 8:40:22 GMT
The autism aspect is an interesting interpretation. As someone on the high-end of the spectrum and has participated with a theatre company that works with autistic people on all levels, I can certainly see characteristics. Just like I've seen characteristics in characters in other productions like Sam Tutty's character in 'Two Strangers' recently
Certainly the audio-overload affecting the woman with the drilling can be a sign. But I also saw the man holding the drill and his shadow over the woman looked very phallic, so to say, and given what was going on it was easy for me to think I'm watching her conceiving, reluctantly, multiple children over the years. It was only by the end of that scene when I realised that this was all happening after the birth of the first scene.
I also interpreted the way she was on the bed but the doctors were talking to the space next to her as a sign that she was not with it, especially in my interpretation from conceiving so many children from a man she doesn't love, and in her own world. But that could also be a sign of autism. My friend who saw with me however did not understand what it was meant to mean.
So that is why I think Richard Jones' direction was inconsistent. Started off strong at the start with it's depiction of this woman, autistic or not, overwhelmed in a world that is increasingly robotic and mechanised with the rapid development of technology and the rise of office work in the early 20th century, as people become holistically disconnected. A tell-tale sign of what the world is today.
But after that it lacked the clarity and finesse. Only the scene in the dark worked for me. Beautifully staged.
If the main drive of Richard Jones' production was portraying autism at a time when it wasn't known, I feel he should have done more. Partly its the problem with the script with the way it jumps ahead between scenes that prevents further understanding of the character. Like a good 5-6 years goes by between the birth and the speakeasy scenes, as I could tell when they said the age of the child in the trial scene. We could be finding out how the woman is coping as a mother in a loveless marriage, especially from an autism angle. It might have been an opportunity for Jones to do a sequence like the beginning or the honeymoon when the woman and husband arrive at the hotel when a party is on. Why exactly did the woman come along to a speakeasy in the first place?
It's great that people are discussing different themes and it's certainly brought my attention what was in the production. But in the end me and my friend and felt the autism angle was just a supporting theme and that this production was inconsistent what it was trying to achieve.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 28, 2024 0:23:18 GMT
Afraid this didn't do much for me.
I went on the praise on this forum and like A Number I feel I've seen a different production.
Started off well. It was the expressionist show I was expecting showing the relentless claustrophobia of the machine the central character feel trapped in. Felt slick, well choreographed, and good use of sound.
Then after the office scene the production fell off. I'm not sure Richard Jones knew what he wanted this production to be. Did he want to play the scenes expressionistically or straight? Granted I was glad it took a step back from the office scene routine before it got monotonous. But after that the production barely reached the heights of the beginning.
There were moments that reminded me of the start, particularly the speakeasy scene. But there were times were it was difficult to understand what Jones was conveying. Like in the hospital scene I was trying to work out with the drilling man appearing whether we were seeing years passing and the main character having multiple children.
The other highlight was the scene between the main character and her lover. Beautifully done with the lighting and the two involved.
Otherwise the direction felt pedestrian and the acting was varied to say the least. Even Rosie Sheehy, who I enjoyed in Oleanna, was laying on the accent a bit thick I felt.
The other problem I have is the play itself and the scenes. They jump ahead in time to the next thing and feels jarring catching up with where the character is. Like one moment the main character has a child and the next she's being taken to a speakeasy. What happened in between? May have been an opportunity for Jones to choreograph a sequence in which we see that. And consequently I felt the energy drop each time a scene started.
As a result I didn't care at all for the main character's plight
An average 3 stars. Had moments but the rest felt pedestrian and unfocused.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 27, 2024 15:13:19 GMT
I didn't see a back and forth of left vs right. I just saw a generalisation. That said, politics clearly do come in to the debate when discussing Just Stop Oil (though they have gone quiet recently - perhaps it's the cold months and they don't come out, or perhaps they've realised those of us who drive will probably stick to combustion engines for a couple of decades more yet). This is the culmination of the rise of social media and the finger pointing with every 'ist' or far right accusation you can make. Justified or otherwise Once upon a time we would agree to disagree. Nowadays you have echo chambers of all kinds who will not listen to any reasoned or well-thought arguments and resort to the attack. And they can get the press involved and make an argument bigger than it really is The goalposts keep moving. Those who consider themselves in the middle or centre-left are accused to be hard right. You can say you are for green energy and saving the planet, but one day you express a differing opinion that isn't aligned with the group-think or current-year and you are deemed a heathen by those you'd think are your allies. Sure both sides are in on the game, but I do find one side is louder No matter how hard you try to say the right thing, it will never be enough for some cliques. And you wonder why these protestors drive average joe away from their cause. Give it time and the accusers will find themselves on the receiving end and wonder what they did wrong.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 26, 2024 21:09:29 GMT
A Chorus of Disapproval (Salisbury Playhouse)
Good lord I couldn't wait to get out at the interval.
I've liked some of Alan Ayckbourn's works here and there but this one was so dull.
Despite the production values and efforts of the cast, with Damian Humbleby in the lead role, none of it could lift a script that meanders with no focus. I wondered whether Ayckbourn was being meta with the director of the Beggars Opera taking so long to get anywhere with rehearsals.
Speaking of which the director was increasingly unlikeable. Did anyone see Rob Brydon in the Trevor Nunn production at the Harold Pinter. Could he bring any charm to a character who just belittles his cast members here and there and is disliked by his wife.
Flat jokes went on and on. Wanted one of the cast members to shut up about whether Humbleby's character was from Scotland.
Damian Humbleby was likeable playing straight in the lead role but I had no interest in any of the other characters. Wanted the play to go back to the Beggars Opera they were putting on.
Rating: Left at interval
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 22, 2024 21:20:11 GMT
Here's a paradoxical one, but I considered leaving during the short interval of the 2014 Bath Theatre Royal's Who's Afaid of Virginia Woolf.
Only because when the late Tim Piggott Smith's crazed George went out to get something, I wanted to be far away before the shooting spree started.
When even a production is so tense and has you fearing for your own safety, even though it's not real, you know you're witnessing some great theatre.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 16, 2024 10:15:51 GMT
Am reviewing on Thursday so will share my thoughts! The Masque of the Worthies is going to have to be radically rethought to fit a contemporary setting I would imagine. Also I can't see a Sir Nathaniel in the cast list. Wondering about getting rush tickets on Friday midday so love to hear your thoughts
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 7, 2024 9:35:50 GMT
Was there as well last night. The Roger Allam Globe Theatre production remains the best for me. I appreciate that this production wasn't aiming to be very humorous, especially with Falstaff is concerned, but it wasn't quite as engaging as that. Phyllida Lloyd's all-female culmination of both parts I'd prefer by virtue of it being shorter. Both I'd recommend watching on Globe Player of Digital Theatre. There were elements of the 2014 RSC production I preferred, but Ian McKellen is better than Antony Sher. Less said about David Warner in the 2007 RSC production (though its nice to see Geoffrey Freshwater in this 17 years later after playing Shallow in that) You're not wrong nottobe that Part 2 is the weakest compared to Part 1, which is a fault of the material I'd say. Though the deathbed scene and ending is touching as usual. I'm just glad they didn't have the B-Grade replacement antagonist after Hotspur and the business with the recruits during the Shallow scenes. I thought Toheeb Jimoh was the highlight as Hal actually. Ian McKellen is great but I've noticed in his latest productions his habit of loudly drawing breath and smacking his lips in between sentences. Don't know if that's old age or an acting choice of his but particularly here it slows proceedings.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 6, 2024 16:39:34 GMT
I liked this. Heart warming and charming What drags it down for me was the writers go way overboard with Tuttys ‘manic pixie dream boy’. Found him very annoying to begin with. Like I know he’s the character to contrast with Dujonnas cynical, world weary character who helps to break down her barriers and see the light side of things again. But they dial up him 100% with all the trappings of this character (first time to New York, seen every movie, naive etc) and then add in the fact that this is a musical and good lord it’s overbearing. Sometimes I don’t even get his character. At times I wonder he’s on the spectrum before he becomes an expert on dating. And one point I think “does he see New York spiritually as the capital or does he seriously know what the capital of USA is” And normasturban if you’re referring to a moment in the hotel room in the second act, yeah it did seem uncalled for. Like he’s so invested in someone he barely knows But the musical started winning me over from the tinder song and it really shines when Tuttys character is dialled down and it’s just him and Dujonna singing together as their relationship grows. Tonally the way the musical goes from one thing to the next is a little jarring. Like Tuttys characters personality dialling up and down. And the incident with the cake didn’t feel quite as serious as it could be. Instead it’s quickly forgotten about as the pair continue getting to know I’m each other There were some very funny moments, including the aunt comment that got an applause In the end it won me over but I do have reservations about it 3.75 stars
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 18, 2024 0:14:35 GMT
If you want to stay safe and stick to only good shows then wait for reviews. Personally I trust this forum more than the mainstream critics any day.
Not that rule will work all the time. I do not get the praise for A Mirror for example. Opinions are opinions after all.
Also you will miss out on the initial cheap tickets and are at the whim of day, returns or even lottery tickets. I wish I got to see Sunset Boulevard last year but that's life for you.
But coming from someone who has spent hundreds on theatregoing over a decade, who used to go to any play or musical blindly just because I wanted to, I can say that sometimes you got to risk stumbling upon a gem here and there. And that means taking everyone's advice here and booking whatever takes your fancy.
Sticking to the writers and directors you like is certainly a safe bet, but remember that sometimes they will create duds.
More importantly, only you yourself can decide whether a show is good or not.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 15, 2024 15:20:46 GMT
The top 5 I'd watch first are
A View from the Bridge This House Twelfth Night London Assurance Ian McKellan on Stage (or swap it for King Lear if you're wanting an actual play)
The rest I have seen would be All My Sons, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Antigone, Behind the Beautiful Forevers, Best of Enemies, Dara (well I'd say this more fascinating than engaging), Frankenstein (prefer Cumberbatch's Monster and Miller's Frankenstein), Julius Caesar, King Lear, Medea, Othello (2013), The Deep Blue Sea
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 13, 2024 18:26:58 GMT
Salisbury Playhouse has comfortable seating and legroom and there's not a bad view anywhere Agreed, it’s a shame the theatre is so very patchy with their productions. Years ago they produced some wonderful revivals. Got the chance to see some wonderful plays from them. And they had the Studio theatre where touring fringe productions came. And they were my go to for pantomimes. Nowadays it's a sad to see the reduced number of productions they produce. Last year I believe it was just Jeeves and Wooster and the panto. And the studio hasn't been open again for productions since covid. But it's the same with a lot of local theatre with programmes full of tribute bands, comedians, q&as and so on. So far they've had a new play from Chris Chibnal and are putting on A Chorus of Disapproval, so it's hopeful.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 12, 2024 14:20:24 GMT
Oh I thought Daniel Mays was the standout. Followed closely by Andrew Richardson, Celinde Schoenmaker and Marisha Wallace. He threw himself into the role of Nathan Detroit and was like a born again New York gambler. I'm sure people can point out his singing limits but whilst Marisha could stand and belt he brought the acting, comedy and to some extent singing in 'Sue Me'
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 12, 2024 10:27:01 GMT
Salisbury Playhouse has comfortable seating and legroom and there's not a bad view anywhere
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 4, 2024 1:01:10 GMT
What everyone has said already I wholeheartedly agree. Course as Lynette says it might be worth waiting for reviews before deciding to go for a production. Regents Park Open Air Theatre is doing Twelfth Night this summer. May be worth an afternoon there.
If you then want to watch something at home afterwards there's the Bridge Theatre Midsummer Night's Dream and NT's Twelfth Night on NT at Home. Less traditional with gender bending in them but accessible for sure
For traditional and accessible I'd recommend the Globe Theatre's Much Ado About Nothing (2011) (not the 2012 one unless he's also learning French at the moment) and The Comedy of Errors (2014) on the Globe Player website.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 3, 2024 0:27:22 GMT
I'm sorry, I know to agree to disagree, but I have no idea where one can begin to praise this.
Johnny Lee Miller elevates a play that has nothing to say. I can save you money right now and recommend watching 1984 or any dystopia media again over this.
All Sam Holcroft has done is add a premise that is initially interesting and then writes a story that is not compelling, with uninteresting characters and has nothing to say but authoritarian government and censorship is bad. Not even the meta stuff adds anything we've seen before. I'm not even sure why the characters in this play would bother telling this story.
In fact you would barely have a story to begin with because I couldn't take the authoritarian government Johnny Lee Miller's character represented seriously. He's all "I want to elevate artists and give them a chance to speak and la-di-da" and I'm thinking aren't you supposed to be upholding your government's censorship rules? Why the hell do you care about this writer? He should be putting in him in prison, end of story, out in 15 minutes.
The two young actors were good, the bearded chap less so. Sure the twist at the end got my interest, only ruined by actor involved. Couldn't take him seriously.
2 stars
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 3, 2024 0:01:28 GMT
I enjoyed this. Well-rounded characters played by a wonderful cast in a heart-warming play.
Yes it is too long and I would shorten the amount of time with the children. Maybe sitting at the front row helped me feel engrossed in what was going on.
4 stars
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 1, 2024 10:43:21 GMT
Am I a bad person for not feeling sorry for anyone who purchased tickets or were hired? They could have taken note of the lazily used AI images and spelling mistakes on the website (which I don't know how long it will be remain up for) willyschocolateexperience.com/index.html
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 29, 2024 23:58:03 GMT
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 28, 2024 15:30:04 GMT
For me, absolutely everything is in service of the story. Unlike La Navete Bete company there are no things going wrong 'accidentally on purpose', the show isn't about 'will the cast make it through ' it's 'will the characters '. The first wink at the audience is held til the end of the first song of Act 2. I wouldn't say it's farcical exactly: that tends to be one situation that gradually tangles (boringly) then unwinds (entertainingly). This switches styles. But physical theatre, elements of clowning, elements of naturalistic character reflection. It is priced beyond 'what the hell I'll just give it a go'. Thanks. The more I hear about it, the less it is appealing. You could certainly save yourself some money and just go and see the upcoming touring revival of The 39 Steps. In fact try that before paying top price for this. Okay, The 39 Steps isn't a musical and Max has certainly given a more nuanced view on what this show is. But seeing the show last year, I just couldn't help but feel I've seen plenty of touring and local shows like this before. Even if I hadn't, I'd still think myself glad to to have only paid for a lottery ticket. I still had fun watching this and there were some jokes here and there that set it apart. The cast efforts and execution is what makes this a four star show. The only thing that annoyed me was the introverted, buck-tooth, hunched nerd stereotype they use that feels very dated to me.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 28, 2024 12:39:47 GMT
I met someone recently who told me this was a wonderful musical (although I don't think they were someone who regularly sees musicals) Before I consider it, would anyone mind telling what what the style and tone of the show is? Any other musicals it bears stylistic similarities too? thanks If you have seen 39 Steps, any of La Navete Bete's recent shows like Three Musketeers or Treasure Island, or any small-scale touring production with a cast of 4-6 multi-rolling characters, singing and telling a story or subject matter with added humour, then this isn't anything new. It’s funny and has some highlights including that love letter song and the cross wired scene. And the cast gives they’re all, just like any cast of this type of show. If you, like me, enjoy shows like that I’d say yes see it. I personally wouldn’t pay the west end prices. Maybe wait for the uk tour
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 27, 2024 14:42:48 GMT
I can’t fathom why they think this is a good idea to make 2 films at all, apart from it making more money. It’s not that deep of a story, far from it. The story doesn’t naturally end with DG, that song is not a conclusion in any way. I can’t imagine leaving the cinema feeling satisfied having seen her fly off on a broomstick. It just doesn’t work. It’s obviously to do with money but the only way that they make money is if they have genuinely good movies. People aren’t going to the cinema like they used to and if part 1 is rubbish then it will bomb at the box office and then part 2 will be dead on arrival. Part 1 being a disaster just isn’t an option for them as they will then have that hanging over their heads for a whole year as they try and promote the next movie. Universal could have easily played it safe and made one movie but they must have felt really confident about how the movie was shaping up during preproduction to green light it for 2. I think people are wary of two part movies. It's years since Harry Potter and Twilight made it a thing. Sure Dune is doing well but I think good word of mouth helped it. MI Dead Reckoning Part 1 barely made money because people are thinking they'll wait till both parts are out and the movie wasn't that great so word of mouth wasn't there to carry it But as you say cinema isn't doing great nowadays and your movie has to really stand out to draw in people. Even a clever marketing ploy like Barbenheimer. Musical films are difficult to sell to the general public to begin with. Didn't the Mean Girls remake movie trailer hide the fact that it's a musical? I do wonder if Universal left it too long to do this Wicked movie.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 24, 2024 18:18:59 GMT
The second half was stronger with less gaff. Rolled my eyes at the load of present day references Matt Smith rounded off in his speech but he delivered it with alacrity
Didn’t mind the q&a either with many audience members giving their views. But it does against the outcome where the townsfolk turn against Stockmann. And it made the paint episode so out of left field as a consequence
Ending was abrupt
I feel that amongst this great play is a load of ideas Thomas Ostermeier threw together and what you get is a hand-fisted hodgepodge of a production that I have seen done better by other directors
3.25 stars
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 24, 2024 15:32:45 GMT
Good lord
There’s a four star production here…when they’re doing the play
This production is trying too hard to be modern, relevant and immersive by doing what Ivo Van Hove and other known directors have done better
The music jams go on too long, the immersion breaking is out of place, the scene transitions go on too long, and in setting up the town hall scene the whole schtick the young guy does had me cringeing
There’s changes the translation does that are interesting, particularly giving the wife more agency.
Matt Smith…I don’t know. I don’t know whether it’s him or the way he’s directed but he doesn’t show enough drive as Hugh Bonneville or Alex Kingston did. It’s like he doesn’t care enough about the publication of his report
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 11, 2024 0:32:21 GMT
Saw it again and enjoyed it immensely as last time.
I think criticalprole and viserys puts it well that this adaptation of a "Hot cocoa and warm blankets movie" can bring out your inner child and leave you in a good place
Had me beaming and teary eyed.
The pacing issues remain. The catbus sequence in the second act remains indulgent and other moments could be slimmed. This may be sacrilegious for Ghibli fans, but you could cut out most of the soot sprite stuff during the first 30 minutes and the play can get to the thrust of the story quicker.
I say fans of the film should go and see it. Those who have seen other Ghibli films and are aware of the pacing their stories go at would also enjoy this. I'd certainly recommend watching the film or a Ghibli work beforehand
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 6, 2024 15:23:08 GMT
Doesn't Tom Holland have a reputation for plot spoilers with his films and gets told off for it. So I wonder if there will be an interview embargo so that he doesn't give away too much of the storyline? Maybe they'll save him the trouble and give him the opening chorus.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 3, 2024 13:10:57 GMT
When you get down to it the writer always has an agenda. We all have agendas and motives behind what we do. Otherwise why do we want to do them. Why would a playwright waste days of his life writing a play he has no feeling or purpose to create
I’ve seen all sorts of escapist, message driven, enlightening or “historically accurate” plays and media in the past decade. What matters to me is how well written they are.
Now to be honest, nowadays I’m also very picky, for financial reasons, so I’m also factoring whether the writers agenda is something I want to spend my money and watch. And I trust people’s descriptions of the shows and their thoughts of the quality on this forum to make those decisions
But coming out of a play what matters to me is execution. Whether it’s just the writing, the acting, look of it, or whether the writer gets their agenda across consistently. If it’s good or bad I’ll say so
|
|