1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jul 2, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
Went to this after the praise on the last forum, and can only concur
The jokes concerning French language went over my head, but the drama between the two men over Diana is so funny, with a few gasps here and there
The two men are absolute doofuses and I can't wait for Diana to get her comeuppance
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jul 1, 2016 6:18:39 GMT
Oh yes please!
Saw the bath production with Tim Pigott-Smith, and I would never have thought that contemplating leaving half way through meant that the production was brilliant.
So tense
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 26, 2016 23:23:54 GMT
Totally F***ked (Spring Awakening) Freedom Run (Urinetown) Step in Time/Anything can happen (Mary Poppins) Rose's Turn (Gypsy) I'm Here (Color Purple) You won't succeed on Broadway (Spamalot) Revolting Children (Matilda) Get me to the church on time (My Fair Lady) Cabaret (Cabaret) What I did for love (Chorus Line - technically not a 11 o'clock number but still)
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 26, 2016 8:29:11 GMT
I might also add that I found the way the lads were discovered could have been portrayed a bit better.
Of course I don't know how exactly the real boys were discovered on the boat they were trying to escape on, and the staging at that moment was limited
But leaving a case full of rations open in full view of a steward made me want to smack my forehead
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 22, 2016 17:45:09 GMT
Well I had a good time.
Inevitably it is aimed towards the kids (or at least the older kids) so the darker moments are blunted a bit. This is your typical small scale folksy production with a small cast playing multiple roles, using puppetry and music to move the show along.
There are still a few dark moments. A scary moment comes when the rabbits have left Sandleford warren and have to brave a forest, where the cast make sounds of animals lurking somewhere in the dark. Reminded me of a similar sequence in the film.
For what it is it works, and the story still delights, frightens and pulls at your heart strings by the end. The energy of the cast is what makes this production
The show is 2 hours and 5 minutes, and I was impressed how they cut the story. They don't leave Efrafa to the second act, they start introducing it through visions Fiver sees during the first act. They even found time to tell one of the stories of el-ahrairah. Personally I would have preferred if they added another 25 minutes to flesh out the story, but the show keeps moving and is on point the whole time
Despite my reservations, Edward Bennett's General Woundwort fits in with this light version of the story. Personally I thought he was a more convincing as Captain Holly recounting the destruction of Sandleford warren.
A few moments made me marvel of the imagination put into this. Not just the forest bit but the moment when the rabbits reach watership down which was a joy to watch
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 21, 2016 23:00:26 GMT
'If I Can't Love Her' from Beauty and the Beast was what made me fall in love with musicals.
Obviously One Day More in Les Miserables and All I Ask of You (Reprise) in Phantom
Wonderful Town has the craziest ending to the first act (or any song really) I've ever seen
Does 'One' in A Chorus Line count?
Will You was a touching song in Grey Gardens from recent memory.
Anything Goes and 'I got rhythm' from Crazy for You are songs I love to tap along to
Singin' in the Rain is an absolute joy
The big moment in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang never ceased to be amaze (well the original version anyway). 'Out There' in Barnum (the Michael Crawford version) too.
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 20, 2016 17:50:16 GMT
A monopoly movie was rumoured a few years ago around the time of the battleship film
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 18, 2016 21:10:58 GMT
This is pretty good
Even though this is Arthur Millers first play, the characters and story are well written. About this once rich family whose father runs a business selling and delivering expensive coats.
Only they've hit hard times and have to pay the bank back the loan. Which couldn't come at a bad time because workers are on strike attacking anyone who tries to deliver the coats. And yet the father can't accept what's going on and takes more and more orders
Only the ending made me go "what the hell just happened", but it shows the markings of the famous playwright we all know
And for a 1 hour and 15 minute play I'd highly recommend it
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 18, 2016 20:50:19 GMT
One little soldier thread left all alone...
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 18, 2016 18:08:38 GMT
So, whilst Ralph Fiennes demonstrates he can deliver shakespeare, make the audience laugh with a few disparaging comments and knowing looks, show the occasional moment ofmaneavolence, and as Ryan says show the cogs turning in Richards head, this Richard didn't engage with me
Gould could have thought out the text editing more because the lines flowed awkwardly at times. And the slow pacing is just hampered by such additions like the car park scene. The dream scene can go on a bit, but it has been done better than this
Also my audience neighbours got to enjoy my big sigh as the rape went on and on. The lady next to me had the same idea for the dream scene
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 18, 2016 14:29:22 GMT
Pretty average really
This falls into the trap of "let's make this modern and have everyone in suits". Very uninspiring
The cuts and adjustments to the text feel odd and makes the pacing sluggish. I didn't realise or else forgotten the bishop of Ely had a monologue after Hastings death
The 3 hour running time feels unjustified
Still I enjoyed the performances from a few favourites like Scott Handy and James Garnon
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 18, 2016 10:48:07 GMT
Henry VI does appear in the dream according to the text
You'd only see that if Richard 3 is performed alongside Henry 6 because other than being a corpse Henry has little impact in the former
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 18, 2016 6:14:27 GMT
It grew on me.
Despite what I felt about a little suspense (which is just a measly nit pick) the structure of the No Man's Land and Manchester scenes work hand in hand.
The scenes between the two lads (and this is based on a true story) are the heart of the debates this play has about the morality of desertion and the firing squad. A lot of which are provided by the family, but also at one point by Sam Phillips as this pragmatic Lieutenant who guards the two during their trial, who goes to speak to Andrew Woodall as this brandy swigging general who presides over their open-and-shut case.
The strongest moments are definitely the No Man's Land scenes. Against a towering wall of mud that is a trench we see men clamber and stumble over during scene transitions amidst explosions, gunfire, and rain. I've admired director Jonathan Munby for deftly creating a sense of location and atmosphere in Antony and Cleopatra, The Merchant of Venice, and Therese Raquin and this is no exception.
The highlight performance is David Moorst as the jokester Alfie. He was the life and soul of many a scene amidst the comradere of his fellow men. Here's hoping we see more of him.
He represents the remaining strands of humanity that the soldiers cling on to, and it a great contrast to Tom Gill's distant Bert. I take back my comment that he is less interesting than Alfie because by the second act you are wondering what is wrong with him. The way the two react differently, especially during their final moments, is fascinating.
That said, Tom Gill does get overshadowed by David Moorst's performance in the first act, which is no fault of his. A few more hints of his condition might have been useful. If there is a problem with the structure of the play is that I would have preferred to stick to one of the two plot lines, so that the play could explore further issues like shell shock.
I favored the emotional rollercoaster of the No Man's Land scenes, whilst the Manchester scenes do inevitably slow down the play a tad. Not that they aren't interesting. Phil Davis is fantastic as Bert's father, adamant that his son's war grave must say "Shot at Dawn", whilst Amelda Brown and Kelly Price as his wife and daughter want to move on.
This wont be one of my favourite plays of the year but it is a great one to see.
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 17, 2016 11:25:47 GMT
I may be saving you the trouble xanderl by saying that you're not missing much.
Good play, and Joseph Fiennes is the highlight. But lots of characters come and go before you can get an emotional attachment, and as reviews have said the accuracy and tone is questionable
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 16, 2016 19:27:33 GMT
This is pretty good so far.
This is going back and forth between No Mans Land and one of the main character's parents in Manchester. A plain room is filled with a trench at the back and scene transitions are marked with barrages and men scrambling over the top, taking on and off furniture
The comradere between the soldiers are wonderfully portrayed. The focus is on Bert (who is the son of the parents we see) and Alfie. For all the attention Bert and his family is given, David Moorst is the more interesting as the jokester Alfie
Also whilst the framing of the play is good, the parents scenes are shown after the events concerning the two lads, meaning that the play kinda spoils what happens to them
Now the story is that the two lads desert the army, and anyone who knows WW1 will guess what happens to them. Still a little bit of suspension would have been nice
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 13, 2016 0:26:19 GMT
I made my point at the start of this thread that whilst I love the character of Richard III, I don't find the play itself thrilling.
The play more or less makes the point that Richard will succeed in killing his way to the throne, and so there's no tension. You're just watching characters being ticked off Richard's list.
It's a problem exemplified when you put it on alongside Henry VI plays, like Trevor Nunn's production last year which left me bored. After three plays of bloodshed, Richard III can be a bit disappointing (considering only one murder and Richard's death is shown on stage). Also as a standalone, a Richard III production isn't held back by the same set and the need to establish continuity from the HVI. It can be its own thing
Think about it, which Richard III productions are well known. Anthony Sher in crutches, Bunch-backed-toad Simon Russell Beale, Hitler-esque Ian McKellan, David Troughton in clown costume, Kevin Spacey. Can you imagine any of those Richards working in a Henry VI production.
Those productions are what makes the play thrilling. The aesthetic, the atmosphere, the tone, the design of Richard, and most important of all the personality and charisma of the leading actor to carry the show. You need a Richard who is devilishly funny and frightening to keep the audience engaged.
Despite all I've said, Jonathan Slinger is the most frightening and humorous Richard I've seen so far. And yes he was part of Michael Boyd's history cycle. The set was the same rusted metal set used in the other 7 productions, and Slinger didn't wear a stylized costume. But he carried the show with ferocity
Based on reports so far, this production has me worried. And I'm not expecting a lot from Ralph Fiennes
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 11, 2016 21:07:50 GMT
Also whilst the additional African music and dancing is nice to watch (One by One would be the best), seriously which numbers do we remember the most
Mind you the drought moment was certainly effective
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 11, 2016 21:00:50 GMT
It does happen at the Mayflower
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 11, 2016 18:08:00 GMT
I liked it as a kid about a decade ago. After seeing the tour I agree that it's great in the first five minutes but after that its just boring
I can never really put my finger on why. Does that mean the story in the film is (GASP) terrible. I mean I would rather watch the film any time
The only real conclusion I can come up with is that whilst the use of African masks is great, just simply watching animated animals in the film is much better. The stampede for one is more thrilling in the film than on stage
I remember reading a comment on the Broadway world forum that Julie Taymor is good as a visual storyteller (or something like that), but beyond the visuals the show feels a bit empty
Then again I can buy the fact like the objects like Lumiere and Cogsworth are blown up to human size in Beauty and the Beast the musical so what do I know
I definetly agree that the cartoonish characters clash with the African designs
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 10, 2016 15:41:37 GMT
Since Friends booking is now open, can anyone share the prices or seating layout.
As tempting as the free young persons tickets are, just imagine the amount of people who could snatch those up in a minute.
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 8, 2016 22:24:30 GMT
Well, I enjoyed this
It felt as Brechtian as one expects it to be. No illusion but a minimalist set of flats that are moved around, whilst the comings and goings on backstage are clear for all to see.
The music too was disconcertingly fantastic to listen to. I actually went to a talk beforehand about the collaboration between Brecht and Kurt Will held by Matthew Scott and Dr Tom Kuhn. It was fascinating to hear music from this and other works like The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny, and notice how the harmony, tone, and lyrics clash with each other, as if the music too is observing the action with a critical eye.
And man was Brecht a handful to work with
Rory Kinnear gave an impressive performance, though I do agree that the production could have build up the legend of Macheath more. Nick Holder and Haydn Gwynne were a delight to watch as the Peachums and its nice to see Peter de Jersey perform again.
I'm afraid I fall under the 'bland Rosalie Craig' camp. Beautiful vocals, but it's noticeable when everyone else was playing up the satire of their characters.
Loved some of the visuals, such as the maze of walls and staircases that is Macheath's residence. A place of deceit to get lost in. The end of the first act alone is worth seeing.
Personally I thought the pacing would stop and start at points. And the Threepenny Opera's messages can get overshadowed by the spectacle. It was a similar problem I had with the Fiona Shaw production of Mother Courage, which felt like a rock concert than a Brechtian play by the end. This isn't as bad as that, but I do wonder whether Brecht's style of drama doesn't work in a large scale production
Fun fact by the way: we know we like to complain about the extortionate prices people pay for brochures full of adverts, or there tat at the souvenir counter. Well Threepenny Opera was one of the first productions to sell souvenirs. Or shall I say the 150 German productions held in the 12 months following the premiere, since the opera was so popular that everyone wanted to join the bandwagon. Recordings were sold alongside stuff like Threepenny Opera postcards and wallpaper
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 6, 2016 17:04:09 GMT
Just so long as everyone declares "I solemnly swear that I cant keep my trap shut" and "Spoilers Managed" every time they enter and leave the thread then we'll be fine.
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 3, 2016 22:29:32 GMT
I'm going to say I enjoyed this production immensely. Even my mum, who did not like the sound of this post-apocalyptic concept, liked it by the end.
It was also understudy Temi Wilkey's turn as Imogen, due to an indisposition of Bethan Cullinane, and she gave a brilliant performance. She played the youngster perfectly, and in comparison to Emily Barber from the Sam Wanamaker production I thought she portrayed the characters journey during the second half clearly and poignantly. You see all the calamity she goes through and how it changes her, and her ending left me welling up.
The gender swap surprisingly worked. I thought it would be stupid to deny an actress the villainous queen, who has more to do than Cymbeline. But from what I could tell the Queen-now-Duke role has been cut down, giving James Clyde less time in the limelight. Instead it was in fact Gillian Bevan who had so much presence as this motherly Cymbeline overlooking her divided kingdom.
That said, giving less attention to the Duke meant that Cloten had less of a presence as well. I missed the spoilt, mother's boy brat from the Sam Wanamaker's production. Marcus Griffith's acted like an ordinary bloke, apart from his occasional stop for failling to woo Imogen. Despite the character's downsides, I felt bad for his outcome.
If there's one thing I will give the Sam Wanamaker points for though is its simplicity and clarity. I didn't mind Melly Still's 'concepts' for 75% of the production (though those subtitles were completely unnecessary). Then when it came for the battle and vision scenes I had no clue what was going on.
Sure the plot gets convoluted at that point (and I'm sure there were bits that weren't in the Sam Wanamaker version) but Melly Still throws everything into the last 25% of the production and it felt like I was going on an acid trip. Up until the last scene it was a complete mess.
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 3, 2016 16:34:55 GMT
Keep up, David J, Peggs's mum has been remarking upon his nose for over a week now, since its first appearance. "I don't recall any other character speaking directly to the camera up until now in these two episodes. You can almost sense Shakespeare suddenly upping his game as Cumberbatch turns to the camera for the first time, as if to say "now the real sh*t can start, motherf**ckers" i just found that so cliched and cheesy but I am not a fan of Cumberbath and Shakespeare-he always sounds like he is trying to hard to i.e over and slow.Not my Shakespeare at all i just hope they do bit better with the Read more: theatreboard.co.uk/thread/796/hollow-crown-wars-roses#ixzz4AWP5yWInTo be fair, I just thought he gave a good and serviceable performance and nothing more. I miss the comedy that can be juiced from such lines like "Is the chair empty". Instead of relishing it, Benedict just took the obvious route and shouted it. I'm still waiting to be amazed by Cumberbatch. And dearly I'd like to. I just find he relies too much on his dark, sombre voice that is part of the attraction. Did you see his Hamlet? I'd wished I could have been overblown by that performance if he wasn't overshadowed by Lyndsey Turner's gimmicks
|
|
1,045 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jun 2, 2016 21:45:33 GMT
Okay, the cast are in fine form now, even though the show had to be stopped for a couple of minutes when Mark Lockyer fell ill. Gregory Doran came on to explain that he will be able to continue, and he was seen with a walking stick for a little while.
The audience was more receptive and there were a couple more laughs in the first act. But its not laugh-a-minute, and the second act is still the funniest where all the con artists' plots collide together and they have to overcome these set backs.
Now that I come to think of it, the problem really is the text. Anybody seeing this should read up on the plot because it is difficult to know what exactly is going on and who's who.
That was the consensus I got from people who saw it last Tuesday, and I thought that it was because the cast needed to settle down. But even I had a vague understanding of what was going on the first time I saw this, and tonight I had to reaquint myself with wikipedia during the interval.
Jonson's language just didn't stand out to me really, which was a similar problem I had with the RSC's production of Volpone last year. Now I am not going to say which early 17th century writer had a better command of language. Jonson may show a deep knowledge of alchemy in this play, but the text lacks that special something that has you engaged with what's going on from the start.
I mean think about those theme tunes the band plays at the beginning like the 'A Team'. They get you hooked from the get go and you know what you're getting into. For the first act at least the play never matched that.
That's just me anyway. It's still an enjoyable show worth seeing. Just take along a print out of the plot.
Anyone have a better knowledge of Jonson to elaborate or contradict me? I'm genuinely interested.
|
|