562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 23, 2017 13:33:41 GMT
Some people might say "It has nothing to do with Islam" and "small minded and hateful people are everywhere", but the real problem is when people act out of religion, and let their thoughts, deeds and identity be defined by one of thousands of made up gods, there is no real human responsibility. If they think they are doing things (good or bad) for a god, there is zero responsibility and reasoning possible. That is the dangerous part. Good deeds for a religion are also very disconnected from the true human mind. Just as bad deeds. As long as we raise people with the idea that their identity is defined by a god/religion, we create people disconnected from the human mind and those people will never truly understand right from wrong. These suicide bombers do it for their made up god, they have the delusion that it is their identity and are fully convinced that what they are doing is right. It's not like we are talking about evolved human minds here. They think Allah is patting them on their back and they go to heaven with 10 virgins. Even if the bomber would survive and spend the rest of his days in prison, he would still feel like a hero. This will not change, because a full identity was never formed. These people blow themselves up because paradise is promised. There is no other truth in their minds. Many religious people think that gays must die too, just because. Just because one of their made up gods says so. No journey, no life experience, no reasoning, no learning. No truth. I really think that laws should be sharpened, and kids in school should be taught that a person's identity does not come from religion. That those are 2 separate things. Until we start teaching THAT, nothing will be resolved. Online I see some people saying: "you can't blame the reason out of which someone committed this crime, because other people make up different gods who are kind" is by no means the solution. In fact, thinking like that means you are part of the problem. I, like many people here I imagine, am an atheist but imo language that you've used doesn't help at all. Phrasing about "their made up gods", and "it's not like we're talking about evolved human minds here" simply erects barriers to discourse. Reducing people down to being defined simply by their religion ignores the complex relationship that most people have with their religion. You say "If they think they are doing things for a god, there is zero responsibility and reasoning possible." as though religious people can't be conflicted about how they behave, and make sweeping generalisations that cover billions of people. The reality is that people aren't simple binaries, and your somewhat cloaked implication that the world would be more peaceful/enlightened if religion didn't exist is pretty much meaningless, just like saying that hooliganism would go away if we banned football.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 23, 2017 7:54:24 GMT
I thought the blurb sounded dull but booked for Duff; having read a more informative description in the Telegraph is much more compelling! Do you have a link please? I just booked 'cos I figured I might as well, I wouldn't mind reading something to drive the enthusiasm levels up a little. Probably this: www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/actors/anne-marie-duff-starting-divorce-sexually-charged-role/The specific quote "Besides, she has been busy with rehearsals for Common. The play, she says, is ‘all about power. What we do with power, how we manipulate other people, how we control people.’ Her character, Mary, is ‘a woman who has been cast out of her parish. She flees and goes off to London and – to put it crudely – whores her way to the top. She then returns to the village because her first love, a woman called Laura, is still there, and she comes back for her.’
She says Mary ‘could be Kevin Spacey’s character in House of Cards but we are not used to – even in contemporary scenarios – seeing that character as female’."
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 22, 2017 10:55:12 GMT
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 16, 2017 15:58:02 GMT
Travelex sponsors four or five NT productions each year which have lower ticket prices than the other NT productions, and have many tickets priced at £15. The design budgets of these productions is less than on other shows. It used to be that most of these Travelex productions were very popular, and the scheme was devised to attract a wider audience to the NT by lowering the cost barrier. But Ugly Lies the Bone has struggled for an audience and Salome has been a critical disaster, and not much liked on this forum either. So I was preparing for the worst with Common. Which is perhaps unfair, but that's the fault of the NT's recent Travelex track record. "It's your national theatre" was an advertising slogan that the NT used about thirty years ago. Of course, Common might be good. It's a Jeremy Herrin Headlong play. Ah, okay. Thanks for the info, that makes sense. I might wait for some early comments before going for tickets. It's a shame; my highlight from last year was probably The Flick which iirc was part of the Travelex cheap tickets thing (pretty sure I got my tickets on the Friday Night Rush), and I enjoyed The Red Barn more than the middling reviews it got, so it's a shame if the recent string of underwhelming plays continues...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 16, 2017 15:29:36 GMT
This is the next NT Travelex show, following on from Ugly Lies the Bone and Salome. It's your national theatre. I'm a fairly casual theatre goer, so I'm not sure I quite understand what that means. Does the branding/sponsorship mean the plays are differently put on (or selected) from things like Angels in America or Consent? The phrase 'your national theatre' makes me think 'safe and uninspired', but -while the two you've mentioned weren't my cup of tea- from what Ive read Ugly seemed to have a fairly interesting/unusual subject matter and approach.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 16, 2017 13:55:34 GMT
And that's before you get to the unlikely adult 'Lennie'-type character with learning difficulties who has been mysteriously abandoned in another country as a child and has managed to retain an English accent despite having lived there for at least as long as it takes to grow an apple tree from a seed (rather than a grafted rootstock) to abundant fruiting. I definitely agree with the issue of how closely he resembled Lennie. However, regarding Tom Kettle's backstory, I wondered if it wasn't supposed to be thought of as less of an objective truth, and more of a collectively-agreed-upon version of the truth; like the type of family stories we all have that are half truth, half myths. After all, much of the play dealt with questions about different versions of people's past, how much you can or can't escape your history, who we truly are vs who we present ourselves as, and so on.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 16, 2017 13:08:59 GMT
On the play, I'm blogging thoughts tomorrow, but it was patchy. Good start as someone noted, then dreary 40 minutes, predictable twist and acceptable end. Strong acting, and stylish direction. One question: I thought, very strongly, that Gino was repressed gay. That was why he was running, and angry. Thoughts? At times I thought the same thing. However, the way that eroticism/sexual attraction was presented throughout the play felt so unnatural and mechanical that I might simply have been reading too much into it. Part of the issue -for me at least- was the strange way that the play presented the passage of time. In a similar way to how space was compressed on the stage using the treadmill, time in the story seemed to pass within the story in a way disconnected from what the audience sees; scenes seemed to pass in more-or-less 'real time', until a line which might suggest that months were meant to have passed. In particular, in the scenes with Gino and the artist I assumed that they travelled together for a fairly short time, but there was a moment when the artist to Hanna that Gino has done things that she would find shocking, and I wondered whether this suggested a longer (and deeper) relationship. edit: the spoilers within the quote seem to jump around a lot. Can't get them to work properly. Finally working
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 16, 2017 12:37:59 GMT
(This play is mentioned in the general National Theatre 2017/18 season thread, but I couldn't find a specific post for it unlike most of the other NT plays. Since it's starting shortly, it seemed to make sense to start a thread for it, but I can remove it if I've broken some rule.) COMMON
An epic tale of England's lost land.
Mary’s the best liar, rogue, thief and faker in this whole septic isle. And now she’s back. As the factory smoke of the industrial revolution belches out from the cities, Mary is swept up in the battle for her former home. The common land, belonging to all, is disappearing.
DC Moore’s dark and funny new play is an epic tale of unsavoury action and England’s lost land.NT website: www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/commonTheatre Monkey seating info: www.theatremonkey.com/OLIVIERstalls.htmThe blurb seems intriguing, the cast exciting and (I know you shouldn't just a book by it's cover, but) that poster has to be one of the most visually arresting that I've seen for a play in my (admittedly short) recent memory. The aesthetic brings to mind the BBC's recent adaptation of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. If it wasn't for the glut of things I have booked at the moment, this would be an instant buy for me but. Lots of tickets left, but I'm still on the fence. Have you guys booked, and if so, what swayed you?
|
|
562 posts
|
Obsession
May 14, 2017 15:46:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by jadnoop on May 14, 2017 15:46:20 GMT
Just come out of today's matinee. Given how negative the comments here were, I figured that it would at least nip over my low expectations, but it was really the worst arts event I've been to in years.
I don't know if there's a theatre equivalent of the bad sex awards they have for writing, but if so this should be nominated. That first scene with the stunted dialogue, combined with the tacky video close ups and forced moves. Ugh.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 12, 2017 20:50:22 GMT
I do wonder though, how the play's ending would feel for people who haven't read Of Mice And Men. (Assuming that the stature of the actor was chosen in the script) the story strongly suggests Lennie, which kinda leaves you expecting the story beat that sets off the final few moments . Now I think i've read Of Mice and Men but rather like I think i've read Anna Karenina, i'm not sure if i have read it and forgotten it entirely or in fact just think i've read it, either way I don't know what you mean so what does it bring to it please? I don't know how to do the spoilers formatting, so please don't read this if you've not seen the play:
In Of Mice And Men, one of the main characters is Lennie, a large, strong, caring guy, but is also mentally slow and doesn't know his own strength. He cares for animals (fairly sure that stroking rabbits is in the book too), and works on a farm/ranch. Physically, and in his speech patterns, I think that Tom Kettle strongly reflects Lennie.
The book builds to a tragedy, which is that Lennie accidentally/unintentionally kills the head rancher's wife, rather like the way that Tom Kettle kills Oisin.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 11, 2017 22:11:53 GMT
Very late to the party here, but I went to the matinee performance today and was absolutely blown away. The acting was top notch (although occasionally Paddy Considine's accent sounded a little American to my ear), especially the younger cast, and the blend of the family/vengeance/love drama within the wider context of the politics seemed just right. I had a pretty cheap seat (slips 3) but felt close to the action... although admittedly a couple of key points were out of my view. I do wonder though, how the play's ending would feel for people who haven't read Of Mice And Men. (Assuming that the stature of the actor was chosen in the script) the story strongly suggests Lennie, which kinda leaves you expecting the story beat that sets off the final few moments. . Will definitely try to see it again (in a better seat) when it hits the west end.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 4, 2017 11:55:22 GMT
Does anyone know how the Circle slips seats work for this? I didn't get a ticket in the initial rush, so didn't think I'd be able to see it, but a £12 ticket randomly popped online in February so I decided to give it a go.
It's listed as "Circle Slips: slip 3" and noted as a partially restriced seat side on to the stage which I'm fine with given the price. However, both the Theatre Monkey and Seat Plan websites list the Circle slips as being seats 4 to 19.
Am I right in thinking that the slips have been re-assigned to being 1-16, or are there 3 seats beyond those listed on the TM and SP sites? I've tried to recheck the RC website, but it (or my connection) seems to be struggling at the moment. If the seat numbers have been re-assigned, this might explain the reason that Circle slips seat 11 is shown as being on the right hand side on both the TM and SP sites, but the photo of the view from the seat (on Seatplan) is taken from the left hand side.
Edit: I've managed to get through to the RC site (for a different Downstairs show), and the seat plan does list the slips as being 1-16 instead of 4-19. Assuming that this is a straight forward renumbering of the seats, rather than a change in the layout, this presmably means that the views are simply shifted by 3; 'seat 1' now is the same as seat 4 as listed on TM/SP, seat 7 now is the one listed as seat 10 on TM/SP and so on.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 16:29:04 GMT
As the kids say "Mic drop" As a teacher do you think we should be encouraging children to listen to people like Skepta? It's quite telling that you've decided on your 'lines in the sand' on which to determine whether or not art is acceptable (i.e. homophobic lyrics, or violence or cock jokes or whatever), but you completely ignored or brushed aside when people have commented that Shakespeare plays have some of these traits too. It's also kinda strange that you keep going back to this notion of 'encouraging the children', as though a piece of art has no value other than the lessons it teaches us. I enjoy Romeo & Juliet as a play, but if I was that worried about was the message that kids would get I'm not sure I'd think that a love story that ends in double suicide of young teens is the best. Art -just like everything else- is defined by more than just one thing. It can be beautiful and horrible, enlightening and repulsive, it can be fun and morally dubious.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 15:43:53 GMT
I would truly love for someone to explain to me why re-interpretation of a text is always hailed as 'dumbing down' when it comes to Shakespeare. I can't help but think that the man who borrowed from 100s of sources directly and clearly took on the trends and influences of his own time wouldn't, if presented with a Tardis say 'Aye well done I'd never have thought of doing it this way' and sat back and enjoyed the performance. And also if we are playing by the rules of 'as it was handed down to us' why has a woman ever been allowed to set foot on stage at The Globe then for a start? I would argue that the introduction of women to the stage benefitted society but littering Romeo and Juliet with, according to the reviews, cock jokes probably isn't.
Of course we should be trying to turn youngsters on to Shakespeare and of course it won't always be as the previous generation(s) would like it but surely we have the responsibility to say when changes and approaches have gone too far?
The problem is, I suspect, that while it's easy to say "we have the responsibility to say when changes ... have gone too far." the people going through that change aren't always best placed to make the call of whether something is 'too much' or not. After all, very few people nowadays would suggest that giving women the vote was a bad thing, but it's not as though everyone at the time thought it was a great idea for society. (I'm not trying to suggest that a more radical appraoch to Shakespeare is akin to the women's suffrage)
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 15:36:19 GMT
I would truly love for someone to explain to me why re-interpretation of a text is always hailed as 'dumbing down' when it comes to Shakespeare. I can't help but think that the man who borrowed from 100s of sources directly and clearly took on the trends and influences of his own time wouldn't, if presented with a Tardis say 'Aye well done I'd never have thought of doing it this way' and sat back and enjoyed the performance. And also if we are playing by the rules of 'as it was handed down to us' why has a woman ever been allowed to set foot on stage at The Globe then for a start? Exactly this. When people argue for art to be left as it was, what they really mean is for it to be left as I remember it. Until the Doctor does come to visit us, all we really have is different subjective opinions of how much change is acceptable. ...not to mention that -since the act of viewing something will alter it- if we did get to travel back in time to see Shakespeare's plays in the original time and place, our being there may well alter things anyway. (when a silly time-traveller accidentally leaves his ipod behind perhaps modern hip hop lyrics will find their way into shakespeare's texts).
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 15:18:31 GMT
Yowser. I know this is all just friendly discussions, but this must win the prize for the most oversimplified and aggressively elitist comment of the day. Nothing elitist about it at all.
There are plenty of youngsters out there who are capable of being exposed to adult Shakespeare and developing a love of his works, harbour a love of them in their hearts and minds and become custodians of our heritage.
However, this is aimed at yoofs who struggle to concentrate beyond a 140 character message and think Skepta is a genius...
Big difference.
On the fading hope that this isn't satire, you've said that anyone who might prefer a less traditional approach to Shakespeare than the line you've arbitrarily decided is the correct one is simply too stupid to get it. And simplified them into the kind of charicature you get in bad 90s sketch shows. I'm sure that when the first woman came on stage to act in a Shakespeare there was a chorus of critics crying out about the damage to our heritage, and arguing that the plays were being dumbed down for people too stupid to engage with them the way it was passed down them too. I'm no expert by any means, but I doubt that even the most 'traditional' theatres are that close an experience to how things were 400 years ago, and the line that each of us draws between 'too traditional' and 'not traditional enough' is blurry, wide and completely subjective. I'm not sure that this version of Romeo & Juliet is my cup of tea either but it's silly to act as though our opinions on art are somehow indisputible facts; anyone who prefers stuff we deem too trashy is dumb, and anyone who finds our likes trashy is simply pretentious.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 14:44:48 GMT
Or, oh I don't know, this might be a long shot but . . perhaps trying to bring in a new audience that will keep the Globe going when all of the current old farts die? So, dumbing down our heritage to attract people who are too stupid to engage with it in the way it was passed down to us? Yowser. I know this is all just friendly discussions, but this must win the prize for the most oversimplified and aggressively elitist comment of the day.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 13:33:34 GMT
This probably isn't my cup of tea and the reviews seem fairly brutal so far, but with such a divisive approach as this I wonder how helpful some of these reviews really are.
What I mean is that this sort of OTT/raucous treatment of Shakespeare seems is always going to be polarising, so a one star review from someone who hates this kind of thing anyway might be more of a reflection of the reviewer than the show. Like reading a review of a heavy metal album from someone who only likes classical music.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 11:38:22 GMT
Don't know what they are holding back for public booking, but all the advance membership dates are now showing as sold out. Argh. I was um-ing and ah-ing over getting advance membership for this and Oslo, and decided to pass Hopefully a reasonable number of tickets come out in the public sale...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 9:20:55 GMT
Agreed, I'd prefer original language but it doesn't seem to be performed that regularly and my mum, who already has some mobility problems, is keen to see it while she's still able. Hmm. Will ponder. If you're not sure, and aren't intending to go for the absolute cheapest tickets, then it may be worth waiting for early reviews/feedback, or at least for the back stage clips/photos to be released. In my (admittedly fairly limited) experience, ENO tickets don't tend to sell out super quickly like some ROH does, so I don't think there's a need to rush and buy tickets if you're not certain. There are some exceptions (Iirc sunset boulevard sold out last year), and others here probably know more about this though, so it's just my two cents.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 27, 2017 23:18:25 GMT
My mum is keen to see Aida (an opera she's never been able to cross off her list). Are ENO likely to do anything dreadful with it? Like render it as a western or something? Not sure of their 'form' for producing opera (as in, faithful to the era or a Bit Too Modern) as I've only seen a couple of their shows. I think it depends on the creative team associated with the production. Aida is being designed by Phelim McDermott who did Akhnaten and Cosi Fan Tutte at ENO, as well as Satyagraha (which is also coming back this year). If those are anything to go by, I doubt it will be too traditional, but still spectacular. But if you want traditional, then might be better to see it in original language rather than english(?)
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 27, 2017 22:47:58 GMT
The film is such an absolute, timeless classic, I wonder if another version can possibly match up to it. On the other hand Cate Blanchett is an amazing actor, and it would be great to see her on stage.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 27, 2017 10:21:12 GMT
This thread seems to have become entirely about (a) Emma Rice's treatment by the Globe, and (b) how progressive the theatre should be.
Definitely interesting (and important) topics, but it's a discussion that can't really reach a conclusion since we'll never have all of the facts about Rice, and the merits or otherwise of innovation at the Globe are entirely subjective.
Does it not make sense for us to concentrate on the play here, and for wider discussion of the direction that the Globe should take be moved to a more general thread?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 27, 2017 9:56:22 GMT
ENO have just announced the 2017/2018 season. Akhnaten isn't returning, but they are performing Satyagraha, which is another Philip Glass opera that is part of the same trilogy. Like Akhnaten, this is a collaboration with Improbable so should be spectacular. I can't wait. www.eno.org/whats-on/satyagraha/
|
|
562 posts
|
Obsession
Apr 26, 2017 6:23:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by jadnoop on Apr 26, 2017 6:23:07 GMT
|
|