996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 16, 2016 0:42:32 GMT
She only sleeps with him when he's learned enough to become a worthy person to be with. He's an idiot, but he learns. We don't get that second chance the way he does, but we do get different chances and we too may, or may not, learn from our past to make ourselves a better person to be with. It's in the long tradition of shows like Company and Nine, ones that show the growth (or lack of it) of its central character. And once we've learned to be better, we get sex. Curtain. Everyone learned their lesson?
It just seems dodge!
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 16, 2016 0:18:28 GMT
I feel bad all.
I really didn't get this.
And I mean get it on an emotional level/I-was-moved level, as well as on a "why-did-they-think-THIS-story-must-be-a-musical" level.
It's certainly staged very well. How do you repeat the same day/scene/moment and keep us interested? How do you sustain a 2.5hr musical with the single concept? I feel this is Groundhog Day's achilles. It just isn't dramatic enough. Once we know the set up (and for a lot of people watching it who have seen the film or, like our audience tonight, loved the film), there are very few, if any, surprises to be had. In fact, towards the end of the first half it begins to feel very creepy: man desperate to bed woman repeats day to work out the ultimate date to bang her. Hmm…
Andy Karl is great, very funny, physically brilliant, but do we really fall for his character? He just seemed liked a letchy perv to me and din't stop looking like that.
Carlyss Peer was fine, but I didn't get the "star in the making" raves on here. Her character has no arch or development. Oh look, she's singing the same song again.
And then she sleeps with him, and the day stops repeating.
He has "won" by finally sleeping with the woman he's been chasing for so long. For all the praise for the (very random?!) opening number of act 2 (And how people can compare it to When I Grow Up is beyond me…), how can Rubin & Minchin justify this ending in today's world?
Yes, there is some fun staging (the suicide scenes, the car chase), but there is also a lot of excess, for example, as it's worst, the "we're doing a musical so lets have a tap scene" tap number in the second half. Why? It added nothing.
The ensemble work their asses off, but the cumulative effect, quite early on, is why? Why put this story on? Why make this film into a musical? Why should we care about these characters? And how can you expect an audience to be engaged if there is almost zero drama propelling the show and thus our interest?
Karl is great. An honour to have him on our stages.
But the show feels like a pretty forced, cobbled together "best of what we like", and it gets nowhere near the heights of Matilda.
An admirable failure, but it comes across as a nice evening's entertainment for the now quite elite audience at the Old Vic. Not too challenging, not saying much. I can see why Scott Rudin did a runner. It won't transfer, not to the West End anyway.
We have musical versions of BIG and SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE heading our way in the next year. Originality seems to be a gasping afterthought in today's musical world.
We need to take more risks, and make sure our shows have drama and keep our audiences on the edges of their seats, not sat back with shoes and sock off (man in front of us tonight) and cosy familiarity.
But by god that ensemble works hard.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 15, 2016 20:52:26 GMT
Lea & Perrins. At a push, HP.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 15, 2016 1:27:40 GMT
A season of big hitters to include:
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING KING LEAR TWELFTH NIGHT and ROMEO & JULIET
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 15, 2016 1:19:02 GMT
No venue seemed to want to take a punt on it, but the hit for the Arcola returns there at the end of this year.
Great opportunity for all who have now see The Deep Blue Sea to catch the "original" story.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 13, 2016 22:51:25 GMT
Yep, please merge guys. There are only three slots in the mainhouse, cant wait for swan season. We are merged. Mmmmmm.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 12, 2016 22:37:52 GMT
Do we actually have a source for this yet? Heinz are working on one for you.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 12, 2016 21:48:25 GMT
JULIUS CAESAR TITUS ANDRONICUS ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA
Angus Jackson to direct one.
Any thoughts for the roles of Caesar, Cleopatra, Antony, Brutus, Cassius?
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 11, 2016 0:57:00 GMT
Announcement due imminently. Michael Meyer directing his 2013 Broadway version. British "star" to take the title role. Sources?! This is a production I have been waiting for! No sources req. Looking fwd to it too!
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 11, 2016 0:52:34 GMT
Well I'll have to disagree with the critics, this is one turgid show. A glacial paced first act saw several people leave in the interval and whilst things picked up in the second (mainly when its just Jim and Laura on stage) it couldn't rescue the banality of the production which is an overlong indulgently directed show. A being generous to the second half 5/10. It, unfortunately is an over rated production. It does very little new, aside from Laura entering through a settee and there being water (pointlessly?) around the terra firma. Cherry Jones, whom I had longed to see for so long, was good, but didn't blow me away. I was expecting a radical take, but it presents the play as the Goold version did, and the Hill-Gibbins version. I.e. as Tennessee wrote it, with little in the way of inspired staging. I wonder if the Williams estate still has a vice like grip preventing any truly daring productions?
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 11, 2016 0:48:01 GMT
Announcement due imminently.
Michael Meyer directing his 2013 Broadway version.
British "star" to take the title role.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 31, 2016 1:14:11 GMT
It is good But the error with this glut is that you see how remarkably narrow minded Chekhov was He only had about 2 themes and agendas and a limited way of exploring them There are plenty of merits to this trilogy But it's a bit like reading Mills and Boon Or Partricia Cornwell It's the same over and over again I have to say having the same actors in fact does not help It reinforces the repetitive nature of it Furthermore: I saw a far superior Platonov at the Barbican a few years back And this Ivanov is an anaemic shadow of the Branagh triumph as part of the Donmar season I remain to see how The Seagull fares But doubt it will match up to the KST version at the RC Comparisons are always inevitable and David Hare hasn't helped in this situation Agree with you on all 3 counts r.e. Maly Theatre Platanov, Branagh's Ivanov, and KST's Seagull. They were all excellent. And had high stakes. Which is what the trilogy at the National unfortunately lack, especially in The Seagull, where nothing seems to be at stake for anyone, apart from Nina in Act 4, but even then it's too late.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 28, 2016 22:59:05 GMT
She's good but I mean.... Is there any other female actress in Manchester? There are a grand total of 2 actresses in Manchester, in accordance with Manchester City Council regulations. They are both allowed to play leading lady and man (and trans) roles in Manchester on the stage and in the telly box. They are: 1. Ms Maxine Peake 2. Ms Julie Hesmondhalgh We kindly advise that we do not recognise other women residing in Manchester or the North if they attempt to grace the Royal Exchange stage.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 27, 2016 22:12:26 GMT
Nice 4 * review for this from the Torygraph.
Do we know why this is co-directed by Howard Davies and Jeremy Herrin? Is Howard Davies ill?
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2016 0:44:11 GMT
Fox and James reunited. I cannot wait for this. Their production of THE LAST FIVE YEARS was brilliant a few years back.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 19, 2016 23:19:48 GMT
I wonder if Rupert Goold really wanted to direct this or if Fiennes brought it to him and he felt he couldn't turn it down. Anyway, the dullest Shakespeare from him I've seen. It does seem like Fiennes has a checklist of classical roles he's wanting to get through quite quickly, and if you're a director willing to do any of them, he'll come to you.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 6, 2016 20:55:44 GMT
Currently reading this play in my free time at the moment, really enjoying it. I think that it's time for a West End revival? It's not been in London since 2010 and there could be quite a good cast for it? I know now it would never happen but, in an ideal world of casting anyone you wanted, Imelda Staunton and Jim Carter would make great Kate and Joe Keeler respectively! www.rosetheatrekingston.org/whats-on/all-my-sons Get booking!
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 6, 2016 11:38:53 GMT
Whereas the ending in WILD at the Hampstead seemed to be added to save a bad play, the ending here seemed to be in place from the start, but I'm not sure the play they've devised has given sufficient justification for its appearance. It, of course, comes from Matt Smith's character's desire for perfect light, but as it stands at the moment seems to come from nowhere, do it's thing, but in a sort of vacuum belonging to another play, and then blackout. It's not really in keeping with the rest of the "rough theatre" aesthetic of the rest of the production either.
Jerusalem probably still wins for the subtle action of those trees suddenly waving and shaking as summoned by Rooster. Action from text.
Unreachable's ending is action from design, rather than naturally coming from what has gone before.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 5, 2016 23:47:24 GMT
We got told 3hrs including interval last night. It ran at 2hrs 45mins. They need to change their website.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 2, 2016 23:32:58 GMT
Oh my goodness this was so bad.
Like hilariously bad.
And yet the audience were laughing their heads off.
How this man also penned THE FATHER is beyond me.
Like bad sit com, but bad bad sit com.
Alex Hanson cannot act without mouthing his scene partners lines either.
Anyone going to see it (poor you), play the game and just watch him when he's not speaking. It will give you at least something entertaining (for 10 seconds).
Wow. I need a bath.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 30, 2016 23:44:40 GMT
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 28, 2016 22:13:15 GMT
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 23, 2016 1:58:43 GMT
So, essentially, this is like 'Game'? A weak script with a great design? The design is only great in the last five minutes. That's a long wait for anything great...
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 22, 2016 23:49:58 GMT
Bartlett has great topical ideas once again, but this time he has no dramatic vehicle to express them, save, that is, for his wonderful coup de theatre at the end. In fact, the coup de theatre tells the story in and of itself, so this could be reduced to one of those punchy 10 minute plays that Caryl Churchill is specialising in these days, without too much loss. The reason this play is singularly undramatic is that the Edward Snowden character, Andrew (played sympathetically by Jack Farthing) starts off at an all time low: he has betrayed the US Government, and he's holed up in a hotel room in Russia, isolated and alone, unable to speak the language and at the mercy of his handlers. So when we meet his handlers, played by a stubbornly insincere black leather jacket and mini-skirt wearing Caoilfhionn Dunne, and a severe and sincere suit-wearing John Mackay, they already have him at their mercy. No matter how much they needle him, we are never under any illusion that he has any power to resist whatever happens. All three actors are excellent, in my view, but they are all trapped by dramatic inertia. Like Bull, this is a threehander, in which two savvy people poke and prod at a less savvy person, but in that play, the latter chap had everything to lose, which is why it was so gripping, whereas in this play, Farthing's Andrew has already lost everything that matters. Bartlett typically has loads to say about the surveillance society we are living in, as we happily tell Google and Facebook, and hence the Security Services, everything about ourselves willingly, which, suggests Bartlett, makes Andrew's (aka Edward Snowden's) revelations redundant. But it's all "tell," and no "show," for the most part, because of the essentially undramatic set-up. All the "show" comes at the end, with that coup de theatre, and it's SO good that the production is close to unmissable! 3 and a half stars (one of those stars is purely for the coup de theatre, it's concept and it's execution). You've said what I wanted to in a much more eloquent manner, Steve. And you're right, it could be a 10minute piece, and all the better for it. Some dialogue, the scene change, Bob's Your Uncle! Hadn't seen the similarities with BULL, but now see them clearly. Great review!
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 21, 2016 22:47:20 GMT
I was sat at the back of the stalls and it wasn't until I was making my way out at the end that I noticed the big ring above the stage. Note to self, look up when entering theatre as sitting near back too. Is it important? Presumably not if goes unnoticed if you sit far back. It looks more like a giant cog, than a crown, when up close. Maybe it's meant to be a cog, in the big wheel of power? It's really not important to see it though. Nothing happens to it (or on it lighting wise even).
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 18, 2016 22:51:15 GMT
This was terrible. I fear Mike Bartlett's worst play. And we were really looking forward to it. We went this evening, but asked the ushers about the technical troubles. They said it was "ongoing", but I hope they fix it for Tuesday's Press Night, because if the set fails again, I fear the press will make that the focus and use it to describe the play itself which feels very weak. It was an evening of very dry opinions of the individual, the state, Russia, America, what is truth, which makes it all sound more interesting than it was, because it was actually so dull. One room, with not a lot happening in it. I know Snowden was/is trapped in a similar environ, but there's no need to inflict it on us all, and have no interval. We really couldn't engage with any of the characters. Jack Farthing does his best, but taking his top off does seem like a desperate measure. How Dunne has learnt all the facts and wikipedia style ramblings is beyond me. She deserves a medal. HEr and Farthing try their best with the "witty banter" moments, but they die a death because they're surrounded by dry theorising. Mackay tries to inject some Pinter/mysterious force into proceedings, but again, dull. So many pauses in it all, supposedly significant: folding a chocolate bar wrapper, pouring a drink…bore off! The set change at the end WAS visually impressive, but was basically bashing the audience over the head with its metaphor. Nothing exists. Nothing is real. Am I here? Are you here? Engage us. Give us some drama. No, no, no, no, no. Poor. Don't let the set change blind you. Remember how you feel in the first 1hr 30mins. Can you give spoiler please Of the set change It's Miriam Does it change to Bend It Like Beckham?! If only it did change to BILB! Anything. Oh it was SO obvious. I hated it. I really fear it will blind people into thinking the play is more than it is, which is 90minutes of discussion discussion discussion. It's like they read the play, reapplied even at the end that it was building to nothing, and thought Crap, let's put a dramatic scene change in. Terrible. When you go, Parsley, can you let your BILB ringtone go off every so often. It would add some drama for the audience (and evening).
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 18, 2016 22:36:18 GMT
This was terrible.
I fear Mike Bartlett's worst play. And we were really looking forward to it.
We went this evening, but asked the ushers about the technical troubles. They said it was "ongoing", but I hope they fix it for Tuesday's Press Night, because if the set fails again, I fear the press will make that the focus and use it to describe the play itself which feels very weak. It was an evening of very dry opinions of the individual, the state, Russia, America, what is truth, which makes it all sound more interesting than it was, because it was actually so dull. One room, with not a lot happening in it. I know Snowden was/is trapped in a similar environ, but there's no need to inflict it on us all, and have no interval. We really couldn't engage with any of the characters. Jack Farthing does his best, but taking his top off does seem like a desperate measure. How Dunne has learnt all the facts and wikipedia style ramblings is beyond me. She deserves a medal. HEr and Farthing try their best with the "witty banter" moments, but they die a death because they're surrounded by dry theorising. Mackay tries to inject some Pinter/mysterious force into proceedings, but again, dull. So many pauses in it all, supposedly significant: folding a chocolate bar wrapper, pouring a drink…bore off!
The set change at the end WAS visually impressive, but was basically bashing the audience over the head with its metaphor. Nothing exists. Nothing is real. Am I here? Are you here? Engage us. Give us some drama.
No, no, no, no, no.
Poor.
Don't let the set change blind you. Remember how you feel in the first 1hr 30mins.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 29, 2016 22:12:10 GMT
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 16, 2016 16:03:33 GMT
Very tempted to see this, sounds great.But i have only have one possible sslot for it, and it's a toss up between this and seeing Billy Elliot for a final time before it closes. decisions decisions. I would see PP&T. Went back to BILLY last night and it's not in the best shape, despite it closing. Felt quite forced comedy wise, and the Mrs Wilkinson just doesn't quite do it. Keep your good memories of that, and get new memories instead of this great new play and Denise Gough's performance.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 13, 2016 0:13:58 GMT
|
|