404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Nov 18, 2022 15:30:16 GMT
I thought it was better than the 1 & 2 star reviews would have you believe. It's well-cast and gorgeously designed. It's low-grade Ayckbourn/Frayn/Gray. It's neither particularly funny or sharp but I've had a lot of evenings which were a lot worse. In the 70's or 80's it might've played for a couple of months in the West End ( with appropriate star casting) but now it's the sort of play for which there is a very limited audience. And John Hopkins is seriously hot.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Nov 13, 2022 8:19:40 GMT
What a beautiful quiet exquisitely performed musical this is. Pretty much the entire audience were wiping away tears by the end of the show. I fear that the show is too special for a transfer, so if you can get a ticket while its at the Donmar do so!
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Nov 13, 2022 8:15:34 GMT
I wish this were a better show. The elements and the talent of the creative team are all there for a character-driven musical driven by charm and humanity in the manner of "Once" or "The Band's Visit" but I don't believe they've succeeded. Mark Knopflier's score is largely to blame due to its blandness ( and the genuine lack of singing talent among the cast.) David Greig's book gets the job done, but the needed laughs aren't there. However, the sense of Scottish whimsy which was so integral to the success of the film is lacking here. I thought Gabriel Ebert was fine int he leading role but that the others in the cast simply weren't that interesting. Daniel Evans direction simply lacks the confidence needed to pull off this sort of "smaller" show. I can't imagine it will go forward from Chichester without some serious revision. But hey we live in a world where "Hex" has returned so who knows?
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Nov 10, 2022 13:29:15 GMT
Craig, I hit enter before I even wrote anything - you may be right but because everyone is dancing and clapping along it left me with the impression that it was all "ok", when in fact it's not. Sort of the musical theatre equivalent of dancing while Rome burns.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Nov 10, 2022 13:26:15 GMT
I know I'm in the very small minority on this one but I actually hated it. I'm not questioning the professionalism of all involved and I thought Katie Brayben was terrific and I liked Andrew Rannells sly detachment in certain scenes. I thought the structure was fine as were Jakes Shears's lyrics. I found that Elton John's music was bland. But what I hated was the show itself. These were/are vile people who were part of the systematic destruction of the fabric of American Society. To sit in a show which seemed to me to lean toward forgiving them and even to a certain extent celebrating them became for me rather painful. Here in the UK we can look upon Televangelists as a joke, but over in the states it's serious business. This show might succeed here, but I they should think twice if they think they've got a Broadway smash on their hands. I thought the show actively skewered and roasted the entire notion of televangelism and all that participated in it. It was pretty savage. Tammy was the only character that was given a sympathetic portrayal really.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Nov 10, 2022 0:10:34 GMT
I know I'm in the very small minority on this one but I actually hated it. I'm not questioning the professionalism of all involved and I thought Katie Brayben was terrific and I liked Andrew Rannells sly detachment in certain scenes. I thought the structure was fine as were Jakes Shears's lyrics. I found that Elton John's music was bland. But what I hated was the show itself. These were/are vile people who were part of the systematic destruction of the fabric of American Society. To sit in a show which seemed to me to lean toward forgiving them and even to a certain extent celebrating them became for me rather painful. Here in the UK we can look upon Televangelists as a joke, but over in the states it's serious business. This show might succeed here, but I they should think twice if they think they've got a Broadway smash on their hands.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 8, 2022 23:30:25 GMT
Marmite indeed. I thought this show failed on every possible level . Sure it was bonkers, that didn't bother me. What bothered me was the lousy direction - even basic blocking was a mess. the hideous costumes which made little sense. the horrible sound where a two person band more often than not drowned out the performers ( some of the singing was simply awful) - really one of the worst shows I've seen in my life. B L E A H!
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jul 27, 2022 6:53:13 GMT
What a glorious mess of a show this is. It's too long ( 2:30 with an interval) and it has a "book" when none is needed or desired, BUT the design is out-of-this world ( video and costume) and while the cast is led by a charmless woman who really can't sing, happily most of the vocal work is recorded, they are all rather sexy and high-spirited. If it were 80 minutes long without an interval it could be the next "immersive" hit - as it is , it's just an expensive curiosity.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jul 27, 2022 6:45:57 GMT
It's the clearest I've ever felt a Shakespeare is - I didn't notice it was in Shakespeare language after a few minutes it's just so fluid and clear. I had the same thought while watching the play that the actors were so damned good and the direction so clear that it was simply a fun evening. I sat there thinking maybe the National is back on form of course I realized that by bringing back Hex that was highly unlikely.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jul 27, 2022 6:42:42 GMT
I saw this a couple of nights ago and thought it was thrilling on all levels - a superb choice of play on the Donmar's part, brilliantly acted from everyone and with taut, meticulous direction. The mystery to me is that the theatre was half empty ( or half full if you're an optimist). It's a small theatre with a somewhat starry ( for theatre fans at any rate) cast with for the most part terrific notices. Where is everyone? This, for me, is one of the theatrical highlights of the year.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jun 23, 2022 16:29:42 GMT
I saw this yesterday as well and thought it was pretty terrific - Dame Emma got to do all the stuff that she's great at. As for the nudity, I think the point of it is that she grows to be proud of her body ( and herself) . He already is so there's no arc there - but for her - it's a big deal.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jun 20, 2022 7:08:10 GMT
It wasn't what I thought (hoped?) it would be: a sort of a farewell guided tour of the King's Head space - instead it's a variation on The Woman in Black. God knows Mr Ravenhill is a skillful playwright, and I like the idea of his responding to his new theatrical home, but invoking Joe Orton's murder ( which happened in the neighborhood but not at the King's Head) seemed a stretch, whereas what actually happened in that space is of interest - be it theatrical or personal. However, continuing the spirit of Dan Crawford with the buckets asking for more money at the end of the show isn't something which should continue. If bringing in Mr Ravenhill and making a leap to a new larger and ( hopefully) a more accommodating space is to lift the profile of the King's Head onto a different level then the begging for funds should stop.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jun 18, 2022 4:57:01 GMT
I Saw this tonight and thought it - and by "it" I mean ALL of it, the announcement, the marketing, the production and the play itself - was pretty terrific. {Spoiler - click to view} There seems to be resentment in the Twittersphere and here that the RC lied about programming a first time writer instead instead of coming clean that it was one of their most often produced ones in recent years. I think they are going for a more adventurous audience. If they sold it as a new Lucy Kirkwood play then there would be a core audience of fans of hers who would book it on her name alone. This way the initial bookers are people who are actually tantilized by the idea of an unknown writer writing a provocative new play. It's a risk in business terms but in creating buzz about a play it's very smart. Anyone remember "Great Britain" by Richard Bean at the National? A play that was rehearsed and produced in secret and only a day or two before the first preview was it "announced" . That ploy created buzz around a play which had everyone talking. But what about the play?
{Spoiler - click to view} As for the play itself, I found it to be a solid A play - not great but damned good. Thanks to terrific performances from all involved and the sort of TEDTalk presentation. Once the gimmick is public, time will tell if the play itself endures, I think it might because as much as many of us think conspiracy theorists can be wackos, sometimes there is simply too much coincidence and we need to stop and consider what's really going on.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jun 12, 2022 8:33:46 GMT
Well this one was rough going. As others have stated here: there is far too much narration and not enough dramatic action and while Mr Walmsley is very hot I often felt that he was taking off his t-shirt just to engage the audience who might otherwise be bored out of their minds. Ms Carr's plays tend to get too verbose but this one much more than others. Annabelle Comyn's direction seems to be- when in doubt: shout. Only Tom Piper's design appealed to me, but it could be utilized for any number of classic plays in need of a contemporary twist. I
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jun 3, 2022 10:01:36 GMT
I attended a performance earlier this week and I found the play absorbing and insightful with terrific performances from all involved. That said, I felt there was something missing from the production overall - I felt as if the play fell short of its ambition. If you've seen it, you might understand what I mean. It had thematic weight and God knows it had dramatic incident but at its core I don't think it had an emotional center, mostly due to the fact that Ms Duff's character is so self-centered and unsympathetic. Nevertheless I was glad I saw it and I would recommend it to any of my friends who are "serious" theatergoers.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 15, 2022 7:02:26 GMT
If you’re in the side seats you’re sitting at a 90° angle to the stage. If you’re right next to the stage then maybe it’s okay. Seats further from the stage, you won’t be able to see what’s on the same side as you. So if you’re sitting on the left you won’t see the sofa. If you’re sitting on the right you won’t see the kitchen. The further away from the stage, the less you can see. I was in N22 in the Circle (right hand side as you’re facing the stage) and didn’t know there even was a kitchen. This is maddening. It's pure arrogance on the part of the creatives. And I lay the ultimate blame on Rufus and his line producers for simply not saying : NO - let's allow the audience to see the play for which they've paid money. It's not as if designers don't know the theatre for which they are designing, or directors don't know the space with which they have to operate. This was also the case with the recent production of Daddy at the Almeida; fully ⅓ of the audience could not see anything which happened upstage left where for no good reason the director chose to have a great deal of the action take place. Between the rise in obstructed seats, the rise in service charges, the rise in the cost of a program( Love is only Love was £4.50 - really? WTF?) There has become an overall lack of respect for the audience experience that is running across all levels of theatres in London I don't care how many followup surveys they send out.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 11, 2022 8:44:22 GMT
I will be going again. The show was far from perfect and I hope they make improvements but I enjoyed it. My main gripe is it needs to decide on its audience. I think it would be great if it was cut down to a 80 minute family friendly show. Maybe lose the expletive at the end of act 1 and the baby eating. The problem is that through two or three productions and Lord knows how many workshops, it's still the same group of artists who are all unproven and/or uncomfortable/untalented in the world of musical theatre talking to themselves about how to fix it, when they should allow someone in the room who actually knows what they're talking about. If it proves itself a hit, then all will be well. But if the show remains the truly awful ill-conceived and badly executed show which many of us saw last year, then it is a gross misuse of funds and nepotistic power at one of our major cultural institutions and Rufus should just get the f--k out.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 11, 2022 7:00:17 GMT
Naomi Wallace's play is a very peculiar power play set in rural Kentucky about a tough girl of 17 who is very protective of her 14 year old brother. That brother though, thanks to do their homework for them, has been befriended by two privileged bullies . Their friendship is put a test which 14 years later ( played by older actors) still has consequences on all of their lives. The actors are talented though Jasmine Blackborrow vocally is channelling Bebe Neuwirth. The play is very specifically in Kentucky which is at the top of the American South. And while they all have convincing American accents, no one has a southern one. I wouldn't mention this except Ms Wallace goes out of her way to set the play there and speaks of it in the programme notes. The evening isn't boring but it is uncomfortable because if the playwright were male, he might find himself "cancelled" for his depiction and discussion of rape and non consensual sex. But because the playwright is a woman, as is the director we're put in the position of thinking of this play as somehow empowering. I didn't buy it.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 1, 2022 14:50:49 GMT
I found it completely absurd and delightful and perhaps inevitably, rather moving. Happy to keep visiting these characters every few years or so. if you're not a Downton fan, don't go. I f you - you'll have a good time.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 28, 2022 20:53:18 GMT
Out of step here as I saw this, really didn't enjoy it and wished I had stuck with my original instinct that it was not for me. The rave press reviews and comments here persuaded me and I can see that it was very well done, but my main issue is that it's not a play at all, just a series of scenes, so an impossible hurdle for it to overcome as far as I'm concerned. I considered leaving at the interval but decided to hang on to see what, if anything, happened - which it didn't, really: just more of the same mysterious writhing around for several minutes and then the various characters continuing with their individual stories and bonding with each other. Obviously it wasn't aimed at me but I gave it a go anyway, so will put it down, as so often, to experience. Good to try to broaden your theatrical horizons but after this, I needed to retreat to my comfort zone. Admittedly I was also p****d off with the Royal Court by the time this started as they make such a big deal of latecomers not being admitted (yes, right!) and in order to get there on time, I had had to miss the end of a film (which had started late due to a technical issue), yet well after 2.30 pm the lights stayed up and people were drifting in, clutching drinks and there wasn't even an announcment about the delay, let alone an apology, which is discourteous to those who do make the effort to arrive punctually and makes a nonsense of all the warnings about the need to do so. I agree with showgirl . The opening dance sequence was approximately 9 minutes long and the confessionals never really added up for me. Yet I have to admit the capacity crowd at the Court was wildly enthusiastic. After the interval there were a number of empty seats throughout the stalls but those that stayed were for happy they did so. I know it was sincere and that its heart was in the right place, but I found it to be an indulgent bore.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 27, 2022 15:12:47 GMT
I'm surprised at all the favorable comments on here. I saw this last night and thought while there were some very funny lines, it was for the most part pretty crappy. The performances with the exception of Rachel Stirling were average ( and less than that with the brother & sister leads) I found the design to be cheap and unimaginative and Ms Riordan's direction flat. Where was the buoyant energy needed to keep a farce such as this afloat? My companion and I were in a good mood when we entered the theatre but by the time it was over we were angry. It's as if Ms Riordan said to Mike Bartlett - we'll be happy to produce any play you wish to give us. And he reached into his drawer and pulled this out.We were also surprised to see that the last 4 or 5 rows in the stalls were empty. Maybe it played fresher in previews?
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 21, 2022 23:04:32 GMT
Saw this tonight and thought it was extremely satisfying. Dominic Cooke has found a way to frame the play so that it wasn't simply a revival of an old chestnut.A wonderful performance from Nicola Walker ( did we think she wouldn't be? ) a totally worthwhile and satisfying evening.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 15, 2022 6:32:29 GMT
I saw this last night and didn't mind it. I didn't exactly like it, because all too often I found myself thinking of other family plays - from August: Osage County to The Little Foxes . The Fever Syndrome, while not boring often feels long. The final third of the play is a serious of confrontations between the various characters which felt very much as if the playwright needed to tie up every loose end. And as each confrontation occurred I felt as if a box had been ticked. And of course it all had to come down to Robert Lindsay's summing up aria which was frankly unrealistic and out of character. There is a slickness and ease to the writing for which I was grateful, but there were also lines that were clearly calculated to be "laugh lines" which simply weren't funny. And the references to the NY Mets were weak and dated. One interesting quirky thing was a reference to the second (US) national tour of "Sunset Boulevard" which not only name checked Petula Clark but also Lewis Cleale. I'm guessing the author must be a friend of his.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 13, 2022 17:50:00 GMT
I was there this afternoon and what was most interesting was that the younger people in the audience responded strongly to the play while us older folk were, it seemed, rather bored. The entire first act could be cut and the play could simply be the second act. By cutting the first act we miss some nudity and a couple of statements about art losing its meaning. The meat of the play is in the longer ( 90 minutes) second act. However, it's just not worth it. The author, Jeremy Harris, is there to provoke us but what I took from the play was his narcissism and not much else.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 10, 2022 6:25:18 GMT
I'm starting a thread about this terrific production at the Park which I saw earlier this week. It's a very simple straightforward briskly staged production with three terrific actors who play 30+ different characters, some are cartoonish while some are more emotionally complex. While it has an aire of comedy about it, it evolves into something deeper about the need for people to accept change but also the inherent "good" in people in a country which has become deeply divided.A very worthwhile production which was greeted warmly by the audience. It runs 2 hours 15 minutes ( including the interval ) and rather remarkably there wasn't a cough at any point from anyone in the audience. Totally worthwhile.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 5, 2022 7:33:33 GMT
I saw this last night and agree with almost everyone's assessment that the show is bonkers, but it always has been, that's why it is and always will be a cult item. A lot of the score is simply ravishing but 90% of the book simply doesn't make sense. This production specifically is enthusiastically performed and Alex Young is a delight but everyone else is just weird in their own individual way. If you've never seen the show before, you should see it just to tick that box on your Sondheim chart. But if you've seen it before in other productions, I don't think this one isn't going to illuminate the show for you in any way.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 2, 2022 8:11:24 GMT
Three productions at once is unnecessarily. Theatre needs to diversify. Of course you're right , but so many stars have to align for just one play to be produced that it's foolish for a playwright NOT to have as many "balls int he air" as possible because one never knows which one will land. Is a playwright supposed to say no to production opportunities?
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 24, 2022 12:56:29 GMT
I went last night and the news that Taron was out was kept pretty well hidden. There was a slip in the programme £5 which said At this performance the role of M will be played by Joel Harper- Jackson and there was a sign posted halfway down the stairs to the stalls saying the same thing - So one had to know that Taron's role was M. For the prices they are charging they should show a bit more class. Mr Harper-Jackson did a fine job but the fact is that I was there to see two hot male stars and I didn't. I was with a group of people and we discussed asking for a refund but frankly it took too long to coordinate the first time - it was going to be impossible to do it "on the fly" 10 minutes before curtain.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 17, 2022 11:54:15 GMT
Theresa Rebeck's career totally baffles me. She's a slick writer to be sure, but have any of the plays been really good? Though I guess she does write juicy parts for actors and not all playwrights do that.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 15, 2022 8:00:11 GMT
To Kill A Mockingbird, Prima Facie, The Glass Menagerie, The Human Voice, The Seagull, Madhouse, Jerusalem - and that's just the commercial spaces in the next five months. To be fair though, 3 of the seven are in one theatre, and all but one of them ( Mockingbird ) are limited engagements. And despite the weightiness of the themes of both "Life of Pi" and " Ocean at the End of the Lane" (as well as "War Horse" before them) I felt that the plays themselves aren't "the thing". And I'm saddened by the fact that a genuinely serious play has a hard time having an open-ended run in the West End.
|
|