1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 23, 2017 17:55:14 GMT
It used to be you needed two types of screwdriver: crosshead ones for sane screws and flathead ones for annoying rusty slots where the screwdriver keeps slipping out and stabbing you. Now there are square ones and hexagonal ones and torx ones and three-wing ones and strange ones that look like they're intended to summon demons. I've just counted and I have at least 92 screwdrivers and tips*, and I still find screws that I can't remove. What has gone wrong with technology? * Some of them are duplicates, but still... Just face it. You’re screwed.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 23, 2017 8:43:23 GMT
I don’t understand why they don’t use dogs. Dogs can detect explosive stuff and so on. They can tell the dogs to ignore the cannabis 😂 One dog per Theatre. Good for us, nice jobs for dogs. there are dogs currently used at the Lyceum and the Victoria Palace. I guess they're deemed the most high risk, therefore justifying the extra expense. Once at a station the police had a dog checking everyone who had got off. I was pulled over and asked if they could plant something on me as the dog hadn’t found anything and they wanted to give it some encouragement. I was happy to oblige. Dog was very excited.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 22, 2017 18:26:48 GMT
Bumping this in light of the NT Prankster discussion and security etc. When I came out of The Palace in Manchester the other night I left by the side doors but decided to go back into the foyer by the front doors to get meself a magnet. Of course it was full of people leaving but I was able to push through the crowds and enter, there was no security. So despite the bag checks before the show there’s nothing to stop someone accessing the theatre at the end of the performance, in other words exactly what happened at the arena. Allseems a bit cock-eyed and lip-servicey to me. Is it the same situation elsewhere? It’s counterintuitive but buying a magnet does not make one more attractive.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 22, 2017 17:36:55 GMT
We sat in Box B. This is further from the stage than Box A. To begin with FOH got confused and put us in Box C - directly opposite (same size and view). I can't see how one would get 4 seats in these 2 boxes - maybe it was the others that sat 4. Anyway, for 2 there is loads of room. The side of the set wall on the same side of the box is not really visible. Little happens there, but on a couple of occasions one character or another is on it. It is not much. To compensate, the box is at a great level for the stage - it is at a better height than the front stalls, but closer than the royal circle itself. You get nice close-ups of the actors (occasionally catching their eye). Also once the house is open and it is a bit crowded in the bars and other parts of front of house, the box is a nice private space. Further, Boxes A and B are great for escaping to the loo in the interval! I see Box A is slightly cheaper than Box B (and similar for C and D) for some dates in July - would you recommend B over A for the better view? Also, and I appreciate this might not be something you can answer, would the A and B side be preferable to the C and D side? From what you say, it does sound like B is a safe bet, but just wanted to know if you have any further thoughts. Many thanks..... On which side - for view I don't think it matters (but if someone has tried both sides for a show they would know better). A and B, however, have very easy access to the loos, which might be an issue for the interval queues or at departure. On A or B, my usual approach to boxes is to take the one furthest from the stage if they are above stage level as this can avoid the feeling of looking right down onto the sage. However, the Royal Circle boxes feel much more at the perfect level for viewing. Looking at Box A I thought they had a good view also. So, I would hate to decide between them.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 22, 2017 15:47:45 GMT
To respond to Foxa and Bellboard, the lengthy handwritten chunk of Sylvia Plath -I think it's displayed beside the entrance to the exhibition of Relics - seemed to me to set the issues you're talking about firmly in the mind before seeing the play. I enjoyed the whole experience of the installation and the play but, for me, the direction was unsuccessful. Glancing through the playtext afterwards - I look forward to reading it properly later - it seems quite meticulous and precise in the detail of the action. But I found the production to be too much of a blur so that I didn't identify that characters were transforming but wrongly interpreted it as the actors transitioning between scenes. Also, I think I was probably so overloaded with the scale of the installation that I overlooked small crucial prop and scenic details in the play. I see that Julia Jarcho herself directed the premiere production by her own theatre company. So it seems a bit perverse to introduce her play to the UK in such a different production. I'd have preferred it if Sam Pritchard and Chloe Lamford had collaborated with a writer to make a show, and if Julia Jarcho had separately been invited either to supervise a UK production or presentation of Grimly Handsome or to make or co-produce, a new show here. I feel a bit mean saying all this because I do see this use of The Site as a major step forward for the Royal Court. Did anyone here see any of the new work shown there in the summer by Chloe Lamford and a series of writers? I wish I had! The quote from Plath does help. Thanks for reminding me as it did strike me beforehand, but I was not thinking about it afterwards! On the summer shows, I went to B.S. by Nathaniel Martello-White (there is a thread on this). This just used the performance space itself (a bar was set up in one of the other rooms). I don't know about the other productions. I like the use of the additional spaces in GH (before and during the show). I would be happy for more of this, but only if it is done creatively and does enhance the show/experience.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 21, 2017 23:02:07 GMT
ROH tweeted that auditorium was evacuated due to a suspect package. Police have since given the all clear.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 21, 2017 18:56:00 GMT
While waiting at the Barbican for Titus A, we are being entertained on screen by the LSO doing a concert version of Wonderful Town going on in the Hall. Bit hard to judge it where I am but it looks fun. Has anyone gone to this?
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 21, 2017 10:26:55 GMT
Shenton has more than twice as many Twitter followers, and is far better known as a theatre critic, and it sounds like he didn't get an invite either. The reality is that this show is already known among the young, diverse audience - which is very rare for a musical - and it's actually the more mainstream, older, broadsheet-reading audience the producers need to convince with reviews. With tickets so hard to get hold of it's no surprise they are targeting press comps at the critics that will do the most good. From the replies to the Exeunt tweet it seems that some of their regular writers had already booked tickets and can write a review for them anyway. It's not like there has been a lack of diverse critical response to Hamilton thus far! Maybe they just can't be arsed with him tweeting about the urinals and so on all evening... Is that his version of a standing ovation?
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 21, 2017 8:53:40 GMT
On press tickets. On the one hand I’m sure the show would not miss a few tickets to bloggers. On the other, what’s their interest? How many people reading blogs about theatre who might then buy tickets would not already have heard of Hamilton? [This is different to smaller productions trying to get heard in a crowded market]. If they want to reach new audiences they need exposure beyond the usual suspects. Yesterday I went to the barbers. The only thing to read while waiting was a copy of The Sun (yes, I know!). It had a full two-page spread about Hamilton (quite eye catching). That is helping to reach a new audience. [Anyone know if they did something similar for Ink?!]
On whether not handing out tickets ends up limiting the range of critical responses, I don’t buy this. The serious bloggers will go and write anyway [the challenge for them is to write something new about Hamilton]. In any case, what is the interest of the theatre in further discussion within the theatre community? If I were to invite bloggers, I would not invite theatre bloggers, but those of other communities, such as music bloggers or those who blog on diversity issues. They might reach audiences less aware of Hamilton.
Frankly, I find complaints from anyone about not getting free tickets rather childish. It is simply wounded pride about not feeling as important as they would like to be viewed. ‘Look at me, even Hamilton invites me!’. If you are a blogger (or even a professional journalist!), buy a ticket and write. But don’t moan. Please don’t moan! The ‘I’m too important to be snubbed’ blog/tweet is about the most tedious, self-serving nonsense one can read and turns me off from wanting to read anything else that person writes in future.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 20, 2017 19:03:08 GMT
I just checked with my ATG theatre card login and most seats seem to be on offer for £12 for some dates in December and start of January - but not all dates in January. Might be useful if flexible for dates and happy to go fairly soon. Also there seems to be an offer for under 25s of £25 for premium seats (not sure how extensive this is by date). Good to know. Fairly inflexible currently due to work commitments. Jan 16-20th is my only window of opportunity. Out of interest I had a look at 16th and 18th - the £12 offer is there for theatre card members.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 20, 2017 18:50:28 GMT
Thanks for the links to reviews. Looking forward to this. (The Guardian erroneously credits Audrey Brisson, who is not in this production. She is currently playing the role of J Cricket in the NT Pinocchio!) That was the Guardian's review from a year ago, when the production was in Bristol (with Audrey Brisson). Yes, you are quite right. Sorry!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 20, 2017 17:22:22 GMT
They've released more tickets for all cycles. Just booked!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 20, 2017 10:54:55 GMT
The tour consists of local shows for local people.
Good luck!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 19, 2017 22:49:30 GMT
Any one had any luck with deals on this? ATG main portal for tickets but no deals with an ATG card. Official London Theatre Jan sale seats are ok but not great for the price... Given that Ive had a Premium seat at Hamilton for £80 theres not a chance Im paying £95 for this. There was a £15 deal with showfilmfirst. I think that has gone but they still have some under £20. I just checked with my ATG theatre card login and most seats seem to be on offer for £12 for some dates in December and start of January - but not all dates in January. Might be useful if flexible for dates and happy to go fairly soon. Also there seems to be an offer for under 25s of £25 for premium seats (not sure how extensive this is by date).
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 19, 2017 21:35:31 GMT
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 19, 2017 21:24:17 GMT
The advert in the break for bladder leak underwear could prove informative to theatreboard members heading off to long productions with no interval!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 19, 2017 21:10:30 GMT
Also sorry about the spoilers! {Spoiler - click to view} I agree and there is danger in digging too deep and finding what is not actually there. Just on the cheating wife - the scene with her lover seemed largely what one might expect. But when back with her husband, the implication (in the conversation about sharing secrets) is that he knows all about it and there is something more going on. What I have no idea, as I don't think this point seemed to go further in the play.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 19, 2017 20:42:53 GMT
I wonder if this would turn out to be something like a musical version of Ladies in Waiting. This is a play that was at the Edinburgh Fringe, but which I caught in Washington DC last July. Essentially Henry VIII has died and each of his wives comes to him in turn, arguing their case finally on equal terms with him. An interesting idea, although the concept was slightly stretched by the fact that two of his wives were still alive when he died, so the ghostly reunions were a bit less easy to arrange!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 19, 2017 20:23:19 GMT
{Spoiler - click to view} Wasn't the idea that the men preyed on lonely women - they described in detail how to go about doing it and the implication was that this was something they did regularly? Whereas wasn't the killing of the man a one-off in reaction to something? I know a woman wrote it so I wasn't saying it was sexist - just something I've seen a lot of. Just like someone who said they were tired of scripts (regardless if they are written by a man or woman) where a woman's actions were dictated by their having been abused as a child...surely there must be something else that can happen to women besides being abused or murdered ;-) Yeah but.... {Spoiler - click to view} You might be right. However, I am not even sure if the characters are who they were portrayed as, as there is a discussion of whether there is any distinction between individuals, who characters think they are and a gender swap that I think is more than using which actor is available. So, I wonder if the gender point is more fluid. I fully agree with your point on woman as victim for other productions, just this one seems less clear in that regard!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 19, 2017 20:12:20 GMT
On the theatre. First the sound where we were was very good. We sat in a Royal Circle box and every word was clear and easy to follow. Incidentally the view was good (tiny bit missed) – and, as usual with boxes, loads of space, table for drinks, etc.
bellboard27 - which box did you sit in, and how much action do you think you missed? I've booked a Royal Circle box, after seeing 2 seats come up last week, and am second guessing my decision, as they are side views, and I'm worried about losing part of the stage. Glad to hear there's lots of space in the box - they used to have 4 seats per box, so only being 2-seat boxes should make for a much more comfortable experience. We sat in Box B. This is further from the stage than Box A. To begin with FOH got confused and put us in Box C - directly opposite (same size and view). I can't see how one would get 4 seats in these 2 boxes - maybe it was the others that sat 4. Anyway, for 2 there is loads of room. The side of the set wall on the same side of the box is not really visible. Little happens there, but on a couple of occasions one character or another is on it. It is not much. To compensate, the box is at a great level for the stage - it is at a better height than the front stalls, but closer than the royal circle itself. You get nice close-ups of the actors (occasionally catching their eye). Also once the house is open and it is a bit crowded in the bars and other parts of front of house, the box is a nice private space. Further, Boxes A and B are great for escaping to the loo in the interval!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 19, 2017 20:04:31 GMT
I liked this quite a lot, though not madly enthusiastic. But thanks @parsley for the recommendation. Interesting use of the space in the performance room, outside the windows of the space and in other rooms via camera. I do recommend a good look round the installation beforehand - props, sets, set-ups for the production to come. In reply to foxa{Spoiler - click to view} There are two killings - of a woman and a man, so I think the woman writer has made it a bit more balanced Overall, I can see this would not appeal to everyone and would put off some.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 19, 2017 15:18:12 GMT
So, here’s my comments on the show. I had not seen it previously nor listened to the cast recording (indeed I think for Hamilton this might be good as so much of the singing is supported by the nuances in the acting). However, as I always find with massively over-hyped shows, they rarely live up to the expectations.
First the positives: I liked the writing. The book is well done – this period and Hamilton himself has the potential to confuse those who are unfamiliar with it. But I thought the narrative was clear and character flaws were not glossed over.
I thought the performances were excellent. All of them. Musically the show worked well.
Disappointments: the set design is minimal. I suppose I was expecting something more from a ‘big’ musical.
Second was the dance/choreography. What there was was fine, but not outstanding and limited in the show overall. Many musicals have limited dance routines, so Hamilton is no different to those.
Overall, though, I do not see why people think this is so special. It’s good and I definitely enjoyed myself, but I would not say ‘wow’.
So, its four stars from me. I am going back in April, so will see how I feel then. I suspect I will be more positive as I will know what to expect.
On the theatre. First the sound where we were was very good. We sat in a Royal Circle box and every word was clear and easy to follow. Incidentally the view was good (tiny bit missed) – and, as usual with boxes, loads of space, table for drinks, etc.
On the audience – the uber fans were in (that’s fans of the show, not the taxi service). Whooping from the moment the lights went down. A bit annoying, but not too much of problem (though it might have been if we had been seated in the midst of them).
I agree with others on the entry process – the warning emails sound bad, but the whole thing is very smooth. I did notice one woman trying to duck under the tape and get in ahead of the queue – she was quickly hauled out!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 18, 2017 18:53:49 GMT
Sometimes overhearing preshow conversations is fun. English guy explaining to his Italian girlfriend that driving a car is not a problem for him. However, sobriety is his problem. Then goes on to list the countries he has been arrested in. Seems a great catch.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 17, 2017 9:28:24 GMT
There are/were some £10 seats available as part of GILT. Can someone tell me what DM and GILT is or are? I goggled it and found out several references. Is DM doc martens if so do they sponsor the play to be done in their shoes? I GILT wrongly spelt for GUILT? Or do I have to join another club to find out what they are writing about? DM is Delfont Macintosh - own the theatre and website for booking. GILT is get into London theatre which is a scheme for discount tickets in the New Year officiallondontheatre.com/new-year-sale/
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 16, 2017 10:53:13 GMT
|
|