160 posts
|
Post by bee on Apr 21, 2017 10:53:37 GMT
Jezza's gone 24 hours without a disaster? That is indeed news. ;-) I think Dawn Butler was in charge of the Disaster brief yesterday.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Apr 10, 2017 8:29:17 GMT
I thought this was tremendous, wonderfully acted by a great cast and surprisingly thought-provoking, given that the subject matter has been covered many times before. The Electrician character, a socialist who assumes he has the support of the working classes but doesn’t seem to know them at all, could be a member of Momentum, and the discussion about how the Nazis were able to succeed because “decent” people couldn’t believe that civilized people would behave in such a way, is reminiscent of the rise of Trump in the US (obviously that’s a rather unfair comparison – or at least I hope it is).
As martin1965 said, we really could do with seeing more of these rarely produced works by Miller (and others). Full credit to the Finborough for digging this gem up.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Apr 5, 2017 15:04:55 GMT
I was in one of these last week, E21 I think, end of the row, on the left. There's a bit at the start where Lee Mack sits at a harpsichord and does some visual stuff which seemed to be very funny, but I didn't see any of it. That's the only part I can remember where you were really missing out on something.
As to the play, it was OK. Back in the mists of time I saw a production of this with Tom Courtenay, and in that you actually felt a little sorry for Harpagon when he realises his money has been stolen. In spite of his selfishness and greed you had a sense of what a devastating loss it was for him, and you were somewhat moved by his plight. This production on the other hand, doesn't try for any of that pathos nonsense, it's only interested in getting laughs, and to be fair it does that quite well.
I saw the NT production in 1991 - wasn't very funny but totally misplaced in the Olivier of course.
Was that the same one I saw? I saw Courtenay in Edinburgh, it was a touring production, but I can't remember where it originated from. It would have been about that time though.
It also had one of the women from the Liver Birds in it.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Apr 5, 2017 6:16:44 GMT
Anyone seen this from the £25 stalls seats? Did you miss much? (Trying to decide whether it's worth stepping up to a £35 reduced from £65 instead.)
I was in one of these last week, E21 I think, end of the row, on the left. There's a bit at the start where Lee Mack sits at a harpsichord and does some visual stuff which seemed to be very funny, but I didn't see any of it. That's the only part I can remember where you were really missing out on something.
As to the play, it was OK. Back in the mists of time I saw a production of this with Tom Courtenay, and in that you actually felt a little sorry for Harpagon when he realises his money has been stolen. In spite of his selfishness and greed you had a sense of what a devastating loss it was for him, and you were somewhat moved by his plight. This production on the other hand, doesn't try for any of that pathos nonsense, it's only interested in getting laughs, and to be fair it does that quite well.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Mar 8, 2017 6:59:38 GMT
Isn't this coming to the Young Vic in the Autumn?
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Mar 6, 2017 12:54:25 GMT
The premiere of the adaptation of Paul Auster's City of Glass was on Saturday in Manchester, and it's running until March 18th before transferring to the Lyric in Hammersmith. The few images and notes that have come out from the Home Twitter look intriguing (including mention of VR somehow connected with the show), but there doesn't seem to have been much else about it yet. Has anyone here gone, or heard about it? I'm intrigued to catch it when it comes to London... I've heard about it, and have a ticket for Hammersmith. I read the book ages ago and liked it, but other than that I'm as much in the dark as you as to what it'll be like.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Mar 4, 2017 8:53:00 GMT
Reading this thread, and thinking about the huge pile of programmes in my spare room, with another box full of them in the garage, it occurs to me that in this day of age some means could be contrived of buying programmes in electronic form. A print-at-home programmes to go with your print-at-home ticket say?
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Feb 13, 2017 15:43:47 GMT
I also thought this was great. It’s all good, but the Laura – Gentleman Caller scene is spellbinding, heart-rending stuff, one of those moments that reminds you why you go to the theatre, and how special it can be.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Jan 29, 2017 12:42:01 GMT
I saw this on Saturday afternoon. I thought it was fine. It took some time to get going – there are a lot of characters to take in – but once it settled down it became absorbing. Good performances all round, and I actually thought the seats were fairly comfortable!
We did have the added excitement of a fire alarm just before the scheduled interval. Everyone had to leave and stand across the road for 20 minutes or so while they worked out what was going on, this turning into a sort of impromptu “meet the cast” session. Anyway, eventually we got back in – apparently, there had been a problem with the boiler – and carried on.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Jan 29, 2017 12:18:08 GMT
I saw this on Friday night. I thought it was pretty decent, well-acted by a mainly young cast. Nothing particularly ground-breaking or memorable but well worth a visit if you’re a Chekov fan. Like Jan Brock I was somewhat baffled by The Clash at the end. Not sure what we were supposed to take from that.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Jan 23, 2017 10:33:55 GMT
I was there on Saturday night. I thought Ruth Wilson’s speech was fine. It was actually only a few sentences – I doubt it lasted more than 2 minutes – and was about the Women’s march and not about Trump at all (other than by implication I suppose). Generally though, given the subject matter of the play and what was happening in London during the day it seemed not inappropriate.
Regarding the play, on the whole I enjoyed it. It was a bit self-consciously arty-farty at times (the musical interludes, the stapling of flowers to the walls, the entering/leaving the stage via the audience) but the cast all gave wonderful performances.
I do think updating to the present day was a waste of time though, and made some parts of the story seem a bit odd. Would any writer actually carry around a paper manuscript these days, and not have it on a laptop or a USB stick? In the modern world would Lovborg really be such a pariah after a night on the lash as he is in this story? I know these things don’t really matter but if an update just leads to these irritating inconsistencies then why bother?
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Jan 20, 2017 7:44:22 GMT
Brave of you, Jan Brock! You may be nearer but it's such a faff for me to get to and from the Arcola that I never book anything there until I've seen enough good reviews. Even then the seats aren't that comfortable so I still have to factor in the running time - and this is long... It is not that near for me either. Running time reported to be 3+ hrs. It is part of a small season there commemorating (or celebrating I suppose they'd say) the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. They are doing Cherry Orchard too. Aw bugger, 3+ hours! Sounds like the "bum numbing" at least will be accurate......
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Jan 20, 2017 7:42:04 GMT
Brave of you, Jan Brock! You may be nearer but it's such a faff for me to get to and from the Arcola that I never book anything there until I've seen enough good reviews. Even then the seats aren't that comfortable so I still have to factor in the running time - and this is long... I'm going to a matinee at the end of the month, which has a 3:00 pm start, which I usually take to mean that it's a bit shorter than normal. Fingers crossed (given what you've said about the seats). They also seem to have managed to find a few positive quotes to put on the Arcola website (Guardian and FT), so here's hoping that it won't be too turgid.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Jan 17, 2017 7:23:28 GMT
I don’t think I have ever spontaneously jumped to my feet to give a standing ovation. Not because I’m especially hard to please or because I haven’t seen plays that have been worthy of such a response, but basically even the best performance of all time would never be enough to overcome my fear of looking like a bit of a prat by being the only person who stood up.
I have joined in a number of ovations though, when the number of people getting up has reached enough of a critical mass to overcome my fears, or, more often, when the person in front of me has stood up and blocked my view of the stage.
A standing ovation is still pretty rare in my experience though, sounds like it’s more of a thing in musicals (which I rarely go to) rather than in plays.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Dec 21, 2016 12:51:21 GMT
At the otherwise sublime 'She Loves Me' one member of the family in front of us got up twice, clomped up the stairs and back again. Then another did the same, but wasn't allowed back in until the interval Heard her say, 'I had to go to the loo. I've had three children. What do they expect?' Just a bit too much info there. Pelvic floor exercises and some Tena lady. I've taken to not drinking much at the theatre for this very reason, very rarely an interval or when there is the toilet is too far away with a massive queue. I haven't had children, I have an iron bladder but I'd be more prepared if I hadn't. This reminds me of the on-line survey I got after a visit to the RSC during the summer. One of the questions was "Did you have a drink from the bar at the interval?" to which I replied "No". This meant I got a follow up question saying "Why not?" with a number of options such as "too expensive", "couldn't get served" etc. I found myself forced to check the "other reason" option and write in "can't trust my bladder these days".
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Dec 20, 2016 8:13:32 GMT
This controversy got me wondering, are opera companies these days obliged to cast Chinese/Japanese singers when they perform Turandot or Madame Butterfly? I don't follow opera at all so have no idea to what extent they are subject to the same pressures as the theatre world. Nope. I saw Turandot in Liege in October and there wasn't a single Asian singer among the leads. Tiziana Caruso (Italian) was Turandot and José Cura (Argentinian I think?) was Calaf. I can't remember the names of the cast members when I last saw Madama Butterfly in Cologne a few years ago, but Cho-Cho San was definitely white too. On the other hand I saw a Korean Mimi in La Boheme years ago. Her Asian appearance didn't bother me at all, it was more her rotund form that didn't really work for someone supposedly dying of tuberculosis. Come to think of it, I also saw a Korean lead guy in Rigoletto. Yeah I thought that might be the case, certainly the opera lovers I know very much want to see the best singers no matter what colour (or shape!) they are. This whole thing makes me very uneasy. If you look at the Print Room's website they hardly seem like the bastion of old school racism they're being made out to be - a musical theatre work about Srebenica, a concert featuring lyrics taken from the diaries of women with mental illness, a play about Karen Blixen, it seems like their heart is in the right place to me. I don't think they're a suitable victim for the Offended Police to be setting the dogs on. I didn't particularly fancy this play but I think I'll make a point of going now to show a bit of solidarity.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Dec 20, 2016 7:06:06 GMT
This controversy got me wondering, are opera companies these days obliged to cast Chinese/Japanese singers when they perform Turandot or Madame Butterfly? I don't follow opera at all so have no idea to what extent they are subject to the same pressures as the theatre world.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Dec 3, 2016 11:41:57 GMT
Saw it Wed but decided against starting a thread (having searched in vain, sure there already was one from earlier in the tour), so thank you, David J, for making the effort. I thought it was absolutely fine, though obviously I had nothing to compare it with as this is the first stage adaptation, so far as I am aware. That plus I cannot recall the film and don't think I've read the book! I have heard that the part of cousin Charlotte (played by Felicity Kendal) has distorted the story by being given too much prominence, but I don't know whether that's true and I enjoyed the production as a whole. I saw this a few weeks ago at Richmond. You're right, Charlotte's part in the story is padded out a bit, presumably to give the star name more stage time than would otherwise have been the case. I thought it was a perfectly decent bit of theatre, well acted by a good cast and with an impressive set. It was sort of unmemorable though, the kind of play that you enjoy while it's on but that you don't give much thought to afterwards.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Dec 1, 2016 21:57:12 GMT
If we're talking productions, Fiona Shaw's Mother Courage stands out as an absolute turkey that just went on and on for days. She did another stinker about then whose name escapes me - she was a Renaissance painter who found it necessary to work topless as if she was in a 1970s sex comedy The Hour we knew nothing of - seriously, what exactly was the point of that? I kept awake by counting people and vowing not to look at my watch until another 30 had gone past Sounds like "Scenes From an Execution"? I didn't hate that but I'd pretty much forgotten all about it which I suppose is almost as bad. My personal worst would be Holy Warriors at The Globe.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Nov 2, 2016 12:54:37 GMT
I liked this. I thought Salieri and Mozart were excellent, less impressed by Constanze, her accent grated more than any of Mozart’s ranting and raving. The orchestra were great, but I’m not sure it’s a good idea to have them continually coming to and from the stage. Presumably the chair shifting and scenery changing has got a lot smoother than it was during the previews but it still seemed pretty clunky to me. The whole thing might have been a bit less frantic had the orchestra been permanently situated on the elevated section at the back of the stage leaving the actors to get on with it at the front – though having said that I liked the effect when they lowered the drum to replicate a proper orchestra pit.
In general though, a quintessential Olivier cast-of-thousands (well, dozens at least) production and a good night out.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Oct 31, 2016 22:13:34 GMT
Coldplay are playing there in a couple of weeks. That's not bad.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Oct 31, 2016 11:04:42 GMT
Before the show at Mary Poppins last night there was a lady being sick repeatedly in a carrier bag in the crowded foyer. I think she was genuinely ill, not drunk, but she was right by the front doors. Why didn't she go outside so we didn't have to witness this wonderful pre show entertainment? Maybe she forgot to take her "spoonful of sugar"? I have seen a few shows that made me want to throw up afterwards, but never beforehand.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Oct 28, 2016 6:01:10 GMT
I must be going to the wrong shows because I'm pretty sure that I've seen way more male than female nudity over the years. At the theatre anyway. Worst example I can remember was The Judas Kiss where one of the actors spent ages on stage with his meat and two veg flopping about. He wasn't even that necessary to the play, I don't think he had a line to deliver (I'm trying to resist the temptation to say he only had a small part). It seemed completely gratuitous.
I can't remember ever seeing a nude scene (male or female) where it seemed especially necessary.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Oct 9, 2016 17:43:48 GMT
I've actually just looked at my programme from yesterday again and it turns out he was in Winters Tale and Harlequinade earlier in the season, neither of which I saw sadly.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Oct 8, 2016 19:44:12 GMT
Slightly off-topic but who is the sexy voiced man who does the turn of your mobile announcement at Garrick and used to do NT Live trailers... It sounded to me like John Shrapnel, a familiar actor from TV and movies (I had to look his name up though). I also saw this this afternoon and thoroughly enjoyed it. The play itself hasn't aged well but I thought Branagh was just brilliant. The rest of the cast were good as well, but it's a real shame that John Hurt couldn't do the Billy Rice role. Gawn Grainger was fine but it was hard to stop thinking about how Hurt would have handled the part.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Oct 4, 2016 18:59:06 GMT
I saw this at Richmond at the weekend. I actually thought it was OK. As Oxfordsimon said the acting is a bit up and down. In general the older actors seemed to do a better job of it - I especially liked Christopher Hunter who played a number of roles including the Marquis and the judges in the both French and English courtroom scenes, hamming it up entertainingly every time. The younger actors playing Darnay, Lucie and Carton were a bit bland I thought, and Carton looked a bit too shabby. I know he’s supposed to be a drunk but I’ve always imagined him to be a bit more debonair than the bloke here – or probably more accurately, that’s how I remember him from the movie versions I’ve seen. In this he somehow managed to be simultaneously reminiscent of Ross Poldark and Baldrick from the regency era Blackadder (in appearance only, I should hasten to add).
It looks sensational though, presumably more of the budget went on the set, costumes and lighting than on hiring the talent.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Sept 26, 2016 17:52:14 GMT
I saw this on Saturday. Not a whole lot really happens, the play pretty much consists of the two older women trying to manoeuvre Dorothea into doing what they want while she waits for an important phone call from the man she hopes is going to ask her to marry him. There are occasional moments of farce, mainly caused by the appearance of their neighbour who only speaks German.
For all that I ended up rather liking this, it was well acted I thought, and there are some good moments of back and forth dialogue, but compared with Williams’ famous works this was all pretty lightweight stuff. However having seen Yerma in the afternoon it was quite nice to watch something where the characters problems and disappointments emerge slowly from the text rather than getting screeched at you at maximum volume.
This was my first visit to the Coronet, and what a strange venue it is (in a good way). It looks like it got hit by an earthquake and they never got round to repairing it. It’s worth going just to visit the bar with its sloping floor.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Sept 26, 2016 17:49:43 GMT
I saw this at the SWP on Friday. It was quite enjoyable, mainly due to the over-the–top acting (especially the manic performance of Garry Cooper as the Duke of Milan) which worked quite well in the 60s setting. I’m not sure the musical interludes added much, other than padding out the running time a bit, but in general this was good fun, although the jolly mood changes a bit towards the end when the two main female characters start to realise how little their two lovers actually think of them.
Disappointed about the lack of a dog though.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Sept 14, 2016 14:20:35 GMT
That promotional blurb worries me. This play is such a classic that it doesn't need such hype. Makes me wonder what they are hiding Any blurb which includes the phrase "the power of celebrity" automatically sets the alarm bells ringing.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Sept 13, 2016 18:46:13 GMT
I'm going to see this in Richmond in a couple of weeks. I like the book and have enjoyed the movie versions with Dirk Bogarde and Ronald Coleman. Interested to see how it works on stage and of they try and incorporate the iconic opening and closing lines of the book, since these aren't actually spoken by any of the characters (assuming I remember it correctly).
|
|