1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Feb 26, 2017 0:28:58 GMT
Very ambitious production by the Kingston Theatre - they themselves describe it as the most ambitious in their nine-year history, and you can see why. To condense and adapt for the stage the massive sprawling tetralogy of books by Elena Ferrante set largely in Naples, which spans five decades and requires an extensive cast list before you even start to read the novel, is not an easy exercise by any means. This is the reason why it is actually staged in two parts.
The ambiguity of the title lies in the relationship between Lenu (the novels' narrator) and Lila, her best friend from infancy. Growing up together in a poor neighbourhood in Naples, the story is about poverty, aspiration, loyalty, love, hate and, above all, friendship. It is about nature/nurture and how we can overcome the difficulties arising from being born into the most unpromising surroundings, especially when you are girls in a society which is based wholly around machismo.
The two protagonists - Niamh Cusack as Lenu and Catherine McCormack as Lila - give good accounts of their parts, especially in the light of how they grow up from being kids to mature teenagers. Lenu the good, studious girl who wants to be clever but also glamorous and Lila - a naughty but natural talent and beauty, too honest for her own good. Both loving each other, but both suffering from being compared to each other and from occasional pangs of jealousy. A solid ensemble backs them up with loads of doubling-up to cover the large list of characters represented.
Some production decisions do not necessarily help:
i) everyone keeps their own accents, I would have preferred some uniformity ii) the doubling-up can be confusing at times iii) in two minds as to whether the age of the characters (the girls are very young girls when the play starts) might have been better depicted
The set is simple but the good use to which levels, entrances and lighting are put helps to keep the action focussed despite relatively few props
I don't know if anyone who hasn't read the novels would get as much out of it as someone familiar with the texts - not for me to say as I have read them, it is difficult on first viewing to make up my mind about it.
A point does need to be made which is relevant for this production, but also a general comment on much off-West End and fringe work. Has the theatre done its homework to promote this production effectively? The audience for the world premier of what has been a publishing phenomenon and sold in its hundreds of thousands in this country alone was disappointing, maybe 60% of the house full. Did they not know who their potential audience was? And if they did, why did they not tap it more effectively? I find it mystifying.
I do recommend this very highly though, a flawed production but an engrossing one which merits selling out.
Incidentally, first time in over forty years of theatregoing where there is no curtain call despite enthusiastic applause. Why?
|
|
3,472 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Feb 26, 2017 6:06:33 GMT
Delighted and fascinated to read this, joem, as I'm seeing both plays in one day towards the end of the run.
Haven't read the books (wanted to but could never find the first of the sequence in the library), so I'll have no issues with the adaptation, nor, I hope, with following the plot which I had understood to be broadly as you describe.
Surprised by what you say re attendance as the performances for which I booked looked very full; however, I can't speak for the marketing since I'm already a reasonably frequent visitor to the venue, am on the mailing list and follow them on Twitter, so I wouldn't pay much attention to any publicity or lack thereof - though I did start to wonder recently why I'd seen nothing more so close to the opening.
Also in my opinion, the Rose has an awkward auditorium (too large a gap between the stage and the first seats, though they try to fill that with cheaper floor spaces), which I've never seen even close to full - but which was apparently sold out several times recently for the poorly-reviewed Sandi Toksvig touring production.
Not being a member I only book in person to avoid TWO sets of booking fees; this is massively inconvenient but I did take advantage of a special Xmas deal for this production: half price if both parts were booked on the same day - so this may explain why those performances looked popular to me. I had great trouble with the online booking and as it was a BH, there was no-one available to help, but in the end I chose to pay more than I should have had to, rather than miss out on the deal and find that availability had worsened.
I'm sure more people here will have booked or will do so now; it will be interesting to see what they and the bloggers and critics say.
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Mar 10, 2017 0:08:07 GMT
Saw the second part tonight. Entertaining but a bit less engaging than the first part.
Theatre less than half-full. Mystifying.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 0:46:59 GMT
Saw the second part tonight. Entertaining but a bit less engaging than the first part. Theatre less than half-full. Mystifying. I am glad you attended and enjoyed it I used to go to Rose Saw several things there in the past However it's a ball ache to get to It's not on the tube Is much more inaccessible than Richmond And to be quite frank the area doesn't appeal to me either Add to this they rarely have the sort of casting you get in the west end or in major tours to attract mainstream people Perhaps Kingston is the wrong place for a theatre I have never seen anything sell out there other than the Dench midsummer night which incidentally was the only production of that play I have ever liked! Richmond theatre always seems much busier has a good and wide selection of shows and often has sellouts prior to the west end In other words I stopped going to the Rose As it's just a bit sh*t
|
|
3,472 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 10, 2017 4:36:45 GMT
PN is tomorrow (Sat 11) which is a little unusual, but I hope the reviews are good, both because I have booked to see both plays and because I would like to see the Rose not merely survive but thrive.
Off-topic but re Kingston as a theatre location: Unlike Parsley I do like visiting Kingston but agree that, transport-wise, it it a pain and very different from nearby Richmond due to the lack of tube or any rail alternative to slow mainline trains. 4 per hour but each one calls at every single stop. Also, Richmond has 2 theatres (the Orange Tree and Richmond Theatre), making it possible to do 2 shows in one location; also 2 cinemas (Curzon and Odeon), whereas Kingston has only the Odeon and apart from the odd early Silver Screen performance (invariably older films most people have already seen if interested), theirs start too late to fit in before the Rose's unhelpful 2.30 pm matinees - half an hour later would be so much easier; it might even enable the theatre to put on weekday performances of shows which would appeal to parents and young children after school.
As a venue itself I also think the Rose has issues: mainly the huge gap between the stage and the stalls, but charging not one but two booking fees to anyone not booking in person can't help business - as above, it's not somewhere easy to pop into en route somewhere else to avoid these extra costs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 9:18:16 GMT
I don't see how Kingston is a pain, personally. It's only half an hour out of Waterloo, and even if it's not the tube, you can still use your Oyster card so there's no weird ticketing requirements that might put people off. If you're seeing a matinee in Kingston it's easy to get back into town for an evening show, especially (though not exclusively) if you organise your day carefully enough that you've booked something at one of the Waterloo theatres.
I do agree that the venue doesn't really do itself any favours. I usually sit in the pit on a cushion because I am a cheapskate, but the price of that has doubled since I started going, and although I survived the Wars of the Roses trilogy day by bringing a couple of pillows from home, I've treated myself to an actual seat for My Brilliant Friend. Also I got really angry when they let the same number of people sit in the pit for King John as they had for Wars of the Roses, but didn't let anyone sit in the side pit areas due to Trevor Nunn's incredibly ill-conceived TV camera idea, so not only was there only about 60% of the space available, the sizeable crowd of regular pit-sitters refused to give even an inch to the people forced to fit their entire bodies into a space approximately the size of a piece of A4 paper. In hindsight I really should have discreetly moved their posh camping seats (which they'd left to bags their spaces) while they were out in the foyer before the start.
They've actually streamlined the double-booking fee thing recently, it used to add the commission on at the same time as adding the booking fee, but now the £1 commission is clearly listed as included in the ticket price, with the £2.50 booking fee added later. (Though I suppose it is still a bit of a slap in the face when you go to pay and it merrily shouts "SO THAT'S £3.50 COMMISSION YOU'RE PAYING ON TOP OF YOUR TICKET PRICE!". I did read once that they have to list the extra fees separately and not as part of the ticket price otherwise they cannot use them as they want to use them, but they should probably make that clearer if they don't want people to be deterred. Just because I remember how it used to be worse doesn't mean what they currently have is by extension good.)
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Mar 10, 2017 10:07:57 GMT
It would be so much simpler if all theatres charged absolutely nothing and then all went bankrupt and closed down. Then no one would ever feel aggrieved at having paid a single penny.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 10:40:25 GMT
It would be so much simpler if all theatres charged absolutely nothing and then all went bankrupt and closed down. Then no one would ever feel aggrieved at having paid a single penny. 😂😂👍🏽
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 10:42:13 GMT
I don't see how Kingston is a pain, personally. It's only half an hour out of Waterloo, and even if it's not the tube, you can still use your Oyster card so there's no weird ticketing requirements that might put people off. If you're seeing a matinee in Kingston it's easy to get back into town for an evening show, especially (though not exclusively) if you organise your day carefully enough that you've booked something at one of the Waterloo theatres. I do agree that the venue doesn't really do itself any favours. I usually sit in the pit on a cushion because I am a cheapskate, but the price of that has doubled since I started going, and although I survived the Wars of the Roses trilogy day by bringing a couple of pillows from home, I've treated myself to an actual seat for My Brilliant Friend. Also I got really angry when they let the same number of people sit in the pit for King John as they had for Wars of the Roses, but didn't let anyone sit in the side pit areas due to Trevor Nunn's incredibly ill-conceived TV camera idea, so not only was there only about 60% of the space available, the sizeable crowd of regular pit-sitters refused to give even an inch to the people forced to fit their entire bodies into a space approximately the size of a piece of A4 paper. In hindsight I really should have discreetly moved their posh camping seats (which they'd left to bags their spaces) while they were out in the foyer before the start. They've actually streamlined the double-booking fee thing recently, it used to add the commission on at the same time as adding the booking fee, but now the £1 commission is clearly listed as included in the ticket price, with the £2.50 booking fee added later. (Though I suppose it is still a bit of a slap in the face when you go to pay and it merrily shouts "SO THAT'S £3.50 COMMISSION YOU'RE PAYING ON TOP OF YOUR TICKET PRICE!". I did read once that they have to list the extra fees separately and not as part of the ticket price otherwise they cannot use them as they want to use them, but they should probably make that clearer if they don't want people to be deterred. Just because I remember how it used to be worse doesn't mean what they currently have is by extension good.) Going home If you use the train after an evening show They aren't that frequent Nothing like going on the tube And going back to central London isn't that easy or quick So if you are going to an evening show from work That's an hour travelling either side And given the standard of what they show Mostly not worthy of my time
|
|
3,472 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 10, 2017 10:46:45 GMT
Indeed, it's 3 overground trains each way for me. Going to Kingston evenings allows better use of the day, but the long, late trip home is a drawback.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Mar 10, 2017 10:49:18 GMT
I don't see how Kingston is a pain, personally. It's only half an hour out of Waterloo, and even if it's not the tube, you can still use your Oyster card so there's no weird ticketing requirements that might put people off. If you're seeing a matinee in Kingston it's easy to get back into town for an evening show, especially (though not exclusively) if you organise your day carefully enough that you've booked something at one of the Waterloo theatres. And how many people would be ending their homeward journey in Waterloo? A few. Then a few more could travel on in one leg from Waterloo. And many more would need two further travel legs to get home. Realistically, the Rose has a limited catchment area in the evenings.
|
|
3,472 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 12, 2017 14:41:23 GMT
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 16, 2019 17:30:08 GMT
At the Nash First thoughts after seeing play 1 Too long, would cut quite a bit from first half of first play. One for the cognoscenti here but anyone remember Il Campiello? Yeah, that one. Well the depiction of Naples poor community in the 50s has a whiff of it. Much better in second act with sharper focus on relationship between the women. I haven’tread the books ( o shame I hear you cry) but I’m thinking maybe a shorter theatre show or a tv series....did I miss that?
Eating now in the Terrace, not special. But I’ve got a cold so nothing tastes good.
Play 2 to come. Watch this space or ignore, but I’m usually right 🤪. It’s the tablets.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 16, 2019 17:33:44 GMT
Fellow mod please add Now at NT to title of thread. I’m not able to do it from my device. Ta
|
|
1,846 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Nov 16, 2019 17:39:51 GMT
Am I the only one imagining lynette and her fellow mods on their lambrettas enjoying a day out to Brighton.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 16, 2019 17:47:46 GMT
🥂 Thought we’d got away with it.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 17, 2019 0:20:13 GMT
Me again. Play 2 is more of the same but perhaps more soap opera. The theme of feminism comes through loud and clear. The plot and pace increases so that a lot of plot is squashed into the last quarter of the two plays whereas the first spent a lot of time setting the scene. I wasn’t a fan of the puppeteering. I was wondering why they do not use child actors especially as they could have them be the young girls at the start of the two plays and then their daughters. There are so many child actors around who would do the job well. It would have made the ending even more traumatic I think but actually more dramatic. Personal choice. I didn’t like the ending. But then I suppose I’m criticising the books. I don’t think It works in a play. I was spending time trying to work out the ages of the women rather than concentrating on what they were saying. I was rather tired by this time and much checking of my watch took place towards the end.
Small Island was a women's story and journey and also an adaptation of a book but for me it worked much better on this stage than the Ferrante.
One thing I loved about this production though was the music. Old pop put to good use.
|
|
3,472 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Nov 17, 2019 5:13:05 GMT
Well done, anyway, Lynette, for lasting out, as when it was in Kingston (which seems years ago now) I was hugely disappointed and left early.
|
|
|
Post by theatremad on Nov 17, 2019 9:00:32 GMT
I'm the opposite.
Saw this in Kingston and again yesterday. Was blown away both times, loved every minute of it and came out raving about it.
I had read and enjoyed the books too before the Kingston visit but couldnt remember them so well which actually helped
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Nov 17, 2019 11:37:40 GMT
At the Nash First thoughts after seeing play 1 Too long, would cut quite a bit from first half of first play. One for the cognoscenti here but anyone remember Il Campiello? Yeah, that one. Well the depiction of Naples poor community in the 50s has a whiff of it. Much better in second act with sharper focus on relationship between the women. I haven’tread the books ( o shame I hear you cry) but I’m thinking maybe a shorter theatre show or a tv series....did I miss that? Eating now in the Terrace, not special. But I’ve got a cold so nothing tastes good. Play 2 to come. Watch this space or ignore, but I’m usually right 🤪. It’s the tablets. There is a tv series, Italian although maybe part-funded by HBO: linkIt is obviously able to deal with the themes of the novels at more length and avoids some of the problems of the theatrical production.
|
|
|
Post by charles92 on Nov 25, 2019 10:51:23 GMT
For anyone who has seen this, does part one stand on its own or do you need to see both parts to have a satisfying experience? I’d love to see the whole thing but travel may not permit that.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 25, 2019 14:38:43 GMT
Difficult to say. if you have read the books, and I haven't, you might be disappointed or puzzled. I would say that the first part of the first play is too long with the scene setting of a poor Naples and the way the education of the two girls differs. The second play is livelier but imo, a bit of a soap opera. What do others think? Tbh it could have been done as one play, much cleaner and faster and more pointed.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 28, 2019 13:18:13 GMT
This just got a brill review from the Telegraph so what do I know? Well, like I was watching a different play. All the stuff I thought was weak, he thinks is great.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Dec 22, 2019 0:07:36 GMT
Saw both parts of this today, and loved it - but with a few quibbles. Visually it's gorgeous and the direction is often sensationally good, but the puppets didn't quite work for me. The two central performances are superb, and the show doesn't avoid the trap inherent in having a large ensemble who all perform multiple roles, and more than a few of the supporting performances veer a little too far towards caricature. The music is often extremely effective, but sometimes a little heavy-handed.
Overall - good, and I mean *really* good, but not perfect. An odd choice for a Christmas show in the Olivier, too, and the theatre was not full. For a lot of people, a two-part all-day extravaganza is probably not going to be viable the Saturday before Christmas.
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Dec 22, 2019 23:06:42 GMT
I went to the Saturday performance. I’m afraid, possibly as I am not familiar with the novels, this was just a series of fast scenes and sketchy characters for me - violence, move stairs, fall in love, music, projections, projections, falling out of love, more bursts of music, move stairs... I should add that I was not in the right mindset and decided to leave after the first play and find out what happened on Wikipedia. Not without some merit - the actors did their best. Just didn’t feel the passion or danger of Naples either - I will get in trouble for this, but it felt like a very provincial production compared to the huge expanse and skill of something like Small Island on the same stage.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 23, 2019 15:24:55 GMT
Going on Saturday. It seems a little divisive...
|
|
3,074 posts
|
Post by david on Dec 28, 2019 23:29:22 GMT
Just got back from doing the double header. Overall, I enjoyed it but it didn’t blow me away. Part 1 I felt dragged a bit whilst setting the scene for Part 2 which was far more livelier and engaging. I thought the use of the minimalist set worked well against the video backdrop and it was nice to see the revolve in action. Though my heart did sink a little before the start of Part 1 when I overheard a gentleman behind me saying that the fantastic drum revolve wasn’t being employed in this production. With all the different settings, I would of thought it would have had a good workout here.
Casting wise, having mature adults playing kids early on was a bit of a head scratcher and wasn’t particularly effective, particularly during the more emotional moments, a lot of impact was lost during these scenes. With no particular reference to their ages or the year (this could have been put up on the video screens to help with the timeline). Ok, it works with Blood Brothers having adults playing kids, but with this production, for me it would have been better having kids playing kids and adults playing adults. Adults playing babies in this show was really terrible, but got plenty of laughs from the audience.
In a similar vein, the use of the puppets for the young kids in Part 2 was a big fail for me. Why not again use real kids? Because of this creative decision, for me the ending wasn’t as nearly as effective or emotionally powerful I think it could of been had real kids been used.
There where times particularly during Part 2, where it seemed I was watching a completely different play (particularly during the celebration and wedding scenes) where I was convinced that I was watching scenes direct from Coronation St ( Mary Jo Randle (the Greco’s mother) and VIctoria Moseley (Gigliola) I thought were fantastic and brought a lot of comedy to proceedings).
Despite the many creative flaws in this production, what was a big winner for was the use of pop songs from the 1960s onwards which I thought worked well.
Overall, comparing this adaption to the Small Island adaptation in the same theatre, I thought the latter was far superior both in the book and the overall impact it had on me whilst I was watching this. I really cared about the journeys those characters took and I came away thinking I had watched something very special (Small Island is my number 1 play this year), whilst with MBF I didn’t have that emotional connection unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 29, 2019 7:45:09 GMT
Oh my Dear Lordt what an absolute disaster this was on every single level. Absolutely terrible book, bizarre performances and the direction is some of the worst I have ever seen.
I actually don't know where to begin with this one, it was so horrible literally everything was a fail.
It was like an Eastenders omnibus, where the cast and crew took the day off and just let some random strangers wander in to have some fun with the cameras.
How the hell this even made it to rehearsal stage is beyond me. 2 weeks before closing and it still felt like a dress rehearsal.
Worst production I have ever seen at the National by a million miles.
The need to spend a little bit more money on development and a little less on planting reviews.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 29, 2019 15:54:11 GMT
Not in your top ten of the decade then? 😂
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 29, 2019 19:17:56 GMT
Not in your top ten of the decade then? 😂 It'll certainly make my Top 10 Worst List of the Decade... Some thoughts and probably a slightly (but only slightly) fairer review. The Good... I LOVED the opening scene. It was chilling and compelling and a brilliant way to open the play. It was well staged and gave the impression we were about to watch something original and very special...it lied through its teeth… I also thought the set and it's big reveal was stunning and beautifully done. Then the next 4 hours and 45 minutes happened. The Bad... {Spoiler - click to view} Unfortunately once the set was revealed, it just became a lazy rip-off of Harry Potter with a few projections and they didn't really do anything else with it from that point on.
I didn't mind the actors playing different ages - until Lila’s disastrous children - though it was a bit confusing at times, especially later on when actors came back to play other characters.
I did however mind that they didn't attempt any sort of Italian accents. I can understand why they didn't as it often sounds like a parody. But they all had different English accents and those just sounded every bit as comical instead. The 2 leads were ok and certainly put in the hours…but Catherine McCormack reminded me of James Dreyfus running lines for his Corrie audition in Gimme Gimme Gimme and once that was running through my head, she had no hope.
I did not feel any sense of being in Naples/Italy at all. A simple name change of the gangs and it could've literally been set in England and told the exact same story.
My biggest problems however was the playing of every character - apart from the 2 leads - as caricatures in EVERY scene. It ruined the whole play and I couldn't take any of it seriously.
The Keystone Crooks were always portrayed as babbling idiots and comedic relief whether they were being naughty or nice. There was no sense of peril from these people at all and therefore no shock at any of the horrible crimes they committed. The Mother was played for laughs in literally every one of her scenes. This also made their public outing less powerful and considering the lead characters story arcs hinged on that, it was a terrible decision!
Lila's children...seriously WTH? Why have a 30 year old man play a new born female baby/young child? Why a man? Once again both children played for excrusiating humour the entire time. By the time we get to the scene where Lila left her husband (one which should've been heartbreaking) all anyone can really do is stifle laughter. It was also so badly directed. The children should've been crying first, then have the husbands breakdown so at least there would've been SOME emotion to the scene. I almost burst out laughing at the husbands breakdown and therefore the children’s reaction were totally lost…just dreadful.
The music worked sometimes, but didn’t know what it was doing for the most part. It reminded me of Chavkin’s misuse of music and dance routines throughout An American Clock. Sometimes it crashed in and was effective at bringing in a new time period. Other times - like the Frank Sinatra song - it faded up at some random moment in the song, then faded out, then later fades up again for one line and then it’s gone again…pointless. It became an overused scene change devise by a director who seemed to forget they had 25 actors, the biggest stage in London and an amazing lighting rig to play with.
And while we’re on the subject…some of the ‘scenes’ weren’t even scenes, they were 5 lines of dialogue in between totally random bursts of music that had no reference to the scene. They could’ve been easily disposed of or done properly. It’s not like some of the other drivel couldn’t have been trimmed elsewhere. There were many scenes that just did not work and felt like they went ‘meh yeah it doesn’t work, just play another song and we’ll fix it later’ and then never did.
Not one of the characters were even remotely likeable. I didn’t think any of them in the end did anything that wasn’t in their own interest and they didn’t care who they hurt in the process. What little ‘good’ anyone did was over shadowed by their vile behaviour in every other area of their lives. The only time I ‘felt’ anything for anyone was when the ‘jaundiced baby’ was kidnapped. Apart from the opening scenes, that was the only one in the entire 5 hours that made an impact.
Which brings us to the babies…seriously WTF was that about?!?!?! Why were they blue and yellow? Why did they look like a couple of cabbages with a silk cloth draped over them held in place by a rubber band and a handle on the back of their heads? Why were they being controlled by Amish women?
If they were re-writing Six Degrees of Separation in a modern context, surely this decision would replace Cats as the ‘all-time low in a lifetime of theatre going’. There was a VERY compelling story in their somewhere, there really was and done in a totally different way it could’ve been a fantastic 2-3 hours in a theatre. But this entire production was just a total misfire. As I walked out with the rest of the crowd in stunned silence and crushed down the stairs, the only thing I could muster was ‘well that was 5 long hours of who cares’. I got the biggest laugh of the night.
|
|