|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 14:37:14 GMT
Or maybe people just have different tastes In shows they see and we should respect people have different opinions (also its easy sitting behind a screen name spewing hate and comments no one takes seriously) This is likely how people with bad taste Reconcile and justify things to themselves I am sure Will be interested to see the press reviews for this I don’t want to start an argument but just because it’s a show that some people have disliked a lot, it shouldnt make the people who have liked feel stupid and you shouldn’t shame them for what they wear or are like a as people, the wonderful thing about theatre or any art form is that we all interpret it and review it differently and should just respect other people views and not spew our own ones as being right.Didn’t your mother ever teach you that maybe if you don’t have anything nice to say Don’t say anything at all.
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 21, 2018 15:34:25 GMT
I watched this last night. It was comfortably the worst piece of theatre I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.
...but did you LIKE it?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 21, 2018 15:35:08 GMT
My friend saw this on Thursday Her comments follow below And based on these I didn’t attend “ Don’t waste your time. Get a refund. No themes. No story. Supposed to be absurdist. Was panto. Best bit was that there was no interval. Glorious to be out at 915. And I liked the red death bridge. I thought it was terrible but I can never judge what other people think of plays / films. Sometime people like stuff I think is objectively bad I told u to go see the play. It is sh*t. But at least you would have seen for yourself it was sh*t and why u thought it was sh*t “ Of course Are her comments meaningless As I have posted them on here? Perhaps if I post the same comments on twitter They become true 🤣🤣🤣 The sort of tweet I’d move past quickly, it doesn’t give an idea of what the production is (visually, thematically etc.) just their own feelings. The comment about panto is potentially interesting but, out of the context of other comments, it leads to nothing. As here, an jndividual post can be as misleading as an individual tweet, facebook post or whatever.
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 21, 2018 15:36:49 GMT
Aren’t people sick Of seeing all this sh*t theatre??? Mostly I'm sick of seeing people whine about the supposed failures of shows they haven't bothered to see themselves.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 21, 2018 15:58:01 GMT
Did anyone see The Chairs with Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan? Apart from Godot it’s the last absurdist success I can remember in the West End, must be twenty years ago. Rhinoceros is good but difficult to stage well for obvious reasons. Whenever we get a classic absurdist or expressionist play nowadays I see people slagging off the writing, do the plays not mean anything today? Are we too used to realism? Can actors act them? I thought Machinal was let down by some pedestrian acting, for example, it needs more extremes, greater caricatures, at times it felt like I was watching Ibsen (for me, that’s not a good thing!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 16:04:20 GMT
Oh this all sounds smashing. I'm not going for another couple of weeks. I do hope they don't tinker around with it and start making it good by then.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2018 16:33:28 GMT
Did anyone see The Chairs with Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan? Apart from Godot it’s the last absurdist success I can remember in the West End, must be twenty years ago. Rhinoceros is good but difficult to stage well for obvious reasons. Whenever we get a classic absurdist or expressionist play nowadays I see people slagging off the writing, do the plays not mean anything today? Are we too used to realism? Can actors act them? I thought Machinal was let down by some pedestrian acting, for example, it needs more extremes, greater caricatures, at times it felt like I was watching Ibsen (for me, that’s not a good thing!) This particular play was a recent success in the studio at Bath with Alun Armstrong. It is also the sort of classic revival the NT Should be doing. However putting it in the Olivier with an inept director creates insurmountable problems. It should be in the Dorfman but their arbitrary policy of only putting new plays in there means that isn’t allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 16:45:35 GMT
Did anyone see The Chairs with Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan? Apart from Godot it’s the last absurdist success I can remember in the West End, must be twenty years ago. Rhinoceros is good but difficult to stage well for obvious reasons. Whenever we get a classic absurdist or expressionist play nowadays I see people slagging off the writing, do the plays not mean anything today? Are we too used to realism? Can actors act them? I thought Machinal was let down by some pedestrian acting, for example, it needs more extremes, greater caricatures, at times it felt like I was watching Ibsen (for me, that’s not a good thing!) I have seen a couple of supposedly “experimental” plays this week and it seems to me that theatres need to think about what it really means to them. There has to be substance behind experiment, some kind of philosophical underpinning. Some of the plays I have seen this year are insubstantial because the author just seems to be jumping on the experimental bandwagon. When I attend theatres I am sometimes aware of a subtext that seems to state that naturalism is a patriarchal form and that experimental work is radical/feminist etc; or that naturalism is simplistic and experiment is complex - an argument I find simplistic. My sense is that after plays that tell us there’s no point/everything should be blown up/dramaturgically anything goes/look at us aren’t we all so clever? audiences long for reflection, for thought, poetry and for connection.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 21, 2018 17:34:12 GMT
Did anyone see The Chairs with Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan? Apart from Godot it’s the last absurdist success I can remember in the West End, must be twenty years ago. Rhinoceros is good but difficult to stage well for obvious reasons. Whenever we get a classic absurdist or expressionist play nowadays I see people slagging off the writing, do the plays not mean anything today? Are we too used to realism? Can actors act them? I thought Machinal was let down by some pedestrian acting, for example, it needs more extremes, greater caricatures, at times it felt like I was watching Ibsen (for me, that’s not a good thing!) I have seen a couple of supposedly “experimental” plays this week and it seems to me that theatres need to think about what it really means to them. There has to be substance behind experiment, some kind of philosophical underpinning. Some of the plays I have seen this year are insubstantial because the author just seems to be jumping on the experimental bandwagon. When I attend theatres I am sometimes aware of a subtext that seems to state that naturalism is a patriarchal form and that experimental work is radical/feminist etc; or that naturalism is simplistic and experiment is complex - an argument I find simplistic. My sense is that after plays that tell us there’s no point/everything should be blown up/dramaturgically anything goes/look at us aren’t we all so clever? audiences long for reflection, for thought, poetry and for connection. Pity? I don’t think it’s being advertised as in any way experimental thiugh. If that’s one, what was the other one? Form, and experimentation with it, is most definitely what audiences are challenged by. The Writer, which I loved, did so with intelligence and meaning. The Octoroon, which I only caught recently and have not yet written about, was also dazzling in its playing with form, I thought. Probably my two highlights of the year so far. Naturalism isn’t patriarchal although feminist and BAME writing has often fallen down, for me, because it stuck to the familiar tropes of realism. The Writer and The Octoroon were both so successful, I thought, because they critiqued existing styles within a framework of deconstructing them. The world is in chaos and what exists may well need ‘blowing up’, usually theatre follows what happens in the world. Expressionism reacting to the carnage and nightmare in the early twentieth century, for example, absurdism to the atom bomb and its destruction. This play tells of the disintegration of society, isn’t that what many people find we are living through? I imagine that is the reason here. We do need new forms, always, and realism can only reflect a relatively narrow range of responses.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jul 21, 2018 18:35:55 GMT
Did anyone see The Chairs with Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan? Apart from Godot it’s the last absurdist success I can remember in the West End, must be twenty years ago. Rhinoceros is good but difficult to stage well for obvious reasons. Whenever we get a classic absurdist or expressionist play nowadays I see people slagging off the writing, do the plays not mean anything today? Are we too used to realism? Can actors act them? I thought Machinal was let down by some pedestrian acting, for example, it needs more extremes, greater caricatures, at times it felt like I was watching Ibsen (for me, that’s not a good thing!)
The Royal Court staged Rhinoceros about ten years ago - starring Benedict Cumberbatch, no less. I remember it as working well. The problem with the Theatre of the Absurd right now is that the metaphor is no match for reality. What could be more absurd than Trump?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 18:46:53 GMT
I wandered into this thread as I was over on the NT website contemplating booking it. As ever a delight to find among the genuine commentary and discussion, the idea that people liking a production or not is a stamp of their intelligence (or let's face, the underlying commentary: class).
So I guess a thick old working class gal like me would love it then?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 19:11:16 GMT
Aren’t people sick Of seeing all this sh*t theatre??? Mostly I'm sick of seeing people whine about the supposed failures of shows they haven't bothered to see themselves. Okay to address this point I went this evening And have just left after 30 mins Usually the idea and concept and smell of excrement is enough That I know to avoid it But today I went ahead tasted it to prove a point Doesn’t taste good The lesson for me is that my friend is right And I will trust her judgment For those who are skeptical And need to taste it first Go ahead
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 21, 2018 19:23:42 GMT
I didn't book for this - and don't plan to.
Bad comments aside - I was taken to see a production of it in French when I was a university. Grim.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 19:35:12 GMT
I have seen a couple of supposedly “experimental” plays this week and it seems to me that theatres need to think about what it really means to them. There has to be substance behind experiment, some kind of philosophical underpinning. Some of the plays I have seen this year are insubstantial because the author just seems to be jumping on the experimental bandwagon. When I attend theatres I am sometimes aware of a subtext that seems to state that naturalism is a patriarchal form and that experimental work is radical/feminist etc; or that naturalism is simplistic and experiment is complex - an argument I find simplistic. My sense is that after plays that tell us there’s no point/everything should be blown up/dramaturgically anything goes/look at us aren’t we all so clever? audiences long for reflection, for thought, poetry and for connection. Pity? I don’t think it’s being advertised as in any way experimental thiugh. If that’s one, what was the other one? Form, and experimentation with it, is most definitely what audiences are challenged by. The Writer, which I loved, did so with intelligence and meaning. The Octoroon, which I only caught recently and have not yet written about, was also dazzling in its playing with form, I thought. Probably my two highlights of the year so far. Naturalism isn’t patriarchal although feminist and BAME writing has often fallen down, for me, because it stuck to the familiar tropes of realism. The Writer and The Octoroon were both so successful, I thought, because they critiqued existing styles within a framework of deconstructing them. The world is in chaos and what exists may well need ‘blowing up’, usually theatre follows what happens in the world. Expressionism reacting to the carnage and nightmare in the early twentieth century, for example, absurdism to the atom bomb and its destruction. This play tells of the disintegration of society, isn’t that what many people find we are living through? I imagine that is the reason here. We do need new forms, always, and realism can only reflect a relatively narrow range of responses. [br The two plays you’ve chosen are for me good examples of experimental work that is underpinned by solid ideas - whether you agree with them or not or liked the plays or not. I have seen quite a lot this week but I don’t feel I have to answer to you about my theatre going.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 19:57:16 GMT
Mostly I'm sick of seeing people whine about the supposed failures of shows they haven't bothered to see themselves. Usually the idea and concept and smell of excrement is enough That I know to avoid it But today I went ahead tasted it to prove a point Doesn’t taste good You tasted it? OMGosh, @parsley is the living, breathing reincarnation of the late, great Divine back on earth to guide us in the excesses of bad taste. Who'd have thought it? You think you're a man but you're only a boy...
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 21, 2018 20:11:51 GMT
But today I went ahead tasted it to prove a point You want to prove a point? Stay until the end.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 21, 2018 20:41:30 GMT
Pity? I don’t think it’s being advertised as in any way experimental thiugh. If that’s one, what was the other one? Form, and experimentation with it, is most definitely what audiences are challenged by. The Writer, which I loved, did so with intelligence and meaning. The Octoroon, which I only caught recently and have not yet written about, was also dazzling in its playing with form, I thought. Probably my two highlights of the year so far. Naturalism isn’t patriarchal although feminist and BAME writing has often fallen down, for me, because it stuck to the familiar tropes of realism. The Writer and The Octoroon were both so successful, I thought, because they critiqued existing styles within a framework of deconstructing them. The world is in chaos and what exists may well need ‘blowing up’, usually theatre follows what happens in the world. Expressionism reacting to the carnage and nightmare in the early twentieth century, for example, absurdism to the atom bomb and its destruction. This play tells of the disintegration of society, isn’t that what many people find we are living through? I imagine that is the reason here. We do need new forms, always, and realism can only reflect a relatively narrow range of responses. [br The two plays you’ve chosen are for me good examples of experimental work that is underpinned by solid ideas - whether you agree with them or not or liked the plays or not. I have seen quite a lot this week but I don’t feel I have to answer to you about my theatre going. Why so defensive? I was just interested in what you’d seen (last week I saw The Octoroon, Machinal, Fun Home and Heathers, this week it’s The Lehman Trilogy, Allelujah and Home, I’m Darling. Hopefully I’ll get around to writing about a few of them some time soon). Ryan, how about a stage version of Pink Flamingos? Great for a family night out.
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by vabbian on Jul 23, 2018 21:09:00 GMT
Saw this tonight, 2/5 stars
Particularly funny at the beginning, that faded away fast as the play went on. Very well acted (as NT productions usually are) and philosophical parts of the dialogue were enjoyable. But generally the play didn't make much sense, the world building just wasn't there!
Despite being only 1 hour 40 mins it did drag and feel quite long.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jul 23, 2018 23:53:11 GMT
I've been thinking more about this, having read the past few pages. I love avant garde and absurdist or surrealist theatre. I adored the Writer, an Octoroon, Pomona, and going back a bit plays like Rhinoceros, Marat/Sade, and certainly Waiting for Godot. Some of my favourite plays are considered 'theatre of the absurd' classics.
The problem with this production is that it didn't feel especially absurdist or avant garde. You could cut about ten minutes and turn it into a straight drama about a patriarch of a family being told he's terminally ill and working through the stages of grief. It doesn't work as a drama because the characters were so weakly drawn you're not invested in them, but it doesn't work as an absurdist piece because those elements are so underplayed. It's mainly an hour and a half of a guy wailing that he's going to die.
Rhys' spitting power though, wow.
|
|
5,319 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jul 24, 2018 8:17:17 GMT
Why does the NT have an R in front on this thread? They dropped that years ago didn’t they?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 8:27:05 GMT
They're still officially the RNT as far as I can tell, it's just not commonly used in the general branding, presumably to try sounding more accessible and less posh.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jul 24, 2018 8:49:39 GMT
Yes, in their Annual Accounts it states "Registered Office & Principal Place of Business: The Royal National Theatre", etc. and the auditor's report formally refers to it as the RNT. In every other communication, the NT does not use it.
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 24, 2018 10:42:23 GMT
Just returned two nice tix for this on Thursday. I don’t know how booked they are but if anyone is desperate they should be available now. Stalls row G
|
|
330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on Jul 24, 2018 11:44:21 GMT
The production photos look not very promising. I think I will happily return my ticket for October.
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 24, 2018 13:17:17 GMT
I did rebook for the end of the run in October when no doubt we shall be beset by hurricanes
|
|
1,878 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jul 24, 2018 17:36:36 GMT
Was going to go and see this next week but have changed to September, not in a mood to travel anywhere in this weather let alone sit in a theatre so hopefully it will have cooled down a bit by then.
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Jul 25, 2018 11:35:45 GMT
Did anyone see The Chairs with Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan? Apart from Godot it’s the last absurdist success I can remember in the West End, must be twenty years ago. Rhinoceros is good but difficult to stage well for obvious reasons. Whenever we get a classic absurdist or expressionist play nowadays I see people slagging off the writing, do the plays not mean anything today? Are we too used to realism? Can actors act them? I thought Machinal was let down by some pedestrian acting, for example, it needs more extremes, greater caricatures, at times it felt like I was watching Ibsen (for me, that’s not a good thing!)
The Royal Court staged Rhinoceros about ten years ago - starring Benedict Cumberbatch, no less. I remember it as working well. The problem with the Theatre of the Absurd right now is that the metaphor is no match for reality. What could be more absurd than Trump?
Rhinoceros at the RC was terrific. But then, with a full-size rhonoceros, Cumberbatch, Jasper Britton and lots of nudity, it couldn't really fail Exit the King is spamming my FB feed non-stop but it was completely full when I saw it. I suspect there will be bargains to be had near the end of the run tough
|
|
|
Post by MrsCondomine on Jul 25, 2018 14:13:36 GMT
I am so tempted to see this because of Rhys Ifans in a long wig, makeup and robes. Something about that does things to me. Also Adrian Scarborough And edited to mention a comment on TimeOut - "After the disaster last year that was Don Juan in Soho, Patrick Marber must be pleased to have struck form again by collecting a perfect cast and a disciplined production which helps to wipe away that low point in his career." (From someone called Hannah G) Who - what - where? Don Juan was a disaster? That's news to me, I was in hysterics through a lot of it. Maybe my apparent idiocy means I'll REALLY enjoy Exit the King
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 14:42:53 GMT
On the one hand, I love Indira Varma and Adrian Scarborough and I'm intrigued by the reports of how the drum revolve is used towards the end, but on the other hand, I could return my ticket now and just pretend it never happened.
|
|
2,977 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 25, 2018 15:00:50 GMT
A more general question, I keep reading London theatre-makers lamenting the loss of cross-pollination with European theatre post-Brexit.
But where is it now? Apart from a couple of revivals of Genet, a few days of Ostermeier and the endless revivals of Art, where are all these European plays and practitioners? The Young Vic, Almeida, NT etc. showcase loads of American plays (the YV rarely seems to do anything else) but I'm not aware of anything similar being brought here from the continent. Is it there, and I'm just missing it?
|
|