|
Post by basi1faw1ty on Apr 20, 2018 7:29:11 GMT
Thanks for that review. Yeah I've seen similar comments from last night, and it was a more negative to positive ratio of reviews this time round. Same complaints that it's too long and/or there's too much going on and/or they didn't care for most of the characters. I mean I am glad its duration has had somewhat of a chop, but I’m sad it’s not going down well with people. But as we're still in previews I'd like to preserve some optimism until press night.
Also (not being biased, this is just from what I've read on social media) I'm seeing a trend that Charles' Hugh Marriner seems to be the only real stand out here. Not a lot of mentions (if at all) of the other characters, not even the lead role of Christine Foskett. True, very few people can match or even surpass Judi Dench, but I hope Kate Fleetwood has made at least a good stab at it.
|
|
3,071 posts
|
Post by Rory on Apr 20, 2018 8:25:21 GMT
Yes, a muted social media response to this so far. It seems a few further cuts wouldn't go amiss. We need to be fair as it's only previewing but I had hoped this might be up there with After the Dance but that seems unlikely.
|
|
213 posts
|
Post by frankubelik on Apr 20, 2018 8:49:53 GMT
My heart sank when the cast filed onto the stage in front of the curtain and began to sing "La Vie en Rose"........There is so much "Acting" going on that it detracts from the poorly directed and overlong version of the play. I do not recall it being so long originally and cuts are certainly required. I am sure they all had a great time in rehearsal "exploring" their roles. Charles Edwards is outstanding and makes sense of his character but Fleetwood never comes close to exploring Christine's desperation - she is very unfocused and frequently slips into caricature. The rest is overblown with one or two staggeringly bad performances. It's extraordinary that with the the available talent pool in London that this is the best the National's casting department can do. Shame on you. One poor actress has to spend the evening walking around the stage with no lines at all. The expected shattering finale never materializes either. A very muted response with swathes of the audience leaving after each interval. One wonders why they bothered to revive this piece.
|
|
|
Post by audrey on Apr 20, 2018 9:12:25 GMT
Afraid I didn't make it past the first interval. After an hour and half watching the various overblown characters , all equally vile and loathable, and nothing to spark an interest for the next act - plus no discernible plot at all - a glass of wine by the Thames seemed much more preferable. One wonders why the National bothered to revive this play - it seems very much a product of its time and it feels very outdated now. Am sure there are critics who will love it but there are much better uses of three and a half hours. The only good thing was the set which was intriguing with little back rooms and eccentric wall decoration - sadly sat too far back to see much of it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2018 9:19:13 GMT
^^
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Apr 20, 2018 14:31:22 GMT
The comments on here mean that it is almost certain to be 4 stars all the way when the critics see this! Let's see...
Still, I think I am glad I booked, and will see for myself. Even Macbeth wasn't so bad after lowering expectations...
|
|
5,432 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 20, 2018 14:36:51 GMT
I find it rather dispiriting that people aren't finding the play as engaging as I do. I haven't seen this production yet (and still have reservations about the central casting choice) but I have always loved the larger than life characters and their interactions. It is a play, for me, that has always had a lot of heart.
Perhaps it does require Christine to hold it all together and if that performance isn't yet working then the play will suffer as a result. But her collapse at the end should still tug at the heartstrings of even the most hardhearted of audiences.
I have long had it on my list of shows to direct - so I clearly believe it is worthy of revival. If this production isn't making the case for the play then I would say that it is the director at fault not the script.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 20, 2018 15:33:40 GMT
I think this play is one which might appeal to real theatre enthusiasts but might fail to engage a general theatre audience. I’m telling you now that Exit The King is another and has commercial flop written all over it.
What’s with all the walking out at the interval ? Seems to be a new fashion. I strongly disapprove of that - plenty left at the Macbeth interval and it really wasn’t bad enough to justify that at all.
|
|
5,588 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 20, 2018 15:57:22 GMT
How can they mess this up?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 20, 2018 17:32:37 GMT
How can they mess this up? Shouldn't the question be how can they make it succeed ? When they did it in the Lyttelton in 1995 with Judi Dench it only played to 68% capacity (55% commercial capacity). What's different now ?
|
|
5,432 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 20, 2018 17:39:28 GMT
In 1995 it was a very little known piece from a neglected author. Yes, the TV version helped raised profile and having Dame Judi in the cast helps - but it was still a risk.
Now, Ackland has a slightly higher profile and the piece itself has become better known.
The success of the project is not just measured in ticket sales.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 20, 2018 17:47:18 GMT
In 1995 it was a very little known piece from a neglected author. Yes, the TV version helped raised profile and having Dame Judi in the cast helps - but it was still a risk. Now, Ackland has a slightly higher profile and the piece itself has become better known. The success of the project is not just measured in ticket sales. Hence my other comment above about it appealing to theatre enthusiasts who have actually heard of the play. Somewhat different to reviving a Rattigan that at some point in the past WAS a massive hit, this one never was.
|
|
1,846 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Apr 20, 2018 22:05:56 GMT
Absolute Hell!
Forget about escaping real life, just escape.
Two opportunities to leave, only regret is that I did not take advantage of one of them.
Incoherent, rambling, stereotypes, so many left, at the end there were more on stage than in the audience (only a slight exaggeration)
Could have been so much more, the club encompasses the distractions we use to avoid our lives, the lines on Ouspensky (obscure reference to a long lost follower of the Russian mystic Gurdjieff) Proust and Buddhism are the counterpoints to the drunken revelry and in this production merely throwaway lines before the next drunk stereotype takes centre stage.
|
|
5,588 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 20, 2018 23:10:56 GMT
Oh dear.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 20, 2018 23:57:54 GMT
Hmmmm....I was there tonight. I had seen the play, years ago, at the Orange Tree and remember liking it - rather. The actor who played Maurice Hussey in that version said 'Horror camp' in such a memorable way - it was funny and chilling at the same time.
I didn't hate this and I think there are a lot of talented people involved....but it was a bit all over the place at this preview. Hugh Marriner is very much the lead in this production (and Charles Edwards does a great job) and his was the only story which seemed to have some sort of logical development. I also thought Joanna David did some nice work as his mother, rendering the character surprisingly sympathetic. I got talking to the nice man next to me and we were both puzzling over Christine's role. She didn't seem to be on stage very much - she was constantly running upstairs or retreating behind a door with some serviceman or frantically serving drinks. She has two important plot developments - one at the end of Act 2 and one at the beginning of Act 3, but they just seemed to come out of nowhere. (Actually I'm wondering if I missed something important about her in Act 1 - I lost focus a bit for some of it and found myself puzzling over the big Labour posters or the crowds of people.) If you are going to see it, I think you might have better luck sitting closer. It is dimly lit and some of us mid-circle were struggling to make out facial expressions - even, occasionally, being unsure who was speaking. The set looks great, but the exciting-seeming upper level isn't really used for any acting, people just disappear up there and you can kind of make them out in the gloom, eating or whatever. Stage left, a typist sits in a little high room, well, typing. I'm not sure what that signified - she didn't speak and I don't think anyone referenced her. Perhaps it was to show someone actually working, since no one else in the play seemed to.
I think this will improve - it felt very much like a preview, with a number of messy lines and people being called by the wrong name, that sort of thing. Quite a few interval leavers in the circle - all four people to my left vanished at the first opportunity. The end of each act was greeted with slight puzzlement by the audience, but Nice Man Next To Me and I ending up rather enjoying ourselves - you just have to give in a bit to its chaos.
My takeaway: I worried about the livers of all the characters and decided to forego an interval drink to preserve mine.
Running time: roughly 3 hours 25 minutes.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Apr 21, 2018 23:51:57 GMT
I was there on Friday night and quite enjoyed it. It's not a flawless production but I believe it will improve before the opening night.
Some of the performances were great. The highlights for me were Charles Edwards and Sinead Matthews. The rest of the cast are good in general with maybe a couple of weak ones. Jenny Galloway is wasted here in a very small and thankless part.
Wasn't familiar with the play and I thought it was fascinating, funny and sad. It depicts the post war years as a very confusing time for all. Life can't go back to normal so easily after six years of war. A varied group of people meet regularly at a Soho club. They have very little or nothing in common but somehow rely on each other and we become aware of their insecurities and neurosis.
Loved the set too.
I was in Stalls front row and was really involved with the characters and story. Maybe, like Foxa suggests, it's a play that you need to see in Stalls and not too far away. The lighting is quite dim at times and I don't think it would have had the same impact on me had I sat quite far away from the stage.
I'm probably in the minority here but for me this is a 4 star production.
|
|
|
Post by basi1faw1ty on Apr 23, 2018 17:25:53 GMT
OK, so on the AH NT page, they started with the slightly daunting "3 hours 40 minutes with two 15 minute intervals" as the approximate duration. Then they adjusted it to "3 hours 20 minutes with two 15 minute intervals". Now it's a rather odd sounding "3 hours 10 minutes with 15 minute interval and 5 minute pause".
5 minute pause??
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 17:32:18 GMT
^ This is much more sensible and done quite often to break a long show into three parts. (It is actually written as a Two Act play...) We’ll be reminded during “the pause” not to leave our seats and the lights’ll be kept low to discourage an exodus!
It does make you wonder what they’re cutting...
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Apr 23, 2018 17:44:12 GMT
They need some pause to adjust the set, but it makes sense to have a pause rather than a second interval. The resulting run time (having saved 10 mins from the 2nd interval) is only 5 minutes quicker than the 2nd preview, so I don’t expect much if anything has been cut.
|
|
1,187 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Apr 24, 2018 17:23:52 GMT
OK, so on the AH NT page, they started with the slightly daunting "3 hours 40 minutes with two 15 minute intervals" as the approximate duration. Then they adjusted it to "3 hours 20 minutes with two 15 minute intervals". Now it's a rather odd sounding "3 hours 10 minutes with 15 minute interval and 5 minute pause". 5 minute pause??Now showing on the website as 3 hours with 15 minute interval and 5 min pause. Guess they are hacking and slashing. Hopefully it will be 2.5 hours by the time I go tomorrow night
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Apr 25, 2018 12:49:42 GMT
For anyone who cares one of my (much more senior than me) colleagues was the original Orange Tree director for this and has an article in the programme.
I am seeing this in May and I am so relieved it is getting shorter. The press night is tonight so hopefully it will get even shorter.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Apr 25, 2018 13:33:32 GMT
it's a play that you need to see in Stalls and not too far away. Should have been on in the Dorfman?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2018 13:43:59 GMT
Nothing should be on in the Dorfman, it's an awful theatre.
But yeah, Absolute Hell benefits from you being close up. Especially when Sinead Matthews is doing her thing.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 25, 2018 15:32:45 GMT
Nothing should be on in the Dorfman, it's an awful theatre. But yeah, Absolute Hell benefits from you being close up. Especially when Sinead Matthews is doing her thing. Since the NT opened on the South Bank the majority of their best work has been in that theatre, more excellent productions than the other two theatres combined.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2018 15:41:00 GMT
The excellence of the productions does nothing to solve the negative audience experience of sitting in the auditorium itself.
|
|
1,187 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Apr 25, 2018 16:43:31 GMT
Seeing Absolute hell tonight. Knackered and not sure I can cope with 3 hours of it. If I am not feeling it after a 90 min first half in the cheap cramped seats in Row C and we feel like leaving, will we miss much? Obviously I am not going with that intention in mind but it would be good to hear from those who have seen it as to whether we will be missing an unmissable second and third act.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2018 16:55:55 GMT
I enjoyed all three acts but you're not missing a masterpiece or a sudden spike in quality if you get to an interval/pause and have to take yourself home.
|
|
|
Post by basi1faw1ty on Apr 25, 2018 17:06:31 GMT
I am not trying for one second to put you off, but the slightly more negative reports have said the first hour or so is good fun but then it sort of simmers down by either the second or third part.
Having said that, recent comments have been far more positive than last week's, helped I suspect by the run time being reduced very drastically since preview 1 and the fact that the cast have of course gotten a bit more accustomed to the show.
We shall see how the press will fare tomorrow morning. Eep! (I can already predict the headlines.)
|
|
|
Post by basi1faw1ty on Apr 25, 2018 17:13:21 GMT
Nothing should be on in the Dorfman, it's an awful theatre. But yeah, Absolute Hell benefits from you being close up. Especially when Sinead Matthews is doing her thing. Good cos I'm in row B stalls (but Sinead isn't the reason I picked to be that close ). The uncomfortable armrest-less row, yes, but for £7.50, what a steal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2018 19:40:59 GMT
What a pointless thing this is
Other than keeping a large cast in Work
It’s rubbish nd a waste of my precious time
Again
I didn’t know actors are THIS desperate for work
Shame
Actors I would add
Who need Mikes
For a play
😂😂😂
|
|