2,979 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 18, 2018 13:31:22 GMT
Great - thanks! I might be able to dash round the Klimt / Schiele exhibition before my train.
|
|
|
Post by raiseitup on Dec 19, 2018 11:10:06 GMT
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 19, 2018 11:31:30 GMT
Usual perceptive review from Lukowski in Time Out, especially on how the production works on its own terms, yet Billington remains all at sea in his prejudices again, wanting it to be on his terms instead.
Strangely, the ultra conservative Treneman and (maybe demob happy) Letts both appreciating it. Maybe they see the country and their role in its future looming like the fever dream fhat it has become.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 19, 2018 20:03:32 GMT
So since at least one review is describing this as gore fest just how bloody is it? Are these buckets much utilised? Can I pretend it's paint?
|
|
2,361 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 19, 2018 22:09:47 GMT
Usual perceptive review from Lukowski in Time Out, especially on how the production works on its own terms, yet Billington remains all at sea in his prejudices again, wanting it to be on his terms instead. Strangely, the ultra conservative Treneman and (maybe demob happy) Letts both appreciating it. Maybe they see the country and their role in its future looming like the fever dream fhat it has become. After his wild duck review, I've realised billington is a bit of a traditionalist dinosaur
|
|
888 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Dec 19, 2018 23:48:47 GMT
The gore is a red (forgive word choice) herring -- nothing here to shock your maiden aunt except the rather brilliant insights supplied by a really superb cast, with one glaring exception whom it would not be polite to name. SRB is wondrous.
|
|
1,037 posts
|
Post by jgblunners on Dec 20, 2018 0:04:09 GMT
I was there on Monday - my first Richard II and my first trip to the Almeida, and I was impressed on both counts. It’s a lovely little theatre and SRB (pretty much the only reason I booked) is sublime. He delivers Shakespeare unlike any other actor I’ve seen and it’s a privilege to watch. In fact, the whole cast were pretty damn good, despite clearly being directed to race through the script at a rate of knots. Having not seen the play before I can’t comment on whether the cuts were a good idea, but I didn’t struggle to follow the plot. My only comment would be that I wanted a bit more emotional heft - which may well come from giving us more time to watch Richard’s descent and loss of power. The stripped-back nature of the production was carried out effectively, and I do love it when actors have to get messy. A very enjoyable production, with SRB the obvious stand-out. Worth it just to see him, I’d say.
|
|
1,005 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 20, 2018 0:41:38 GMT
The gore is a red (forgive word choice) herring -- nothing here to shock your maiden aunt except the rather brilliant insights supplied by a really superb cast, with one glaring exception whom it would not be polite to name. SRB is wondrous. That cast member was hideous. How did she get the job when everyone else seemed to be doing "not acting"? Surely the memo got round in rehearsals?
|
|
1,005 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 20, 2018 0:43:14 GMT
So since at least one review is describing this as gore fest just how bloody is it? Are these buckets much utilised? Can I pretend it's paint? As I said in my review earlier, it's more I'm A Celebrity: the "blood" is just dyed water, the soil is soul, the water...water. It's weirdly as obvious as the production is. Makes for great production photos. But nothing to scare (or excite...)
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Dec 20, 2018 5:45:58 GMT
So since at least one review is describing this as gore fest just how bloody is it? Are these buckets much utilised? Can I pretend it's paint? the soil is soul That's crying out to be the title of something. A book about the psychology/spirituality of gardening?
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 20, 2018 10:34:08 GMT
Thank you nash16 and lonlad for gore feedback, less enthused to realise that I could in fact be accurately described as a maiden aunt though I tend to faint rather than have the vapours.
|
|
1,204 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Dec 20, 2018 10:40:58 GMT
I'll be there on January 1st. Looking forward to it
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Dec 20, 2018 11:02:11 GMT
Great review, Nash16 (just read it aloud to Mr Foxa), I'm, erm, looking forward to seeing this in January.
|
|
1,005 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 20, 2018 18:55:22 GMT
Great review, Nash16 (just read it aloud to Mr Foxa), I'm, erm, looking forward to seeing this in January. A lot of reviewers seem to have loved it, despite their reviews not reading particularly 4*, so my experience could be completely out of touch with others. Looking forward to Team Foxa's feedback though.
|
|
2,979 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 24, 2018 0:56:18 GMT
Billington remains all at sea in his prejudices again I actually agree with him on this one.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 24, 2018 1:56:52 GMT
Billington remains all at sea in his prejudices again I actually agree with him on this one. A more interesting reviewer starts from a position of looking at what the production is doing, Billington, as time has gone on, starts from a position of what he thinks it should be doing instead. This is especially the case with plays where he wants a particular political slant to be highlighted. In comparison, Lukowski's review was an example of someone thinking about what the director was aiming for.
They could have put across completely opposite opinions and I would still find the way that Billington reviews far less interesting. It's the style, not the opinion.
|
|
2,979 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 24, 2018 10:35:59 GMT
thinking about what the director was aiming for. I get what the director was aiming for, but if Bolingbroke was supposed to be Theresa May it didn't work. She did have a degree of gravitas a couple of years ago: the character here was absurd from the start and power-wise the production felt top-heavy.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 24, 2018 11:01:08 GMT
thinking about what the director was aiming for. I get what the director was aiming for, but if Bolingbroke was supposed to be Theresa May it didn't work. She did have a degree of gravitas a couple of years ago: the character here was absurd from the start and power-wise the production felt top-heavy. Which suggests that such a personification isn’t his intent. It’s common to think that a director is responding to events of the last few months but the likelihood is that the idea came long before and that there is a much less specific analogy imagined. The recent rise of expressionistic rethinkings of plays leads to any central character being elevated with others seen through that characters eyes so realism in terms of character and relationships would not remain the aim.
|
|
2,979 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 24, 2018 11:49:48 GMT
Which suggests that such a personification isn’t his intent. I didn't go to it with anything in mind and deliberately avoided reviews. I thought the power dynamics didn't work with the way it was cast, and when I came home read the reviews. Positive reviewers saw it as a Brexit/Tory infighting analogy. If so, for me it didn't fit. But I can't work out why they cast such a slight, grey figure as Bolingbroke if that wasn't the reading: he didn't feel like a character who would reach out to the public, or who the public would flock to or a convincing counterweight to SRB's RII. Stylistically it reminded me of Hytner's Edward II at the Royal Exchange but I didn't get the same sense of loss and humanity from this production as a whole that I got there. Btw, the noisy American teenager kicking our seats, talking and unzipping various pockets through the big speeches didn't help.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Dec 29, 2018 22:35:30 GMT
Which suggests that such a personification isn’t his intent. Btw, the noisy American teenager kicking our seats, talking and unzipping various pockets through the big speeches didn't help. The ushers should've tasered them, at the very least.
|
|
2,979 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 30, 2018 0:07:37 GMT
The ushers should've tasered them, at the very least. I turned around and tried the 'hard stare' several times but she was sprawled across her parents and not caring. I was planning to say something afterwards but, having given no indication during, she declared when it was all over that she really enjoyed it and I didn't want to put her off theatre - just hope I'm not sitting near her next time.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jan 1, 2019 17:32:28 GMT
I struggled with this. I didn't understand who anyone was or what happening until halfway through. SRB and Leo Bill were engaging because they could focus on their characters but I don't think either was well cast but I was not getting any contemporary references/inspiration.
There was a real lack of characterisation. It reminded me of the recent Watership Down. I agree that there was some overacting from one of the actresses but she was the only one who tried to give her various characters personality and different voices (though I noticed SRB seemed to aim the bucket of water right at her though)
Also I found the use of fluids and dirt really unnecessary. You have this non existent set because everyone is imprisoned yet insist on soil, water and fake blood. Either you are embrace the symbollocks or you don't. It just heightened my anxiety about slipping and going flying into the audienxe.
To conclude I am not paying to see Shakespeare in 2019. I just don't care anymore.
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 1, 2019 20:44:10 GMT
Well, congratulations to the Almeida for putting someone off Shakespeare. What an achievement.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2019 21:12:32 GMT
Oh please, they're hardly the first theatre to do it and they won't be the last, and at least Shakespeare isn't their sole bread and butter.
|
|
1,005 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jan 1, 2019 21:51:25 GMT
I struggled with this. I didn't understand who anyone was or what happening until halfway through. SRB and Leo Bill were engaging because they could focus on their characters but I don't think either was well cast but I was not getting any contemporary references/inspiration. There was a real lack of characterisation. It reminded me of the recent Watership Down. I agree that there was some overacting from one of the actresses but she was the only one who tried to give her various characters personality and different voices (though I noticed SRB seemed to aim the bucket of water right at her though) Also I found the use of fluids and dirt really unnecessary. You have this non existent set because everyone is imprisoned yet insist on soil, water and fake blood. Either you are embrace the symbollocks or you don't. It just heightened my anxiety about slipping and going flying into the audienxe. To conclude I am not paying to see Shakespeare in 2019. I just don't care anymore. I agree with a lot of what you've written here, and it chimes almost exactly with the thougths I put further up after seeing a preview. A shame to see they didn't amend any of the faults. But when they cut something that much, it really does remove all sense and all emotion/possibility for audience connection. I would say don't let this (or rather allow this) to put you off Shakespeare in 2019. Don't let this production have that victory. It's a terribly misguided, and badly abridged version of what Bill would have intended anyone to see. And I know that's a dangerous thing to say: what Shakespeare would have wanted. But I really don't think he would have liked his well crafted play cut to ribbons like this. Maybe wait for reviews (and runnin lengths!) before booking, but don't let this years forthcoming productions lose you as an audience member. The best Shakespeare production of 2019 is still (very much!) out there.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jan 1, 2019 22:07:32 GMT
To be fair my experience of Shakespeare in 2018 was pretty grim. I have seen some excellent productions/adaptations (like the Mexican Macbeth in 2017) but I am getting tired of spending my money/time/both and coming out of it feeling foolish because a director has decided to make a production vague and unclear. I don't blame William at all but there is an inherent, middle class smugness to Shakespeare which just alienates me. Maybe I am stupid and foolish but you only have to humour me for a few hours that I am not.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jan 1, 2019 22:50:55 GMT
Some years ago, I heard a well-known actor suggest, not entirely as a joke, that there should be a five year moratorium on performing Shakespeare. She had several reasons: that it was blocking the stage from other writers, new and old; that directors had run out of anything new or relevant to do with his work; that the distribution of roles worked against actresses and that it risked turning people off the theatre. She wasn't saying get rid of him altogether, but after a break maybe everyone would return to the work refreshed.
And I see her point and also don't see it. As long as it remains on the school curriculum then there have to be productions or else students will think Shakespeare is something just to be read and as long as interesting/famous/box office draw actors want to perform his plays, then there is a financial reason for doing so. But I am resolved to be pickier about what I choose to see. This year, I'm very glad I caught the musical adaptation of Twelfth Night at the Young Vic, but could easily have missed Measure for Measure at the Donmar or Macbeth at the NT - and rather wish I had done. And am feeling a bit grim that I booked for this (and I don't know why I did - I saw the Redmayne version - that was fine, but did I need to see this one?)
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 1, 2019 23:09:30 GMT
For me Shakespeare and SRB is a match made in heaven so of course I booked immediately and for friends too! Then I suggested other friends book and join us. Now I’m gonna have to spend the evening apologising! It is ok for me. I’ve seen more RIIs than you've had hot dinners but for people who haven’t then I do think the directors need to think a bit more. Shakespeare is so good and has lasted so long for a reason. His plays continue to be 'relevant' without too much mucking about. But I haven’t seen this one yet so I may eat my proverbial hat.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jan 2, 2019 1:24:39 GMT
I don't blame William at all but there is an inherent, middle class smugness to Shakespeare which just alienates me. Maybe I am stupid and foolish but you only have to humour me for a few hours that I am not. On the contrary, I find Shakespeare to be pretty much classless, especially in contemporary productions that go against the ‘traditional way’. Someone like David Hare is what registers as smugly middle class to me, or yet another dull by the numbers retread of a classic from ‘the canon’* by a director who thinks that just plonking the text onstage is enough. *A phrase that annoys me intensely, as though there is a fixed agreement on quality. We change, society changes, what works changes; it is never fixed, always in flux. Some years ago, I heard a well-known actor suggest, not entirely as a joke, that there should be a five year moratorium on performing Shakespeare. She had several reasons: [snip] that the distribution of roles worked against actresses [snip] Haven’t recent developments in casting shown that to be a specious argument?
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jan 3, 2019 12:37:36 GMT
It's very interesting reading all the above. In a way it underlines for me why it's so good that Shakespeare/William/Bill/Shakes/Shakey etc is always being performed. I like that it's so adaptable, you can get such wildly differing productions and opinions of them. Because I accept that any theatre trip runs the risk of ending up seeing a load of b*ll*cks, it's also understood it's exactly the same for any Shakespeare production. When I think of all my Shakespeare shows to date, I feel it adds a kind of value that I've seen so many good, bad and indifferent versions of the same plays. It provides a nice frame of reference.
I love that among all the various above opinions about this RII production, one is that it reminds them of the recent Watership Down and has made them not want to see any Shakespeare for a year. You see, for me, that's what theatre is all about! (I realise how facetious that sounds but I'm being serious).
I'm all for productions going full-on minimalist (or should that be full-off?) and seeing what happens. Wasn't Rylance's final Globe production as director a Tempest with only him and two other cast and a length of rope? I love that kind of stuff. Indeed, I challenge any director to try for one or maybe even no cast, no set, no props, but still make it into theatre. Maybe even no stage, no space, nothing. Or maybe it's already been done but no-one realised it was there?
Personally I don't think any RII can top the RSC one I saw in 2008 with a jaw-dropping lead performance by Jonathan Slinger that remains among the top 3 I've ever seen. But I love the play, it's probably my favourite Shakespeare, so will carry on seeing it in the happy knowledge it won't ever be as good as that one, which this Almeida one obviously wasn't by a long way. But it was interesting to see their take on it.
|
|