1,204 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Jan 3, 2019 12:41:56 GMT
I thought this was enjoyable enough and Simon Russell Beale was very good. Still my favorite production of Richard II was the Donmar one with Eddie Redmayne
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jan 3, 2019 12:48:39 GMT
I thought this was enjoyable enough and Simon Russell Beale was very good. Still my favorite production of Richard II was the Donmar one with Eddie Redmayne Yes that Donmar one was good. I loved the Globe one, around 2002/2003 in Middle Temple Hall, with MR as Richard, then that one got bumped by the RSC one I mentioned.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jan 3, 2019 15:25:27 GMT
Please note I am not paying to see Shakespeare, which means I expect you all to pay for me or at least invite me to your all-nude production of Two Gentlemen of Verona or something.
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 3, 2019 20:35:34 GMT
Please note I am not paying to see Shakespeare, which means I expect you all to pay for me or at least invite me to your all-nude production of Two Gentlemen of Verona or something. Well, there is a production of Twelfth Night at Southwark theatre that might tempt you. I won’t pay for your tic but I will buy you a drink if you turn up on 2nd Feb and find me. Small venue so you should be able to spot me!
|
|
2,548 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jan 5, 2019 10:19:31 GMT
Well I thought this was just ok last night. I’d read the synopsis beforehand to remind myself of the plot (I’ve seen R2 before but not for a while) and it required quite a bit of concentration to work out where the doubling was going on (oh I see, he’s no longer Gaunt). If I’d rolled up in my usual Friday night pre theatre state I’d have been quite lost.
Glad I saw it, glad it’s not the only R2 I’ve seen.
BTW a suspect the latex warning relates to the set. I was in the front row and on curtain up, it smelt like some specialist clubs in Berlin, so I think the walls are rubber (for easy wipe down). The blood had a lovely sweet smell, much nicer than tomato-based blood.
|
|
1,021 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jan 5, 2019 11:17:09 GMT
Similarly I wasn't swept away but had fun with Si as always. The post show cast discussion was a tedious thing to sit through as audience members tried to outdo each other with their analysis of the production instead of asking an actual question, wish I'd left after the bows.
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Jan 5, 2019 15:35:20 GMT
I thought the post-performance Q&A was interesting... especially when the cast said the director basically told them to not differentiate their doubled characters. Apparently, the 'through line' was to be emphasized, not the individual.
|
|
3,111 posts
|
Post by david on Jan 5, 2019 18:29:24 GMT
Having watched today’s matinee, unfortunately despite SRB’s performance (a chance to see him perform Shakespeare which was the main reason for booking) this production really did leave me a bit underwhelmed. Certainly this production really does require you to stay focused the entire time as it’s done at breakneck speed and at times I found myself a bit lost as to which characters the different cast members were playing as there wasn’t any differentiation in the actors portrayal of the characters. This seems to have been an issue for other patrons who I was talking to post show who found the production as a whole really confusing and some who actually nodded off during the show.
The use of the buckets with the different substances being chucked around to symbolise things did become less interesting as time progressed. While I applaud the production for creating something different in presenting the text, this really didn’t do anything for me. As others have noted and which I agree with, it was definitely something you would see from Celeb Jungle.
The glove fight scene mid show, whether it is was intended to be as funny as it was presented is something I would like to know. It felt more like a scene from a comedy rather than a serious play. For me it just felt out of place in the context of the entire piece.
Having deliberately stayed off the reviews of the piece so I went in with no preconceptions, I had a read of them post show and the similarities mentioned in some of the pieces with the current political climate I find hard to marry up. Whether this is due to the truncated text I don’t know. Maybe seeing the full text performed in another setting would help resolve this. Certainly, I wouldn’t give this production 4* stars as some reviews have done. At best maybe 3* on a good day.
As an aside, I did a tour of the theatre this morning and we managed to get onto the cube set. It really is a bit claustrophobic in there but certainly gave you an interesting perspective from what the cast see during the play.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2019 18:59:00 GMT
I've yet to see this production, but I would like to clarify that there is a scene in the text involving a lot of men challenging each other's honour using the time-honoured method of hurling a glove to the floor and it is fast and ridiculous and has been met with laughter in every production I've seen so far.
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 6, 2019 19:00:18 GMT
My heart sinks further...
|
|
1,005 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jan 6, 2019 23:49:01 GMT
I thought the post-performance Q&A was interesting... especially when the cast said the director basically told them to not differentiate their doubled characters. Apparently, the 'through line' was to be emphasized, not the individual. What a stupid note to give a company of actors doing a play with multiple characters in?! No wonder it's baffling for newcomers to it.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 6, 2019 23:57:50 GMT
My reaction to something like the 'through line' idea is that if it needed to be explained by the cast to the audience then the idea was fundamentally flawed from the very outset.
If audiences need it to be explained to them afterwards then you have failed to communicate what you were aiming at as a director. You can't blame the cast for things like this.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jan 7, 2019 1:07:42 GMT
It’s perfectly understandable, unless someone is spending time trying to measure what they expect against what they see. Just go with the flow and meet the production on its own terms. There is a clarity of intent in the direction and execution by the actors that makes the production’s focus clear.
I thought the director’s Young Vic Dream was the least of his productions, quite simplistic and skimmimg too much over the surface. This, however, had a depth and point of view that was a vast improvement on that - up there with his Changeling and Measure for Measure at the same venue. I also found his Edward II to be flat at the National but he’s by no means the first to struggle with the Olivier.
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Jan 10, 2019 23:06:32 GMT
After taking a few minutes to acclimatise, I really enjoyed this. Peak SRB definitely, he broke me with two words: "need friends". It really needs a familiarity with the play to get the most out of this production, which is not really a commendation. Very marmite reaction, people next to me loved it but someone behind apologising to companions for it being so disappointing. Odd articles in the programme. Surely the bit with all the gloves was meant to comic and to show the difficulty Bolingbroke had in exerting control or making a decision even though he now had power. Finally, I worry how this is going to come over on the big screen next week, SRB especially. We are all used to, and love, his campness and mannerisms but it is going to look very overdone in close up. There should be an instruction to just listen to the way he speaks the text - unparalleled.
|
|
1,318 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Jan 12, 2019 18:13:49 GMT
I was feeling very grumpy about this to begin with but ultimately SRB's terrific performance won me over and I'm glad I went. Thank God I knew the plot and had seen other more conventional productions, otherwise I wouldn't have had a clue what was going on. I just found the production downright silly, and worse, alienating. But SRB was just superb; in fact he impressed me more in this than all the other many Shakespeare roles I've seen him do.
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 12, 2019 22:36:24 GMT
I too wondered this evening if people who don’t know the play could work out what the hell was going on in the first ten minutes. After that you are in it or agin it anyway. The friends I took with didn’t know the play and I don’t think they knew the backstory to the challenge at the beginning. But hey ho, you roll with the punches. I actually enjoyed this more than I was expecting to. It was a challenge but in a good way. It made you listen to the words ( some of the early speeches taken too fast ) and my o my can SRB deliver on those. The gain was all his experience and understanding of the role and also I loved Gaunt and Northumberland for that. In fact they all raised their game to come close to the Master I thought. But what a play! Despite the stylisation, if that is the right word, the actors just couldn’t help acting naturistically as they play went on. The stand off between Richard and Bolly was stupendous. Bolly's lack of narural grace interesting, asking the question of what is needed to be a king. All part of the ongoing question through the Henry IVs. Soil, blood, buckets, all drown from the text, especially soil. A bit out there but you could see what was intended. If we are to engage the next generation in Shakespeare and his relevance to today, this kind of pared down, intense production might be the way forward.
Saw SRB on the way out, in his woolly hat, so unprepossessing, the mega star that he is. Wished him Happy Birthday. He is 58.
|
|
3,113 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 15, 2019 20:57:59 GMT
On the plus side, it's wonderful that the Almeida has embraced NT Live at last.
On the other, I thought this was appalling. Ugly to look at, shouty, incomprehensible. SRB excellent as per, but of all the productions the Almeida could have chosen to broadcast, why they chose this is a feckin' mystery.
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 15, 2019 21:49:08 GMT
Quite a baffled audience in my local audience tonight, if the post- broadcast muttering was anything to go by.
LSDSRB excellent as always, though.
|
|
3,113 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 15, 2019 22:21:03 GMT
Same where I saw it. Muted wasn't the word and a few walk-outs.
|
|
1,849 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jan 19, 2019 11:04:05 GMT
An excellent production, it raced along and with the doubling up without costume changes you really needed to be on top of your game and knowing the play beforehand definitely a plus.
A deluded leader making a rash decision, an upstart usurper promoted to a role, insecurity and indecision leading to a revolt of the ruling class and the descent to years of infighting and in the long term leading to a loss of influence in Europe. Amazing to think this was written 400 years ago and still so prescient.
Initially thought Bollingbroke was wet, which as the play developed it supported his progress to King, the surprise as his initial aim of getting back his land and titles leads to being a reluctant King and once there his inability to rule, the use of gloves to show the dissent of his subjects was inspired and the ridiculousness would not have been out of place if we had given gloves to our MP’s in Parliament last week.
To top it all we have the conjunctionof SRB and the language of Shakespeare, truly a match made in heaven, was sat in the front row and it was a privilege to see a master of his craft on top form, the nuances and slight gestures were a delight to observe.
Would love someone to take this text, with a larger cast or costume changes in a less austere set it would make a great introduction to the wonderful world of Shakespeare.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 15:12:45 GMT
@neilvhughes this is an invaluable distillation. I was thinking of not going next week, but reading your post makes me feel prepared. I’ve even copied it and sent it to my husband!
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 19, 2019 15:41:06 GMT
Neil, a larger cast, costumes and less austere set is exactly what this needs. Same for most Shakespeare! I didn’t honestly get the 'Europe' analogy. I can’t make a comparison with today however hard I try. Agree, SRB a joy.
|
|
3,113 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 19, 2019 16:26:54 GMT
I much preferred the RSC version with David Tennant.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jan 19, 2019 19:40:48 GMT
Y'know, I think I'm just not that keen on these bloomin' history plays. I saw the Eddie Redmayne version which I rather enjoyed for his beauty and the set and lighting, but overall, I just don't get them. Perhaps because I don't really know the history very well (both history and geography were taught in my school in a haphazard, whatever caught the teacher's fancy way, no facts or dates or complex ideas for us, but lots of debating and odd videos), maybe because the themes and characters are alien to me; maybe because everyone has to do something NEW with them. There are bits I like (I remember seeing a streamed version of Mark Rylance doing some great stuff with the crown) but, in the end, I may have to accept defeat.
Mr Foxa, on the other hand, who hates most things, is a history buff and enjoys them. Rather.
I have time for Joe Hill-Gibbons who directed the best Glass Menagerie I've ever seen, but this was a very ugly production. I sort of got that people would huddle in groups and change alliances and wear grey a lot. And use buckets. I liked Saskia Reeves.
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 21, 2019 21:27:21 GMT
foxa, this production is enough to make anyone wonder what all the fuss is about. It needed a three hour seminar to explain the director's choices. And then some. I did think you would have to know the play v well to 'get' it. I’m not being patronising, I hope, as I find it annoying when I know you had to have 'majored' as they say in the US, in Eng Lit and history to enjoy a bloomin' play.
|
|
3,113 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 23, 2019 9:51:57 GMT
A week later and I'm still thinking about how much I viscerally loathed this. At least it provoked a reaction.
|
|
1,005 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jan 23, 2019 10:36:39 GMT
A week later and I'm still thinking about how much I viscerally loathed this. At least it provoked a reaction. It really was terrible, wasn't it? What a waste of talent.
|
|
3,113 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 23, 2019 10:39:28 GMT
A week later and I'm still thinking about how much I viscerally loathed this. At least it provoked a reaction. It really was terrible, wasn't it? What a waste of talent. Yes really bad. I hate theatre that makes you feel stupid. I'm no expert on Richard II and could have done with reading a recap of the synopsis before I went in but it was pretentious cr*p imho. Obviously others on here liked it a lot more than I did.
|
|
115 posts
|
Post by alexandra on Jan 25, 2019 13:55:28 GMT
Seems to be my week for liking things other people hate, but I thought this was really interesting. Loved the prison set - no way out from this world of chaos - and the gauge/glove scene, which far from being the usual comedic bit of nonsense showed how Bolingbroke was to inherit a land of dissent and argument and mess, where no-one could agree; how very different from the homelife of our own dear queen. Excellent supporting cast. Urgent and clever.
|
|
3,113 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 26, 2019 22:23:42 GMT
I promise I am not JL Richards from Wales (who makes some pretty dodgy comments on the casting):
|
|