5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 3, 2018 22:23:00 GMT
Yeah, the Porter's speech is all references to the Roman Catholic priests they were chasing all over the country after the Gunpowder Plot. Farmer was a pseudonym used by the so called ringleader and equivocation was what they accused them of when they tried to wriggle out of accusations of Popery etc. And of course it is what the Witches do, that is they don’t tell the whole truth to Macbeth and he realises this at the end. Both occasions I’ve seen Fleance appear at the end is was menacing as if the whole shebang is about to kick off again in the struggle for power. As King James I thought he was descended from Banquo, it makes sense.
Again, like the NT effort, no guns despite the modern context. I wonder why. You can have knives with the guns, nasty flick knives and stuff....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 8:25:51 GMT
The Macbeth that Eve Best directed at the Globe was quite funny in parts, and I know a lot of people didn't like it particularly, but for me that humour was what made it feel like a play about people, not just classic well-known characters.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 4, 2018 9:23:50 GMT
Thanks lynette, will def have to revisit that speech now and see if that helps me, I seem to have a very let it wash over you approach to Shakespeare, I merrily go but don't appear to really listen since when people quote reference bits I seem to have missed them entirely often, I guess I don't fully concentrate. Now why on earth had I assumed Fleance as a child appearing at the end wouldn't be threatening, why on earth would Malcolm want a rival that was not even his own his blood? Thanks has given me something to chew over, which is a great distraction from the current badly made porridge I have to chew over.
|
|
81 posts
|
Post by jasper on Apr 4, 2018 9:34:28 GMT
Since when was Macbeth funny apart from the Porter that is and we don’t understand the porter without a lecture on gunpowder plot and equivocation. Is that what the porter speech is about? I had no idea, but did watch some gunpowder/spy thing on bbc last year I guess so will try and apply that to the speech and see if something other than me wanting it to end happens. Fleance on at the end in a nod to Banquo's line kings here after lynette ? mmm not seen that one before but does make sense. That Gunpowder thing on the BBC was totally unhistorical, so do not use it as any historical background. Events were taken form Elizabeth 1 reign and assigned without comment to James 1. James was portrayed as an idiot when in fact recent historical revision shows him to have been a King of incredible political ability holding together the two kingdoms. Believe nothing of this drama as historical until you check the facts.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 4, 2018 10:02:32 GMT
Is that what the porter speech is about? I had no idea, but did watch some gunpowder/spy thing on bbc last year I guess so will try and apply that to the speech and see if something other than me wanting it to end happens. Fleance on at the end in a nod to Banquo's line kings here after lynette ? mmm not seen that one before but does make sense. That Gunpowder thing on the BBC was totally unhistorical, so do not use it as any historical background. Events were taken form Elizabeth 1 reign and assigned without comment to James 1. James was portrayed as an idiot when in fact recent historical revision shows him to have been a King of incredible political ability holding together the two kingdoms. Believe nothing of this drama as historical until you check the facts. I didn't mean the Kit Harrington thing if that is what you are referring to, it was a historian based more evidence laden programme which nicely explained equivocation.
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 4, 2018 10:44:45 GMT
Jasper, I didn’t know about a BBC gunpowder programme, didn’t see it. My comments are based on academic study of the text. My understanding is that Shakespeare wrote the play for James in the hope of receiving confirmation of royal support for the actors' company, which he did indeed receive. Hence the ridicule of the Roman Catholic plotters and the belief that Witches exist and are an evil force, with the suggestion therefore in the play that such evil is associated with Roman Catholicism. Personally I think Shakespeare was a genius in writing such a play that also has so much more in it for subsequent generations.
|
|
227 posts
|
Post by barelyathletic on Apr 4, 2018 14:51:18 GMT
Saw this on Saturday night (have yet to see the NT production). For what it's worth, and just to add to the discussion, I thought this was enjoyable. Done with vigour and pace but with little sense of the driving forces of the play.
Chris Ecclestone is bullishly believable as a soldier, and certainly charismatic and watchable on stage, but he appeared to be racing through the words rather than finding the essence of the man. Where was the ambition? The self-doubt? The lust for power and the growing awareness of his imminent downfall? Sadly, I saw very little of it. Niamh Cusack was more interesting, though her Lady Macbeth to me seemed more neurotic than a real force for evil. She did however work hard at making Lady M human, which is no mean feat.
While I did like the sense of a ruling class and power, and that the Macbeth's taking of it after Duncan's death was a natural step for them, Polly Findlay appears to have fallen into the trap that Macbeth is all about surface horror, and has definitely watched too many Hollywood horror films. I actually felt that many moments of genuine horror were missed, if not fudged entirely (the murders of Banquo and the Macduffs, the appearance of the ghost, the sleepwalking scene).
And Polly should surely know by now that throwing stage blood over actors for no real reason may seem visceral but, actually, it just makes them look somewhat hilarious, as it drips in their eyes and off the ends of their noses.
The creepy porter was definitely more interesting than usual, though his character made little sense; unless you go with the idea that he really is Satan in disguise? His scoring up of each death was a nice idea, though there were obviously not many deaths during the battle of Dunsinane, or perhaps he just couldn't keep up. The countdown was, I thought, interesting but distracting, as I kept watching the damn clock as the play raced to its end. The witches (straight out of The Shining etc) were an interesting misfire, pretty much summing up the style over substance ethos of the director and the production. Having said all that though I was certainly never bored, as it all flew by. Sadly though not the gripping psychological thriller I was hoping for.
Oh, and Edward Bennett, who I adored in Loves Labour's Lost and Much Ado, was just horribly miscast as a dull as ditch-water Macduff. Please, please drop the cardigan before it comes to the Barbican. It's the only real horror in this production.
|
|
108 posts
|
Post by bob2010 on Apr 11, 2018 17:01:56 GMT
Anyone planning on seeing the live cinema broadcast tonight?
|
|
1,014 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 11, 2018 21:34:32 GMT
Watching at the cinema in Stratford upon Avon.
I’ve long come to the conclusion that when given the chance Polly Findlay is full of ideas but struggles to execute them cohesively
The pre show interview implies how heavily she and the designer took cues from horror films. But this show doesn’t begin to feel tense or scary and is merely full of visual cues to the genre
We complain about the child witches here, but some of us can still remember the children in Michael Boyd’s production. It worked there because there was atmosphere and build up as those children were lowered from above with the nooses round their necks.
All Polly Findlay has to show is that she has watched the shining without beginning to make those kids creepy. And the pacing is at odds too. Macbeth’s first encounter with the witches comes so quickly (the moment the scene starts) that there’s no build up
The horror feels superficial. The few onstage deaths are taken off stage or done in a brief blackout (seriously?). I like the idea of the hundreds of murders committed under Macbeth’s rule implied by the porter but how about we see some of that, like Banquos murders or that random servant being silenced for his knowledge on Macduff
Eccleston delivers the lines without fully grasping the meaning. So easy Cusack faired better trying to humanise Lady Macbeth
What the hell happened to you Edward Bennett. Surely you haven’t been eating extra pork pies for this production. And his scene with Malcolm was overshadowed by the sound you get when a microphone is pressed against a cardigan!
Generally good acting from the supporting cast and good visuals. But this is a macbeth thats not going to linger in my mind
|
|
3,113 posts
|
Post by Rory on Apr 11, 2018 21:55:08 GMT
I saw it too and didn't care for it despite being a fan of both leads.
No sense of place or time. Duncan starts off in what looks like a grubby 70s motel room. Hated the set, water cooler and all.
Creepy children as the witches fine but the effect is ruined when they start lugging the furniture around.
Really wanted some good verse speaking but the supporting cast was uneven.
Borrowed from Icke's Oresteia staging but not a patch on his execution.
I had typed a much longer post which unfortunately disappeared for some reason and I'm too tired to retype it all!
|
|
108 posts
|
Post by bob2010 on Apr 11, 2018 21:55:42 GMT
I saw it again tonight, having seen it live a few weeks back. Thought Christopher Eccleston put on a worse performance than last time. He seemed to fluffed a number of lines and his delivery was rushed had no depth to it. Also the 'three sisters' at the beginning didn't work as it was difficult to overlook the fact they were just little kids especially since one had a bit of a lisp.
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Apr 12, 2018 17:40:28 GMT
I see that the RSC have decided to stick an interval in this production. Current running time is 135mins + interval This would be normal. No? I’ve never seen a Macbeth with no interval. Royal Exchange Manchester back in the 90s ran straight through. As it was set in a concentration camp it made it very intense - and claustrophobic in that space.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2018 18:39:15 GMT
I saw this last too. What a hot mess. I liked the scene with Macduff and Malcolm and thought it was clear and non gimmicky and they made sense and it sounded like Shakespeare.
The rest - urgh. I thought Eccleston was ok. I hated Cusack's flaily performance. I hated the giant projected words and I didn't like the clock. I didn't get the porter at all. The witches were ok but not anywhere near as creepy as they could have been. If there hadn't been that interview with Niamh Cusack about Lady M being haunted by her childlessness, I would not have picked up on it. I didn't feel much chemistry between the Macbeths, and no sense at all of plotting or scheming or any gradual descent into guilt or whatever.
I have no idea what they were trying to do. I remembered at the interval that Polly Findlay did that godawful Merchant of Venice that I hated. I don't think this was as bad as that, but it was close.
|
|
|
Post by learfan on May 5, 2018 16:39:55 GMT
Saw this today, ok thought the leads were fine, didn't recognise the earlier comments about him drying, think its called acting! Children as the witches were v good, rest of the cast middling. Going to the NT version next month.
|
|
360 posts
|
Post by lichtie on May 15, 2018 8:44:48 GMT
Finally got round to this as the middle part of my RSC weekend. I have to say I thought this was fine. Ecclestone has clearly settled down to the role compared to all the early criticisms I've read, they've trimmed out little bits as well I think. Cusack was good too. Didn't mind the clock (though they still were obviously playing for time in the fight at the end which kind of mucks that up) as I could see where they were trying to go with it when the porter does the reset as Fleance moves to stage front. Thought the girls as witches worked really well, including all the furniture shifting, as it makes clear they are essentially present throughout, and ties in with all the notions of predestination from the era (especially for a Scottish court as James' largely was). I saw the ever present porter actually in much the same way. There were bits that didn't work as well, the most blatant to me being that Edward Bennett and his jumper was a misfire, unless they were trying to show that MacDuff is useless...
|
|
456 posts
|
Post by mistressjojo on Jun 13, 2018 9:34:50 GMT
I saw this last night finally. Chris E was in fine form, no dries as far as I could tell and an odd stumble over a word which (to me at least) only added to the idea of the thoughts crowding into Macbeth's mind. I enjoyed his performance very much. Less so his queen. I found Cusack's Lady M less ambitious schemer and more like someone off Jeremy Kyle, all shouty and flapping arms. If we could somehow switch Lady M's with the NT version I think it would help both productions. The child witches were suitably creepy, and I liked the idea of them orchestrating the whole.
|
|
2,548 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jun 19, 2018 22:15:09 GMT
Saw this tonight and didn’t much enjoy it. Not going to rehash previous discussions but thought Chris E wasn’t great and Macduff a complete disaster. Tonight was an “integrated signed performance” which was the first one I’d been to. This means that the signer is onstage, interacting with actors and contributing to the action - “comic business” with the Porter, being dragged around stage by Lady M, that sort of thing. It was so well done that I did wonder if I’d missed that the show was always signed. In the post-show Q&A the signer revealed she’d only been in rehearsals today, although she’d worked with the DSM to plan some of the blocking etc beforehand. One audience member who understood BSL said the signer had done a fantastic job interpreting the poetry of Shakespeare into BSL. Niamh Cusack said in the Q&A that tonight had been a remarkable night because the audience response had been amazing which she put down to the signer’s energy and participation. I thought the signer was probably the best thing in this... One other thing revealed in the Q&A which puts an interesting light on some of the comments previously... The clock is not precisely real-time. It is under the control of the DSM who can (within reason) speed it up or slow it down depending on how the show is running. For example, the interval always takes the same amount of time “on the clock” regardless of how long the audience takes to get in and out. Like others, it seemed to me that the final fight was extended to fill the time available, but given this info I guess it’s supposed to take that long...
|
|
3,113 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jun 19, 2018 22:30:40 GMT
This run seems to be going on for an eternity! The cinema relay feels like a lifetime ago.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2018 22:12:20 GMT
Saw this tonight. I’d been a bit tepid going in because I had a vague memory of it not being warmly received on here.
Loved it. Totally loved it. Theatre was packed with school groups who also loved it.
Ecclestone must have been rehearsing. Not a flub to be heard. He was taut and muscular. Found the rhythm in the verse. I was in the third row and I could not take my eyes off him.
I had less time for Niamh Cusak. She started too high and left herself nowhere to go. Shrill, and flaily as others have said. Nice dresses though.
Expected to hate the children but they were very creepy and I agree they punch home the childlessness of the Macbeths.
Clock was spot on tonight with the final slash exactly en pointe. I gasped. Takes a lot to build tension when you all know what’s going to happen.
I might go again. This is straight up and by the book. Loved it.
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Oct 19, 2018 6:06:59 GMT
Saw this tonight. I’d been a bit tepid going in because I had a vague memory of it not being warmly received on here. Loved it. Totally loved it. Theatre was packed with school groups who also loved it. Ecclestone must have been rehearsing. Not a flub to be heard. He was taut and muscular. Found the rhythm in the verse. I was in the third row and I could not take my eyes off him. I had less time for Niamh Cusak. She started too high and left herself nowhere to go. Shrill, and flaily as others have said. Nice dresses though. Expected to hate the children but they were very creepy and I agree they punch home the childlessness of the Macbeths. Clock was spot on tonight with the final slash exactly en pointe. I gasped. Takes a lot to build tension when you all know what’s going to happen. I might go again. This is straight up and by the book. Loved it. Glad you and the school party liked it. Frankly i took the earlier comments about Eccleston with a ladle of salt, its called acting!
|
|
4,695 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Oct 19, 2018 6:53:09 GMT
This run seems to be going on for an eternity! The cinema relay feels like a lifetime ago. The hopeless NT production is even worse though, that's limping around the country till the end of March - I see it's been totally re-cast for the tour though. TodayTix are doing Rush tickets for the RSC one at the Barbican which are good value.
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Oct 21, 2018 19:32:14 GMT
I enjoyed this a great deal. Presented in a urgent thriller like way. Yes, lots of dry ice and loud dramatic noises, but it worked. Christopher Ecclestone was very good but there is very little chemistry with Lady Macbeth. Niamh Cusack fine - but again, little development shown. Porter done well, witches as girls aka from “The Shining” quite disturbing.
Thank you to the posters who tipped me off on the front row £10 seats on the first day of booking, low-ish stage and brilliant view.
8/10. Bravo to Polly Finlay. Rufus Norris hang your head in shame or embarrassment at least.
Ps I think I must have managed to block out the NT Macbeth sufficiently as I couldn’t even remember that Anne Marie-Duff (one of my favourite actors) was in that production, and could only recall the terrible dancing, Geordie Porter, bin bags and cardboard box!
|
|
3,080 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr Tom on Oct 23, 2018 22:26:57 GMT
My evening viewing tonight, which also happened to be Press Night.
Was worried by a school party on arrival but they turned out to be well behaved.
Got a good late offer and ended up in Row G Stalls, towards the side. Excellent view. I wouldn’t have wanted to be further back as sound wasn’t always great (and terrible in the sequences from the booth above the stage).
Christopher Eccleston did great. No line fluffs that I spotted. Played it a lot how he did Doctor Who.
I struggled with Edward Bennett as Macduff. Softly spoken and difficult to hear.
One of the young girls playing the three witches was also a bit out of step (or possibly distracted looking for someone in the audience).
The clock was a major distraction. Hit the interval with about 1:20:30 left. At some point in the interval it was reset, so by the end it had 38:00 left (the interval was the usual 20 minutes). Twice I noticed the clock suddenly add an extra minute or so (including in the final five minutes when it was really obvious). And in the final two minutes or slowed to about one quarter time for a while.
They did hit the finish to the second although rather ruined by the obvious clock changes).
Polite applause at the end. I’m not a major fan of these modern versions, but at least they didn’t add gunshots.
I think this one may struggle a bit, but let’s see what the reviews say.
|
|
376 posts
|
Post by sherriebythesea on Oct 27, 2018 22:04:16 GMT
I knew it was probably a bad idea to book this after a red eye flight from the States but thought I could handle it, Nope. I kept nodding off and pinching myself to stay awake. I ended up leaving at interval. I was disappointed at what I did see, especially Lady Macbeth. Just rushing around without conveying that you actually had some intellegent thought behind it just didn’t work
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 27, 2018 23:30:20 GMT
I knew it was probably a bad idea to book this after a red eye flight from the States but thought I could handle it, Nope. I kept nodding off and pinching myself to stay awake. I ended up leaving at interval. I was disappointed at what I did see, especially Lady Macbeth. Just rushing around without conveying that you actually had some intellegent thought behind it just didn’t work You did well to leave and get an early night. What's next ?
|
|
4,695 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Nov 13, 2018 6:52:09 GMT
I thought this was good, best RSC Shakespeare I've seen for ages (not a high bar admittedly). Not as good as the Polly Findlay/Eccleston "Antigone" at NT but many of the same strengths from both of them.
Having just now read Billington’s review of the original Stratford production it is interesting that several things he complained about have now been removed from the production - no text from the play is now projected (only one-word stage directions like GLAMIS and LATER) and there is no interaction with the audience at all.
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Nov 13, 2018 8:27:13 GMT
Blimey, high praise for you!
|
|
4,695 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Nov 13, 2018 8:41:38 GMT
Blimey, high praise for you! When it comes to the RSC I've lowered my expectations. The last thing from them I saw which was better was the Much Ado/Love's Labours pairing that I saw in 2016 also with Edward Bennett (who seems to have put on some timber since then).
|
|
578 posts
|
Post by lou105 on Nov 21, 2018 19:01:06 GMT
Tomorrow's matinee cancelled due to "an unforeseen engineering issue". Automatic refunds if paid by card, others need to email tickets@barbican.org.uk
(Also tonight's R and J)
|
|
4,695 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Nov 21, 2018 19:27:45 GMT
Tomorrow's matinee cancelled due to "an unforeseen engineering issue". Automatic refunds if paid by card, others need to email tickets@barbican.org.uk (Also tonight's R and J) Yes. Just been turned away from R&J, no details provided.
|
|