562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 26, 2017 9:06:47 GMT
To anyone thinking of going and checking the reviews, I'd strongly suggest skipping the Daily Mail one. Quite aside from matters of taste (although IMO he seems to have missed the point of the play), the review gives away (indeed focuses on) what amounts to a signficant plot point. For what it's worth the other poor review so far (Evening Standard 2*) also gives away this plot point.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 25, 2017 23:45:33 GMT
Just got home from tonight's performance. While it was uneven and didn't quite live up to my expectations, all in all I enjoyed the play and am glad I went. For my eye, the first half -which seemed to meander plotless through a series of little vignettes, each slowly revealing a bit more of the interrelationships and histories of the different characters- was absolutely beautiful. So many wonderful mini scenes, with naturalistic dialogue (even the teen text chat felt surprisingly real), and brilliant acting. One scene in particular, which lets Olivia Colman shine was simply magnificent, and really illustrates the damage that people like Andrew Wakefield have done . The second half has more of a straight forward plot and, for me, is less enjoyable for it. Not least because some of the plot points ring false. However, after one 'where is this going?' monologue, I really loved the somewhat ambiguous ending. All in all, this was an interesting failure for me. It may not quite have met up to the high expectations I had going in, but it was well worth the three hours. I'm probably biased, since I'm a researcher in a technical field, but for my money the topic of the play -scientific communication in the modern day- is just about the most important current issue around. By putting this in context of strained family dynamics, I this is thought-provoking without being dull.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 25, 2017 13:37:30 GMT
Thanks for the info Hmmm. Seats seem good, and £12.50 is an absolute bargain. On the other hand, in all honesty a main draw for me would be a chance to see a master like Jeremy Irons on stage, and the reviews from Bristol seem to suggest that he wasn't on form and forgetting lines (and, oddly, said that he would only transfer to National or to New York) so perhaps it might be a disappointment.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 25, 2017 12:52:33 GMT
Monkey nests are £12.50 Apologies for a stupid question, but what's meant by 'monkey nests'? Do you just mean high/balcony seats generally, or are you talking about specific locations?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 21, 2017 15:16:28 GMT
One of the arguments against the female Doctor was to question why they don't just create new major female roles - perhaps a fair point on TV where new series and characters come through all the the time but more of an issue in theatre where the classics continue to dominate. Given that the role is explicitly one that changes appearance, I'm not sure why the Doctor's gender (or the appearance of human gender anyway) needs to be tied down any more than their height, speech or hair colour. Talking of hair colour, I kinda feel that in a few years this will be looked back on like James Bond: Daniel Craig is announced, and some tabloids proclaim that James Bond couldn't possibly be blonde -as though hair colour was James Bond's defining feature- and a few years on, Craig is the best bond since Connery and fingers crossed he does one more...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 21, 2017 14:45:59 GMT
Fair point, apologies for my flippancy. I do think it's a hefty part of it though. There has historically been a strong sense in the arts (theatre, literature, TV, cinema, etc) that "straight white man" is the "default", and if I may lift an example from this week's papers, people have always been fairly calm when yet another straight white man is cast as the lead in Doctor Who, but apparently one woman in the role after a run of twelve(ish) men spanning more than 50 years is a valid reason to flip lids across the globe. For some people - not necessarily people here but certainly plenty of 'em - casting a woman in a traditionally male role is not seen as giving a role to a woman, it is seen as taking a role away from a man. As a woman myself, I am always delighted when someone decides to subvert things in an effort to redress the balance - women outnumber men on a global scale, but you wouldn't think it looking at the average cast list! - and as someone who's seen more than a dozen different unique productions of King Lear in less than a decade, I am STRONGLY IN FAVOUR of any sort of reinterpretation. Of any Shakespeare, in fact. The joy of theatre is that it is a non-realistic medium where we can try new things, knowing that nothing is set in stone, knowing that the next production is round the corner, knowing that we may fail but the joy is in trying, and if that includes seeing how Kent works as a woman this year, then why the H-E-double-hockey-sticks NOT. Apologies for coming across overly 'debate-club teachery', I'm still new here and forget that things like this are probably issues that have been discussed on the board at length over and over through the years. Regarding Doctor Who however, while I'm all for having greater diversity in acting, the idea that a shape-shifting immortal alien in a time-travel fantasy show might be played by a woman is just crazy. How is that even remotely believable!? (edit: I realise that tone & intent don't always come across well on messageboards, so for the avoidance of any doubt, I was kidding in the sentence about Doctor Who; I know he's regenerating, not just shape-shifting)
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 21, 2017 14:23:48 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat? *cough*sexism*ahem* While I'm sure that sexism is a part of it, perhaps even a major part, I'm not sure it's all that useful a response. I know that messageboards lean towards short witty responses with concrete black/white views, but FWIW I think there's a risk with treating relatively complex and serious topics in this way. Partly because the word has such a wide ranging meaning, but also because it sort of makes everyone defensive. I would think that many people who might feel intrinsically opposed to gender blind casting wouldn't consider themselves sexist, but starting a discussion with that basically makes the line very clear.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 21, 2017 13:59:50 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat?
What I mean is that while it's true that changing character genders alters the plays dynamics and the way that audiences connect to & interpret the story, the same is true of pretty much every aspect of casting (and indeed most artistic decisions; location and setting for instance).
After all, a 13 year old Juliet falling in love with a 16 year old Romeo would play differently to the same play with young adults. Similarly, changes in actors' races or nationalities might mean the audience react to the play differently, and even superficial stuff like their appearance and accents would. If we felt that the actor playing Romeo was very good looking and Juliet was ugly or vice versa then that would alter, even subconsciously, how we feel about the love at first sight-iness.
The connection with the audience also changes in ways completely out of the creators' control. The way a film with a mixed race couple might have been daring decades ago but watching the same film these days wouldn't have the same impact, or how plays that happen to coincide with big news events might take on meaning that was never intended.
The thing is that, even if you remain true to the original intentions as written I'm not sure that the thing necessarily plays to the audience the same anyway, since we are watching the story through the lens of modern sensibilities and with a completely different framework. Even going to a relatively 'true' production at the Globe we won't really take in the play in the way that audiences did originally.
I'm not saying that the changes made don't matter, just that it seems strange that 'changing gender' is felt by some to be something that simply shouldn't be done, rather than something you would think about like any other casting choice (i.e. considering whether you like it on a case-by-case basis, based on the eventual actor, the role and the actual performance).
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 20, 2017 9:04:21 GMT
There is no artistic value and no talent Demonstrated Anywhere in this production The nudity proves this And grossly magnifies the shortcomings and deficiencies I get that you didn't like the play or the actors, but I'm afraid I don't really understand why having nudity in a play 'proves' that the production has no artistic value or talent? With that comment, your using a Daily Mail quote about how revealing an actresses' clothing was at a red carpet event as a way of implying a lack of artistic integrity, and the phrasing that "it seems as if she planned the nudity all along" I get the feeling that we just have very different views on the issue of nudity in theatre. That's fine, but I suppose that means there isn't really a common ground upon which to have a discussion.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 20, 2017 1:13:55 GMT
There's something unbelievably narcissistic in the way that you seem to equate your personal taste with an objective measure other people's intentions:
You don't like the actors, or decide that they're too old to show skin, and therefore they must simply be getting their kit off as a crutch to hide the lack of artistic merit. It couldn't be that your subjective view of whether or not this was necessary is separate from the actor and directors reasons for including it in the first place.?
Believe it or not, the intentions behind people's actions can't simply be determined based on whether we like what they do or not.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 19, 2017 20:26:34 GMT
Hi all...my family just planned a last minute trip to London over the holidays and I found out about Network a tad too late to snag tickets during the time we are there. I'm unfamiliar with UK practices (from the US) - are there any places that might re-sell tickets (like Stubhub) after the event has sold out? Thanks very much for any information. Each Friday at 1pm cheap tickets go on sale for every performance for the following week (including any 'sold out' ones). This is online, and a bit of a rush, but it shouldn't be too bad so long as you're online at 1pm on the dot: www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/fridayrush Network may well have more appeal than most of the recent shows that are on that scheme (Angels In America wasn't part of the Friday Rush tickets), but with a bit of luck (and if you have some flexiblity during the week) you shouldn't have a problem. One thing to bear in mind is that you can only book 2 Friday Rush tickets at a time, so if you're looking for more tickets you may need to book using two separate accounts. It's also worth keeping an eye out for returns. If it's anything like Angels In America (or any of the other shows) you should see a fair number of returns popping up over time, especially if you're not looking just for the cheapest tickets. As far as I know there's no specific pattern to returns tickets being put online, but if you check regularly during UK box office hours, you should see stuff popping up. The last option is day seats. How early you need to be there depends on the show, but Theatre Monkey usually has good info: www.theatremonkey.com/dayseatfinder.htmTo my knowledge second-hand web sales aren't 'allowed' under National Theatre ticket sales rules. You may see this happening a little, but if so it may well be at a fair markup. In the past I've bought 'resold' tickets for gigs, but not for theatre, so others here probably know about this more than me.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 19, 2017 16:52:05 GMT
This is disgraceful! Presumably, given the evidence of Nathan Lane and Bryan Cranston, he means high profile American star actors. Are there also some coming up in Follies? Why is the NT so obsessed with the USA? Why does it not have a strategy on the casting of British and UK-based actors? I'm unclear why this is a disgrace. It is a National Theatre, but imo it makes sense both financially and culturally to bring in talent from outside the UK as well as having homegrown talent. Given that the US is a major place in terms of acting and has English as the native language, it makes sense that talent would be brought over from there. Naturally, the fact that they will have public clout might be a bit part of it, but I'm not sure you can really compare Angels (where Andrew Garfield surely has more public star power than Nathan Lane) to Network, which seems like a vehicle for Bryan Cranston. I'm also not sure that the fact that they have explicitly mentioned having a strategy for improving relations with American actors necessarily means that no equivalent aims are in place for British actors. After all, 'strategy' could mean anything from a loose intention to a strict business model, and in any case surely it makes sense that you'd need more forethought/planning to bring in foreign actors (or directors/writers) than to do the same for homegrown talent.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 19, 2017 16:03:26 GMT
Unless it's a refugee service for American actors who want to sit out the Trump years in exile in London; bit like how we picked up some great German exiles in the 30s and Americans during the McCarthy years (inc Sam Wannamaker, I think?). Before the election Bryan Cranston was saying that he would emmigrate if Trump won. He's taken that back since then, but I can't imagine his choice of play and location is just a coincidence.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 19, 2017 12:19:23 GMT
I'm pretty sure you're quizzed about particle physics in order to get back in after the interval.
It's a cost-cutting measure implemented by the NT to reduce the need for clean up. Plus it reduces the stress for the actors since they don't need to worry too much about learning their lines for the second act, as so few people will pass and be able to see it.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 17, 2017 18:52:11 GMT
Really happy that the feedback is so positive for this so far.
I booked this on a whim back in December when it was first announced. I normally try to be a little careful before booking tickets, and I'm not a particularly big fan of Dylan's music so not quite sure what compelled me to book. I think I just saw the writer of the film 'I Went Down', and snapped up tickets in the haze of finishing a paper.
I was steeling myself for a bit of a dud, but am really looking forward to it now.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 15, 2017 11:06:08 GMT
It's strange.
My brain knows that those teaser videos are next-to-worthless. A few seconds of images largely irrelevant or too abstract and opaque to give an idea about the end result.
My heart on the other hand is thinking "Whoop whoop whoop. Can't wait!"
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 13, 2017 18:24:48 GMT
Went to see this recently. I know I'm really late here but I won't let that hold me back; gonna give my 2 cents even to any empty room.
I've not been to a Disney play like this before and am probably older than the target audience (saw the film with my parents in the cinema), but I really enjoyed it. It had something of a naff, panto feel in parts, but it was joyous, inventive, and fun. Plus some of the special effects were really incredible.
The crowd was mostly school kids, and at the start there seemed to be a near constant rustle of crisp packets. However, I think it's great that they seemed to really enjoy it so much; whooping at all the right moments, and booing Jafar when he came out to take his bow.
As populist and simple as it might be, I can't help but feel this is the perfect kind of show to get children excited about going to the theatre.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 13, 2017 11:22:00 GMT
Sorry to revive a dead thread, but does anyone know if the National ever do cheaper/sale tickets? I don't recall ever seeing that, but given they have several weeks still to go, and lots of tickets still showing online, I'm quietly hopeful for a big drop in price to get bums on seats. Not sure if I'm simply a glutten for punishment, but even the uniformly negative reviews haven't managed to entirely extinguish how much I love some of the production imagery that's out there for the show. You can go for £15 How much cheaper do you want? True. However, getting two tickets for me + other half, plus a drink at the interval and maybe a programme and it all adds up. An evening at the theatre usually means eating out too which doesn't help. Don't get me wrong, £15 is definitely a bargain for the theatre, but given that I'd be getting tickets knowing that it's very likely to be a dud, it's just a little more than I'm happy to most probably throw away. (although that's probably just me rationalising being a bit of a cheapskate).
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 13, 2017 10:58:29 GMT
Sorry to revive a dead thread, but does anyone know if the National ever do cheaper/sale tickets? I don't recall ever seeing that, but given they have several weeks still to go, and lots of tickets still showing online, I'm quietly hopeful for a big drop in price to get bums on seats.
Not sure if I'm simply a glutten for punishment, but even the uniformly negative reviews haven't managed to entirely extinguish how much I love some of the production imagery that's out there for the show.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 13, 2017 10:07:59 GMT
That would be Jerusalem, also by Jez Butterworth And those of you who saw it think this isn't as good, yet has been star rated as though it were. If Jerusalem comes out again, will they have to invent a 6 star rating? I think the 5 star consensus from the mainstream press is...odd. Like a shower of fish. I saw another play this week where I think the reputations of those involved coloured the glowing reviews, so I do think this is a 'thing'. I wonder if you're not simply over-thinking this crowblack ? Of course, the critics will partly be coloured by things outside of the actual production; they might be influenced by the opinion of their friends & colleagues, by the hype, by how they were feeling that day, by the play they saw the day before, and so on. They will also be influenced (subconsciously and hopefully minimally) by things somewhat 'underhand', like the expectations of their bosses, or by their personal feelings about the creators. However, it's not as though any of us really have an 'objective' view on how good a piece of art is anyway. Your opinion of it will partly be coloured by the expectations that you had going in, or by the fact that, say, you like or dislike Paddy Considine or Jez Butterworth. (indeed, your view of The Ferryman is partly being affected by the discussions you're having here) Further, I think you're mistaken in thinking that 5* somehow represents 'a perfect play' just as 1* doesn't mean that the play is completely without any merits whatsoever. Being pedantic, in an 'out of five' system, five stars just means "above 80%". Given the number of plays released each year it's completely understandable that a bunch will get five stars (hopefully a similar proportion to the number that get 1*) and, occasionally those might align (just as the more or less uniform 1* seem to have been given out for things like Common). At the end of the day, it's completely human to rationalise our tastes and wonder why others might not see things our way, but the reviews are just a bunch of people giving their opinions. Placing too much emphasis on the ratings system is silly given the inherently subjective nature of art.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 12, 2017 16:53:39 GMT
Perhaps just not to my taste. Lordy. They're 'not to your taste' so they're 'teetering on the brink'? Ticket sales to members of this board are what keeps most London theatres financially viable. Indeed, revenue from sales of red wine to TheatreBoard members alone pays for the mud to be cleared off the stage after each performance of Common at the National.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 12, 2017 12:50:21 GMT
Sacrilege! I thought this messageboard was a good place, but I see now that it's a hive of scum and villainy. Meatliquor all the way.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 11, 2017 15:51:36 GMT
Ah, sorry. I thought I'd searched for a thread. Must be losing my mind a bit... Erm, not sure how to remove/move this post. Is this something mods can help with?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 11, 2017 15:47:18 GMT
They've finally announced the dates and cast for the Old Vic performances of Alan Ayckbourn's upcoming new two-part play 'The Divide'. Explicitly mentioning George Orwell and Margaret Atwood sets a pretty high bar, but the premise looks really exciting: The Divide is set in the aftermath of a deadly contagion which, a century from now, has decimated the English population and rendered contact between men and women fatal. Under the dictates of an elusive Preacher, an unthinkable solution is enforced. Separated by the Divide, the adult survivors are segregated by gender, as men wear white as a mark of their purity, and women – still infected – are clothed in black as a sign of their sin.
Brother and sister Elihu (Jake Davies) and Soween (Erin Doherty) grow up learning the ways of their tightly controlled society. As they begin to glimpse the cracks in the system, Elihu falls for Giella (Weruche Opia), the daughter of two radical mothers, risking fatal disease and threatening to ignite a bloody revolution. The Divide is a vision of a dystopian future defined by brutal repression and forbidden love.Did anyone here go to the semi-staged performance in 2015? Some tickets are already on sale, but the Old Vic site doesn't yet seem to show the part 1/2 split very clearly. Anyway, can't wait. www.oldvictheatre.com/news/2017/07/casting-and-date-announced-for-the-dividewww.eif.co.uk/2017/divide1
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 11, 2017 14:44:15 GMT
I got through well before midday for Girls & Boys tickets as well.
To be honest, even though it worked out for me, I'm not keen on companies publicising ticket release timetables and then ignoring them. It strikes me as completely undermining the chaotic fairness of queuing for tickets online.
Opening the doors early is fine for traditional queues, since it doesn't change the 'first come first served' nature of that approach. However, letting people through early online or over the phone fundamentally changes the game, and in the long term will encourage people to ignore any schedules publicised by the theatre.
Anyone who's tried for Glastonbury tickets knows that it can be a very frustrating process, but at least there's a level of equality in the fact that you know you're generally as likely to be as lucky as anyone else. It would be unfair IMO if they quietly released tickets an hour before they said they would. I know theatre tends not to be comparable in terms of demand outstripping supply, but I suppose things like Ferryman or Angels In America are similar.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 10, 2017 15:59:03 GMT
Girls and Boys and Grimly Handsome both seem pretty interesting to me, as does Goats.
While I can't really tell what Black Men Walking is about from the blurb, the performances are pretty intruiguing: It's listed as having a single performance on August 8th of this year, followed by a ~6 month gap, before starting again for a run in March.
The booking section of the site seems a little off, as some of them say they're 'sold out' or 'limited' already, while another says that public booking opens on February 10th. Presumably these parts of the website are just placeholders.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 3, 2017 10:11:52 GMT
Thanks for the comments and suggestions emicardiff, kathryn and Latecomer! Definitely helpful, although the choice is still difficult An added complication is that I haven't seen Hamlet before (I know the story more-or-less but have never seen it on stage). I'm off to see the second part of Angels In America tonight, so I think I'll let that settle a bit and then make a decision between Gloria & Hamlet later in the week.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 30, 2017 20:17:41 GMT
Gah, with limited time and money, and lots of things already lined up, I'm trying to limit my theatre-going a little. I thought I was set on getting Hamlet tickets as a final splurge for the immediate future but this just seems so intriguing, especially after missing Octoroon.
Gloria? Hamlet? Gloria? Hamlet?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 20, 2017 11:42:15 GMT
Anyone saw tickets being returned for this yet? Or should I just wait until closer to the date that interests me? Tickets have been returned and put back on sale online pretty regularly. There's no pattern in terms of when they go up (see the older posts here for some idea, as there are occasional notifications about tickets) but if you're able it's probably worth checking the NT website every so often, as the tickets tend to disappear pretty quickly each time. I suppose more will go up closer to the time, as people may hold out for now if they're not sure, plus you'll get the Friday Rush tickets.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 15, 2017 21:03:12 GMT
The tickets for this will go very fast. It is worth becoming a Priority Member if you go the NT a lot, but you will still need to be organised and be ready to start booking at 8:30am on 29th June. I have Priority membership - one tier above Advanced Membership - presumably because I wanted to be sure of getting cheapies at the front and I can usually only go on Saturday as I live outside London these days. But you should always be able to get something with Advanced if you're flexible. Thanks for the info I would definitely like to go for one of the bigger memberships -both for the benefits but also to support the NT- but I'm not sure I can really justify it at this stage. I'm currently a member at NFT, Barbican and Royal Court, so I think spending £80+ for advanced NT membership as well is probably more than I can afford. As you say though, Bordeaux, I'm able to be pretty flexible in terms of time so hoping that I should still be able to get decent tickets at a reasonable price. I am not sure if I want to watch some of the audience eating and drinking for three hours.... www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/network-on-stage-seating"A very limited number of tickets will be available for this unique, immersive experience, which will include a three-course meal and drinks on stage as Network unfolds. These special tickets will be available through a ballot in September, priced at £75 and £95 (£35 Entry Pass for under-25 year olds). More details to be announced – sign-up below and be amongst the first to hear about the ballot (please note that this sign-up form does not enter you into the ballot):" That sounds like a pretty terrible idea. Plus my luck with audience members eating is that the ones eating around me are always the ones who chew with their mouths open. I wonder how this is going to work in the context of the play. The film is all about the news, so how people eating a three-course meal fits with this I'm not sure. Thematically it might make sense to have people eating microwave tv dinners while sat on old sofas 'watching' the play unfolding on tv, but I doubt anyone would pay £75+ for that experience.
|
|