562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 4, 2019 19:01:49 GMT
Exit: this is getting silly. Apologies. Probably silly to continue this conversation
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 4, 2019 18:10:07 GMT
It's clear that many here are reading the mentions about the bereavements are simply ways to deflect from their wrongdoing. While that's possible, it's not certain that the way you're reading this is different from the way it was written
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm reading it exactly the way it was written. If they'd intended to say something else, they should have said something else.
You read the words that were written. But when you suggest that they were written in order to provide a ‘get out of jail free card’ and ‘to use ... as an alibi for treating other people less well than [they] should have.’ you’re talking about the intention behind the words, which isn’t the same thing. It is of course possible that you’ve never experienced reading something in one way, only to realise later that it was meant in a different way, but I suspect you’ll be in the minority if that’s the case. (Edit: Anyway, I appreciate that I’m in a minority in suggesting that it’s possible that things are not as simple as they appear, and that it might be worth knowing a bit more about the situation before jumping on a side. This is probably a story that could run and run, but is unlikely to reach a conclusion on these boards. Either way, I hope things reach an amicable end for all concerned)
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 4, 2019 17:31:21 GMT
It's clear that many here are reading the mentions about the bereavements are simply ways to deflect from their wrongdoing. While that's possible, it's not certain that the way you're reading this is different from the way it was written (not to mention that your view might be coloured by the fact you've already decided who's in the right here). I mean, it could be an (arguably misguided) way of talking about something important that's connected (for him) to a hugely personal project.
Furthermore, Kwame and Idris being distasteful, unfriendly or egotistical isn't actually proof that they are wrong about this issue. Being nice does not equal being in the right.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 4, 2019 15:50:55 GMT
YV and KKA (and now IE) may not have handled this the best, but for what it's worth my feeling is that no matter how they had responded it would have been called out as being insufficient. They've suggested meeting publicly somehow, which is being framed here as some sort of intimidation tactic, but if they'd suggested a private meeting then I've little doubt the board would have seen that as a secretive and legalistic delay tactic. Similarly, talk about personal circumstances is emotional manipulation, while being formal is cold and legalistic.
It's easy to suggest that credit and/or financial restitution should be given, but since no one here has actually seen the scripts or the agreements made between the parties, I don't see why board members are so adamant that this is the right or fair course of action. Of course we each need to make decisions about what we support based on what information we have, but it strikes me as hugely premature to act as if this is open & shut. After all, giving credit & money wouldn’t be ‘fair’ if it turns out that their involvement wasn’t as much as has been assumed.
The issue of credit is contentious in pretty much every job (not just the arts), and it's certainly true that those at the top have much more power than those coming up. Depending on your interests, we probably each have strong opinions on the origins of Led Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven, the work of Jocelyn Bell Burnell, the rewrites of screenwriters like Andrew Kevin Walker, ghostwriters of books, the artwork in the boardgame Scythe, the creation of Facebook, the influence of comics on The Matrix and The Fifth Element and so on… But these issues really aren't clearcut at all, not least because how 'original' any story, idea, song, etc. is, and the level of contribution to justify credit and/or money is not an objective thing ethically or legally.
The power that the public has through things like social media is surely a good thing. However, while the legal approach to dealing with these things certainly benefits those with the money, I’m not convinced that this ‘trial in public’ is always better. Not least because it encourages us to make strong opinions based on limited (and often uneven) information, generally based on emotion rather than facts. And while the net result might usually be positive, the extreme of the flipside is things like the recent debacles with Zimmerman’s address on Twitter or the Boston marathon bomber on Reddit, or more broadly the rise in anti-vax.
My guess is that the end result of this will be some form of credit and financial restitution. And this will probably be the right thing. However, I can’t help but think that even if the writers had no actual ground, the YV would give them credit anyway, since this is what the public demands.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 3, 2019 0:47:56 GMT
Never mind. Tickets have just gone on sale. Can’t wait.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 2, 2019 22:36:11 GMT
Does anyone know what time the tickets usually go on sale at Menier? The website says tomorrow is the general sale, but no time. Cheers,
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 2, 2019 20:04:12 GMT
The young Vic e.t.c aren't denying the underlying aspect of the original writers complaints though. They are just saying they changed it so much they don't deserve credit. The tone of the rebuttal is very legalistic and aggressive to. I don't think it's correct to say that the YV hasn't denied the complaints. The YV statement says "Whilst we appreciate that they were involved in exploring ideas for a project based on Idris’ original concept, the truth of the matter is that MIF and Green Door did not feel their proposed direction was artistically viable. It was decided by these producers that the show needed to go in a very different direction with a new writer attached, using Idris Elba’s original concept as the starting point." They then say that they reached out to the writers about the new direction, but this wasn't accepted. Whether this was done in a fair or legal manner or not may be open to debate, but so far as I can tell, we can't yet be sure which side is correct here. In any case, my feeling is that you're being slightly unfair in dismissing the rebuttal as 'legalistic and aggressive'. The Young Vic is a formal organisation, which means that their communication, even on ostensibly more informal tools like Twitter is different to two upcoming writers writing something for a website. Not least because any Tweets could presumably form part of legal discussions which may follow. A more friendly tone may be nicer, but if they truly are not at fault, then they may not want to make a statement that could later negatively affect them. Similarly, Kwame is writing from his position in the organisation, not simply as a member of the public. I mean, this is why in most of our jobs we might not be able to speak/email with clients/customers/whatever with the same freedom as you do while with your friends. Don't get me wrong, I accept that on the whole Twitter allows people with less power to make their grievances heard by the wider public as noted by crowblack . And I accept that it may be in this instance that the YV/Kwame are at fault. However, my point is simply that the stuff we pick up from these things (it's too cold, too legal, they should respond more quickly, etc.) isn't necessarily a reflection of the underlying ethical & legal issues at hand: The tone of a tweet has no real bearing on which side is right here.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 2, 2019 19:18:49 GMT
(This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but anyway...)
I definitely agree that there is a huge power imbalance between new writers and established producers/writers/etc. when it comes to the behind-the-scenes discussions on a project like this. However, I also get feeling that, once it comes to this sort of social media / 'trial by public', the balance shifts quite considerably, at least with the general public.
What I mean is that, most of us have very little concrete information to go on, and nothing that could be described as truly 'objective' at this stage. However, there seems to be (in my opinion) a general underlying bias & scepticism against the YV/Kwame/MIF here. On this thread, for instance, the writers' comments are discussed in terms of 'bravery', 'standing up', and so on, whereas Kwame/YV's comments are cold, calculated and intimidating. I'm not suggesting that this is definitely not the case, simply that the 'tone' we take from reading something is as much a reflection of our own viewpoint as what's within the text to begin with.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting that the reality is one way or the other here; I have no idea, and zero stake in the matter. However, I'm simply pointing out that our underlying biases are probably generally towards David (in terms of 'vs Goliath') but we really don't know the full story.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 2, 2019 15:58:47 GMT
Wow. This has become a real mess. It’s easy -having no stake in the matter, and with very little information to go on- to make quick judgements, but I guess we’ll never really know what happened. Not least because this straddles ‘ethical’ issues of good and bad behaviour, as well as purely legal matters. The former is more emotionally engaging but, whether we like it or not, the latter is arguably more important.
Hopefully things are worked out in a way that is acceptable to all parties. And hopefully it doesn’t overshadow what looks to be an interesting play.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 26, 2019 9:08:33 GMT
There didn’t seem to be a great selection this morning (presumably seats held back rather than sold). So I decided to wait for the public release in just over a week. Looking forward to Antipodes.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 22, 2019 22:59:10 GMT
I think I would have really liked this, but sitting in the gallery was a huge mistake.
Trying to keep track of what was going on, looking between the surtitles, a (half-blocked) video screen, and the tops of actors’ heads was too much. Half the time I couldn’t figure out who was talking (amplified dialogue, plus lots of actors on stage, plus not seeing faces) so following the story in detail was difficult. The experience felt like watching a foreign movie in a shop window tv, with subtitles coming by text.
I enjoyed the visceral & emotional assault of the production, and the play had some magnificent moments, like the cameras in the coffins. In a better seat I think I would have really enjoyed it. (maybe ‘appreciated’ rather than ‘enjoyed’)
As it was, it didn’t make the sum of its parts. But boy were there a lot of parts.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 13, 2019 19:50:45 GMT
She is blinded by loyalty to the Party and an ideology understood as ideal and utopian
I also have, maybe a 14-point step-by-step outline structure of the narrative, though I doubt too many will wrestle me to the ground to paste that up [/div][/quote] Thanks for the thoughtful response. Yes, I definitely agree on the broad themes you mention. One thing I would say, however about your third point is that We can’t really ‘trust’ anything she has done or said throughout the play. Unlike the others, she always knew that she was being recorded, and so has been playing a part for the audience/the stasi. It’s of course possible that she believed everything she said but we can’t really know, as pointed out by the husband at the end. The only part where she was (presumably) being truly honest was when she cut the mic and we could no longer hear her I for one would be interested to read any additional thoughts/points.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 13, 2019 7:13:39 GMT
The Antipodes page is now online, as is the one for Inua Ellam's adapatation of Three Sisters (albeit both pages are still locked to the public). This should mean that an announcement for the next sales period should be coming soon (usually about a week in the past I think).
Nothing yet though for Richard Pryor On Fire though. Not sure whether that means that the page is still being finalised, or it's going to be in a later sales period. Do you know between what dates the plays will run? Thanks! Sorry, I don’t know. In the past the ticket sale pages for each date went up around now too, so you could see all performance dates, but I haven’t found any yet.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 13, 2019 7:09:02 GMT
Saw this on Opening Night. I didn't like it at all, it was a very uncomfortable watch. It reminded me of watching the film "Happiness", thoroughly squirmy. The allure of a top Hollywood actor soon fades when the play is rubbish. I was thinking at the interval what was worse "bitter wheat" or "when we have sufficiently tortured each other"? Both which wasted great talents. Malkovich wore an oversized-suit which was like something out of a French & Saunders sketch, and lots of the dialogue was tedious and verbose and would never be said in real-life, so the characters are just creations on paper really. Malkovich and Doon did there best, but the supporting cast was lightweight. 3/10 for me. Uh oh. I was pretty confident that I wouldn’t be interested in this, but I have to say that comparisons to Happiness and When We Have Sufficiently Tortured Each Other have piqued my interest ever so slightly. Both were definitely uncomfortable and not ‘enjoyable’ as such, but I thought both were good. The former especially. All in all, I’m still not quite convinced, but if a few of the reviews turn out to be positive, then who knows...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 12, 2019 10:04:10 GMT
The Antipodes page is now online, as is the one for Inua Ellam's adapatation of Three Sisters (albeit both pages are still locked to the public). This should mean that an announcement for the next sales period should be coming soon (usually about a week in the past I think).
Nothing yet though for Richard Pryor On Fire though. Not sure whether that means that the page is still being finalised, or it's going to be in a later sales period.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 11, 2019 14:58:07 GMT
Young Vic site has public booking now open - as floorshow points out the two outer seats on each side of the stalls are £15 each from row L back which is a bargain, I think! No queue and lots of these available for the dates I looked at. These seats don't seem to be on sale via ATG. Thanks so much for posting this. I thought the cheap tickets were limited to the Grand Circle, so was resigned to not being able to see it again. All booked now. Can't wait.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 11, 2019 14:08:48 GMT
However, I can’t help but wish that the wonderful production was in service of a smarter, more interesting and coherent story. This play crammed in far too many subplots and shifting character relationships into its short running time, making it hard to stay interested at times. And the plot relied on enough silly coincidences and unlikely character motivations to make even the most convoluted James Bond villain’s plans seem probable. Most annoying of all to me however, was the combining of such a grim narrative with what was ultimately a lightweight thriller. If this play had only just stuck with one approach it could’ve been so much more satisfying; silly thriller or serious meditation on life in East Berlin. Instead it didn’t quite meet the high bar set by the first few minutes. I was a unsure the first time, there is a lot to take in. After the second visit the overt narrative made complete sense, and it is a clever work on that level. However, there is deeper laying architecture, some or much of which I certainly missed, and I rather needed a round table-type discussion to tease more out i.e. a decent session in the pub. For example, you could spend quite a long time discussing one word 'DISSENT'. This is absolutely smarter than your average bear. The moments where the play touched on serious issues, like the balance of power and the relationships that people form under these sorts of regimes, were where I felt it was at its best. And the way that the play covered meta issues around the fallibility of the way we perceive things and what the ‘audience’ represent, were also interesting, if somewhat obvious given the setting. Unfortunately though, the play seemed to regularly bring to mind better films. The Lives of Others and Goodfellas for instance but, most annoyingly, the way that a key line of dialogue was set up & delivered seemed to be lifted straight from the central trick of 70s classic The Conversation. To some extent, modern media will always sit in the shadow of what came before, so that’s not necessarily a deal breaker, but for me the parts just didn’t all fit together well enough. Perhaps it was just trying to do too much; touching on so many serious topics, within a (in my opinion quite silly) thriller narrative, and all in just over an hour. Ultimately, my feeling is that the was an okay play with a stellar production. In that respect the play it reminded me most of was The Red Barn also at the National a few years ago.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 10, 2019 22:46:13 GMT
Finally had a chance to see this!
Wow, the sound design here, combined with clever staging and direction was fantastic. Moments in this play were as exhilarating as any I’ve had in the theatre this year, and for that at least, I’m glad to have gone.
However, I can’t help but wish that the wonderful production was in service of a smarter, more interesting and coherent story. This play crammed in far too many subplots and shifting character relationships into its short running time, making it hard to stay interested at times. And the plot relied on enough silly coincidences and unlikely character motivations to make even the most convoluted James Bond villain’s plans seem probable. Most annoying of all to me however, was the combining of such a grim narrative with what was ultimately a lightweight thriller. If this play had only just stuck with one approach it could’ve been so much more satisfying; silly thriller or serious meditation on life in East Berlin. Instead it didn’t quite meet the high bar set by the first few minutes.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 7, 2019 5:49:41 GMT
What's everyone's thoughts on west end transfers versus original runs?
I have seen this once already but was blown away and am really hoping to go again. But now wondering whether to keeping looking out for returns/rush seats for the remaining performances at the Old Vic, or just go for the Picadilly theatre instead.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 26, 2019 10:43:53 GMT
For anyone with Lucky Dip tickets, the seats are given out on a first-come-first-served basis, from any latecomers or unsold seats. Therefore, its worth joining the queue as soon as you arrive to get the best seats, especially if you’re in a group. We arrived ~45 mins before the performance started and were first in line. We ended up with fantastic seats next to each other. ah, this is interesting. I have LD1, I presume from what you say that doesn't mean very much in terms of other lucky dippers (seat allocation is based on who is there earliest)? Yes, seat allocation goes in order of the queue at the stalls doors when they open (30 mins before play starts when we went). The LD number on the tickets didn't matter. When the doors open, you walk through to the auditorium itself, and at the last minute the ushers check for any empty seats and then assigns them to people with lucky dip tickets in queue order. Once all the empty stalls seats are taken you move up floors, and then end with standing if necessary. The usher said that the number of seats available varies a lot from performance to performance, but is typically at least 5 (this was about what we saw in the stalls). For our performance, there were 5 people in the queue for lucky dips seats about 5 minutes before the doors opened (i.e. 35 mins before the performance). One note: Because some of the lucky dip seats will be from latecomers, you will be asked to move after the interval if those people arrive for the second act.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 26, 2019 1:06:59 GMT
There’s not much I can say, except to add to the chorus of praise by others on this board. This was moving, thought-provoking, and timely. I had not seen this play before, but it more than met my high expectations. Fantastic production, with wonderful acting across the board. And I really loved the design, especially the clever & poignant visual trick with the bench outside the family home at the end. Lots of audience members wiping away tears by the end, and pretty much a full standing ovation.
I hope I can see it again. This has surely got to transfer to the West End, right?
For anyone with Lucky Dip tickets, the seats are given out on a first-come-first-served basis, from any latecomers or unsold seats. Therefore, its worth joining the queue as soon as you arrive to get the best seats, especially if you’re in a group. We arrived ~45 mins before the performance started and were first in line. We ended up with fantastic seats next to each other.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 24, 2019 8:38:30 GMT
Does the booking work? I tried several times to select a seat but the page refreshes to the original seating plan without my choice. It's patchy for me. Solaris worked fine, but Beauty Queen of Leeane isn't showing a 'book now' button at all on the play page.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 17, 2019 10:16:32 GMT
I don't think that's true. (and more importantly, I don't think that the writers would do that sort of thing any more). I think they would, in the current social media climate - and had the series not been based on pre-existing books I think the writers would have been under pressure from the studios to scrap it altogether, given the popularity of the characters. Yes, there were some ludicrous coincidences (Euron on the beach stood out) but fantasy fiction/film and 19thc melodramas are full of them. When Star Trek TNG killed off a popular character in a 'natural' way, rather than in a mega showdown, fans complained and she had a quasi-return via a parallel universe as a fan service. We've had Jon come back from the dead, and Arya must be made of whatever Wile E Coyote is made of to survive the stuff she's been though. I think writers will get flak either way. As you say, there have been contrivances in the plot to date (although Arya's didn't bother me to be honest), but my feeling is that it's the pace of these things that's made them stand out in this season. I read that HBO wanted a further two series of 10 episodes each, and it was Weiss and Benioff who pushed for a single season of 6. Presumably they made that decision for artistic reasons, but I can't help but think that spreading out all these coincidences across 20 hours (as well as giving Daenerys more time to transition from slightly conflicted to out-and-out psychopath) would've helped them to not be quite so apparent. In terms of Star Trek, it's been a long time since I saw it, but my recollection is that (as much as it was great and progressive) it was a far more straight forward episodic show than GOT: more clear cut good and bad guys, each episode wrapping up nicely, and so on. In Game of Thrones, having a few major characters 'just' die in battle might have been a little disappointing, but (in my opinion) it would have fit well with the show, and certainly have been preferable to having pretty much all the main characters 'luckily' survive. I certainly wouldn't call this season a complete failure, and I'm (cautiously) looking forward to the finale.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 17, 2019 9:45:43 GMT
Tickets seemed to disappear very quickly at yesterday's rush ticket release, but lots of £10 tickets online now.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 17, 2019 9:20:33 GMT
f the Red Wedding (one of the best bits) occurred now fans would be howling in dismay, rather than congratulating the series for shocking them as they did then. I don't think that's true. (and more importantly, I don't think that the writers would do that sort of thing any more). At it's best, Game of Thrones has been happy for things to happen because they make sense given the characters' motivations, rather than because they feed into some over-arching narrative. This might be treated simply as 'nobody's safe in Game of Thrones' but it felt, at least to me, much more organic and alive than that. The Red Wedding, Ned Stark's death, Prince Oberyn's death, and so on stood out not just because they were unexpected, but also because looking back they make sense within in the world; they didn't feel (at least to me) like scenes that happened simply because GRRM willed them to happen (although, of course, I appreciate that GRRM has had some overarching narrative in mind). In contrast, this season has had so many scenes that don't feel like they make any 'real' sense, but would be expected in a more mainstream hollywood narrative (or, if I was being mean, fan fiction) because they serve a purpose: In this case largely to show what the screenwriters might think that the fans want to see: - Does it make sense that within all the anarchy only Cersei and Jamie meet each other just in time for her to realise her folly, and to die in embrace? No, but that final hug in front of collapsing buildings sure looks fab.
- Does it make sense for Sandor and Gregor to have a final one-to-one showdown? Nope, but they're brothers!
- Does it make sense for Euron Greyjoy to be the sole survivor of the sea battle who happens to land on the beach at the same time & location as Jamie? No, but he's a major antagonist now, so needs a cool ending. - Does it make sense for (pretty much) all of the main characters to survive the battle with the white walkers? No, but wouldn't it be sweet if Gilly and Samwell to go off into the sunset.
- and on and on...All these scenes might be fine in another show, but none of these things make sense if Westeros is supposed to be 'alive'. I have little doubt that there have been similar coincidences that happened in previous seasons but the issue is that they seem to happen in such quick succession this season.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 16, 2019 23:40:32 GMT
I've finally all caught up. Who could've guessed that so much dragon-based destruction could be quite so boring.
My prediction is that Sansa ends on the throne (Jon will help to off Daenerys, but decide he doesn't want the throne), but to be honest I'm struggling to care...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 14, 2019 18:46:49 GMT
Can't they just put it in an easy-to-read list like they used to? Rude This link should take you to the upcoming events in the old website style link
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 14, 2019 7:21:26 GMT
The folks over at balletco forum have spotted that the new season have gone online onto the ROH website a little early (due to be announced in a couple of hours I think). This includes the ballet (last year's Swan Lake is returning) as well as the opera (Netrebko and Kaufmann again).
I won't go through it all, but you can see the calendar going through to mid-2020 here
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 13, 2019 12:14:19 GMT
Had tickets for this on Saturday but had to drop out at the last minute as I was unwell. I'm definitely going to try for tickets again, but haven't seen anything about day seats on TheatreMonkey, and nothing on TodayTix (where I bought my tickets originally). Am I right in thinking that the only way for tickets is via returns on the phone, or on the Thursday Rush tickets? Cheers,
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 13, 2019 9:11:10 GMT
This is part of this year's Sound Unbound which is a festival a mix of classical and more contemporary music held in venues in and around the Barbican running over May 18th and 19th. I went the last couple of times (in 2015 and 2017) and it's always had a fab mix of stuff, from bigger concerts in the Hall (John Williams, Max Richter, Chilly Gonzales), to live film scores (last time was Psycho I think), smaller concerts St Gilles church and Guildhall School, and more experimental performances in the conservatory and by the lake. This year it's free and sure to be a great weekend.
(I am not connected to the Barbican or the festival at all, but am just someone who's been to the festival in the past, loved it, and hope it continues to grow)
|
|