980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 31, 2017 10:23:17 GMT
We're all being a bit premature in saying it's definitely coming off, aren't we? There hasn't been any official announcement yet. They may just do massive discount sales and limp through to the end of the run. The issue would be timing. If they close November 11th, allowing for get outs and get ins, they only have 6 full playing weeks there (7 if they go right up to the Saturday before Sara Pascoe's week). They would need to announce both the closing of Heisenberg and the announcement of whatever they're replacing it with simultaneously and the incoming show would have SUCH a small window of on sale time that unless it's a gold plated juggernaut, it will struggle to fill seats for all the weeks it's playing. They seem to have taken the top two levels off sale on the DMT site for the whole run and put all prices into stalls and dress, so I imagine if they did endless discount sales with all the big agents from now, it might give them enough of an audience to limp through to the end. Realistically, I think an early closure would just mean the venue went dark as the logistics of finding a show small enough to recoup and big enough to fill 6-7 weeks is not an easy one. I have to agree that I feel they will struggle to find anything that would sell well with such short notice. It does depend on the deal Mackintosh offers the incoming shows producers though.
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 29, 2017 21:58:38 GMT
Just heard early closure to be announced v soon.
Simon Stephens tweet about seeing the show last night backing up this news. He sounds gutted.
Very sad.
Great actors, but the play is not good, and the direction from Marianne a rare misfire. Duff also over playing a v annoying character (not her fault).
What will fill it? Albion?
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 20, 2017 23:38:44 GMT
The duration may vary with the mastication rates of the on-stage diners. They're gonna have to shovel their courses in double-time now.
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 20, 2017 13:45:54 GMT
Running time: 1hr 20mins
(Follies drumroll) No Interval
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 18, 2017 9:45:30 GMT
***** Broadway World, London Theatre 1 **** The Arts Desk *** Guardian, WhatsOnStage, The Stage ** Metro, The Times Rave reviews across the board for Natalie Dormer if not for the show overall. Guardian now showing as 2*
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 15, 2017 21:17:11 GMT
Act 4 is very much the last act of Cherry Orchard and Seagull. So the maid buys the garden and then Victoria Hamilton shoots herself? Almost!! Haha!! It's a great game if you love your Chekhov to work out who is who in it.
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 14, 2017 22:23:26 GMT
Could anyone who has seen this please comment on the changed seating configuration? Obviously it's on the website but I've never seen this layout before; in fact, I've never seen anything other than the standard seating at the Almeida, so it's hard to imagine the reason for the elongated format for this production, or how it might work in practice. Hi showgirl, The layout is traverse, so a thrust stage, as shown on the website. The stage is more like the Swan at the RSC if you've ever been up there. The front two/three rows that run alongside it, you're looking up at the stage. There are one or two raised rows behind that. The main stalls is a lot smaller as a result. I'd say some of the best views, if not THE best views, are in these rows that run alongside the stage. Everyone keeps moving for the most part, so you're never blocked, and it's great being so close. Mind you we were looking up at the Circle, especially the £10 "restricted view" slip seats, and thinking they'd be an absolute steal. Have you got your tickets yet?
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 14, 2017 22:07:17 GMT
Wow. It's going to be a hit. And I'm already wishing it had a longer run.
Bartlett having a very obvious go at writing a Chekovian/Ayckbourn piece. For the most part it is very successful. And great fun to tick off who is playing the Konstantin, who the Masha, who the Arkadina, who the Firs, etc, etc. References to all C's big plays. Mainly The Seagull and Cherry Orchard.
Mikey is right: the second half cannot live up to the first half. It's not bad, it's just less active, and more two acts of resolutions. Act 4 is very much the last act of Cherry Orchard and Seagull.
There are some very funny lines and moments in it. And also some painfully moving moments too. The politics of Brexit and what England has become/is becoming aren't too forced, although there are some lines that clang about a bit and are a bit too obvious. The Polish maid is good, but again, a bit obvious.
I felt for nearly all of the characters. And he's given the actors such great parts, all off them.
Victoria Hamilton goes to town on her role and is equally hilarious and repugnant all at the same time at moments. But you always understand why. Helen Schlesinger is doing a wonderful Fiona Shaw impression with her body. The young actors are good (the daughter is a bit more "actory" than everyone else, but still fits the part).
The set is simple and they've stolen the tree from Jerusalem, obviously required now for any take on "England" in a play. It doesn't shake at the end though.
Anyone into potted plants, you're in for a treat come one of the scene changes. I found that moment quite moving actually as well as being uplifting.
It plays whole heartedly to it's Almeida audience as it's about a middle/upper class family. I think one of the cast is mixed race, the rest are all very white.
I already want to go back and see it again.
If anything to hear, as Foxa mentioned, Margot Leicester say "Hello" in the second half. So brilliant.
Book before Press next week, or you'll regret it.
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 26, 2017 0:58:08 GMT
How on earth did they learn that complex choreography?
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 23, 2017 0:52:21 GMT
Interview with Branagh in the Telegraph: www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/playwrights/kenneth-branagh-interview-tom-hiddleston-always-honest-hamlet/amp/I am not sure if I believe this bit! 'Rather incredibly, neither he nor Hiddleston seems to have fully anticipated the demand. “I’m very, very surprised at the amount of attention it has got,” he confesses, suavely dressed in dark blue blazer and jeans, still boyish at 56. His leading man even worried there might be empty seats. “We thought we should do a ballot, because we knew he had fans, but Tom was very sweet about it and genuinely asked ‘Do you think we’ll sell out?’”' Hiddleston sold out the 250 seat Donmar across 70+ performances for Coriolanus - they added an extra week with tickets allocated by ballot at the end of the run due to the demand and did a cinema broadcast that reportedly sold 600,000 tickets, and then had an encore showing. Coriolanus is certainly more obscure than Hamlet and Josie Rourke is not a household name as a director. And that was before The Night Manager. The idea that he's seen as a cerebral rather than an emotional actor is also a bit strange. Maybe if you've only seen The Night Manager you might think that? Maybe he's read too many Gruan commenters calling him 'wooden'? Maybe he's having a crisis of confidence? You couldn't possibly think him cerebral rather than emotional if you've seen him play virtually any other part. Tom was very sweet about it and genuinely asked ‘Do you think we’ll sell out?’”' What a bell end he is. How do people still for for his/this rubbish?
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 19, 2017 23:19:38 GMT
Name the last Ivo van Hove play to have a (regular) interval. Go!
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 12, 2017 0:51:05 GMT
Now they're just being cruel...on an International level.
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 9, 2017 21:46:52 GMT
Was interested when I received the weekly SP email, but reading more about the play has made me cautious: sounds a bit airy-fairy & mystical for me & as though it might have been neglected with reason, but I'd be pleased to find I was wrong. Yes, it sounds like a play the Finborough would put on, not the SP.
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 8, 2017 14:02:52 GMT
The 18th is now a preview where previously it had been an ordinary show, maybe that's why. I'd wonder if they've decided to try moving people who'd booked non-previews to 1) not risk the wrath of people who'd booked non-previews on purpose and/or 2) not have to give partial refunds to people who paid full price and now find themselves at a preview, except if they're offering to slot you in sooner then... well, I don't even know anymore. That's an odd thing to do! They would both make sense, thank you for that. Gosh, it's a mad mess now so it is.
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 8, 2017 13:24:14 GMT
We booked into the 18th of December but have just got an email saying we have to move.
Nowhere near Preview period, but we still have to shift??
I'm guessing it's to now accommodate the Preview bookers?
Anyone else had this?
The weird thing is they say Please give 3 dates you can make that aren't the 18th, and the selection are all earlier than our original booking date?
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 8, 2017 0:37:02 GMT
SB is going to open at the Piccadilly in the New Year a month or so after Annie closes. Run of ETAJ will be limited, and will allow for Tamsin to do both. Not true. Nothing is confirmed yet for the Piccadilly. Annie hoping to extend. Apology accepted Daniel. Can't wait for this.
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 6, 2017 23:25:52 GMT
Well, the critics have been starved for a while... Quite a bit of overlooking the faults going on, or is it me?
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 2, 2017 22:05:42 GMT
For me, this play is far too clever, far too up itself and far too National Theatre. A waste of an evening. I'll avoid Lucy Kirkwood in future. I find a lot to enjoy and intrigue in most theatre but this was a mishmash of the incomprehensible and the patronising. Yes, I know that some of the acting is very good. Yawn. It's the play that's the problem. The sort I HATE. We are in agreement. My review from earlier in the run: "Oh dear. Watched this tonight and it's not good. Some sort of Nick Payne attempt to meld science and relationships, but it never unites and, more fatally, is never interesting. It's also far. too. long. Amusing dialogue at first, and Colman gets to do her full range within the 3hrs, sometimes within a scene. The audience love her and lap up every look and line. Williams is given much less, and acting wise comes across quite weak for some reason. The man playing the Swiss boyfriend has the strangest accent I've ver heard on a stage, and is also struggling with his acting. The 3 small parts are pointless and ultimately those actors are reduced to (un)glorified stage managers dragging on the different bits of set. The son was good, but one note. His storyline (they claim to be interlinked but are quite separate) started well, then drifted into nothingness. The mother character had some funny lines, but was annoying. In fact, they were all annoying. Paul Hilton is completely wasted, and speaks two long monologues away from everyone else, that ultimately lead to some crazy lighting and projections (be wowed and awed audience!) but cannot hide the fact that what he's having to speak is dull, and not linked enough to the relationship drama/sitcom. The direction by Rufus Norris is fine, the set whirs into life when the script is at its worst, trying to blind an audience with lighting and sound, but it's hard to see past the fact the script by Kirkwood is bad. Had she stuck with just the relationship drama, this might have worked. But, like Common, this script should have been edited and fixed before rehearsals began, or at the latest during rehearsals. What is the NT's fear of cutting texts before they reach a paying audience? I'm sure Duff/Colman/Williams wouldn't care if their parts were cut if it resulted in better plays. If you like Swiss jokes, and Higgs Boson/CERN jokes, and watching Colman do funny/sad/crying/drunk, and completely unbelievable events happening with no one batting an eyelid when they're resolved by the next scene, you'll enjoy it. If you like good plays, which weave subjects like science and humanity together seamlessly and ask its audience big questions whilst making you feel for all the characters, you won't find any of that in Mosquitoes."
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 2, 2017 0:51:47 GMT
There is something seriously wrong with this world.....is all I am saying! Christ, you're right. It's also all VERY Tom Hiddleston. #vanitythynameis...
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 31, 2017 23:45:43 GMT
Wow....didn't realise there was so much demand! Thinking aloud; will there ever have been so much full-frontal nudity in an NT Live before? And considering how these filmed performances can 'live on'...! Based on past NTLive's with nudity (thinking Frankenstein here when B & JL had to wear a weird sort of y fronts), they won't be allowed to be naked as it reduces sales to certain countries. The big schlong will be wrapped up one fears.
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 31, 2017 23:42:53 GMT
Is it true that they have now cut the Bolero D'Amour from the ptoduction? Yep, it's gone. (That bit WAS a bit embarrassing to be fair to whoever cut it. Like it had been choreographed an hour or so before the show.)
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 31, 2017 0:41:22 GMT
I don't think there's a law against playing a role you've already played, or casting someone for a role who's already played it. I didn't mention anything about a law, lol. Just intrigued if anyone knows why they've cast someone who had previously played the part? Short rehearsal time?
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 30, 2017 12:04:00 GMT
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 29, 2017 22:58:35 GMT
>> Also, I don't know if anyone has mentioned this before but there is no interval. It's been mentioned almost endlessly. The show works infinitely better without one, trust me, and wiser heads than I seem to agree. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 29, 2017 0:31:03 GMT
Yes, this is interesting actually: How many on this board would say they've tweeted about a show if they've felt negatively about it? And if not, what were their reasons for not tweeting? (Especially those who've not loved Follies: what did you write on Twitter after the show, or did you choose not to tweet?) ¿Qué? Apologies. One second... "Sí, esto es realmente interesante: ¿Cuántos en este tablero dirían que han tweeted sobre un espectáculo si se han sentido negativamente al respecto? Y si no, ¿cuáles fueron sus razones para no twittear? (Especialmente aquellos que no han amado a Follies: ¿qué escribiste en Twitter después del show, o decidiste no enviar un tweet?)" Me entiendo?
|
|
980 posts
|
Follies
Aug 27, 2017 23:30:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by nash16 on Aug 27, 2017 23:30:53 GMT
Yes, this is interesting actually:
How many on this board would say they've tweeted about a show if they've felt negatively about it?
And if not, what were their reasons for not tweeting?
(Especially those who've not loved Follies: what did you write on Twitter after the show, or did you choose not to tweet?)
|
|
980 posts
|
Follies
Aug 27, 2017 22:43:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by nash16 on Aug 27, 2017 22:43:17 GMT
Twitter comment is, still, overwhelmingly positive. Interesting, to say the ieast. The anti-Norris element has already made itself noticed here but that can't make the difference, surely? Twitter is not the place to go for honest theatre reviews. It is the place to say that you've seen a show and loved it and get some likes and retweets. Rarely to say "well, that was a disappointing evening I just had everybody who follows me." (Note how many Likes a positive review on here gets, as opposed to a negative one.)
|
|
980 posts
|
Follies
Aug 25, 2017 22:43:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by nash16 on Aug 25, 2017 22:43:50 GMT
It just does not work with an interval, that's why the original production didn't have one and why they concocted 'Follies-lite' for the London premiere, for which Cam Mack wanted to have one. You can't just stop the show in a particular place and expect it not to be destructive. The production of the original version I saw with an interval killed the show; momentum went, the second half had no sense of pacing because it had to pick up unnaturally, the Loveland section had too little build up, the coda was too removed from the first half, etc. The problem with this prod is if they DID put an interval in, of course, I think a number of people would leave.
|
|
980 posts
|
Follies
Aug 25, 2017 22:42:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by nash16 on Aug 25, 2017 22:42:40 GMT
Guess who got their tickets out for "tonight's" performance only to find they're for next Friday when they will be on holiday in Crete? The lovely staff at the box office have changed them to later in the run, so if you're after two row F stalls seats for 1 September, keep your eye on their web-site. As a side note, when I was in there staff were telling people that a decision was being made tonight on whether to have an interval or not. Most of the interval discussion on here has revolved around weak bladders vs artistic integrity, but it got me thinking. As the National have been crowd funding to mount this production, surely they could do with what must be a substantial sum from the bar that is lost if it remains interval-free? Anyway I now have to wait until December to get my Follies fix. Yes, we discussed this after the show too. The (rather desperate and shocking) measure to crowdfund the production surely should have resulted in some more clear sighted thinking to: a) have an interval to generate those bar tabs, and b) put that's Sondheim talk in the Olivier, not the Dorfman. (Also scrap this ballot nonsense, first ANGELS, then the Sondheim talk. It's making itself too exclusive as a venue, and then begging for change from everyone at the same time.)
|
|
980 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 23, 2017 23:39:52 GMT
Back from Preview 2. Have never seen this Sondheim before. What works is the glorious set, the exciting start, and the 2 up tempo numbers. What doesn't work is most of the rest of it. It seems to have no drama, weirdly, for a musical, and yet the many characters shout at each other and argue as though a lot is at stake. The problem is we don't see enough of their younger selves, bar a few sentences, to really feel for them in their old age. It's a strange beast. I found it hard to care for either the women or the men. And I need to care about the people on the stage. By the second half it just seemed to become a lot of set piece numbers, with the different characters Folly's. Then one of the men had a scream and collapsed, and then they all walked off. But it left me unmoved, even when those on the stage were acting moved. It's a great idea to have a show about a reunion and memories and conflicts of the past (and this is staged well by Cooke having the younger selves permanently ghosting the older selves, albeit mostly as mutes), but the conflicts were high stakes enough. You took my husband. I took yours... It's probably too close to Staunton's Martha to see her in this role, as a lot felt similar to that performance. But I do love that laugh she does. Janie Dee was really good, and you could feel her pent up rage from the start. Even when dancing. A sign of a great actress. The mirror number (is it?) was when the show finally sprang to life, and the audience were able to clap rapturously (it felt like they wanted to from the off, but weren't allowed, if that makes sense?). And Janie Dee's Folly's number was great too. But apart from these, there didn't seem to be much spectacle in the numbers to match the spectacle of the set (really impressive). I always do an audience check around me if I'm feeling a bit bored or disconnected during a show, and I looked around the stalls and realised I wasn't the only one. Not that people were slumped in their seats, but there was an ever increasing air of disappointment as the show went on that "this is what it's going to be". The occasional number of joy or energy, but then back to the dramatically lacking script and story, or some very slow songs. I think if you go wanting to absolutely love it, you will be fine. But if you go not knowing what to expect or expecting an evening of music and drama coming together, you won't quite get it here. But I think that's less the fault of the production and more of the show itself. * but the conflicts were high stakes enough. I meant to type "weren't high stakes enough".
|
|