990 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.)
|
|
990 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?
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 30, 2017 12:04:00 GMT
|
|
990 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. ππππππππ
|
|
990 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?) ΒΏQuΓ©? Apologies. One second... "SΓ, esto es realmente interesante: ΒΏCuΓ‘ntos en este tablero dirΓan que han tweeted sobre un espectΓ‘culo si se han sentido negativamente al respecto? Y si no, ΒΏcuΓ‘les fueron sus razones para no twittear? (Especialmente aquellos que no han amado a Follies: ΒΏquΓ© escribiste en Twitter despuΓ©s del show, o decidiste no enviar un tweet?)" Me entiendo?
|
|
990 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?)
|
|
990 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.)
|
|
990 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.
|
|
990 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.)
|
|
990 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".
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 23, 2017 23:37:48 GMT
I have just got home from tonights preview. I don't really enjoy Sondheim but went in with an open mind. The scenery was outstanding. It looked authentic and created a great ambience. The mirror number was fantastic. There was a few mistakes with the choreography overall but hey its a preview! After the show, a few other audience members expressed disappointment with the production especially with the individual follies. The ending was very abrupt and for me it failed to bring any sort of closure. It never really went anywhere. The cast was great. However, its style over substance for me. I wouldn't go again or recommend. Too long. Great to hear a similar opinion. I sensed others felt the same as me in the stalls during it, as I said, but then people seemed to ovate pretty quickly, even the couple in front of me who had seemed quite restless. Audiences can be so hard to gauge. But I reminded myself it was a preview audience, so might be more willing to love it from the off/regardless, than a regular audience. Agree about the abrupt ending. I have tickets for January but I think I might gift them on to someone instead of going again. Once felt enough.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 23, 2017 23:31:13 GMT
I wanna hear more about Tracie Bennett! How does she do on the big number, following apprehension some on here had before? TB does it sat initially on some old theatre seats with young'uns around her, then drifts off solo. She does two laps of the seats, and a lot of gestures that reminded me of Judy Garland in her later years. I think she could have more detail in her funny lines, but it got a big round.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 23, 2017 21:54:56 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.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 19, 2017 0:11:19 GMT
For those who loved it, they're heading into the recording studio Monday and Tuesday. Yippee!
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 15, 2017 13:15:14 GMT
This is a further bad sign from the NT, this ballot.
Their regular Platforms are now set to become Β£7 per ticket. For (sometimes) a 45min talk.
And the asking for money from the public to mount this very production.
Is anyone else concerned?
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 11, 2017 20:05:19 GMT
Christ, what IS this?...
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 6, 2017 8:32:27 GMT
I realise it can be upsetting to realise how awards shows (and not just theatre awards shows) work, but they've nearly always been this way. No they haven't. The SWET Awards and then the Olivier Awards operated for decades with a judging panel of critics supplemented by a Public judging panel, and all the members were requird to see all the eligible productions. Then, very recently, they made these panels advisory (i.e. they can now be completely ignored) and switched to a voting system of industry insiders, with no requirement to have seen anything. So, it's only very recently that the Oliviers have become a total fix. Haha! I love this HonouredGuest. Glad you are in agreement. (Although having been on one of the said panels a few times in my time in the industry, it is sad to say it has been rigged for much longer.)
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 6, 2017 8:26:21 GMT
Very proud to say I couldn't disagree with Nicholas more. On nearly everything he has said. Loved this show so much.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 6, 2017 8:10:40 GMT
Don't forget the Oliviers are mainly decided by Sonia Friedman and whomever the President of SOLT is that year. If Sonia can invest in a production after it's initial run somewhere, that show will win an Olivier/lots of Oliviers. And this show is already NYC bound next year. It's all about enabling future lives for the "winning" shows, and the marketing/money making possibilities for them. With this in mind, they could split Lane and Garfield into Leading and Supporting categories respectively, to give AiA the maximum number of "wins" before it heads to Broadway. It is more likely that they will both be in the Leading Male category though. In which case a "tie" for the win would assist the marketing. As emicradiff said, the Oliviers do tend to "make it up as they go along", and it's less about merit, and rather mainly about money. I think you're confusing your Tony and Olivier politics a little. The Oliviers don't award based on how much future life they can give a show, but the Tonys do have that reputation, mainly over the Wicked/Avenue Q farrago. The Oliviers have in the past awarded all the big category prizes to shows that have already closed and never seen the light of day again.Β You're also very wide of the mark on the Sonia Friedman front. If that were the case, there were many more Oliviers that shows she is a producer/investor in could have won this year. At last year's ceremony, not one of the winning productions was one that had her name attached. No involvement from her company in Angels in America, and that is guaranteed to be an awards shoo in.Β Also "this show is already NYC bound" - which show? Neither Angels nor Hamlet have announced any plans to head to NYC, and only Angels has even been mentioned as possibly heading that way, maybe, but only a VERY vague rumour, nothing concrete at all. So I'm not sure what you're referring to? Hi pcb No, I'm not confusing the Oliviers with the Tonys. You seem to be strongly disagreeing with what I've written about future lives of shows via award wins, whilst at the same time agreeing but saying only the Tonys do this? That the Oliviers could never do such a thing? Is this right? You also seem to be wrong about Sonia's involvement. You might want to recheck your lists, not only from last year but other years too. You'll see the pattern I'm speaking of. I don't think I suggested Hamlet was Broadway bound. Only Angels. Which is going there next year. I realise it can be upsetting to realise how awards shows (and not just theatre awards shows) work, but they've nearly always been this way.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 4, 2017 9:47:22 GMT
Don't forget the Oliviers are mainly decided by Sonia Friedman and whomever the President of SOLT is that year.
If Sonia can invest in a production after it's initial run somewhere, that show will win an Olivier/lots of Oliviers.
And this show is already NYC bound next year.
It's all about enabling future lives for the "winning" shows, and the marketing/money making possibilities for them.
With this in mind, they could split Lane and Garfield into Leading and Supporting categories respectively, to give AiA the maximum number of "wins" before it heads to Broadway.
It is more likely that they will both be in the Leading Male category though. In which case a "tie" for the win would assist the marketing.
As emicradiff said, the Oliviers do tend to "make it up as they go along", and it's less about merit, and rather mainly about money.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 2, 2017 19:40:09 GMT
Blimey! Β Now that I would have to see... Oh, he'll do it! πππ
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 2, 2017 17:53:04 GMT
Those questioning the "need" of this Hamlet are forgetting the only read "need" has come from Tom himself and his "need" to play Hamlet. I doubt he has any concerns that there have been others recently; rather the time scale that he has to play the Dane legitimately is fast ebbing.
There is very little need for this production.
It sort of defines vanity project.
But then it's The Hiddles.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 1, 2017 14:27:42 GMT
The overreactions here in either direction are a bit much.
Nice idea and yes part of it is the publicity rather than the actual dosh raised. I like checking out student productions and in particular have enjoyed a number of Guildhall productions more than some professional shows. I haven't seen much RADA stuff though.
They're not overreactions. They're reactions. Just like your own.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 1, 2017 13:08:06 GMT
Eurgh, there's so much wrong about this.
The egos have landed.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 28, 2017 9:50:11 GMT
I'm row F. Any obstruction from there does anyone know? No massive obstruction. You're just on the end seats of a very long row.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2017 22:15:02 GMT
Does anyone know if Clare Halse publishes her holiday schedule anywhere? Thanks in advance.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2017 17:04:29 GMT
The play's the thing. It's just not dramatic or interesting enough. The producers will have to have deep pockets to get it through the to its end date.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2017 16:50:26 GMT
How has this play got ANY decent reviews? It's dreadful. Colman aside it's a total waste of time and effort. Actually it's a total waste of HER time and effort more than anyone else's. Implausible, dull and overlong. It felt like it had been written by a school kid. I totally agree. Maybe it's because the reviewers were coming off the back of CAT ON A... on Monday night, and were relieved to see some quality (in the design and Colman at least)? Maybe they felt bad for the run of Common & Salome reviews/NT generally? Maybe they felt the (bold) attempt at a science/humanity mash-up worthy of more stars than its content? It is a 2*/3* at best play. The 4*/5* reviews are only going to start baffling audiences once they've bought tickets and are inside.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2017 16:46:15 GMT
Anybody sat in the cheap circle seats for this? I'm in P15 (second row in one of the side blocks) - had bad experiences of dreadful restricted views in the Dorfman so would be interesting to know how the sightlines are for this. We were sat next to yours. View was perfect. Naturally there were a couple of moments where the staging was more skewed towards the front but overall it was a great view of the action. Given the way that some of the projections worked, all in all I suspect that the view from this sort of height & location may well have been better than the more expensive floor level seats. Enjoy. (one caveat: I've never been to the Dorfman before so don't have anything to compare it to. nevermind, apparently The Flick was there so I have been but that wasn't in the round.) Yes, even the views from up top aren't too bad as Norris has staged most of the evening centre-stage, as best he can. In fact the cheap seats ip top are a bit of a bargain in the in-round-round format.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2017 16:44:32 GMT
Oh, I liked that subplot a lot; powerful (albeit overlooked from the sheer number of different plots). I thought the "implausible" plot point would be {Spoiler - click to view} a teenage hacker single-handledly bringing down CERN/LHC and his aunt who can barely use email taking the fall for it, but everyone writing it off as an unexplained accident anyway, because people always just shrug and go "eh complicated s**t always goes wrong" when their globally significant β¬billion project crashes. And a boy criminally sabotaging his mum's work and entering into a conspiracy of silence with his aunt about it isn't a massive secret that's inevitably going to explode in their family at some point down the line.
Yes, it's quite disastrously handled by Kirkwood. Almost flippant. As she rushes on to cover all the subjects she wants to cram in.
|
|