996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 29, 2016 11:23:52 GMT
I think they've mucked up the wording of their statement too. Free refunds for all and a free show. Don't show up, and no refund?? "The performance will still go ahead but you will be offered a full refund should you decide to attend."
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 26, 2016 12:03:11 GMT
The response to Emma Rice’s departure really has been something to behold hasn’t it? I respect people’s right to react in whatever way they find appropriate but can’t we just consider the fact that it just didn’t work out? In the age of Twitter and, indeed, TheatreBoard there are a variety of opinions now available to us, 24/7. Some of the more influential and established commentators have out-done themselves though. She’s “clearly been pushed”, “it goes deeper”, “it’s not about lighting” says one. The Globe is “deeply divided” says another. I’m sure you’ll carefully lay out your evidence to support these statements won’t you? No? We all love a conspiracy theory but this unbridled twittering is, I would imagine, deeply unhelpful to an organisation that’s going through challenging times. If you want to support The Globe’s and Emma Rice’s future then a more measured response might be more helpful. On a few practical points. It is very easy to find the job description online. Amongst other things, it says : [our] theatre practice is inspired by a sense of continuing experimentation and openness of approach, underpinned by a desire to reflect theatre practice of Shakespeare’s time.
and
[the job is] To ensure that the programming in the Globe Theatre and Sam Wanamaker Playhouse provide a satisfying and coherent balance of traditional, experimental and international work.
I’ll just leave that there for those who felt that a) the Globe Management were keen to stifle creativity and innovation and b) weren’t clear about their commitment to traditional ways of working too. Secondly. On the question of innovation. Mark R and Dominic D (and their rosta of visiting directors and companies) proved time and again that innovation is possible within these parameters. It will be possible again. Thirdly. On audiences. This has been the most interesting one for me (and many in this thread). The Globe has played to packed, diverse houses for 20 years. Just because you’re going now doesn’t mean that the audience has only now become more diverse. The Twitterverse has led us to believe that our bubble is the only bubble. Funnily enough, it’s not. I frankly think that it’s shaming that people have been saying ‘I’ve never been before, Emma Rice got me to come and therefore this whole situation is a scandal’. The scandal is that you never came before to support this award-winning, ground-breaking, internationally-important institution. Step forward Matthew Bourne. The theatre vs heritage vs academic debate doesn’t deserve any more airtime. The Globe was founded to deliver across all of those objectives and the previous Artistic Directors also wrestled with that balance, it seems. Yesterday’s news was very sad indeed. But it was delivered without leaks, unseemly rushes for the door and public slanging matches. This final element was provided by ‘the audience’ who supposedly care so much that they forgot context, complexity, good grace and the power of calm reflection. Then why, with their own job description in front of them, did the Board hire Emma?
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 26, 2016 1:27:51 GMT
But at the end of the day theatres, even the subsidised ones Shakespeare's Globe is a not-for-profit Trust, so it's neither subsidised nor a business. That's at the root of today's news issue. Individual Board members and major donors are too disruptively influential because of its structure. Exactly. It was donors threatening to pull their £££ if she didn't go that has resulted in this. So so sad.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 26, 2016 1:25:00 GMT
So sad to hear about Howard Davies passing. Jonathan Kent must be helming solely on this now.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 21, 2016 7:23:55 GMT
I'm beyond shocked that I was unable to realize that this Lazarus was the off-Bway production that Bowie/Walsh did in NY. Michael C. Hall, best tv actor of his generation, is reprising his role, DAMN. Also shocked that the good tickets are either £95 or £75!!! If there's any sale, please let me know! Otherwise I will have to buy a V row for £55 as I already paid too much for King Lear and Dreamgirls (and I wanna try HPotter's tickets) Hey madsonmelo We got £15 tickets yesterday for the first night. There are still lots of £15 tickets left for a lot of dates and some £35 seats have just been put on near the front too. Don't pay £95!
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 21, 2016 0:28:44 GMT
Wow, all seats in the gods £55 or £35
Which must mean a few of the Royal Circle and Stalls will be at this "Regular Top" price of £85.
What will the majority of the seats be at, i.e. Premiums?!!!
It's a bit sick, right?
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 21, 2016 0:14:22 GMT
Love Cherry Jones, but this production did nothing new with the play at all. Does anyone know why it is garlanded as being revolutionary in some way? Aside from there being "oil" around the set, and Laura coming out of a settee at the start?
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 18, 2016 14:05:32 GMT
Billington summing up Icke's mode: "As it is, we have a strange hybrid in which a novel has been turned into a stage production that paradoxically aspires to the condition of film."
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 17, 2016 14:33:03 GMT
Well, let's start with the terrible Marcel Marceau acting during the storm sequence. My heart sank during that moment and it didn't really un-sink for the next 2 hours. You don't even need that scene, since in the following scene, they talk the audience through what happened in the storm. It should have been cut. This was unintentionally funny, I thought they all had very poor skills for dealing with a blizzard, honestly do up your coat before you go outside! Yes! AND there's a fire on when they eventually get inside and no one stays by it to get warm!
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 17, 2016 2:02:36 GMT
The opening scene: she sees everything. Hence the ending. I found it hugely enjoyable. Extremely stylish, smart, definitely tense (thanks partly to superb sound), great theatre noir. Completely forgot Mark Strong was in it and only realised it was him really quite near the end. Chilly, but highly entertaining. We actually laughed out loud at the ending. It's ridiculous and hilarious all at once.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 16, 2016 23:01:44 GMT
Another night for Forum badges, I was there too. And I really didn't enjoy it. I'm not a Hare dissenter, I am actually a big fan of the Icke and with that cast, how can we possibly go wrong? Well, let's start with the terrible Marcel Marceau acting during the storm sequence. My heart sank during that moment and it didn't really un-sink for the next 2 hours. You don't even need that scene, since in the following scene, they talk the audience through what happened in the storm. It should have been cut. Speaking of cuts, they'd be well advised to remove the word "tense" from the signs outside the Lyttleton. The play is anything BUT tense. If you take the signs at face value and go in expecting something Hitchcock-esque, you'll be so very disappointed. It's adapted from a French novel and it sure sounds like the dialogue has been badly translated into English. It's awkward, it's stilted, it's mannered. People don't speak like this, and none of the poor people on the stage made me believe otherwise. And yes, the sets are impressive, but when the lengthy scene changes leave the audience staring at nothing and listening to some pre-recorded dialogue? No. I don't really understand why they did this as a play, when it's been staged and directed as if it's a film. I was really looking forward to this. But for me, this was a big old dud. You've nailed it. Icke seems to be obsessed with making theatre become film. Which it's not. If he loves tv and film so much he needs to stop putting long (sometimes LIVE) video on the stage, and in the staging making everything look like its a film, and go away and make tv or film. That's obviously where his heart lies. See the Times article last week for ref.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 15, 2016 22:20:29 GMT
Saw this last night. Disappointed as it seemed to be the same issue highlighted, and then put on repeat in seemingly random time periods, including those future in the second half. Anne Marie Duff is always watchable but she is, as someone else pointed out, making duff choices recently. Cracknell throws everything at it with Mortimer design wise, but it's like Drink It In The Congo: we get the message early on, go somewhere with it: neither play does.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 15, 2016 21:45:16 GMT
I can't understand the negative comments above. I thought this was excellent, easily the best National production under Rufus. It's stylish, tense, hugely cinematic with great performances. As added bonuses we have a lift on stage and Liz Debicki gets her kit off....what's not to like? This was David Hare channeling Arthur Miller and American Beauty, with many parallels between Mark Strong's character and Lester Burman. Amazing staging, brilliant performances and thought provoking story. Highly recommended "and Liz Debicki gets her kit off....what's not to like?" Wow. They/Trump actually just wrote that about the play and Elizabeth Debicki. Wow.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 14, 2016 23:53:49 GMT
Oh god It's so sh*t What pisses me off Is that it's not a thriller Nor a psychological drama Not thrilling or exciting or startling An episode of Murder She Wrote is more complex It's SO boring There is zero tension And actually nothing happens in 2 hours The stage design is clumsy and noisy And the whole thing is like the rejects from the offcuts from an episode of Mad Men Really really disappointing as it has been advertised as mysterious And worthless compared to Shopping and f***ing and Oil which I saw this week Also one of the actresses has a severe case of "needs a bloody good meal" going on Not nice to see People will be stupidly paying WE prices to see this awful play and much of the dialogue is just entirely unbelievable Stunted sentences and huge pauses I cannot find anything to recommend this The acting is sh*te too As I put in my review above, glad it wasn't just us then. Did you see this: www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/what-to-see/most-theatre-is-boring--i-just-walk-out-says-director-robert-ick/It sort of beggars belief. Normally he at least provides intervals (to leave).
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 12, 2016 23:36:55 GMT
Oh dear. It looks very impressive, but the play itself and especially the script is bad. We found it very hard to care about Mark Strong's character, and in order for the play to succeed you sorta have to care about him. It starts and ends with a bang, but the middle sort of plods along, via a million scene changes during which black screens come in and you sit in the dark hearing sound design or character's phone conversations. Strong is very good, and yet also miscast. Debicki is very good and strikingly beautiful. Hope Davies has the most intriguing character, but little is done with her. It tried to tread the fine line between stock thriller and intelligent thriller, but ends up in neither. The end bright gasps from some and actual laughter from others. Certainly not Uncle Vanya levels of detailed characterisation here, but then they haven't got the material here at all. Enjoy the view, because the play itself gives very little over its 2hrs to reward the viewers. A very expensive looking miss.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 12, 2016 23:24:04 GMT
A question that's come up discussing this show with friends:
Can a British cast do justice to this musical?
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 2, 2016 14:15:32 GMT
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 2, 2016 10:30:16 GMT
So I was told box office opens at ten, my dad goes down to check not sold yet...no worries dad said 50 people in queue. Others returning tickets at same time. Almost an hour later he goes back they haven't even opened the queue yet! Crazy they have seats to sell people wanting to buy them who have been waiting for hours, seems so illogical not sure who benefits by making people queue longer...just got to hope someone wants a front row seat… Sorry to hear this samjane92. The Palace does seem to have a habit on this show of holding back returns til 1-2hrs before the show starts. They do, as you point out, seem to enjoy making people queue longer than necessary. At first we thought this might be a Producer-led thing, creating a buzz by the Wonder what they're queueing for? idea, for people walking past (although it's pretty obvious!). The release of returns tends to be at the discretion of the box office manager/clerks who are there on the day of the performance, rather than producers, so I think words need to be had with the box office themselves. Why should patrons have to stand outside for hours on end, when they could be sold available returns, and go a) home/back to their hotel and get some rest before the show, or b) get to sit down in a coffee shop or go wherever, instead of being chained to the side of a building. The Palace box office need to have a word with whoever is delaying the release of those tickets.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 30, 2016 23:48:01 GMT
Still dithering on this one, I love the play and love Ruth Wilson but I cannot stand van Hove's productions. I'll probably see what I can get closer to the time. It's going to be a replica of this, so this might help decide: Ivo van Hove's HEDDA GABLER trailer
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 30, 2016 23:11:39 GMT
Big fan of Sewell, but overall disappointed in this line-up. I thought Warchus might get Ralph Fiennes or similar back in to play about with this play for its thousandth outing.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 30, 2016 0:07:31 GMT
Ray Fearon is a sight for sore eyes. The use of the child was interesting - or could have been. The kid was so utterly lovely that the audible cooing of the audience echoing about the joint distracted most scenes the kid appeared in. Also liked the Porter. Eyes, yes. Ears, NO. WHY DOES RAY SHOUT EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME?
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 29, 2016 23:59:12 GMT
Oh rats :-( Knowing how well this has sold generally, it's possible that when we get there, we might find there will still be a decent choice of seats to move to if we're not happy with our allocated one... That's what I'm hoping. I will try and ring Lovetheatre tomorrow and see if they can move me to an aisle. Same date etc. I don't care if it's further back or anything as long as it's on an aisle. Hey, you will be able to move to an aisle seat on the night no probs. Are you in the Stalls? We did tonight.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 29, 2016 23:57:50 GMT
Gosh, you are almost reminding me of some posts I often read on Broadwayworld.... no need to pull people up for a misused word. Your OPTIONS are pretty much Friday 40/returns queue, although even at premium prices I'd still expect to make much more for a kidney. Treat yourself and don't worry about the cost. This is the real deal. How did you know I was American?
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 29, 2016 23:56:16 GMT
Deeply sad news.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 28, 2016 12:30:00 GMT
You are entitled to more opinions than the Friday Forty when you arrive. Like rush seats? Anything else? Literally any opinion you want. The people in the queue will let you know about more opinions too.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 28, 2016 12:28:20 GMT
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 28, 2016 1:49:33 GMT
Ah, so this is how you learned to play that song in Groundhog Day so fast. Have you any other shows recorded in full? Would love to hear Groundhog Day again.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 28, 2016 1:45:02 GMT
The Friday Forty is my only opinion, right?? You are entitled to more opinions than the Friday Forty when you arrive.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 27, 2016 12:51:36 GMT
Saw this last night and oh dear…
Very disappointing. The set looks lovely, but that's about it. The music would be lovely were it not played solely on a keyboard. Keyboard "strings" and "brass" sound…well, like they're being played on a keyboard. Mark Hadfield puts in a fine performance, as does Jasper Britton. But Dominic Cooper, despite looking the way he does, seems woefully miscast. And maybe knows it?…
His opening speech is great fun, but right then he did nothing with it, apart from looking at a few people on the front row with a raised eyebrow. He gives the part almost no energy. There is no lust, no joy, no passion, no danger at all. Watch him jump onto a table in a moment of supposed passion…taking extreme care to do so… The few "moments" in the play that are moving or dramatic (and strangely there are very few in Stephen Jeffrey's piece, it almost fights against being dramatic…odd) go for nothing because we do not care about him.
This is part to do with the writing, of course, but Cooper does nothing to help himself.
The women fair a bit better. Although Johnson has done the unforgivable once again, and cast his daughter (the second time in a year). The fate of one of the male characters is met with silence and, again, a lack of empathy, because we simply have not got to know that person, or any of them, in more than a two dimensional way.
The role of Rochester though does have more meat to it. And Dominic Cooper is a fine actor, but not a great one. To be great in this part he would have had to have been directed better by Terry Johnson, and it looks like Terry has failed in this job. One wonders what his close friend Nick Hytner would have managed to get out of him if he had directed it?
At the end of the play Cooper turns to each of the characters and asks, "Do you like me now?", and, as we cringed at what was coming, the inevitable happened, and he turned out front to us and ask us the same question.
I fear the reviewers are going to have a field day with that moment alone, especially if an audience member shouts out.
We don't like you now because we were never allowed to like you in this production, because of the poor writing, but ultimately the poor choice of lead.
He'll run back to TV once the reviews come out and if the run completes its duration, and won't return to the stage for a long time it looks like.
|
|
996 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 18, 2016 0:03:06 GMT
I was there tonight as well. Tim Minchin and his guest, Ralf Fiennes were in the audience, which draw some ooo's and ahhh's. Really enjoyed it again for the second time and was satisfied how they worked out some of the illusions in act 2. A part of me genuinely wishes there has been circus-like "Ooo's and ahhh's" that you speak of every time Tim and Ralphy-Ralf did something. E.g. stand up/sit down/reach for their glass/applaud/look knowingly at each other, etc. I wonder if they were together as a power couple or just sat next to each other in the House Seats? Could Ralphy-Ralf be contemplating a musical next?
|
|