986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 11, 2016 0:48:01 GMT
Announcement due imminently.
Michael Meyer directing his 2013 Broadway version.
British "star" to take the title role.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 31, 2016 1:14:11 GMT
It is good But the error with this glut is that you see how remarkably narrow minded Chekhov was He only had about 2 themes and agendas and a limited way of exploring them There are plenty of merits to this trilogy But it's a bit like reading Mills and Boon Or Partricia Cornwell It's the same over and over again I have to say having the same actors in fact does not help It reinforces the repetitive nature of it Furthermore: I saw a far superior Platonov at the Barbican a few years back And this Ivanov is an anaemic shadow of the Branagh triumph as part of the Donmar season I remain to see how The Seagull fares But doubt it will match up to the KST version at the RC Comparisons are always inevitable and David Hare hasn't helped in this situation Agree with you on all 3 counts r.e. Maly Theatre Platanov, Branagh's Ivanov, and KST's Seagull. They were all excellent. And had high stakes. Which is what the trilogy at the National unfortunately lack, especially in The Seagull, where nothing seems to be at stake for anyone, apart from Nina in Act 4, but even then it's too late.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 28, 2016 22:59:05 GMT
She's good but I mean.... Is there any other female actress in Manchester? There are a grand total of 2 actresses in Manchester, in accordance with Manchester City Council regulations. They are both allowed to play leading lady and man (and trans) roles in Manchester on the stage and in the telly box. They are: 1. Ms Maxine Peake 2. Ms Julie Hesmondhalgh We kindly advise that we do not recognise other women residing in Manchester or the North if they attempt to grace the Royal Exchange stage.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 27, 2016 22:12:26 GMT
Nice 4 * review for this from the Torygraph.
Do we know why this is co-directed by Howard Davies and Jeremy Herrin? Is Howard Davies ill?
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 26, 2016 0:44:11 GMT
Fox and James reunited. I cannot wait for this. Their production of THE LAST FIVE YEARS was brilliant a few years back.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 19, 2016 23:19:48 GMT
I wonder if Rupert Goold really wanted to direct this or if Fiennes brought it to him and he felt he couldn't turn it down. Anyway, the dullest Shakespeare from him I've seen. It does seem like Fiennes has a checklist of classical roles he's wanting to get through quite quickly, and if you're a director willing to do any of them, he'll come to you.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 6, 2016 20:55:44 GMT
Currently reading this play in my free time at the moment, really enjoying it. I think that it's time for a West End revival? It's not been in London since 2010 and there could be quite a good cast for it? I know now it would never happen but, in an ideal world of casting anyone you wanted, Imelda Staunton and Jim Carter would make great Kate and Joe Keeler respectively! www.rosetheatrekingston.org/whats-on/all-my-sons Get booking!
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 6, 2016 11:38:53 GMT
Whereas the ending in WILD at the Hampstead seemed to be added to save a bad play, the ending here seemed to be in place from the start, but I'm not sure the play they've devised has given sufficient justification for its appearance. It, of course, comes from Matt Smith's character's desire for perfect light, but as it stands at the moment seems to come from nowhere, do it's thing, but in a sort of vacuum belonging to another play, and then blackout. It's not really in keeping with the rest of the "rough theatre" aesthetic of the rest of the production either.
Jerusalem probably still wins for the subtle action of those trees suddenly waving and shaking as summoned by Rooster. Action from text.
Unreachable's ending is action from design, rather than naturally coming from what has gone before.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 5, 2016 23:47:24 GMT
We got told 3hrs including interval last night. It ran at 2hrs 45mins. They need to change their website.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 2, 2016 23:32:58 GMT
Oh my goodness this was so bad.
Like hilariously bad.
And yet the audience were laughing their heads off.
How this man also penned THE FATHER is beyond me.
Like bad sit com, but bad bad sit com.
Alex Hanson cannot act without mouthing his scene partners lines either.
Anyone going to see it (poor you), play the game and just watch him when he's not speaking. It will give you at least something entertaining (for 10 seconds).
Wow. I need a bath.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 30, 2016 23:44:40 GMT
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 28, 2016 22:13:15 GMT
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 23, 2016 1:58:43 GMT
So, essentially, this is like 'Game'? A weak script with a great design? The design is only great in the last five minutes. That's a long wait for anything great...
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 22, 2016 23:49:58 GMT
Bartlett has great topical ideas once again, but this time he has no dramatic vehicle to express them, save, that is, for his wonderful coup de theatre at the end. In fact, the coup de theatre tells the story in and of itself, so this could be reduced to one of those punchy 10 minute plays that Caryl Churchill is specialising in these days, without too much loss. The reason this play is singularly undramatic is that the Edward Snowden character, Andrew (played sympathetically by Jack Farthing) starts off at an all time low: he has betrayed the US Government, and he's holed up in a hotel room in Russia, isolated and alone, unable to speak the language and at the mercy of his handlers. So when we meet his handlers, played by a stubbornly insincere black leather jacket and mini-skirt wearing Caoilfhionn Dunne, and a severe and sincere suit-wearing John Mackay, they already have him at their mercy. No matter how much they needle him, we are never under any illusion that he has any power to resist whatever happens. All three actors are excellent, in my view, but they are all trapped by dramatic inertia. Like Bull, this is a threehander, in which two savvy people poke and prod at a less savvy person, but in that play, the latter chap had everything to lose, which is why it was so gripping, whereas in this play, Farthing's Andrew has already lost everything that matters. Bartlett typically has loads to say about the surveillance society we are living in, as we happily tell Google and Facebook, and hence the Security Services, everything about ourselves willingly, which, suggests Bartlett, makes Andrew's (aka Edward Snowden's) revelations redundant. But it's all "tell," and no "show," for the most part, because of the essentially undramatic set-up. All the "show" comes at the end, with that coup de theatre, and it's SO good that the production is close to unmissable! 3 and a half stars (one of those stars is purely for the coup de theatre, it's concept and it's execution). You've said what I wanted to in a much more eloquent manner, Steve. And you're right, it could be a 10minute piece, and all the better for it. Some dialogue, the scene change, Bob's Your Uncle! Hadn't seen the similarities with BULL, but now see them clearly. Great review!
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 21, 2016 22:47:20 GMT
I was sat at the back of the stalls and it wasn't until I was making my way out at the end that I noticed the big ring above the stage. Note to self, look up when entering theatre as sitting near back too. Is it important? Presumably not if goes unnoticed if you sit far back. It looks more like a giant cog, than a crown, when up close. Maybe it's meant to be a cog, in the big wheel of power? It's really not important to see it though. Nothing happens to it (or on it lighting wise even).
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 18, 2016 22:51:15 GMT
This was terrible. I fear Mike Bartlett's worst play. And we were really looking forward to it. We went this evening, but asked the ushers about the technical troubles. They said it was "ongoing", but I hope they fix it for Tuesday's Press Night, because if the set fails again, I fear the press will make that the focus and use it to describe the play itself which feels very weak. It was an evening of very dry opinions of the individual, the state, Russia, America, what is truth, which makes it all sound more interesting than it was, because it was actually so dull. One room, with not a lot happening in it. I know Snowden was/is trapped in a similar environ, but there's no need to inflict it on us all, and have no interval. We really couldn't engage with any of the characters. Jack Farthing does his best, but taking his top off does seem like a desperate measure. How Dunne has learnt all the facts and wikipedia style ramblings is beyond me. She deserves a medal. HEr and Farthing try their best with the "witty banter" moments, but they die a death because they're surrounded by dry theorising. Mackay tries to inject some Pinter/mysterious force into proceedings, but again, dull. So many pauses in it all, supposedly significant: folding a chocolate bar wrapper, pouring a drink…bore off! The set change at the end WAS visually impressive, but was basically bashing the audience over the head with its metaphor. Nothing exists. Nothing is real. Am I here? Are you here? Engage us. Give us some drama. No, no, no, no, no. Poor. Don't let the set change blind you. Remember how you feel in the first 1hr 30mins. Can you give spoiler please Of the set change It's Miriam Does it change to Bend It Like Beckham?! If only it did change to BILB! Anything. Oh it was SO obvious. I hated it. I really fear it will blind people into thinking the play is more than it is, which is 90minutes of discussion discussion discussion. It's like they read the play, reapplied even at the end that it was building to nothing, and thought Crap, let's put a dramatic scene change in. Terrible. When you go, Parsley, can you let your BILB ringtone go off every so often. It would add some drama for the audience (and evening).
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 18, 2016 22:36:18 GMT
This was terrible.
I fear Mike Bartlett's worst play. And we were really looking forward to it.
We went this evening, but asked the ushers about the technical troubles. They said it was "ongoing", but I hope they fix it for Tuesday's Press Night, because if the set fails again, I fear the press will make that the focus and use it to describe the play itself which feels very weak. It was an evening of very dry opinions of the individual, the state, Russia, America, what is truth, which makes it all sound more interesting than it was, because it was actually so dull. One room, with not a lot happening in it. I know Snowden was/is trapped in a similar environ, but there's no need to inflict it on us all, and have no interval. We really couldn't engage with any of the characters. Jack Farthing does his best, but taking his top off does seem like a desperate measure. How Dunne has learnt all the facts and wikipedia style ramblings is beyond me. She deserves a medal. HEr and Farthing try their best with the "witty banter" moments, but they die a death because they're surrounded by dry theorising. Mackay tries to inject some Pinter/mysterious force into proceedings, but again, dull. So many pauses in it all, supposedly significant: folding a chocolate bar wrapper, pouring a drink…bore off!
The set change at the end WAS visually impressive, but was basically bashing the audience over the head with its metaphor. Nothing exists. Nothing is real. Am I here? Are you here? Engage us. Give us some drama.
No, no, no, no, no.
Poor.
Don't let the set change blind you. Remember how you feel in the first 1hr 30mins.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 29, 2016 22:12:10 GMT
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 16, 2016 16:03:33 GMT
Very tempted to see this, sounds great.But i have only have one possible sslot for it, and it's a toss up between this and seeing Billy Elliot for a final time before it closes. decisions decisions. I would see PP&T. Went back to BILLY last night and it's not in the best shape, despite it closing. Felt quite forced comedy wise, and the Mrs Wilkinson just doesn't quite do it. Keep your good memories of that, and get new memories instead of this great new play and Denise Gough's performance.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 13, 2016 0:13:58 GMT
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 3, 2016 23:55:07 GMT
Baz is confirming this with Vanessa Redgrave as Margaret. It should be a very exciting production. Really can't wait for this.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Feb 17, 2016 13:01:01 GMT
I was sat 3 seats away from stage, on right hand side facing, and Debbie is right, you only miss a door, save the other side where I feel you would miss a lot. Hard to hear quite a bit of it, even with them mic'd. Why mic them at all? Sometimes, Katie… Nudity everywhere, but I felt serving the text. It's not an easy watch, and could understand why people would walk, especially NT members, who book Previews as standard. Students will go nuts for it. The older generation not so much. It's great to see Mitchell doing something brutal again though, after the children's shows. Great for Rufus bringing her back.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Feb 16, 2016 13:52:28 GMT
Front row tomorrow night thanks to the Friday Rush tickets! Does anyone know the running time of this play from any past productions? Going tonight as well. Really looking forward to it. The play normally runs at 1hr 30mins.
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Feb 16, 2016 13:50:37 GMT
You've gone from not reading between the lines, to now reading between lines that were never there. I love this! Could you expand on why you thought the fool was a "low point" particularly in that production then? I could but I don't have to. More instructive would be for you to explain why you looked at that actor and saw someone from Japan, in fact for you that is apparently such a defining characteristic you mentioned it when no-one else here had. I looked at them and just saw an actor. You may "love" being called out for your somewhat immature attitude to diversity in casting but accusing people of racism with no foundation or evidence at all could get you into a lot of trouble. Probably you think your initial comment on this thread was a joke. It wasn't. It was far from a joke, unfortunately. It's your choice not to expand on why you thought that particular performance was a "new low" though. We will never know...
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Feb 15, 2016 16:07:20 GMT
Ah, the point I was making... Rather than report you to Admin let me explain why your post was offensive so you might learn something. I am well aware that you were charging me with racism. In this production the Fool was played by a Japanese actor. I said the Fool was bad in this production. You are saying that the reason I am saying this is that I am a racist, that is that there is no possible other reason for me to have taken the view, for example that the part was badly acted, or the director's interpretation of the part was ridiculous, or any number of valid reasons. To show up the stupidity of that view I should point out that I also thought Hawthorne was very poor in that production, do you think I'm saying that because he is English ? However, there is another implication from your comments, you must think that because the Fool was played by a Japanese actor then they should be above any normal criticism which might be directed at English actors. What they teach you in any diversity training course (you might try one) is that the assignment of a single characteristic to a single race or ethnic group is racist. That could be "All Mexicans are lazy" or "All Japanese are good actors" - the fact is that some are good, some are bad, some are average, they are all individuals just like us. Ponder upon that - equality means that they should be treated equally, no ? Of course also present in your post is a version of the tedious old political argument "Anyone who disagrees with me is Hitler" - the adolescent tendency to ascribe the worst possible motives to anyone who simply disagrees with one of your opinions. I have close family members who are immigrants to UK so the charge is doubly ridiculous. I don't expect an apology. You've gone from not reading between the lines, to now reading between lines that were never there. I love this! Could you expand on why you thought the fool was a "low point" particularly in that production then?
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Feb 15, 2016 9:52:17 GMT
Yes, wasn't the Fool in that one…a foreigner? Of "Japanese" extraction? #outraged Bit racist of you to say that. Ah, the point I was making...
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Feb 14, 2016 22:50:38 GMT
the Nigel Hawthorne Lear was interesting, with Michael Maloney, but the falling rocks were pretty terrifying and the genuine. centuries old Kimonos made Goneril and Regan immoveable. But i'm thrilled to get the chance to see Glenda again..... Hated the Hawthorne one, a new low with the Fool in that one. Yes, wasn't the Fool in that one…a foreigner? Of "Japanese" extraction? #outraged
|
|
986 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Feb 5, 2016 1:22:12 GMT
Ralph Fiennes to play the title role in Rupert Goold's new take on Shakespeare's classic.
Opening June.
|
|