2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 29, 2018 19:33:40 GMT
Just been shortlisted for 4 Evening Standard awards. Best design Best musical performance Rosalie Craig Best musical Best director Where's Patti and Jonathan on the list?!? They were robbed... They don’t have supporting role categories. Usually their default is to give the awards to the most famous person on each list.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 29, 2018 10:27:16 GMT
I was in that comment referring back to my sitcom comment - the best sitcoms in my very humble opinion are the ones that can make you cry as well as laugh. So for example last night I happened to re-watch the episode of Friends where Phoebe has her babies. It's still hilarious, and silly at times...but I still cry when Phoebe says goodbye to the babies. That's my 'early morning top of my head' example. Plays/musicals wise I'm sure there are some actually. It's a bit early and I have to leave for work. But I'll return to that... I’d add the end of Blackadder Goes Forth and the last episode of the most recent season of Upstart Crow to this one. I thought Master of None did a great balancing act but I still haven't reconciled myself with Aziz Ansari. Strongest rip your heart out/make you laugh factor of recent times has to be Nanette, by Hannah Gadsby. Obvs not a sitcom though. This has turned into more of a list of things I have enjoyed than a cogent comment. At least a couple of Inside no 9 episodes end up very teary. 12 days of Christine with Sheridan Smith and Bernie Clifton’s Dressing Room as a mostly two hander with Pemberton and Shearsmith. The Office, Larry Sanders finales too. Many classic comedies don’t get emotional though and they still work fine. Thinking of classics like Fawlty Towers.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 25, 2018 9:07:49 GMT
Some of us are still going to see this - please put spoilers behind spoiler tags! And can we pull back on making moral judgements about people being intrigued and excited to see a piece of theatre, by a well-known and popular playwright, which has divided opinion? It is a cardinal sin to condemn something without seeing it - we all may be just as outraged as you, but we do have to see it first before we reach that conclusion. We wouldn’t be here if we didn’t get excited by theatre. This is the point - people want to see it so they can join the conversation. They may well not like it but not seeing it excludes them. Given that I'm down to see it in January I'm also now interested in seeing more opinions, in light of reviews and such.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 23, 2018 19:53:12 GMT
It’s the time travel bit of sci-fi that’s always interested me, the alien bit I can take or leave.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 23, 2018 17:13:10 GMT
Episode 3 was a bit left field. I enjoyed it, but is it really "Doctor Who?" It’s actually the sort of episode that that the show was set up to do at its inception. Travelling through time and highlighting aspects of history in an educational way. I thought it worked well.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 22, 2018 18:13:18 GMT
Good news that it’s being recorded. I quite like the score but, given the era it’s set in, have never felt it gives a flavour of it. Having used the choral/folk song tradition in The Hired Man and a Spanish flavour to Days of Hope that was, maybe, a trick that Goodall missed.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 22, 2018 16:33:37 GMT
I think it very much depend on what you mean by 'terrible'. If you mean you thought it was badly written, then personally I'd say bad luck, that's the punt you take. Besides, I always find that seeing a bad play makes seeing the next good play even better. However if there are technical problems, or actors continually fluff lines etc then yet those are very valid reasons. Yes, that’s the best way of looking at it, ‘Caveat Emptor’. There shouldn’t be any recompense for variations in taste but, if the product is ‘faulty’ then it can fail to reach the expectation of any buyer carrying out due diligence. In theatre that might mean failure of the physical production, such as set or lighting, the performers being unable to fulfil their roles, not dealing with disruptive audience members or, in certain cases, the absence of warnings to the purchaser as regards the nature of the performance (age appropriateness etc.)
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 21, 2018 15:43:41 GMT
Interrupting Broadway speculation, and discussion of Fleeshman's abs for a moment for a serious post. With my serious face. Earlier this week I posted my blog, which is in this thread. As I have a couple of 'formal' reviews coming out I used the blog as a bit of personal expression. I've had an overwhelmingly lovely response from people who really connected with it. However I also had an email from a well known theatre critic who suggested I needed professional help for sex addiction based on what I wrote. That is a whole world of not ok. For a variety of reasons. I contemplated saying nothing, but at the urging of friends (and a discussion with some related to this production) I felt a response was needed not just because it reflects on how men talk to and about women all the time, but also on the relevance of Company itself. I don't name the person so I would like the Mods her to respect my freedom to share this as much as I would any other blog. thenerdytheatre.blogspot.com/2018/10/you-could-drive-person-crazy-or-what-is.htmlJust caught up reading your initial blog and am amazed that anyone could infer what the male theatre critic did from a piece of writing that reflects our shared humanity in all its desires. I see this next week and the last time I saw Company live was twenty-ish years ago at the Donmar. At that time I saw 35 looming closely and your comments on this reflect my own at the time, gender differences apart. Isn’t it wonderful that a show speaks across time and, with few tweaks, across that difference? You have to be pretty screwy to not see the way that, male or female, the pressure to couple is just the same. So, switch the birthday digits around and here I am, seeing it again. I’m looking forward to it. EDIT: Actually, I just realised I see it the week after next. This month is just dragging......
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 20, 2018 12:05:58 GMT
Ear Worm Maximus. 'Marry Me a Little' has infected my head. I genuinely can't believe that at one point it was cut from the show, it feels like such a crucial part of Bobby/ie's journey. Anyone with Sondheim knowledge know the context behind cutting it and bringing it back? Sondheim wrote three songs for the end of the show before Being Alive - Marry me a Little and Multitudes of Amys were songs that linked to a draft where Bobby was going to propose to Amy at the end of the show. That was changed, probably as it undercut the ambiguity and open endedness they ended up with and the songs didn’t make it clear enough that Bobby was lying to himself. The next attempt, that wound up on the demo and initial performances, was Happily Ever After but that was seen as too angry and cynical. Being Alive retained the ambiguity but a more positive outlook. Marry me a Little was heard subsequently by being the title song of the two person early eighties revue like show that carries its name. In the mid nineties Company book revision it was interpolated as the first act finale, as a sort of halfway to Being Alive moment and as the original script didn’t really have a big solo number to keep the focus on Bobby and close the first act. The other cut song is called The Wedding is Off and was an early version of Getting Married Today.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 19, 2018 20:24:09 GMT
Stamina issues for shows well over five hours or so would be one, epics like Nicholas Nickleby, for example. Most performers are used to two show days, so less than that is just par for the course.
The effort to sing isn’t much greater than to act but large and strenuous dance roles would be another. I imagine that Charity in Sweet Charity takes it out of you, for example.
The emotional wear and tear too, putting yourself through an extreme emotional state for an extended period, so something like Lear or some of the major Eugene O’Neill roles.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 19, 2018 9:08:43 GMT
Kneehigh is not Emma Rice, it existed well before her and now exists after her. If anyone, it's Mike Shepherd who is Kneehigh's 'centre', having been with them for nearly forty years.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 17, 2018 23:07:17 GMT
Telegraph five stars too. Great comment from Lukowski in Time Out - “In the role of Bobbie’s extremely Patti LuPone-ish older friend Joanne, she basically sasses sporadically for two-and-a-half hours before being deployed like a 50-megaton bomb just before the end. ”
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 17, 2018 20:17:28 GMT
Radio City’s Christmas Spectacular starts in early November. it’s something that people should see at least once in their life, I think. Be prepared for very non theatre audiences taking pictures, videos etc. but it is jawdropping in its size and glorious tackiness.
There’s an 11am performance as well, so it can fit before a normal matinee.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 16, 2018 23:58:05 GMT
I'm a fan of Timberlake Wertenbaker's play After Darwin (well, at least I'm a fan of the "Darwin" part of the play), which was produced at Hampstead about 20 years ago. But I think a female playwright who deserves a London season is the American Paula Vogel, who has done some fine work, most recently with Indecent. I found How I Learned to Drive thuddingly obvious. I think there are much better American woman playwrights. I was sad that London never got to see Mary Zimmerman’s Metamorphoses for example (okay, it needed a swimming pool onstage but why not?) As for who gets produced, I’m very much an ‘and’ person. The world is better with variety and ‘or’ people are the enemy of that. Have a season of a ‘classic’ playwright in one place and balance that with a new playwrights season elsewhere, for example. Different approaches bring different audiences and London (if not most regional theatre centres) can cope with that easily.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 16, 2018 19:35:19 GMT
Bonkers means mad, surely?
There’s a problem with discussions about theatre, at least early in a run. When few people have seen something then there isn’t much of a knowledgeable discussion to be had. Sadly, I booked for this in January, so I wont get to make a meaningful contribution until it’s nearly over.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 16, 2018 11:37:05 GMT
Immersive is now a well known term as regards staging but there are differences in how it is used.
1) Where the cast and audience share the same space* but the audience are not acknowledged. 2) Where the cast and audience share the same space* and the audience are acknowledged but not expected to respond. 3) Where the cast and audience share the same space* and the audience are both acknowledged and expected to respond. 4) Where technology creates a world in which the audience is placed, through video, audio, VR etc. This may or may not involve live actors.
I'm sure there are more but that's a basic rundown. The use of the term is very wide, as you can see, and is used for anything from basic promenade performances to the audience being the main performer (something like You Me Bum Bum Train).
* Thus excluding any setup where there is a defined stage area that is separate to a defined audience area.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 15, 2018 17:24:44 GMT
The Wild Duck at the Almeida on the Friday or Tuesday evening? A great director, lovely intimate theatre and just about to start previews. White Teeth at the Kiln theatre might be good and would fit those times too.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 15, 2018 14:54:13 GMT
One of the best production/play combos that I've seen and, with Cleansed, two productions of the best contemporary texts that show Katie Mitchell to be among our very best directors.
Different strokes and all that.
The quotes aren't showing up but I assume you mean C&T and AOHL? Certainly the latter was indeed very divisive as I recall, with little or no middle ground. The pattern I've had with KM is I've really enjoyed her work when she's at her most restrained and relatively trope-free. I meant to say earlier, I'm with those who think the title of this play is really stupidly annoying. Note sure where my quote went but I was referring to Attempts on Her Life and Cleansed, I never saw Cruel and Tender. The first two are most definitely seen as among the best of contemporary texts but both are pretty challenging, either through formal experimentation or subject matter. I find it strange but the one of those that really causes friction is playing with form whilst you can have all sorts of carnage onstage and people don't bat an eyelid as long as it's done within a realistic style.
On the other hand I found Mitchell's most recent production here (La maladie de la mort) to be not to my taste. Self obsessed people and a pretty bog standard runthrough a relationship. Her use of live film was much better integrated in her Fraulien Julie or The Forbidden Zone.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 15, 2018 12:27:36 GMT
One of the best production/play combos that I've seen and, with Cleansed, two productions of the best contemporary texts that show Katie Mitchell to be among our very best directors.
Different strokes and all that.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 15, 2018 10:00:18 GMT
I thought it was better than the first episode, more developed intaractions and a greater sense of danger. The first episode was a bit soapy for me. Jodie Whittaker is excellent in any case, quite Tennant-y really.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 14, 2018 11:20:48 GMT
Seats only in the upper circle. The only time I sat up there it felt like I was watching the show from over the border in an adjoining country.*
* Wind on the Willows - Bennett adaptation.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 14, 2018 0:03:13 GMT
He’s absolutely right, though, the ‘general public’ does not know who Lupone is, as opposed to we, the theatregoing public. We live in a bubble within a bubble.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 13, 2018 13:41:35 GMT
I wonder if there’s a sort of peak point in a theatregoing career, when you’re likely to have lots of excellent experiences not so much because of the brilliance of the productions but because you are just the right point to see them. I’m sure we have all noticed that at time goes on and you see more productions you become harder to impress.* Sometimes the shows that hook you in when young look much less exciting a few years down the line, But it’s also true that experience means you pick up on things that go over your head when you are younger. *That’s an editorial you. After forty plus years of theatregoing I think it’s more to do with the nature and quality of what is being done. There have been fallow periods where I’ve seen less as I’ve been less in tune with it but then it turns around and I want to see much more. Overall, I’d say that the last decade or so has been a very strong one and more to my liking than the previous one, for example. Just checking up, I had a real dip between 2002 to the middle of 2006.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 13, 2018 13:35:27 GMT
I've been saying Gaga as Fanny for YEARS. Someone is listening. Can she do comedy? I’ve only seen her doing the roles she played in American Horror Story and she seemed to be fine dramatically but I can’t imagine her being funny enough.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 13, 2018 13:21:32 GMT
Um. Well. I think I feel the same way about this as I do about the later work of Terry Gilliam, if you see what I mean.... more when i’m back at my keyboard. The early points on twitter are fairly mixed, but this comment is definitely intriguing. From the blurb on the website, if they've managed to get Gilliam's visual aesthetic and tone then it seems like it could be a great fit. Edit: just noticed that you used the word 'later'. Hmm, still enjoy his work, but he's definitely past his creative peak. Slightly more nervous now. ‘Dark’, ‘Weird’, ‘Mental’, potentially offensive. The sort of comments that are more likely to have me looking forward to it, to be honest.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 13, 2018 9:04:17 GMT
Best - Faust (Punchdrunk).
Could eaaily have been others of theirs but this was the major breakthrough and has affected me ever since. An experience akin to conscious dreaming.
Worst - Vieux Carre (Wooster Group).
The third time they’ve been mentioned already I think. A random staging of a weak late Tennessee Williams olay. Emerging in the sixties (as the Performance Group) they stopped being relevant decades ago but the lack of state funding in the States has meant that they were little challenged and allowed to prosper.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 11, 2018 11:06:22 GMT
That is however a matter of opinion; having tried and failed with a few famous works by various authors, I have absolutely no patience with magic realism and cannot see the point of it. It simply makes me angry precisely because it is so unrealistic and there's nothing magical or realistic about it for me. Still, at least that means I wasn't planning to see this so am not too concerned about mixed reports... I'm generally with Showgirl on "magic realism" but recommend Radio 4's new production of Angela Carter's <A href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bkqcqh">Nights at the Circus</a>. "The fantastical story of Sophie Fevvers - aerialist extraordinaire and star of the music hall. Hatched from an egg, Fevvers is part woman, part bird - if you believe her." 2 hours long in 2 parts. I've only listed to part 1 so far but it is a really good, convincing telling of a fascinating story. Only 11 days left to listen on iPlayer. For a different side of Angela Carter also on Radio 4 iPlayer for 11 more days: <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bknc4b">The Christchurch Murder.</a> "The world premiere of Angela Carter's unmade screenplay, based on the real life murder that took place in Christchurch, New Zealand in 1954". It has a fantastical side in the sense that you can't quite believe it's happening - it really shouldn't but does and the logic is faultless. It's quietly gripping, unsettling. Superb. 2 hours. The term magic realism was apparently "first used by German art critic Franz Roh in 1925" and helpfully a free exhibition of some of the paintings for which the term was coined has just opened at Tate Modern. This is also excellent. Nights at the Circus was another great adaptation by Emma Rice (with Tom Morris) over a decade ago, she clearly finds an affinity with Carter.
As for Magic Realism, I'm a fan; my own stuff tend to drift towards that particular genre as well. Given the state of our actual reality, I can always do with a bit of magic.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 10, 2018 22:02:33 GMT
Any more news on the tour? I saw several southern venues mentioned but nowhere north apart from York. Home, Manchester, last week in February.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 8, 2018 10:09:27 GMT
It was okay but it did something I don't usually like, which is to send up the material (and that would seem to be from the direction rather than the play). Take it seriously and it would be much more effective.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 7, 2018 12:18:45 GMT
I thought this was OK. The staging is clever with the Inspector and kids located in 1945 and the house and family in 1910 - highlighted Priestley's intentions. Not sure about the acting, the Inspector was naturalistic but the family edged towards 2-dimensional caricature, not sure if that was intentional or the result of short rehearsal time for the tour. Biggest disappointment was the big stage effect with the house - very feeble - probably because it has been hyped in every review of the production for the last 25 years. Diana Payne-Myers is in this, she has been in a lot of the revivals and tours of the play and she's now 90 years old. Good for her. Anyway, overall, a good 3*. The cast, apart from Goole, are directed to use an expressionistic acting style, so very much the archetypes and exaggeration of emotion, gesture and such that might register as cartoon like. After twenty five years it may be that it has coarsened, as is usually the case with such productions being restaged for that long. I’m with Brook, thinking that productions have a shelf life of a few years maximum before they become a memory of a memory of what they started out as. No matter how much they try not to, it’s inevitable. When I saw it with Kenneth Cranham what must be have been about 25 years ago (!) the house collapse was pretty dangerous, so much so that a dinner plate landed by my feet (I was on the front row). With a touring production I imagine, again, that it’s a shadow of the effect that existed originally.
|
|