|
|
Post by keyspi on Oct 8, 2024 1:12:16 GMT
Saw this tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
5,951 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Oct 8, 2024 7:03:41 GMT
Saw this tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it 🤷🏻♂️ Sure you were at the Gielgud? |
|
1,510 posts
|
Post by Steve on Oct 8, 2024 8:49:54 GMT
Whereas in truth, it's a massively self-indulgent and selfish performance. He spends the entire time trying to pull focus and doesn't pay his colleagues the courtesy of even looking at them for the vast majority of the time. Everything is played out front whilst the rest of the cast attempt to act with some kind of naturalism. Just horrible. I'm glad the production gives us something a bit different, and that Matthew Warchus tries to draw us into Captain Boyle's feckless ways by having him relate to US as well as the other characters.
It's not "self-indulgent and selfish" for an actor to fulfil a director's vision of a fourth wall breaking "Chaplinesque" comedian of a Captain Boyle, whose cluelessness about civil war and everything else might mirror for us our own cluelessness about civil war and everything else.
I would say Rylance's performance is generous because he gives everything of himself to fulfilling that vision and drawing us into this mindstate. It's like James Corden bumbling about in a mafia stand-off in "One Man Two Guvnors," breaking the wall to share sandwiches with the audience, inviting us into our own haplessness and insularity in the face of incomprehensible events.
And when a comic performer does everything to engage the audience in this vision, that is an act of communion and generosity with the audience.
If Warchus's vision of a comedian bumbling around relating to the audience, before hell freezes over, is too tacky for you (listen to all the Chaplinesque piano accompaniment music, reinforcing that vision even in the interval, when Rylance isn't on stage), or just doesn't work for you (it does for me), that's not on Rylance, who is doing EXACTLY what he has been asked to do. And brilliantly, as he is one of the funniest actors around.  |
|
167 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Oct 8, 2024 9:09:16 GMT
Whereas in truth, it's a massively self-indulgent and selfish performance. He spends the entire time trying to pull focus and doesn't pay his colleagues the courtesy of even looking at them for the vast majority of the time. Everything is played out front whilst the rest of the cast attempt to act with some kind of naturalism. Just horrible. I'm glad the production gives us something a bit different, and that Matthew Warchus tries to draw us into Captain Boyle's feckless ways by having him relate to US as well as the other characters.
It's not "self-indulgent and selfish" for an actor to fulfil a director's vision of a fourth wall breaking "Chaplinesque" comedian of a Captain Boyle, whose cluelessness about civil war and everything else might mirror for us our own cluelessness about civil war and everything else.
I would say Rylance's performance is generous because he gives everything of himself to fulfilling that vision and drawing us into this mindstate. It's like James Corden bumbling about in a mafia stand-off in "One Man Two Guvnors," breaking the wall to share sandwiches with the audience, inviting us into our own haplessness and insularity in the face of incomprehensible events.
And when a comic performer does everything to engage the audience in this vision, that is an act of communion and generosity with the audience.
If Warchus's vision of a comedian bumbling around relating to the audience, before hell freezes over, is too tacky for you (listen to all the Chaplinesque piano accompaniment music, reinforcing that vision even in the interval, when Rylance isn't on stage), or just doesn't work for you (it does for me), that's not on Rylance, who is doing EXACTLY what he has been asked to do. And brilliantly, as he is one of the funniest actors around. If it worked for you, then great. We all see something different. I've no idea whether it was Warchus' vision, or whether Rylance is just plain undirectable. I didn't see anything in his surroundings to suggest the other performers were in on it. And it left me bewildered as to the style of the piece I was watching - with everybody else doing pretty naturalistic acting and Rylance in his own little world. If the idea was to truly commit to the Chaplin thing, then I think they'd have been better advised bringing someone like Cal McCrystal on board: the clowning escapades in Act One (burning his crotch with the sausage pan) and Act Two (chucking his cup of tea over his shoulder) were laboured and for me, didn't have a ring of truth, and therefore left me completely cold. It also meant that the gear shift to Act Three, where he suddenly becomes a violent monster was far too jarring for me. What are we supposed to think of him by that point? Betrayed that this apparently genial figure who was winking at us in Act One is not the harmless layabout we thought he was? It's clearly a marmite performance, and I say this as someone who has really enjoyed Rylance in the past. I just don't think he's got it right on this occasion. |
|
1,259 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 8, 2024 9:21:59 GMT
Whereas in truth, it's a massively self-indulgent and selfish performance. He spends the entire time trying to pull focus and doesn't pay his colleagues the courtesy of even looking at them for the vast majority of the time. Everything is played out front whilst the rest of the cast attempt to act with some kind of naturalism. Just horrible. I'm glad the production gives us something a bit different, and that Matthew Warchus tries to draw us into Captain Boyle's feckless ways by having him relate to US as well as the other characters.
It's not "self-indulgent and selfish" for an actor to fulfil a director's vision of a fourth wall breaking "Chaplinesque" comedian of a Captain Boyle, whose cluelessness about civil war and everything else might mirror for us our own cluelessness about civil war and everything else.
I would say Rylance's performance is generous because he gives everything of himself to fulfilling that vision and drawing us into this mindstate. It's like James Corden bumbling about in a mafia stand-off in "One Man Two Guvnors," breaking the wall to share sandwiches with the audience, inviting us into our own haplessness and insularity in the face of incomprehensible events.
And when a comic performer does everything to engage the audience in this vision, that is an act of communion and generosity with the audience.
If Warchus's vision of a comedian bumbling around relating to the audience, before hell freezes over, is too tacky for you (listen to all the Chaplinesque piano accompaniment music, reinforcing that vision even in the interval, when Rylance isn't on stage), or just doesn't work for you (it does for me), that's not on Rylance, who is doing EXACTLY what he has been asked to do. And brilliantly, as he is one of the funniest actors around. I would do some digging and check how Rylance actually approaches his work before you say he’s innocent in this and it’s all Warchus’ “vision” and that he’s just doing what he was told to do. Rylance has a history of knowing the script inside out for rehearsals, but choosing to say his own version of the lines, until he feels comfortable coming around to saying the writers, thus making the process incredibly difficult for those around him. Several actors including Joanna Lumley, have spoken about his way of working. It is an example of what you say Rylance isn’t doing which is to be selfish onstage. Reports are already known, and have been mentioned above, that the rehearsals haven’t been and the company aren’t a happy one. When a play is being pulled so far from what it was, and the majority of the acting ensemble are trying to be just that, an ensemble, it makes sense that something has gone wrong allowing Rylance to perform in this way. It is actually the opposite of generous, as some reviews have pointed out. And you cite One Man Two Guvnors breaking of the 4th wall etc: those moments were in that script. What Rylance is doing up there is not in the script. And never has been. I say all this as a Rylance fan. But something had gone terribly wrong with this production, and the dominance given to Rylance. And I’m pretty sure it’s not Warchus’ vision: either planned or perceived. Despite them having a long term creative relationship together, Rylance has been given too much free reign here, resulting in a miss. |
|
121 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by jake on Oct 8, 2024 9:33:54 GMT
I would say Rylance's performance is generous because he gives everything of himself to fulfilling that vision and drawing us into this mindstate. It's like James Corden bumbling about in a mafia stand-off in "One Man Two Guvnors," breaking the wall to share sandwiches with the audience, inviting us into our own haplessness and insularity in the face of incomprehensible events.
The categorical difference is that One Man, Two Guvnors is billed as a play by Richard Bean. The fact that it's an adaptation of Il Servitore di Due Padroni is acknowledged but it doesn't claim to be Goldoni's play. Another significant difference is that Corden's clowning is entirely consistent with the pantomime atmosphere inherent in Bean's text. A large part of the criticism of this production in general and Rylance in particular is that many people feel the atmosphere created (if any!) is at odds with the play's message (as many of us understand it) and that his performance is at odds with those of almost everyone else on stage. If the intention was to show that the character is indeed living in a world of his own and has little idea of how others see him, all I can say is that having the actor perform as if he were in another kind of spectacle from the rest of the cast is a very heavy-handed way of getting across a pretty obvious feature of the story. (I keep imagining Rylance in rehearsals muttering 'Feck...arse...girls...' until Warchus tells him 'No, Mark...it's Captain Jack...) |
|
|
|
Post by julia432 on Oct 8, 2024 13:46:13 GMT
I wonder if the disharmony is all to do with Rylance?
Has anyone actually heard details?
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Oct 8, 2024 14:24:13 GMT
quite the focused interest you have here, julia432Welcome to the board. |
|
|
|
Post by julia432 on Oct 8, 2024 14:30:25 GMT
quite the focused interest you have here, julia432Welcome to the board. Thank you for the welcome. lol- curiosity. I saw the play recently and even before the reviews noticed Rylance’s selfishness on stage. Other actors fantastic but didn’t seem to have gelled. In saying that I went early doors.. |
|
167 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Oct 11, 2024 9:13:10 GMT
"The delicate balance between character comedy and the grim context of conflict and deprivation is difficult to negotiate at the best of times and this, alas, is not one of them. The fragile edifice is totally destroyed by Rylance’s theatrical wrecking ball of a performance, leaving the rest of the cast to pick up the debris.
Appearing like a sozzled Charlie Chaplin, he addresses the audience in the style of a Music Hall comedian, breaking the fourth wall with a tsunami of nudge-nudge wink-winkery, double takes and ‘amusing’ gestures whenever he thinks he can get a laugh. It’s an act of theatrical vandalism that renders the shift from comedy to tragedy utterly unconvincing."
From Neil Norman's review in the Express. Pretty spot-on.
|
|
3,597 posts
|
Post by Rory on Oct 11, 2024 9:35:27 GMT
I had a feeling at the outset they wouldn't be able to get the tone, accents etc right with this production but they appear to have made, as Captain Jack and Joxer may have said, a complete bollix of it.
|
|
26 posts
|
Post by scotty8692 on Oct 11, 2024 12:03:28 GMT
Pleased I didn't get a ticket for this-I was thinking there was too much talent involved for characters in this to end up like stock or stereotypical characters! Thought the Nash's production of The Plough and The Stars 8 years ago showed you can do O'Casey on stage in London with the humour, but not having to sacrifice the more serious tone of the piece. Enjoyed Rylance in Jerusalem during the recent revival, so it's a shame that this seems a performance to forget, rather than one to be remembered.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Oct 11, 2024 12:15:21 GMT
The review on The Arts Desk is closer to my thoughts, though she didn't appreciate the ending either:
Interesting to learn J Smith-Cameron has played Juno before.
The review mentions Chaplin and 'theatricality' - which was vaudeville to me.
No reviewer seems to mention Rylance's excessive makeup, the heavy rouge, etc. As lawyers say, that seemed to go to character (literally).
|
|
851 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by rumbledoll on Nov 5, 2024 23:35:33 GMT
Just seen it today.
Been dome time since the last reports, they may have decided to even it out - from the front row I noticed no heavy make up on Rylance, no even a glimpse of Rooster, no extensive winks at the audience (just a side note here and there), the performances were coherent - I particularly enjoyed Aisling Kearns.
I very much enjoyed the first half, Chaplinesque vibes, singing bits.
When it stops being lightweight something goes wrong. Even though it has its moments in the second parts it drags and then just lacks sense of purpose and don’t make you care enough.
I’ve got an impression from reading the thread that they’ve done smth unusual with the ending, how should it end then?
|
|
121 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by jake on Nov 6, 2024 7:47:05 GMT
Just seen it today. Been dome time since the last reports, they may have decided to even it out - from the front row I noticed no heavy make up on Rylance, no even a glimpse of Rooster, no extensive winks at the audience (just a side note here and there), the performances were coherent - I particularly enjoyed Aisling Kearns. I very much enjoyed the first half, Chaplinesque vibes, singing bits. When it stops being lightweight something goes wrong. Even though it has its moments in the second parts it drags and then just lacks sense of purpose and don’t make you care enough. I’ve got an impression from reading the thread that they’ve done smth unusual with the ending, how should it end then? Basically with the Captain muttering about the world being in a state of chassis. To my shame, I actually didn't notice the 'unusual' ending because I'd switched off and was just waiting for the last line as confirmation that our ordeal was over; but my companion (and this thread) confirmed what they'd done. I've checked the text and there are no stage instructions to justify the radical departure. I usually just expect the Captain to be muttering away and perhaps vaguely searching for his lost last tanner as the curtain falls. |
|
5,710 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 15, 2024 23:31:21 GMT
There are some generous comments on this thread. This is a terrible production. If it wasn’t Rylance and another actor had put this performance in he would have been totally slated and rightly so. But it wasn’t all him that was poor. Right from the start the actors do not give the audience the courtesy of allowing us to adjust to the accents. The accents were terrible. The set is all wrong, the props all wrong. The table broke the entrances and blocked the actors when they stood behind it, the skillet and kettle would have v hot handles, the crucifix over the fire would be blackened by soot and if I am sitting worrying about these details then something is very wrong. At times it was sixth form standard, the Gerry/Mary sections for example. But it barely raised itself to this level for most of the time. Just one tiny example of misdirection and this was possibly all Rylance : when he says that Mary must leave the home and Juno says, ‘If Mary goes, I go’ where was Juno? Masked by Rylance pulling a face centre front stage and his reaction was like ‘ o ok, we’ll go to Tesco instead’
Very, very disappointing.
|
|
5,710 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 15, 2024 23:38:35 GMT
I had Irish people around me, as well. They really liked it.
From what I can gather this morning, the internet says professional reviewers don''t have a clue (Giant) and professional reviewers know what they're talking about (Juno).
You will be well placed maybe then To spread the word in the relevant communities then The box office are going to need all the help they can get Sales are dire and the reviews are not going to shift the unsold tickets Packed tonight, heard a lot of Americans, usual older crowd, a few young ‘uns. Some cheers at the end from one corner only. Round me the applause was dutiful, the exit fast as poss. |
|
5,951 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Nov 16, 2024 6:24:34 GMT
"The delicate balance between character comedy and the grim context of conflict and deprivation is difficult to negotiate at the best of times and this, alas, is not one of them. The fragile edifice is totally destroyed by Rylance’s theatrical wrecking ball of a performance, leaving the rest of the cast to pick up the debris. Appearing like a sozzled Charlie Chaplin, he addresses the audience in the style of a Music Hall comedian, breaking the fourth wall with a tsunami of nudge-nudge wink-winkery, double takes and ‘amusing’ gestures whenever he thinks he can get a laugh. It’s an act of theatrical vandalism that renders the shift from comedy to tragedy utterly unconvincing." From Neil Norman's review in the Express. Pretty spot-on. Only just read that quote. Absolutely nails it. Will go down as one of the worst performances I’ve ever seen on stage, and after this, I don’t care to watch him ever again. |
|
213 posts
|
Post by justsaying113 on Nov 16, 2024 7:37:13 GMT
"The delicate balance between character comedy and the grim context of conflict and deprivation is difficult to negotiate at the best of times and this, alas, is not one of them. The fragile edifice is totally destroyed by Rylance’s theatrical wrecking ball of a performance, leaving the rest of the cast to pick up the debris. Appearing like a sozzled Charlie Chaplin, he addresses the audience in the style of a Music Hall comedian, breaking the fourth wall with a tsunami of nudge-nudge wink-winkery, double takes and ‘amusing’ gestures whenever he thinks he can get a laugh. It’s an act of theatrical vandalism that renders the shift from comedy to tragedy utterly unconvincing." From Neil Norman's review in the Express. Pretty spot-on. Only just read that quote. Absolutely nails it. Will go down as one of the worst performances I’ve ever seen on stage, and after this, I don’t care to watch him ever again. |
|
213 posts
|
Post by justsaying113 on Nov 16, 2024 7:39:50 GMT
Only just read that quote. Absolutely nails it. Will go down as one of the worst performances I’ve ever seen on stage, and after this, I don’t care to watch him ever again. Totally agree. I thought it one of the worst things I’ve seen on a West End stage for a long time. I found him beyond irritating and I certainly won’t be in any rush to pay good money to see him again. I felt sorry for the rest of the cast having to deal with such an amateurish leading man. |
|
5,951 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Nov 16, 2024 10:38:11 GMT
Totally agree. I thought it one of the worst things I’ve seen on a West End stage for a long time. I found him beyond irritating and I certainly won’t be in any rush to pay good money to see him again. I felt sorry for the rest of the cast having to deal with such an amateurish leading man. From what I’ve heard, none of that cast are going to be sad when this one closes. |
|
|
|
Post by samuel1980 on Nov 16, 2024 17:17:04 GMT
Well… that was interesting. Went to today’s matinee fully expecting to hate it based on the comments on here but I ended up really enjoying it. Mind you, I did have a large gin & tonic beforehand which may have helped!
I was not familiar with the story and had not seen any previous productions to compare to so went in totally blind. I can understand why Rylance’s over the top and exaggerated performance has provoked a marmite reaction but I thought he was brilliant. Paul Hilton was excellent as always. I struggled to follow J Smith-Cameron’s diction at times and most of her dialogue ended up being incomprehensible to me.
I’m glad I’ve seen it before it closes. The new Sprague Terrace cocktail bar in the theatre is very nice.
|
|
121 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by jake on Nov 17, 2024 9:10:12 GMT
Totally agree. I thought it one of the worst things I’ve seen on a West End stage for a long time. I found him beyond irritating and I certainly won’t be in any rush to pay good money to see him again. I felt sorry for the rest of the cast having to deal with such an amateurish leading man. I'm hoping it's just a blip. As I said weeks ago, one of the great things about Rylance was that he usually stayed just the right side of overacting. I feared he might slip one day and in Juno..., in my view, he did just that. Maybe the largely negative reviews will hit home and he'll be back on form for his next role. But I'm not that optimistic. If I might stray a little off topic I'm reminded of German warbler Ute Lemper. I absolutely loved her Ute Lemper Sings Kurt Weill albums which I thought interpreted the songs brilliantly. I got into the habit of trying to see her whenever she was in town and I think I saw her four times (which, by coincidence, is the number of times I'd seen Rylance before J uno...) and enjoyed the concerts - but a little less each time. By the fifth time she seemed almost to have degenerated into a parody of herself (or at least of the things I used to like about her). And, since then, whenever I've seen/heard her in the media, she's got worse. Instead of being a brilliant and dramatic interpreter of songs, she seems to use dramatic songs as mere vehicles for her own grotesque histrionics. I then went back over the cds I'd bought and, while I still love the Weill albums (esp. the first one) collections like Illusions made me wonder if I should have spotted the decline earlier. Watching Rylance in Juno... I got a very similar feeling and, while I'll almost certainly give him another chance, I'm now wondering if the performances I loved in the past were all as magnificent as I thought at the time. |
|
26 posts
|
Post by scotty8692 on Nov 18, 2024 14:09:25 GMT
I would suggest it's maybe a blip? It wasn't that long since he was getting plaudits for the recent revival of Jerusalem-I know it's different as he'd been in that before, but I suggest if his acting had turned bad (and it wasn't bad in Jerusalem), it wouldn't have been as well received as it was. Then I think some people were lukewarm on him in Dr Semmelweis, and obviously, his performance in Juno hasn't been well regarded by some.
|
|
851 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by rumbledoll on Nov 18, 2024 16:08:06 GMT
I prefer Dr Semmelweis by a mile.
But I don’t consider his acting bad in this. Just.. different. Maybe even brave. His own interpretation, even if unconventional. Mark often does smth not popular with the masses and he doesn’t care much for his critics’ opinions. And I love him for that.
|
|
