|
|
Post by parsley1 on Oct 18, 2024 12:55:34 GMT
I don't know the source material, but for some reason I thought this was a tragedy. It turns out, it's a comedy, at least judging by the reaction of quite a large group of women in the rear Stalls yesterday. There were moments in the second act which you'd think no one could laugh at (one got quite a gasp from the majority), but these women still managed. All I can think is they were there to see "Doctor Who" and determined to have a good time. As for the play, I must have found it more watchable than many. Jodie Whittaker is fantastic and I've liked Joel Fry dating all the way back to his sitcom days (even if I'm envious how he never seems to age). It helped that I got an excellent Rush seat in Row F, with no one in front and no one at one side for the first half and no one at either side for the second half. The people who didn't return missed out, as this really is a play of two halves. Yes, it's completely flawed, but there's more than enough in the second half to hold your attention. I would never have paid the originally advertised prices for this, but there are lots of offers about at present, and I think it's worth seeing with the discounted pricing. Just approach this with an open mind. “I would never have paid the originally advertised prices for this, but there are lots of offers about at present, and I think it's worth seeing with the discounted pricing” We all love a bargain But this never a good sign for a show it’s a red flag itself See it but don’t pay full price I think partly it has contributed to the degradation in quality of what is staged now Too much Btw this is a broad comment not specific to Dr Tom! Also maybe the “original” prices are wrong and inflated |
|
3,316 posts
|
Post by david on Oct 22, 2024 22:20:13 GMT
Well that was one of the most bizarre plays I’ve viewed this year but somehow enjoyed watching it unfold over 2.5hrs. I have absolutely no idea what writer and director Zinnie Harris was aiming for tonally with this one - comedy /drama / tragedy / musical but I’m sure she just threw a lot of stuff at the wall to see what stuck and then put the end result on stage. It really was an uneven piece and as Dr Tom stated a play of very differing halves that while don’t really add up to a very satisfying viewing whole. I totally agree with him that you really do need to go into this with a very open mind. Watching it, it looked a production that had been directed by Tarantino with strong Jamie Lloyd influences - microphones and bare feet. Due to the vastly different tones in each Act for me - comedy in Act 1 and the more violent Act 2, when the violence stated it really didn’t have the emotional impact that I’m sure the director wanted. At times the violence just seemed very comedic. Any emotional relationship that the audience is supposed to have with the Duchess from the abuse and torture received was for me was totally lost in this production. The very sterile and bland set from John Piper wasn’t great and whilst that kind of set worked well in the previous resident at the Trafalgar theatre with PPAT, here it doesn’t really work and having a bit of extra colour on the stage would of visually helped. The use of singing during the show again really didn’t add very much to proceedings except just extend the run time unnecessarily. The saving grace from tonight’s viewing was the cast. Whilst the creative decisions are questionable, the efforts of the cast are not. Jodie and the rest of the cast really do give their all with this one. For them alone, it was worth watching this one on a cheap deal. I got my ticket via the TT London theatre week a while back and was sat in J8 of the Circle. My first time up here and was a great view with no heads in the way. I did notice that those folk on the very back row of the Circle who arrived early enough were getting free upgrades to the front Circle from the FOH staff. Despite this one being a creative mess, it was nice seeing another Dr Who on stage and get to the Gold tier in the TT rewards app from this viewing. For ratings, I’d really go with how the critics have rated this one and ended up with a 2⭐️ rating. |
|
|
|
Post by john64 on Oct 25, 2024 12:39:58 GMT
Been interesting reading these posts. Having seen the original production in Edinburgh back in 2019, I was amazed to see that it was being remounted in London five years later. Amazed because the original production was so bad, so tonally incoherant and so, well, just plain silly that sticking a Dr Who in the title role and hoping for the best wasn't going to solve anything. As in Edinburgh I have no doubt that the individual performances in London will be excellent but the vehicle and writing/directing serving them is so poor it's irretrievable. It's not the play either. Sure it's problematic but it can be done in a way that avoids all of the pitfalls that this one walks straight into. A wonderful Old Vic production with Eve Best in 2012 and Janet McTeer in a touring production a couple of years earlier spring to mind. Both served the original play and themes in a consistent and nuanced manner, with no audience laughter at the end.
|
|
76 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by jake on Oct 25, 2024 14:06:55 GMT
A wonderful Old Vic production with Eve Best in 2012 ... served the original play and themes in a consistent and nuanced manner, with no audience laughter at the end. This. If memory serves, Finbar Lynch as the Cardinal was also in that impressive production. A few years later, Gemma Arterton gave a pretty good performance at the Sam Wanamaker Theatre. But Eve was certainly, ahem, the best I remember seeing in the title role. |
|
1,860 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Oct 25, 2024 22:08:11 GMT
Yeah, this was dreadful. I didn't like the first act and the second act just descended into the worst tpye of student production, ideas just thrown at a wall to see what sticks - not much did.
I don't have much positive I can say. Also disappointed to find on Kerill Kelly in place of Joel Fry (who is a highlight for me in Our Flag Means Death so I had been looking forward to seeing him. Kelly did as good a job as the rest of the cast (sorry to damn with faint praise) and credit to Trafalgar, lots of signs around noting the change - even on the front door on the way in. I did think Jude Owusu's Bosola came into his own towards the end with his performance finally starting to work a bit more
My one positive is that our long pre-booked 'cheap' tickets, back of the stalls ... well very friendly staff offering upgrades to people sitting at the back, told new seat numbers and sent on our way so moved considerably forward.
If we had a poll, this would be one star. Very much pales in comparison to Duchess of Malfi at the Globe earlier this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Oct 25, 2024 22:45:30 GMT
A wonderful Old Vic production with Eve Best in 2012 ... served the original play and themes in a consistent and nuanced manner, with no audience laughter at the end. This. If memory serves, Finbar Lynch as the Cardinal was also in that impressive production. A few years later, Gemma Arterton gave a pretty good performance at the Sam Wanamaker Theatre. But Eve was certainly, ahem, the best I remember seeing in the title role. Eve Best certainly lived up to her name as the Duchess. That death/strangling scene! Eleanor Bron and Harriet Walter were also excellent Duchesses. |
|
1,494 posts
|
Post by Steve on Oct 26, 2024 11:57:07 GMT
The saving grace from tonight’s viewing was the cast. Whilst the creative decisions are questionable, the efforts of the cast are not. Jodie and the rest of the cast really do give their all with this one. For them alone, it was worth watching this one on a cheap deal. The cast are indeed the saving grace of this one, with Paul Ready's Cardinal the absolute highlight. I agree the material is very confused, but don't mistake this for Webster's play, which is in English and could have been performed by this same cast as is, as this has been completely rewritten. To what end is this play rewritten though? Whereas the "After Antigone" currently playing at the National makes human the faults of the Gods and the "After Oedipus" playing at the Wyndham's makes Oedipus a man of today, what on earth is the point of this rewrite? Some spoilers follow. . . The songs sung by the Duchess and Julia, towards the beginning, reminded me of Chris Isaak's "Wicked Game," as in Love is dangerous and these women willingly walk into its trap. But no such songs implicate the men, so the ultimate takeaway seems to be that women are suckers. This feels more regressive than Webster's original, in which the Duchess seemed smart and cautious. This Duchess can't make her mind up whether she wants to suicidally taunt and laugh in her sociopathic brothers faces (she does) or whether she wants to cleverly sneak about behind their backs (she also does). Huh! Anyway, while Julia makes doe eyes at him, Paul Ready's Cardinal (the character that most pops and makes a cheap ticket worthwhile) is casually snapping back with lines like "I don't suppose you would suck my c--k" as he annotates his Bible. His character is most in tune with the Tarantinoesque comic dialogue additions like this, and he's a charismatic hoot from start to finish. But as the narrative transitions from a wistful story about the dangers of love to a Tarantinoesque celebration of casual dialogue against a background of brazen violence, Zinnie Harris decides to veer into "Wuthering Heights" territory for the denouement, where the Duchess hangs about like Cathy calling for Heathcliff, as well as hanging about like Heathcliff to take revenge on all and sundry. How this story (about brothers who control their sister) can exist in a modern day context that isn't an extremist religious one (like Iran, for example) is an anathema to me. It makes the story LESS believable and relatable to update it this way. While I don't get the updates, and I mourn Webster's desecrated verse, I got a major kick out of Ready's performance, the way he is so gleefully hypocritical and so easy and camp about it all. I felt that Jodie Whittaker made the Duchess likeable (I laughed, as well as envied her, moaning away uproariously and orgasmically stuffing her face with delicious looking apricots); I felt that Jude Owusu's Bosola made a good fist of showing character development; and I felt that Joel Fry's mouse-that-roared Antonio ultimately did the same. The one writing update that I liked was having Julia married to a gay Delio, which made sense of her character while dropping the need for a whole bunch of confusing extra characters and subplots. Anyway, the surface of this play is frequently exciting and fun, thanks to the actors, but don't bite the apricot and try to make sense of what's beneath that surface. 3 stars from me.  |
|
3,316 posts
|
Post by david on Oct 26, 2024 12:03:49 GMT
Some very interesting points there Steve. I’d definitely want to watch another version of the text on stage as a comparison. Hopefully a theatre near me will have a go at it at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by iwanttix on Nov 15, 2024 22:51:22 GMT
Just saw this tonight after nabbing a £25 ticket a few weeks ago.
It's a play...
Yeah, I'm not sure I've got much else. I can't tell you if it was supposed to be funny or if it was just so bad that it made people laugh. I stifled a laugh once or twice at sections which I assume were supposed to be serious, but it was tough going.
I also wasn't entirely convinced if the acting from some on the stage was good or if the material they were working with just gave them nowhere to go.
I wanted to like it, and maybe there were certain parts I enjoyed, but overall it wasn't for me.
|
|
