Les Liaisons Dangereuses

Yes and yes, but obviously Iago went in better. Maybe he just naturally finds Shakespeare easier to learn, or maybe Josie Rourke isn't quite the fearsome taskmaster that Daniel Evans is.

I'd say part of the problem with the part was that he perhaps didn't know how to play certain scenes, and whilst I was watching him I kept thinking of how Alan Rickman did it. In part I'd say the same with Josie Rourke who I really feel is keen to have a concept which means the original ending that is in the play script is left out.

I have shown my ignorance, I thought they were one at the same thing or is it like London isn't necessarily west end?

Did anybody see this on the live cinema relay last night? I saw it at Cineworld Leigh Nd really enjoyed it! No fluffed lines by anyone as far as I can tell, and I loved the way they staged it.

I saw it in Showcase De Lux, Bristol.

I was pleased to see the show, I enjoyed it, but not sure I'd like to have been in the front row last night, I'd probably be fidgetting with my hands to be seen by the thousands watching live. It was a lot funnier than I was perhaps expecting, which is good as I was a little worried it would be far too wordy for me to truly enjoy.

I must go to see more of these live events.

After all the somewhat less-than-brilliant reports about Les Liaisons Dangereuses, I was surprised how much I enjoyed this Donmar production. I guess lowering one's expectations is the best way of ensuring a good time in the theatre (well, actually in the cinema, as this is where I saw this).

But, what surprised me the most is how good - in fact excellent - I thought Dominic West was.

I'm a great LLD fan. The book always struck me as a brilliant masterpiece on how civilised society is a great danger to itself. How the conventions we establish, and little games we play exploiting it, can be lethal to the more vulnerable.

I always felt that for an adaptation of the novel to work in cinema, theatre, tv, radio, etc., it was crucial to get the actors perfectly right. My problem with Stephen Frears' film was the choice of Glenn Close and John Malkovich. I always felt they were too brutal and obviously predatory to deceive people, even less sophisticated ones. John Malkovich was too vulpine and not too subtle for someone who was supposed to be a charming dissembler. I thought Dominic West was just great. He was a perfectly witty, spoiled, frivolous, entitled and vain society gentleman, completely blasé about sex, who enjoyed it less for the passion it afforded than for the poker game it was in Europe at the time, in which he could boast of his prowess, conquests and victories. West's Valmont was obviously surprised by the feelings a woman was stirring in his heart and one could keenly feel the great struggle shaking him inside between his vanity and his love. As Madame Meurteil points out, though, vanity and happiness can never coexist, and tragedy ensues. Noticed no fluffs in the evening performance.

I thought the rest of the cast was very good, with Elaine Cassidy playing an absolutely heart-rending Madame de Tourvel. The scene in which she asked the viscount to spare her broke my heart (and I was completely at odds with those in the audience who laughed at it - well, maybe nervously). Edward Holcroft was a great Danceny. Lost in a storm of confusing feelings, he managed to bring a secondary character pretty much to the fore. Janet McTeer was her usual brilliant self, and so was Una Stubbs. Even small parts, such as Azolan's (Theo Barklem-Biggs), Valmont's cynical page, were played to great attention to detail.

I should have taken the plane from Dublin to see this at the Donmar.

A little surprised last night to hear an older lady sitting nearby opine at the interval: "Apart from the rape scene, it just isn't sexy enough"!

Couldn't help but feel they might have blocked it better. There were several times where, in seat B14, I was entirely missing a character's reaction to the speaker because for some bizarre reason, given a half empty stage, they'd decided to station an actor directly under the circle...

Agree with Theatremonkey on both points! My only main gripe with the production was the pacing. It felt a little stilted at times, when really it needs to race along.

However I thought it was still a great engaging production. I thought the casting was great. Though I could see Michelle Dockery doing an excellent job, I thought Elaine Cassidy did equally a great job too.

I am a fan of Dominic West, and I thought he did a great job (I was going to write 'enjoyed his performance' but in this case that sounds odd) I think his physical stature (being a bit 'chunky' is the best way I can describe it) as well as being able to quite easily slip into the creepier side of suave, works perfectly making him as imposing as he is charming (the idea that he could easily 'have his way' with the women through force but instead charms/persuades his way through adds a creepier dimension, while also being distracted by his charm/looks. For me I was torn between finding him attractive (despite a god awful wig) and being repulsed. Which really is what he should be. I thought the rape was staged interestingly, and did exactly what theatremonkey says above-plays on the fact that he persuades her otherwise, but that it clearly is rape.

Thought Theo Barkman-Biggs was delightful as was Una Stubbs in their smaller roles too. From C21/22 in the circle missed a bit of the staging underneath as is the norm in those seats but otherwise good view.

Liev Schreiber should be good as Valmont, wonder if Elaine Cassidy will transfer or will they get someone else?