1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 23, 2017 17:57:23 GMT
Marianne Eliott has certainly not "gilded the lily". The set is very Spartan - it's simply a white cube with a single piece of furniture most of the time - but very stylish and context free. For me it perfectly suits both the play and the Heisenberg idea that underlies it..
|
|
5,060 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 23, 2017 19:55:51 GMT
I know one of the producer and he confirmed that the whole set cost 2x£100 M&S gift vouchers they received as last years Xmas present.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 22:27:52 GMT
I had the absolute pleasure of seeing this tonight.
Wonderful acting, wonderful story and one of the best plays I have seen this year. If you're in doubt please don't. Go and see this and give two fine actors the audience their work and this play deserve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 7:39:18 GMT
Marianne Eliott has certainly not "gilded the lily". The set is very Spartan - it's simply a white cube with a single piece of furniture most of the time - but very stylish and context free. For me it perfectly suits both the play and the Heisenberg idea that underlies it.. Yes- although it's all 'technical' none of it has moved away from the idea of 'a table and chairs'. It's also all integrated into the between scenes movement sequences, which add to the mood/storytelling of the piece. All the lighting/set still brings all the focus back on the actors/performances. |
|
374 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Oct 24, 2017 8:45:07 GMT
I saw it last night and I don't agree. It has moved away slightly from table and chairs and bare stage, given that there is a bed and endlessly moving walls to contend with. And some pretty awful mood lighting. Compared to what it should be, this is one very gilded lily. And the between scenes movement sequences I found terribly distracting. Not only were they, for the most part, so badly done as to put me in mind of GCSE Drama, but they were all set to a miserable tedious score and were so slow and drawn out they sucked ALL the momentum out of the piece.
I also was not 100% convinced by Anne-Marie Duff and I normally find her a sure fire bet. Georgie is a VERY tricky role and for me, Duff didn't get the better of it. Wavering accent aside, I didn't believe she was this "exhausting, yet captivating" shapeshifter who would be beguiling and alluring to anyone, even the loneliest of old men. Not saying she was terrible, by any stretch, because she wasn't. It just didn't feel like a good fit. And yet, when she was cast I thought it was a great choice, so maybe the performance being a bit off is due to the direction.
Under Mark Brokaw's direction, Heisenberg whipped along at 100 miles an hour, spitting you out at the end of 75 minutes questioning everything you'd just watched because you hadn't had time to do it during the performance itself. Under Marianne Elliot, it trundles along at a far more sedate pace, runs nearly 15 minutes longer, giving you plenty of time to go "hang on a minute" between and during scenes. I still love the play, but I love it despite the London production, not because of it.
And one minor quibble. When the script says "they're all £20 notes" why have him hand her what is quite obviously a stack of £50 notes? Am I supposed to marvel at Elliott embracing the principle of the title? Because all I could think was "you should sort your props out".
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 9:29:41 GMT
Stephens is a writer who leaves a lot of space for the director; few stage directions, seeing himself as providing blue prints rather than tablets of stone etc. I’ve noticed that productions of his plays often get wildly divergent reviews as a result, depending on the production, which is the benefit (and danger) of that approach. Carmen Disruption’s original production was slated, yet Longhurst’s at the Almeida was widely praised, for example.
I think it’s a good approach for him to have but it does point out how, sometimes, plays are dismissed too quickly when the director hasn’t brought much to it.
|
|
902 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Oct 24, 2017 13:01:06 GMT
Stephens is a writer who leaves a lot of space for the director; few stage directions, seeing himself as providing blue prints rather than tablets of stone etc. I’ve noticed that productions of his plays often get wildly divergent reviews as a result, depending on the production, which is the benefit (and danger) of that approach. Carmen Disruption’s original production was slated, yet Longhurst’s at the Almeida was widely praised, for example. I think it’s a good approach for him to have but it does point out how, sometimes, plays are dismissed too quickly when the director hasn’t brought much to it. An interesting idea. Nicholas Hytner makes a similar point in Balancing Acts, something about how it is rarely discussed in theatre how often a new play can be spoiled by poor direction. Most presumably don't get a second chance (unless they're by the really big names). Our collective memories should be able to come up with a list of new plays from the past 30 or so years which didn't get the production they deserved and have therefore been overlooked or forgotten; and one of plays that only got the production they deserved on their second outing. Stoppard's Russian trilogy comes to mind; apparently the New York production was fabulous. Some might say Stoppard's Hapgood, though I preferred the first production, given that you don't get many better performers of his dialogue than Felicity Kendall, Roger Rees and Nigel Hawthorne. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 24, 2017 17:18:08 GMT
That play about Oscar Wilde, Judas’s Kiss, was it? Boring first outing with the Irish guy. Riveting at Hampstead with Everett.
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Oct 24, 2017 18:14:01 GMT
That play about Oscar Wilde, Judas’s Kiss, was it? Boring first outing with the Irish guy. Riveting at Hampstead with Everett. Gosh I loved Rupert Everett as Oscar Wilde !  |
|
60 posts
|
Post by skullion on Oct 24, 2017 23:39:49 GMT
I could be wrong but I think he said £50 notes tonight, wouldn't swear to it though. |
|
374 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Oct 25, 2017 7:12:21 GMT
Maybe it was an error on Monday night then. He definitely said £20s on Monday, as the guys sitting behind me whispered "er, those are £50s" to each other.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 25, 2017 13:05:55 GMT
Said 50s when I went too.
|
|
5,060 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 26, 2017 20:47:21 GMT
I saw this, this afternoon after catching it first time on Broadway last year.
This got great notices on Broadway, but the British press seems to be very cold on this and the reason for that is, that it is over produced and under acted in a nutshell. Where on Broadway Mary-Louise Parker was ravishing and displayed a vulnerability that wasn't present today, even though Anne Marie-Dunn gave a fairly decent performance. But the book got swallowed up by the set with tables and beds coming out of the stage floor, with stage walls coming in, it not only strangled the set. On Broadway the set consisted of a table and 2 chairs and pillows and a sprinkle of imagination. There was terrace seating upstage in New York that gave the piece intamacy like the Norman Conquests at Chichester, the set designer went with a very strange choice of having a kind of light wall.
When the set is simple it can glorious, use Young Vic's A View From A Bridge as a pertinent example and let the book and imagination to join the dots. Over produced normally happens when plays/musicals go from the West End to Broadway, for once this is the other way round. Also Feel Marianne Elliott has dropped her guard on this one, but she will still win Olivier for best director, but not for this one, which she made poor choices, but for Angels instead and deserved.
Even though the book is slight, it is very tender and is magnificent, now this has been done in the West End, the rights must be out there for other theatre companies to do a more earnest production.
3 Stars
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Oct 27, 2017 5:53:20 GMT
Saw this at yesterday's matinee and I thought it was excellent, yes it's only a slight story but Messrs Cranham and Duff are excellent in particular Anne Marie Duff who acted her socks off ( and I booked it mainly for Mr Cranham ), the set I actually liked having read reports that were complimentary I was very pleasantly surprised.
The 90 minutes flashed BY.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 13:08:53 GMT
Saw this at yesterday's matinee and I thought it was excellent, yes it's only a slight story but Messrs Cranham and Duff are excellent in particular Anne Marie Duff who acted her socks off ( and I booked it mainly for Mr Cranham ), the set I actually liked having read reports that were complimentary I was very pleasantly surprised. The 90 minutes flashed BY. Oh hooray I'm glad you liked it- wouldn't want to think I'd oversold it to you! Love, loved Duff in it could have watched her play that part far longer! |
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Oct 27, 2017 13:12:55 GMT
Saw this at yesterday's matinee and I thought it was excellent, yes it's only a slight story but Messrs Cranham and Duff are excellent in particular Anne Marie Duff who acted her socks off ( and I booked it mainly for Mr Cranham ), the set I actually liked having read reports that were complimentary I was very pleasantly surprised. The 90 minutes flashed BY. Oh hooray I'm glad you liked it- wouldn't want to think I'd oversold it to you! Love, loved Duff in it could have watched her play that part far longer! She was mesmerising wasn't she ! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 13:15:30 GMT
Oh hooray I'm glad you liked it- wouldn't want to think I'd oversold it to you! Love, loved Duff in it could have watched her play that part far longer! She was mesmerising wasn't she ! I love her! I'm IN love with her...and I want to watch it all again! |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Oct 28, 2017 7:16:26 GMT
Well, I seem to have gone to a different play to many others here. I found the play fairly pointless and the acting from both actors left a lot to be desired. It's a shame as I have huge respect for Elliott, Duff and Cranham, but this misfired for me. I can see how it gathered lots of 2 and 3 star reviews.
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Oct 28, 2017 20:23:40 GMT
Saw it this afternoon. Stalls about 80% full, couldn't see into the dress circle, but the other two levels were closed, alas. Liked the staging and performances very much - Duff's face cries out for a sculptor to capture, those eyes are so convincing. Cranham's British corpulence is equally engaging. I enjoyed the idea of everything being random, carried through into both characters behaving in unexpected manner. Not sure I bought the ending wholly, but then I couldn't think of a better one - every idea I had would have been crasser. Will put something on my site on Monday, but for now I'd say it is worth seeing just to prove that a "Dorfman" play (where it would have sold out) can work in the West End artistically, if not, sadly commercially. Kudos to the team who dared to bring it in, I feel. Very well put Monkey |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 28, 2017 21:22:36 GMT
Unfortunately I wasn't completely taken with this. I really like AM-D and the character didn't bother me. Cranham is clearly an enormously talented actor but I thought he found it a bit difficult to carry some of his lines. And I like Simon Stephens a lot. Like the concept and the ideas but didn't quite hit for me.
I agree though that it was brave to give the play a go in this theatre, so I have no issues with that at all.
Possibly it didn't help that I had seen Thebe's Land earlier in the day and that really blew me away.
|
|
10 posts
|
Post by neonsun on Oct 28, 2017 23:44:40 GMT
When Baz announced this season back in November, he said it would run for over a year and that Company would be followed by a new play and a comedy, so there may be 5 productions in total (although his latest piece the project makes no mention of the last two shows).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 0:15:56 GMT
I agree though that it was brave to give the play a go in this theatre, so I have no issues with that at all. Not entirely sure if it was all that brave; a viable two-hander with an inexpensive set is a West End producer's dream in terms of risk. Depending on the deals that Duff and Cranham are on (and they are hardly Nicole Kidman in terms of quotes) it'll probably be turning a nice profit even at 40% capacity. Can totally see why Elliott Harper wanted to start their season with it - and I personally don't think boldness would have been a major factor. |
|
374 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Oct 29, 2017 9:56:28 GMT
When Baz announced this season back in November, he said it would run for over a year and that Company would be followed by a new play and a comedy, so there may be 5 productions in total (although his latest piece the project makes no mention of the last two shows). I assume the re-shuffling of the season with the Angels in America transfer to Broadway is the reason for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 10:38:59 GMT
When Baz announced this season back in November, he said it would run for over a year and that Company would be followed by a new play and a comedy, so there may be 5 productions in total (although his latest piece the project makes no mention of the last two shows). I assume the re-shuffling of the season with the Angels in America transfer to Broadway is the reason for that. Company was originally for next Spring I believe but the combination of Angels, and I assume Miss Patti's casting also meant it was pushed back. As this one was clearly an easier one to get on it's feet and the two actors presumably easier to reschedule I guess it was the logical choice of the ones on the table. |
|
1,239 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 29, 2017 21:58:38 GMT
Just heard early closure to be announced v soon.
Simon Stephens tweet about seeing the show last night backing up this news. He sounds gutted.
Very sad.
Great actors, but the play is not good, and the direction from Marianne a rare misfire. Duff also over playing a v annoying character (not her fault).
What will fill it? Albion?
|
|
