3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 14, 2017 9:11:20 GMT
People lose their minds over what a great talent he is and gosh isn't he handsome as well I think he's excellent at menace - one of the best things about that recent series of Peaky Blinders. I didn't think he was that powerful in this, though I thought maybe that was to do with the writing - too much time spent with whimsy, like Aunt Maggie Far Away's long speech or the Uncle wittering on about cow gum, when I'd rather we'd be spending stage time with the more interesting characters who instead were often kept offstage or lost beneath a pile of kids and livestock. |
|
4,968 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 15, 2017 17:18:09 GMT
So, to recap. It only got five stars because of either: The writer/ the director/ the cast/ the producer/ some sort of tinfoil hat conspiracy to ensure a transfer/ a less measured than usual approach/ high expectations/ cute sweary kids/ Teenage Kicks/ the simpleton producing bunnies from his pockets. And not just simply because the reviewers felt it was worthy of five-stars?! I just honestly will never understand why someone would have the need to conclude that a different opinion to their own has to be somehow flawed or swayed by something other than the opinion itself. Q - Why do you think the reviews were less measured than usual? A - Because it didn't strike me as a five star play. Bizarre to me. It is very possible for a play to get 5 stars, even though it didn't hit your level of entitlement. |
|
4,968 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 15, 2017 17:24:18 GMT
In the words of that great philosopher Fraulein Schneider, "so what?". Because ratings can make or break a production. I've seen excellent small-scale, low budget productions by relative newcomers who haven't much in the way of a publicity machine apart from the newspaper reviews, and in those cases mainstream critics can be very parsimonious. It seems that when it comes to famous names with star power mainstream critics chuck that extremely judgemental, nit picking attitude out of the window and it's all hugs and kisses. As with so much else in life, it doesn't seem like a level playing field. I agree with you normally, how the hell did Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and I Can't Sing get 4 star reviews, The Girls, Bend It Like Beckham and American In Paris get 5 stars? Answers on a postcard please. However because you weren't enamelled by this play, a lot of others were, so not really a pertinent example. |
|
4,968 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 15, 2017 17:31:09 GMT
The press fell over themselves to give this 5 Stars, I most strongly disagree. I would quite happily given this a sixth star, this sent you out of the theatre with questions and I am still buzzing now. This will be there at the Oliviers next year and with some stunning acting across the board, as people have already posted that Paddy Considine and Laura Donnelly were rather wonderful, however another real standout fro me was Brid Brennan, who I can see taking best featured actress, she was simple marvellous.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 15, 2017 17:39:31 GMT
this sent you out of the theatre with questions It certainly did! |
|
898 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Jul 16, 2017 8:18:58 GMT
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 16, 2017 8:59:39 GMT
Something in today's Observer for you. Yes - this article articulates a lot of the issues I had with the play. I'm from Liverpool, where most people have some Irish roots (including me) and I think I came at this with a different perspective from that of a younger, middle-class southern English Royal Court audience. |
|
3,528 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jul 16, 2017 9:10:38 GMT
Interesting article. I can see where the writer is coming from to an extent but, for me, Butterworth's heightened, mythical style made me suspend any disbelief and I wholly tuned in to these characters and their situation. It does not have the realism of a Gary Mitchell play but I don't think Butterworth intended it to.
|
|
898 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Jul 16, 2017 9:56:53 GMT
Something in today's Observer for you. Yes - this article articulates a lot of the issues I had with the play. I'm from Liverpool, where most people have some Irish roots (including me) and I think I came at this with a different perspective from that of a younger, middle-class southern English Royal Court audience. Are you sure about the 'younger' there? We seemed to be pretty middle-aged the night I was there. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 16, 2017 10:14:32 GMT
Are you sure about the 'younger' there? I saw it at the Royal Court in a later preview and it seemed quite a twenty-thirty-fortysomethingish crowd, more iphones than grey hairs was my impression - but probably different in the West End. |
|
1,081 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jul 16, 2017 22:58:15 GMT
That's a fascinating article. As a Brit with half a decade recently spent in Ireland I'd like to think I'd be more sensitive than the average punter to the sensitivities of the Irish whilst not quite being an expert, but although there were a few points mentioned in the article that rang true for me I can't say I walked away feeling like it was 3 hours of stereotypes. I don't necessarily disagree with with anything in that review but I felt the overall picture of the play to be a lot more innocent than that article would overall suggest. Indeed part of the charm of the play comes from some these romantic Irish tropes that the author takes issue with, which I wouldn't say revelled in or made fun of the country in the process. It's a complex play with a lot going on, I don't think there was any menacing 'paddywhacking' going on.
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jul 17, 2017 3:29:43 GMT
It was indeed an interesting article and well-timed for me as I'm seeing the play this week; the writer also touched on some of the aspects which I disliked about Jerusalem:
"evoked ancient English myth and archetype through the modern outlaw figure of Johnny “Rooster” Byron, an outsider whose amorality was cloaked in rich, self-mythologising storytelling"
and ultimately caused me to lose patience with it. Sounds as though I'm in for more of the same!
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 17, 2017 10:56:13 GMT
So, to recap. It only got five stars because of either: The writer/ the director/ the cast/ the producer/ some sort of tinfoil hat conspiracy to ensure a transfer/ a less measured than usual approach/ high expectations/ cute sweary kids/ Teenage Kicks/ the simpleton producing bunnies from his pockets. And not just simply because the reviewers felt it was worthy of five-stars?! I just honestly will never understand why someone would have the need to conclude that a different opinion to their own has to be somehow flawed or swayed by something other than the opinion itself. Q - Why do you think the reviews were less measured than usual? A - Because it didn't strike me as a five star play. Bizarre to me. It is very possible for a play to get 5 stars, even though it didn't hit your level of entitlement.  |
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jul 23, 2017 14:48:51 GMT
To my relief, after leaving Jerusalem at the second interval and not getting what all the fuss was about, I found this far more watchable and, on the whole, enjoyable. It was too long and unnecessarily so and could certainly afford to lose at least 15, preferably 30 minutes; I think it'd be all the better for it. But that's not going to happen and maybe the expansive, meandering style is part of its appeal for some and of a piece with the setting. Unlike many, I wasn't minded to "ovate" but after the second or third curtain call, I thought I'd get out faster if I, too, got to my feet - so I did. 4 stars under my system.
|
|
1,349 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Aug 10, 2017 14:36:10 GMT
I saw this last night and, after a day when I thought I might never enjoy anything again, it provided an escape from my world into another that was to my eyes presented convincingly (which is not to say it was an accurate representation of the time and place it evoked) by a strong cast.
At the end, with a few standing, a loud voice bellowed in my ear from the seat behind "Sit down! Propaganda!" and continued in similar vein "I hope you enjoyed that" as more and more stood (some, I am sure, motivated purely by the contrariness that will always do the opposite of what it's told). Truth told, I did enjoy it - for the same reason I enjoy much of the theatre I see... witnessing others display their craft - actors, writers, creatives. And escape!
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Aug 13, 2017 23:15:35 GMT
Lucky enough to get a Today Tix Rush seat for this last week - an absolutely brilliant seat in the centre of Row C in the circle for £25. This was a top price seat normally at £70.
I have not seen Jerusalem and wanted to see this to see what all the 5 star fuss was about!
This is a long play, and demands a lot from a modern day audience with limited attention spans. The second and third acts running 2 hours straight with only a 2 minute " pause " between acts. However, this play and the performances held a packed theatre in total thrall.
The play throws everything at this - a large cast, animals, children, babies and even the kitchen sink.
It elicited big laughs, gasps at the end and an almost complete standing ovation from a packed house.
I enjoyed it - very well acted throughout, with high production values, but for some reason I cannot put my finger on, I was less enamoured with it than the rest of the audience. The ending which seemed such a shock to people around me came as no surprise for me and I did feel that some of the characters were stereotypes and it was over indulgent in its length.
But, as I said, overall I did enjoy it.
|
|
898 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Aug 14, 2017 9:24:14 GMT
This is a long play, and demands a lot from a modern day audience with limited attention spans. Do people really have limited attention spans today? Quite a few young people I know have loved the 3 hr 45 min Andrew Scott Hamlet. Films seem to be longer than they were in the 40s and 50s. People have the energy/concentration to watch 60-episode TV series. A quick check on Amazon suggests that Lee Child's Jack Reacher series regularly contain 500 pages plus. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Aug 14, 2017 11:53:35 GMT
Very upset to hear from one of my readers that the restricted view front upper circle really is... because those up there lean forward and block the view for everyone else. I wonder how many people don't realize that leaning blocks those behind them, have to admit I didn't until I read it here (well the old board) years ago, I think previously I'd have thought my head would be lower and therefore not an issue which of course isn't the case. Or maybe they do know and just don't care. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 12:09:33 GMT
I wonder how many people don't realize that leaning blocks those behind them, have to admit I didn't until I read it here (well the old board) years ago, I think previously I'd have thought my head would be lower and therefore not an issue which of course isn't the case. Or maybe they do know and just don't care. It continues to mystify me that couples so often sit with the taller behind the shorter in front, and the shorter of the couple behind the taller person in front. Often, they'd both have a fair view if they swapped places. But they don't! Why? |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Aug 14, 2017 15:35:41 GMT
I wonder how many people don't realize that leaning blocks those behind them, have to admit I didn't until I read it here (well the old board) years ago, I think previously I'd have thought my head would be lower and therefore not an issue which of course isn't the case. Or maybe they do know and just don't care. It continues to mystify me that couples so often sit with the taller behind the shorter in front, and the shorter of the couple behind the taller person in front. Often, they'd both have a fair view if they swapped places. But they don't! Why? That's clearly what I need to do, find a tall person to accompany me, I'd never sit behind the tall by choice. |
|
4,778 posts
|
Post by Mark on Aug 26, 2017 9:07:45 GMT
Got great seats from the todaytix rush today - £25 for row J stalls. Very much looking forward to it
|
|
4,778 posts
|
Post by Mark on Aug 26, 2017 21:32:51 GMT
Blooming brilliant! Was gripped from start to finish. This final moments are especially tense. Definitely not one to miss!
|
|
2,740 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 31, 2017 10:43:08 GMT
|
|
2,047 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Aug 31, 2017 10:58:52 GMT
For someone who hasn't done much theatre previously,I'm surprised he decided to stay this long to be honest, but good luck to him, hope he gets some bigger profile film roles off the back of this.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 31, 2017 11:07:36 GMT
As much as I love Paddy Considine's film roles, I found him to be a little hit & miss on the night I went. Great energy and charm, but his accent seemed to waiver a little to my (admittedly slightly tin) ear. Does anyone know what the norm is for situations like this? Is it likely that another big name star will be brought in, or will the role probably be picked up by a lesser known name? I'm thinking of going again later in the run, and wonder if the loss of Paddy Considine might see a drop in ticket sales, and the chance of some discounts... |
|
