587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Jun 22, 2017 15:25:10 GMT
Half hour Front Row special on Radio 4 about the show tonight, can't wait. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tvjkcSaw last month, but I know I'm going to end up booking to see the transfer, I've been holding off for ages... The BBC seem very invested in this, maybe they will film it like KC3? Actually I think it would come over well on TV. |
|
2,048 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jun 24, 2017 16:45:41 GMT
I came out of the theatre from seeing this about an hour or so ago and all I can say is that I thought it was awesome - the best play I've seen in ages. Yes, it could maybe have been trimmed in places, and Paddy Considine's accent was a bit 'hmmm' but otherwise no complaints from me, great work from all concerned.
|
|
5,795 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 24, 2017 17:54:58 GMT
What a stupid thing to say. Dunno what musicals you've seen. nothing felt signposted or easily predictable Really? Brooding young man, heavily symbolic dead white bird, highly implausible 'Lennie' type simpleton, Chekhov's gun etc...? I thought it was baggy - too indulgent, every character having their crowd-pleasing, pop-culture-referencing turn to the detriment of plot, tension, a sense of the real sickening menace of the historical period. Scenes I wanted to see were taken offstage, the dynamic with the sick wife underdeveloped, and instead we had lots of stuff like Aunt Maggie Far Away and more cute sweary children. I didn't get to see Jerusalem (this is the first Butterworth play I've managed to see on stage) - I booked last year with great anticipation given the writer and director's reputations, and was delighted when I saw the cast list. I suppose I was expecting more subtlety, more originality, a finer-tuned plot. This was like a West-End musical without the songs. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jun 24, 2017 19:14:25 GMT
Have just finished reading this and surprised myself by the bits i'd forgotten, not because i believe they are forgettable but because of the pace of the ending and probably the fact that i was sat there eating my fingers. It played back through my head as i read and re-confirmed my initial thoughts of yes this is good, it'll last, he's a clever one that Jez Butterworth.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 24, 2017 19:40:49 GMT
What a stupid thing to say I'm polite to other posters - why can't you be? That's the first bit of personal rudeness I've experienced since I joined this community. FYI, I was thinking of another thread on here a week or so ago, things that could be converted into musicals. I think this could, quite easily. There were plenty of times when characters did their 'turns'/ speeches / recited poems that made me think they could burst into song at that point (or a duet, or an Undertones-inspired number etc.). Dunno what musicals you've seen. A lot, despite not being a fan of the mainstream genre. If Goodbye to Berlin and Oliver Twist can be turned into musicals (jolly teenage prostitute sings songs about her life and abusive partner etc.) then pretty well anything can. Recently, I saw Narvik (a play with songs that ends with - - the girlfriend butchered for being a collaborator , The Sum, which includes a number about Thatcher's death, and Junkyard, which included a number inspired by Ivor Cutler. So yes, I think The Ferryman, with its huge, cute cast, melodramatic plot and very posh set would lend itself very well to the treatment. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 20:49:17 GMT
Sometimes a bird is just a bird. When it's hung symbolically framed in the window, bathed in light and stared at by the doomed youth as the 'closing shot' of part one? As regards peeling off the layers, I like dissecting stuff afterwards: the problem with this play was that it wore its numerous influences and showed its workings so clearly that I became conscious of them after a few minutes during the play itself - it didn't seem to me to be its own 'beast', more like a pastiche or collage. I wanted to engage (I'd travelled hundreds of miles for this!) but the mechanics were too clearly on show. There have been several plays I've seen recently where I've felt almost sick with tension, been enthralled, utterly engaged with the characters, but here, whenever things looked promising, the writing and direction seemed to throw it away, like they'd assembled a 'mood board' for the piece and were determined to get everything on it in - if it had stripped back I think it would have been better. Hello crowblack. Did you actively not like the play, or more are just surprised at how well-received it has been? Also, which were the plays you've seen recently that left you feeling sick with tension? |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 24, 2017 21:21:24 GMT
(replying to baladorn)
I liked it at first (I liked the device of the bog body and the writer's ear for dialogue) but then it started to lose me - the mechanics and influences too obvious, and it didn't convey the tension of the period (which I do remember) etc - see my previous comments if you're interested. The couple next to me (probably 60 somethings) had mixed feelings about it. I was surprised by the unanimous 5 star reviews across the board in the press because they're so rarely given and this really didn't strike me as perfection. Two of the four reviewers on Saturday Review expressed similar feelings to mine, and an American reviewer commented of its obvious commercialism that 'it feels like a brand is being built' but other than that everyone seems cock-a-hoop.
Sick with tension, enthralled, engaged, and/or moved to tears recently? Deathwatch at the Printroom, A Streetcar Named Desire, Wish List and Breaking the Code at the Royal Exchange, Hamlet at the Almeida, Killology at the Royal Court...probably others I've forgotten as well.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Jun 25, 2017 7:50:22 GMT
Some idiot on Twitter is saying she has reported the show to RSPCA due to the "clearly terrified" animals on the stage. Insert *eye roll* here.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 25, 2017 10:32:52 GMT
The BBC seem very invested in this Yes, another article on it on Radio 5 now (11.25 Sunday) - that's the third this week. Sam Mendes has just said it was a short time between read-through and stage - I wish they'd taken more! |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jun 25, 2017 12:18:14 GMT
The BBC seem very invested in this Yes, another article on it on Radio 5 now (11.25 Sunday) - that's the third this week. Sam Mendes has just said it was a short time between read-through and stage - I wish they'd taken more! You do seem very actively troubled by how much you didn't like it, perhaps you should try and let it go now? Just a suggestion  |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 25, 2017 12:57:05 GMT
perhaps you should try and let it go now? It's a discussion board! That's what it's for! It's very unusual to hear three articles on a play in the mainstream media - today's happened to be on in the background while I was online so, yeah, I'm going to comment. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 25, 2017 13:05:39 GMT
perhaps you should try and let it go now? It's a discussion board! That's what it's for! It's very unusual to hear three articles on a play in the mainstream media - today's happened to be on in the background while I was online so, yeah, I'm going to comment. Not really that unusual - there's been loads more than that about Angels in America. A new Stoppard or Bennett gets similar levels of coverage. Jez Butterworth is one of the pre-eminent living English playwrites, so it's not surprising that his latest work generates interest. Plus the director has just come off James Bond, which always gets extra press interest. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 25, 2017 13:34:47 GMT
there's been loads more than that about Angels in America On BBC1 / Radio 5? I think that's rare these days (I hadn't noticed Angels in America reaching that far but I may have missed it). When I was younger there were lots of arts reviews on mainstream TV but these days its relegated to Radio 3 and 4, and even Radio 4 is cutting back, axeing Saturday Review. Lyn Gardner's blog has been cut from the Guardian and is now behind the Stage's paywall. I'm glad theatre is getting mainstream coverage - it would be nice if there was more of it rather than just when there's a TV star or Bond movie director's name attached. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jun 25, 2017 13:47:02 GMT
there's been loads more than that about Angels in America On BBC1 / Radio 5? I think that's rare these days (I hadn't noticed Angels in America reaching that far but I may have missed it). When I was younger there were lots of arts reviews on mainstream TV but these days its relegated to Radio 3 and 4, and even Radio 4 is cutting back, axeing Saturday Review. Lyn Gardner's blog has been cut from the Guardian and is now behind the Stage's paywall. I'm glad theatre is getting mainstream coverage - it would be nice if there was more of it rather than just when there's a TV star or Bond movie director's name attached. It's not only being focused on due to 'a TV star or Bond movie director' though, is it? It's because it has been incredibly well-received and is, regardless of your personal opinion, a huge success already, with a lot of buzz and hype around it. It's now opening in a major theatre in the middle of the West End, and I think it's great there's so much attention surrounding it. Hopefully it will attract 'non-theatre goers' who will be intrigued enough to keep coming. You didn't like it, that's fair enough, you don't understand all the adulation from the press and the majority of audiences, also fair enough (I have similar feelings with People, Places & Things) but it's silly to dismiss all the attention as being about things other than the play itself. |
|
5,795 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 25, 2017 13:59:43 GMT
A lot of the fuss is due to the fact it's a major new play by one of our best writers.. that can only be a good thing.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 25, 2017 14:08:50 GMT
it's silly to dismiss all the attention as being about things other than the play itself. A strong point made often in the publicity for this play was that it sold out on the first day of booking, back in November 2016. That's when I booked, and did so on the strength of the writer's name and the Royal Court. For many others I presume it was also for Sam Mendes (I haven't seen much of his output but presumed if his name was attached it would be a big project). No-one at that point knew what the play was about (vaguely - the Troubles) or who would be cast, but the buzz had already started months before its first previews. It's a Sonia Friedman production so has also had that powerful machine behind it. I don't think this mass of attention is all due to the play itself. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jun 25, 2017 14:36:16 GMT
it's silly to dismiss all the attention as being about things other than the play itself. A strong point made often in the publicity for this play was that it sold out on the first day of booking, back in November 2016. That's when I booked, and did so on the strength of the writer's name and the Royal Court. For many others I presume it was also for Sam Mendes (I haven't seen much of his output but presumed if his name was attached it would be a big project). No-one at that point knew what the play was about (vaguely - the Troubles) or who would be cast, but the buzz had already started months before its first previews. It's a Sonia Friedman production so has also had that powerful machine behind it. I don't think this mass of attention is all due to the play itself. I also booked on the strength of the writer and the theatre. It's a very big jump then, to assume that Mendes was a big reason for the quick sell out. As you point out, it wasn't cast then, so you can't say the hype has been built on that either. The hype, realistically, mostly sat with the fact that Jez Butterworth is the writer. The current hype and attention it's getting are is due to the play itself. The reviews are a direct result of the quality of the play, of course. So it stands on its own merit now. Just because you didn't like the play doesn't mean it is getting the attention for any other reason than a LOT of people like it. It is critically acclaimed, that's a fact. Some have said it's a modern classic and one of the best they've seen in a long time. That's another reason for the hype, and again, a direct result of the actual play. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 25, 2017 15:42:01 GMT
This is like the tennis. Do you think this play would have got five star reviews absolutely everywhere if it had been put on anonymously?
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jun 25, 2017 15:51:00 GMT
This 'anonymous' route is ill thought out, overused and doesn't interest me - dismissing the play for what it is and instead making assumptions that the reviews are based on who was involved rather than the play itself.
I thoroughly thoroughly enjoyed it, and despite your assumptions, that wasn't because of who was involved, mostly it's because I think it's an epic, heartfelt, warm, engaging, tense and beautiful piece of WRITING.
Are you suggesting that I would never be disappointed by something written by a writer I'm a fan of? I don't understand your point.
It's a bizarre argument to make in my opinion. The writer gets good reviews because he is a good writer, with a good track record, and he's just written another good play. Issue?
Are you that desperate to portray your opinion as correct and everyone who enjoyed it wrong for thinking it was a great piece of theatre?
Can't you just accept that YOU didn't like it, and it wasn't to your taste?
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 25, 2017 16:10:27 GMT
Why are you getting so angry (and rude!) about it? For the umpteenth time, I didn't hate it, but I don't think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and I was surprised by the cross the board five star reviews from reviewers who have a track record of being far more parsimonious. I think the prior reputation of the makers has a lot to do with the extreme adulation. You don't. We differ on that. You repeatedly use the word "good" but five stars are for something truly, lastingly great, which I don't think it is.
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jun 25, 2017 16:13:58 GMT
Rude? How?
That's the second person you've accused of being rude on here.
You're clearly much happier not engaging with people who have different opinions, so I'll just leave it there.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 25, 2017 16:52:15 GMT
You're clearly much happier not engaging with people who have different opinions If this isn't "engaging", I'd love to know what is!!!! A discussion board where everyone was of the same opinion would be a pretty dull thing. Btw, words like 'stupid' and 'desperate' are rude, and the first bits of rudeness I've experienced on here so thanks for that, though I'm surprised you bothered to go and look up the other thing, hey ho. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jun 25, 2017 17:02:07 GMT
So tempting but I can't be bothered, not going to be trolled into replying. Bye xx
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jun 25, 2017 17:06:41 GMT
I shall be so interested to see this as I seem to be the one and only person who didn't like Jerusalem, which was why I didn't bother to book for this at the Royal Court. Then, of course the rave reviews and comments made me fear I'd be missing something which, this time, really would be worth seeing, so I booked for the transfer. "Emperor's new clothes" was how I felt about Jerusalem but I'd be delighted if Mr B redeemed himself in my eyes this time round.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 25, 2017 17:12:31 GMT
Wow, that's the first time in my entire life on the internet I've ever been accused of 'trolling" so congratulations! First time ever. I've got to say a discussion on plays wasn't where I was expecting it to happen. |
|
