1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Feb 26, 2017 0:28:58 GMT
Very ambitious production by the Kingston Theatre - they themselves describe it as the most ambitious in their nine-year history, and you can see why. To condense and adapt for the stage the massive sprawling tetralogy of books by Elena Ferrante set largely in Naples, which spans five decades and requires an extensive cast list before you even start to read the novel, is not an easy exercise by any means. This is the reason why it is actually staged in two parts.
The ambiguity of the title lies in the relationship between Lenu (the novels' narrator) and Lila, her best friend from infancy. Growing up together in a poor neighbourhood in Naples, the story is about poverty, aspiration, loyalty, love, hate and, above all, friendship. It is about nature/nurture and how we can overcome the difficulties arising from being born into the most unpromising surroundings, especially when you are girls in a society which is based wholly around machismo.
The two protagonists - Niamh Cusack as Lenu and Catherine McCormack as Lila - give good accounts of their parts, especially in the light of how they grow up from being kids to mature teenagers. Lenu the good, studious girl who wants to be clever but also glamorous and Lila - a naughty but natural talent and beauty, too honest for her own good. Both loving each other, but both suffering from being compared to each other and from occasional pangs of jealousy. A solid ensemble backs them up with loads of doubling-up to cover the large list of characters represented.
Some production decisions do not necessarily help:
i) everyone keeps their own accents, I would have preferred some uniformity
ii) the doubling-up can be confusing at times
iii) in two minds as to whether the age of the characters (the girls are very young girls when the play starts) might have been better depicted
The set is simple but the good use to which levels, entrances and lighting are put helps to keep the action focussed despite relatively few props
I don't know if anyone who hasn't read the novels would get as much out of it as someone familiar with the texts - not for me to say as I have read them, it is difficult on first viewing to make up my mind about it.
A point does need to be made which is relevant for this production, but also a general comment on much off-West End and fringe work. Has the theatre done its homework to promote this production effectively? The audience for the world premier of what has been a publishing phenomenon and sold in its hundreds of thousands in this country alone was disappointing, maybe 60% of the house full. Did they not know who their potential audience was? And if they did, why did they not tap it more effectively? I find it mystifying.
I do recommend this very highly though, a flawed production but an engrossing one which merits selling out.
Incidentally, first time in over forty years of theatregoing where there is no curtain call despite enthusiastic applause. Why?
|
|
3,580 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Feb 26, 2017 6:06:33 GMT
Delighted and fascinated to read this, joem, as I'm seeing both plays in one day towards the end of the run.
Haven't read the books (wanted to but could never find the first of the sequence in the library), so I'll have no issues with the adaptation, nor, I hope, with following the plot which I had understood to be broadly as you describe.
Surprised by what you say re attendance as the performances for which I booked looked very full; however, I can't speak for the marketing since I'm already a reasonably frequent visitor to the venue, am on the mailing list and follow them on Twitter, so I wouldn't pay much attention to any publicity or lack thereof - though I did start to wonder recently why I'd seen nothing more so close to the opening.
Also in my opinion, the Rose has an awkward auditorium (too large a gap between the stage and the first seats, though they try to fill that with cheaper floor spaces), which I've never seen even close to full - but which was apparently sold out several times recently for the poorly-reviewed Sandi Toksvig touring production.
Not being a member I only book in person to avoid TWO sets of booking fees; this is massively inconvenient but I did take advantage of a special Xmas deal for this production: half price if both parts were booked on the same day - so this may explain why those performances looked popular to me. I had great trouble with the online booking and as it was a BH, there was no-one available to help, but in the end I chose to pay more than I should have had to, rather than miss out on the deal and find that availability had worsened.
I'm sure more people here will have booked or will do so now; it will be interesting to see what they and the bloggers and critics say.
|
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Mar 10, 2017 0:08:07 GMT
Saw the second part tonight. Entertaining but a bit less engaging than the first part.
Theatre less than half-full. Mystifying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 0:46:59 GMT
Saw the second part tonight. Entertaining but a bit less engaging than the first part. Theatre less than half-full. Mystifying. I am glad you attended and enjoyed it I used to go to Rose Saw several things there in the past However it's a ball ache to get to It's not on the tube Is much more inaccessible than Richmond And to be quite frank the area doesn't appeal to me either Add to this they rarely have the sort of casting you get in the west end or in major tours to attract mainstream people Perhaps Kingston is the wrong place for a theatre I have never seen anything sell out there other than the Dench midsummer night which incidentally was the only production of that play I have ever liked! Richmond theatre always seems much busier has a good and wide selection of shows and often has sellouts prior to the west end In other words I stopped going to the Rose As it's just a bit sh*t |
|
3,580 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 10, 2017 4:36:45 GMT
PN is tomorrow (Sat 11) which is a little unusual, but I hope the reviews are good, both because I have booked to see both plays and because I would like to see the Rose not merely survive but thrive.
Off-topic but re Kingston as a theatre location: Unlike Parsley I do like visiting Kingston but agree that, transport-wise, it it a pain and very different from nearby Richmond due to the lack of tube or any rail alternative to slow mainline trains. 4 per hour but each one calls at every single stop. Also, Richmond has 2 theatres (the Orange Tree and Richmond Theatre), making it possible to do 2 shows in one location; also 2 cinemas (Curzon and Odeon), whereas Kingston has only the Odeon and apart from the odd early Silver Screen performance (invariably older films most people have already seen if interested), theirs start too late to fit in before the Rose's unhelpful 2.30 pm matinees - half an hour later would be so much easier; it might even enable the theatre to put on weekday performances of shows which would appeal to parents and young children after school.
As a venue itself I also think the Rose has issues: mainly the huge gap between the stage and the stalls, but charging not one but two booking fees to anyone not booking in person can't help business - as above, it's not somewhere easy to pop into en route somewhere else to avoid these extra costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 9:18:16 GMT
I don't see how Kingston is a pain, personally. It's only half an hour out of Waterloo, and even if it's not the tube, you can still use your Oyster card so there's no weird ticketing requirements that might put people off. If you're seeing a matinee in Kingston it's easy to get back into town for an evening show, especially (though not exclusively) if you organise your day carefully enough that you've booked something at one of the Waterloo theatres.
I do agree that the venue doesn't really do itself any favours. I usually sit in the pit on a cushion because I am a cheapskate, but the price of that has doubled since I started going, and although I survived the Wars of the Roses trilogy day by bringing a couple of pillows from home, I've treated myself to an actual seat for My Brilliant Friend. Also I got really angry when they let the same number of people sit in the pit for King John as they had for Wars of the Roses, but didn't let anyone sit in the side pit areas due to Trevor Nunn's incredibly ill-conceived TV camera idea, so not only was there only about 60% of the space available, the sizeable crowd of regular pit-sitters refused to give even an inch to the people forced to fit their entire bodies into a space approximately the size of a piece of A4 paper. In hindsight I really should have discreetly moved their posh camping seats (which they'd left to bags their spaces) while they were out in the foyer before the start.
They've actually streamlined the double-booking fee thing recently, it used to add the commission on at the same time as adding the booking fee, but now the £1 commission is clearly listed as included in the ticket price, with the £2.50 booking fee added later. (Though I suppose it is still a bit of a slap in the face when you go to pay and it merrily shouts "SO THAT'S £3.50 COMMISSION YOU'RE PAYING ON TOP OF YOUR TICKET PRICE!". I did read once that they have to list the extra fees separately and not as part of the ticket price otherwise they cannot use them as they want to use them, but they should probably make that clearer if they don't want people to be deterred. Just because I remember how it used to be worse doesn't mean what they currently have is by extension good.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 10:07:57 GMT
It would be so much simpler if all theatres charged absolutely nothing and then all went bankrupt and closed down. Then no one would ever feel aggrieved at having paid a single penny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 10:40:25 GMT
It would be so much simpler if all theatres charged absolutely nothing and then all went bankrupt and closed down. Then no one would ever feel aggrieved at having paid a single penny. 😂😂👍🏽 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 10:42:13 GMT
I don't see how Kingston is a pain, personally. It's only half an hour out of Waterloo, and even if it's not the tube, you can still use your Oyster card so there's no weird ticketing requirements that might put people off. If you're seeing a matinee in Kingston it's easy to get back into town for an evening show, especially (though not exclusively) if you organise your day carefully enough that you've booked something at one of the Waterloo theatres. I do agree that the venue doesn't really do itself any favours. I usually sit in the pit on a cushion because I am a cheapskate, but the price of that has doubled since I started going, and although I survived the Wars of the Roses trilogy day by bringing a couple of pillows from home, I've treated myself to an actual seat for My Brilliant Friend. Also I got really angry when they let the same number of people sit in the pit for King John as they had for Wars of the Roses, but didn't let anyone sit in the side pit areas due to Trevor Nunn's incredibly ill-conceived TV camera idea, so not only was there only about 60% of the space available, the sizeable crowd of regular pit-sitters refused to give even an inch to the people forced to fit their entire bodies into a space approximately the size of a piece of A4 paper. In hindsight I really should have discreetly moved their posh camping seats (which they'd left to bags their spaces) while they were out in the foyer before the start. They've actually streamlined the double-booking fee thing recently, it used to add the commission on at the same time as adding the booking fee, but now the £1 commission is clearly listed as included in the ticket price, with the £2.50 booking fee added later. (Though I suppose it is still a bit of a slap in the face when you go to pay and it merrily shouts "SO THAT'S £3.50 COMMISSION YOU'RE PAYING ON TOP OF YOUR TICKET PRICE!". I did read once that they have to list the extra fees separately and not as part of the ticket price otherwise they cannot use them as they want to use them, but they should probably make that clearer if they don't want people to be deterred. Just because I remember how it used to be worse doesn't mean what they currently have is by extension good.) Going home If you use the train after an evening show They aren't that frequent Nothing like going on the tube And going back to central London isn't that easy or quick So if you are going to an evening show from work That's an hour travelling either side And given the standard of what they show Mostly not worthy of my time |
|
3,580 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 10, 2017 10:46:45 GMT
Indeed, it's 3 overground trains each way for me. Going to Kingston evenings allows better use of the day, but the long, late trip home is a drawback.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 10:49:18 GMT
I don't see how Kingston is a pain, personally. It's only half an hour out of Waterloo, and even if it's not the tube, you can still use your Oyster card so there's no weird ticketing requirements that might put people off. If you're seeing a matinee in Kingston it's easy to get back into town for an evening show, especially (though not exclusively) if you organise your day carefully enough that you've booked something at one of the Waterloo theatres. And how many people would be ending their homeward journey in Waterloo? A few. Then a few more could travel on in one leg from Waterloo. And many more would need two further travel legs to get home. Realistically, the Rose has a limited catchment area in the evenings. |
|
3,580 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 12, 2017 14:41:23 GMT
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 16, 2019 17:30:08 GMT
At the Nash
First thoughts after seeing play 1
Too long, would cut quite a bit from first half of first play. One for the cognoscenti here but anyone remember Il Campiello? Yeah, that one. Well the depiction of Naples poor community in the 50s has a whiff of it. Much better in second act with sharper focus on relationship between the women. I haven’tread the books ( o shame I hear you cry) but I’m thinking maybe a shorter theatre show or a tv series....did I miss that?
Eating now in the Terrace, not special. But I’ve got a cold so nothing tastes good.
Play 2 to come. Watch this space or ignore, but I’m usually right 🤪. It’s the tablets.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 16, 2019 17:33:44 GMT
Fellow mod please add Now at NT to title of thread. I’m not able to do it from my device. Ta
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Nov 16, 2019 17:39:51 GMT
Am I the only one imagining lynette and her fellow mods on their lambrettas enjoying a day out to Brighton. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 16, 2019 17:47:46 GMT
🥂
Thought we’d got away with it.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 17, 2019 0:20:13 GMT
Me again.
Play 2 is more of the same but perhaps more soap opera. The theme of feminism comes through loud and clear. The plot and pace increases so that a lot of plot is squashed into the last quarter of the two plays whereas the first spent a lot of time setting the scene. I wasn’t a fan of the puppeteering. I was wondering why they do not use child actors especially as they could have them be the young girls at the start of the two plays and then their daughters. There are so many child actors around who would do the job well. It would have made the ending even more traumatic I think but actually more dramatic. Personal choice. I didn’t like the ending. But then I suppose I’m criticising the books. I don’t think It works in a play. I was spending time trying to work out the ages of the women rather than concentrating on what they were saying. I was rather tired by this time and much checking of my watch took place towards the end.
Small Island was a women's story and journey and also an adaptation of a book but for me it worked much better on this stage than the Ferrante.
One thing I loved about this production though was the music. Old pop put to good use.
|
|
3,580 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Nov 17, 2019 5:13:05 GMT
Well done, anyway, Lynette, for lasting out, as when it was in Kingston (which seems years ago now) I was hugely disappointed and left early.
|
|
|
|
Post by theatremad on Nov 17, 2019 9:00:32 GMT
I'm the opposite.
Saw this in Kingston and again yesterday. Was blown away both times, loved every minute of it and came out raving about it.
I had read and enjoyed the books too before the Kingston visit but couldnt remember them so well which actually helped
|
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Nov 17, 2019 11:37:40 GMT
At the Nash First thoughts after seeing play 1 Too long, would cut quite a bit from first half of first play. One for the cognoscenti here but anyone remember Il Campiello? Yeah, that one. Well the depiction of Naples poor community in the 50s has a whiff of it. Much better in second act with sharper focus on relationship between the women. I haven’tread the books ( o shame I hear you cry) but I’m thinking maybe a shorter theatre show or a tv series....did I miss that? Eating now in the Terrace, not special. But I’ve got a cold so nothing tastes good. Play 2 to come. Watch this space or ignore, but I’m usually right 🤪. It’s the tablets. There is a tv series, Italian although maybe part-funded by HBO: linkIt is obviously able to deal with the themes of the novels at more length and avoids some of the problems of the theatrical production. |
|
|
|
Post by charles92 on Nov 25, 2019 10:51:23 GMT
For anyone who has seen this, does part one stand on its own or do you need to see both parts to have a satisfying experience? I’d love to see the whole thing but travel may not permit that.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 25, 2019 14:38:43 GMT
Difficult to say. if you have read the books, and I haven't, you might be disappointed or puzzled. I would say that the first part of the first play is too long with the scene setting of a poor Naples and the way the education of the two girls differs. The second play is livelier but imo, a bit of a soap opera.
What do others think?
Tbh it could have been done as one play, much cleaner and faster and more pointed.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 28, 2019 13:18:13 GMT
This just got a brill review from the Telegraph so what do I know? Well, like I was watching a different play. All the stuff I thought was weak, he thinks is great.
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Dec 22, 2019 0:07:36 GMT
Saw both parts of this today, and loved it - but with a few quibbles. Visually it's gorgeous and the direction is often sensationally good, but the puppets didn't quite work for me. The two central performances are superb, and the show doesn't avoid the trap inherent in having a large ensemble who all perform multiple roles, and more than a few of the supporting performances veer a little too far towards caricature. The music is often extremely effective, but sometimes a little heavy-handed.
Overall - good, and I mean *really* good, but not perfect. An odd choice for a Christmas show in the Olivier, too, and the theatre was not full. For a lot of people, a two-part all-day extravaganza is probably not going to be viable the Saturday before Christmas.
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Dec 22, 2019 23:06:42 GMT
I went to the Saturday performance. I’m afraid, possibly as I am not familiar with the novels, this was just a series of fast scenes and sketchy characters for me - violence, move stairs, fall in love, music, projections, projections, falling out of love, more bursts of music, move stairs... I should add that I was not in the right mindset and decided to leave after the first play and find out what happened on Wikipedia. Not without some merit - the actors did their best. Just didn’t feel the passion or danger of Naples either - I will get in trouble for this, but it felt like a very provincial production compared to the huge expanse and skill of something like Small Island on the same stage.
|
|
