7,179 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jun 24, 2016 17:39:43 GMT
Perhaps the transfer of The Master Builder has been put on hold/delayed.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jul 2, 2016 19:37:11 GMT
It is very disappointing. I am sceptical there is demand for either this or The Master Builder because it is such a poor production. It is dark (not in a good way), the women have been badly cast (I think Redgrave should retire gracefully now) and as fine an actor Ralph is it is all so "LOOK! ME! ACTING!" that you warm to those who are adequate satellites to the character.
I liked Finbar Lynch as Buckingham but it just isn't a very kind production; to either the actors or audience
|
|
374 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Jul 4, 2016 18:25:18 GMT
Perhaps the transfer of The Master Builder has been put on hold/delayed. Whenever Playbill publishes their "upcoming Broadway shows" articles, Master Builder is always mentioned in the "no dates or theatre confirmed" section, so it's likely they'll fit that around Ralph's commitments to Richard III and directing the Nureyev film and the availability of a suitable Broadway house for it, I would think. I'm seeing Richard III this week, I'm very intrigued by the negative opinions on here, I must say. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 9, 2016 17:31:43 GMT
I've just got a ticket from the TodayTx lottery - C9 in the circle. Hope it is worth the dash up to London! Now scoffing Almeida gnocchi in the cafe.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 9, 2016 23:20:06 GMT
Well, I quite enjoyed it. Maybe it helps to have lowered expectations?
Vanessa Redgrave is curiously underpowered as Margaret, compared to the other actresses, who were all making the most of their lines. I enjoyed the women's scenes generally, and liked that we got a little more out of some of the supporting cast then is often the case - in some productions you barely get to know a character before they die.
I felt the rape was unnecessary, and took away the implication that Richard was too deluded by that point to know he's being lied to. In this it feels like she is just saying it so she can escape.
|
|
2,760 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Jul 16, 2016 16:48:28 GMT
I guess when the NT does a live broadcast the trucks are hidden away at the back of the theatre but the amount of kit in Almeida Street for next Thursday's live broadcast is astonishing - virtually the whole street is filled with broadcast trucks and they've laid cables along the whole street, including a new gantry to take the cables over the entrance to the building site halfway down the street. I had no idea it was such a major exercise to do a live satellite broadcast of this type.
|
|
77 posts
|
Post by adolphus on Jul 16, 2016 21:19:54 GMT
Presumably Jonathan Pryce's Lear, originally at the Almeida and available for download, was filmed outside the theatre. Which raises the question: if in-theatre broadcasts are technically too difficult to arrange at certain theatres, couldn't productions be arranged to be brodcast live from another venue with a live audience either during or immediatley after the theatre run? Appreciate there will be production and set design issues, but is an in-theatre vibe absolutely essential for these broadcasts? It was interesting that Branagh opted for a more cinema-styled broadcast of R and J - black and white and in cinemascope. Maybe this is the direction the broadcasts will go. There is certainly enough audience demand and its a vita new direction for cinema which is in a far from healthy state.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 19, 2016 21:51:59 GMT
I wonder if Rupert Goold really wanted to direct this or if Fiennes brought it to him and he felt he couldn't turn it down. Anyway, the dullest Shakespeare from him I've seen.
|
|
520 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Jul 19, 2016 21:58:06 GMT
I think he said in an interview that Fiennes suggested it. The way it was worded sounded as if it certainly wasn't director-led.
|
|
1,237 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 19, 2016 23:19:48 GMT
I wonder if Rupert Goold really wanted to direct this or if Fiennes brought it to him and he felt he couldn't turn it down. Anyway, the dullest Shakespeare from him I've seen. It does seem like Fiennes has a checklist of classical roles he's wanting to get through quite quickly, and if you're a director willing to do any of them, he'll come to you. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 20, 2016 6:07:16 GMT
I think he said in an interview that Fiennes suggested it. The way it was worded sounded as if it certainly wasn't director-led. Oh really ? I'm a good guesser aren't I. I'll tell you now that the Antony & Cleo he has taken to the NT next year has the capacity to be more boring than this. I've seen Fiennes quite a lot in Shakespeare and other things. He doesn't have much of a gift for comedy and in this production he didn't have enough charisma to connect with the audience (despite all that pointing), to make them guiltily complicit in his villainy, so R-III is not really a part for him. SO it was just OK. Best production I've seen was the McKellen one, Sher was good in the role too in a feeble production. On another point I see Goold isn't directing anything else there for about a year at least - what is he doing instead ? |
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Jul 20, 2016 9:52:20 GMT
I think he said in an interview that Fiennes suggested it. The way it was worded sounded as if it certainly wasn't director-led. Oh really ? I'm a good guesser aren't I. I'll tell you now that the Antony & Cleo he has taken to the NT next year has the capacity to be more boring than this. I've seen Fiennes quite a lot in Shakespeare and other things. He doesn't have much of a gift for comedy and in this production he didn't have enough charisma to connect with the audience (despite all that pointing), to make them guiltily complicit in his villainy, so R-III is not really a part for him. SO it was just OK. Best production I've seen was the McKellen one, Sher was good in the role too in a feeble production. On another point I see Goold isn't directing anything else there for about a year at least - what is he doing instead ? It can't be worse than the last Antony and Cleo at the National. I thought Fiennes was great in Love's Labour's Lost beck in the day (with SRB as the King and Amanda Root as whoever Berowne ends up with). I was sorry the two of them didn't do Much Ado. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2016 10:15:24 GMT
PEDANTRY CORNER actually the point of Love's Labour's Lost is that no one ends up with anyone PEDANTRY OVER AS YOU WERE.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 20, 2016 11:01:22 GMT
Oh really ? I'm a good guesser aren't I. I'll tell you now that the Antony & Cleo he has taken to the NT next year has the capacity to be more boring than this. I've seen Fiennes quite a lot in Shakespeare and other things. He doesn't have much of a gift for comedy and in this production he didn't have enough charisma to connect with the audience (despite all that pointing), to make them guiltily complicit in his villainy, so R-III is not really a part for him. SO it was just OK. Best production I've seen was the McKellen one, Sher was good in the role too in a feeble production. On another point I see Goold isn't directing anything else there for about a year at least - what is he doing instead ? It can't be worse than the last Antony and Cleo at the National. I thought Fiennes was great in Love's Labour's Lost beck in the day (with SRB as the King and Amanda Root as whoever Berowne ends up with). I was sorry the two of them didn't do Much Ado. Yes I saw him in that. The type of parts he should be playing now are Macbeth and Titus Andromicus maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2016 11:33:11 GMT
He's recently played a series of comic movie roles, including The Grand Budapest Hotel, A Bigger Splash and Hail, Caesar!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2016 11:39:13 GMT
Being funny on film doesn't automatically translate to being funny on stage though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2016 11:48:21 GMT
Being funny on film doesn't automatically translate to being funny on stage though. Exactly. I was qualifying Jan Brock's "He doesn't have much of a gift for comedy" by reminding that may apply to stage but not to cinema. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 20, 2016 13:14:12 GMT
Being funny on film doesn't automatically translate to being funny on stage though. Exactly. I was qualifying Jan Brock's "He doesn't have much of a gift for comedy" by reminding that may apply to stage but not to cinema. Yes, I omitted to say "on stage". |
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Jul 21, 2016 10:46:22 GMT
He's done a fair amount of comedy on stage - he was very funny in God of Carnage for example. For the RSC he did Love's Labour's Lost and the ingenue in Man who Came to Dinner. I'm surprised he hasn't done more though
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Jul 21, 2016 13:35:46 GMT
And the guest star in The Play What I Wrote, when I saw it, parading around in a dressing gown. He was very funny in that.
|
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Jul 21, 2016 13:50:44 GMT
And the guest star in The Play What I Wrote, when I saw it, parading around in a dressing gown. He was very funny in that. He was the guest star on press night IIRC |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2016 17:42:13 GMT
And the guest star in The Play What I Wrote, when I saw it, parading around in a dressing gown. He was very funny in that. He has a cold stage presence, in R-III all his audience interaction - that weird pointing at people for example- came across as just acting - R-III played by a warmer actor like SimonR-B or Jacobi is better. Coriolanus is the part for Fiennes (I assume, I've never seen him in a film) |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 21, 2016 19:53:28 GMT
He has a cold stage presence, in R-III all his audience interaction - that weird pointing at people for example- came across as just acting - R-III played by a warmer actor like SimonR-B or Jacobi is better. Coriolanus is the part for Fiennes (I assume, I've never seen him in a film) Because played by a 'warmer actor' it's more threatening, sinister, scary? Am seeing this on saturday so can't yet comment but was curious if that was what you meant. |
|
1,495 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jul 21, 2016 22:13:05 GMT
He has a cold stage presence, in R-III all his audience interaction - that weird pointing at people for example- came across as just acting - R-III played by a warmer actor like SimonR-B or Jacobi is better. Coriolanus is the part for Fiennes (I assume, I've never seen him in a film) Because played by a 'warmer actor' it's more threatening, sinister, scary? Am seeing this on saturday so can't yet comment but was curious if that was what you meant. I think that's true. When Rylance played it, he was so natural and warm, he could convince you it was quite normal to want to murder people. That's frightening. |
|
1,061 posts
|
Post by David J on Jul 21, 2016 22:42:55 GMT
Jonjo O'Neill would have to be the only Richard with warmth I've seen. Not an extraordinary performance but entertaining
It's a combination of monstrous/menacing/cold and darkly humorous for me. A combination that actors like Hans Kesting, Ian McKellan, Emily Carding and Jonathan Slinger delivered
I watched snippets of other Richards from the RSC's archives. Henry Goodman's Now is the winter of our discontent had so much razzle-dazzle. Didn't like it personally, the monologue would stop and start again so many times.
|
|
