|
Post by Jan on Oct 23, 2017 17:33:03 GMT
I'm reminded of the old joke---- I rang the box office to find out when it starts and they replied When can you get here And “I had terrible seats. Terrible. They were facing the stage”.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 17:46:50 GMT
I remember a play called Thee and Me at the Lyttelton. It opened on the Thursday to very disappointing notices and was pulled quickly. It was replaced by Death of a Salesman that was already in production and was a huge hit. Thee and Me ran for 16 performances including previews. I think this is pulling of poorly received plays is not limited to the National. I remember the RSC put on the Female Pirates the Aldwych in 1978. This opened to poor reviews and was pulled making way for As You Like It which I think the audience did. Thanks for that - never heard of "Thee and Me", more about it here . Written by Philip Martin writer of the excellent TV series "Gangsters" and a couple of Doctor Who stories of the Colin Baker era The "National Theatre Story" notes how rare it is for the National to pull a production during the initial run, and that 16 performances was (at the time of writing in 2013) the shortest run for any new play in the Lyttelton.
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Oct 23, 2017 19:29:12 GMT
I think Poliakoff's Remember This might have closed early, c1998
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 19:42:48 GMT
I think Poliakoff's Remember This might have closed early, c1998 Does anyone remember...? No...?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 19:51:15 GMT
I'm reminded of the old joke---- I rang the box office to find out when it starts and they replied When can you get here I once saw a show where there were about six people in the audience. I can’t remember where but I think it was in a pub theatre somewhere. They agreed to go ahead with the performance. I can’t remember what the show was, but I remember enjoying the novelty of having what in effect was a private showing.
|
|
196 posts
|
Post by rockinrobin on Oct 23, 2017 20:32:36 GMT
Shucks. I really wanted to see it (but I also really wanted to see "Against" - I'm not lucky this year!) and booked my flights and all... Oh well. Maybe I'll go and see the "clothing optional" Hair performance instead.
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Oct 23, 2017 21:32:09 GMT
I'm reminded of the old joke---- I rang the box office to find out when it starts and they replied When can you get here I once saw a show where there were about six people in the audience. I can’t remember where but I think it was in a pub theatre somewhere. They agreed to go ahead with the performance. I can’t remember what the show was, but I remember enjoying the novelty of having what in effect was a private showing. I was once part of an audience of 6 in a pub theatre. Tow of us plotted escape in the interval and two others looked at us very thoughtfully. I'm pretty certain that there were only two in the audience for the second half
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 21:34:32 GMT
I wonder if it was the same play, Prof.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Oct 23, 2017 21:51:26 GMT
It must be very tempting to put in some extra performances of Follies (sold out) to replace St George!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 22:24:31 GMT
I'm reminded of the old joke---- I rang the box office to find out when it starts and they replied When can you get here I once saw a show where there were about six people in the audience. I can’t remember where but I think it was in a pub theatre somewhere. They agreed to go ahead with the performance. I can’t remember what the show was, but I remember enjoying the novelty of having what in effect was a private showing. I've only just started to attend fringe theatre in pubs and it took me a while to get used to audiences of around a dozen! Saw what I thought was an excellent opportunity play at The Excetra called 'To Be or Not to Be Scarlet o'Hara' and there were only 9 of us there!
|
|
2 posts
|
Post by Sooze on Oct 25, 2017 8:47:27 GMT
So wanted this to be good. However when the request came for a second time to ‘close your eyes and imagine the future’ all I could see was us leaving in the interval........
|
|
2,504 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Oct 25, 2017 9:17:27 GMT
I didn't mind this that much. John Heffernan was very good throughout, and some of it was pretty funny. It was too long and I think they could have completely cut the middle section and gone for past/future dichotomy.
|
|
13 posts
|
Post by chrissie on Oct 31, 2017 22:14:57 GMT
This was yet another dreadful play at the Olivier, I can't believe I have sat through three such plays at the National in the last 5 months, Salome, Common and St George. I went last night and I was saddened to see how empty the Olivier was, it must have ben very disappointing for the actors. almost all the side of the circle was empty and there were lots of empty seats in the back of the stalls.
The play itself was poor, boring and far too long. The scenery, special effects and the quality of the acting from the company, apart from John Heffernan, was very amateurish, like watching a school play. I can't understand how such poor plays get accepted and produced by the National without someone actually commenting on the fact that it is rubbish. I know previews are supposed to iron out any problems but quite frankly, all three aforementioned plays should never have got to the preview stage. I wonder whether the NT should have an audience panel who can see the play in rehearsal and have their say. Would this help?
I am loathe to book any new plays at the Olivier in the future, seems a waste to be a priority member nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 22:36:06 GMT
This was yet another dreadful play at the Olivier, I can't believe I have sat through three such plays at the National in the last 5 months, Salome, Common and St George. I went last night and I was saddened to see how empty the Olivier was, it must have ben very disappointing for the actors. almost all the side of the circle was empty and there were lots of empty seats in the back of the stalls. The play itself was poor, boring and far too long. The scenery, special effects and the quality of the acting from the company, apart from John Heffernan, was very amateurish, like watching a school play. I can't understand how such poor plays get accepted and produced by the National without someone actually commenting on the fact that it is rubbish. I know previews are supposed to iron out any problems but quite frankly, all three aforementioned plays should never have got to the preview stage. I wonder whether the NT should have an audience panel who can see the play in rehearsal and have their say. Would this help? I am loathe to book any new plays at the Olivier in the future, seems a waste to be a priority member nowadays. Yes, I am trying to work out why the quality control is failing. Perhaps they are seduced by the reputations of these practitioners rather than ruthlessly assessing the play in front of them. I saw Mullarkey’s earlier play at the Royal Court and thought him an unusual and original talent. Also, I don’t think these plays are bad as such - although I didn’t see Salome. Common was a wonderful idea that needed a few more drafts (at least 4) before production and St George should have been in the Dorfman.
|
|
1,504 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 1, 2017 7:25:05 GMT
I've seen two of Mullarkey's plays and while I think he has a talent for coming up with bold ideas (what if the type of posh woman we associate with conservatism/the status quo became a violent anarchist?; what if St. George visited England in three different periods and found that the evils we face now are harder to deal with than the mythical dragon of the past?), but, from those two examples, at least, doesn't write interesting, believable characters (I found the daughter character painfully weak in this) or plot in such a way as to create tension/comedy/surprises/some sort of reaction beyond, ultimately, boredom. Both of those plays showed promise for the first 15 minutes or so and then lost steam. I didn't see Cannibals - from what I read that was probably better and obviously others really rate him as he's won a lot of awards and has commissions all over the place: 'Rory is currently under commission to the National Theatre, the Almeida Theatre,the Michael Grandage Company and the Royal Exchange Theatre. He is also writing libretti for The Royal Opera House and The English National Opera.'
Maybe he's being spread a bit thin?
On the positive side, I would think the NT, after three big flops, will have to look at its commissioning/dramaturgy?
|
|
3,580 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Nov 1, 2017 7:31:46 GMT
Yes, foxa - maybe the NT should even create a small panel of members willing to read scripts (without the writer's name) and give feedback? Though this of course couldn't take account of the way any work might eventually be produced and directed - which as we know, can be significant.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 7:40:49 GMT
I guess the challenge is that pretty much every play is flat on the page - they need to be on stage to come to life. I've been as critical about quality control at the NT as anyone but that's not to say I think it's easy to sort the wheat from the chaff (if it was so clear you'd never see a stinker). I suspect audience reading groups would produce the most unmitigated crap ever seen...!
|
|
1,504 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 1, 2017 8:45:07 GMT
I think this has been a bad run for the Olivier, but audiences liking something isn't the only gauge of the worth of putting it on - the luxury of subsidised theatre is that they can take risks that others places can't. Something might be new/raw/difficult/challenging/innovative without actually being crowd-pleasing.
But the risks in the recent three flops don't seem that interesting in terms of pushing the envelope. And if people begin to associate that space with boredom - it's not great for attracting new audiences.
However, it's hard to judge. I saw an early preview of 'War Horse' and would never have guessed its incredible success, so what do I know.
|
|
2,762 posts
|
Post by n1david on Nov 1, 2017 9:12:15 GMT
However, it's hard to judge. I saw an early preview of 'War Horse' and would never have guessed its incredible success, so what do I know. Nick Hytner's book is very interesting on the genesis of War Horse - he thought the early previews were awful, told the writer and director how to fix it, went back, they hadn't, so he stepped in himself and started making significant changes before its official opening. I'm guessing that Rufus Norris hasn't got that level of clout yet, the worse explanation is that he doesn't see a problem with the productions.
|
|
13 posts
|
Post by chrissie on Nov 1, 2017 9:26:30 GMT
Gosh, I wasn't suggesting an audience panel of people who would read the play, that would be too mad for words, I just think there must be a stage where the play is in development/early rehearsal when someone from outside the NT bubble could shout "stop! This isn't working",
I work in marketing and in this current climate a new product would never see light of day without any development research with the target audience, I accept this example is different but the principle is the same. Even the cast in St George looked bored, do they ever have a say on the content or are they just pleased to have a part in a play at the NT?
|
|
77 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by tributary on Nov 1, 2017 10:02:04 GMT
I have a friend in the St George cast and they were worked to the bone in previews and rehearsals which were conducted in high panic mode because despite having programmed it noone had any confidence that the play was ready. I thought the play was full of promise and I'm a big fan of Lyndsey Turner's - but the Norris NT has worked its inverse Midas touch on talented people yet again. People on here will wail but the good shows are the exceptions now and it wasn't like that under Hytner.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 10:08:17 GMT
Gosh, I wasn't suggesting an audience panel of people who would read the play, that would be too mad for words, I just think there must be a stage where the play is in development/early rehearsal when someone from outside the NT bubble could shout "stop! This isn't working", I work in marketing and in this current climate a new product would never see light of day without any development research with the target audience, I accept this example is different but the principle is the same. Even the cast in St George looked bored, do they ever have a say on the content or are they just pleased to have a part in a play at the NT? Some will be delighted to get the words 'National Theatre' on their CV as it will open up a lot of doors for them.
He might be a bit of a moany old git and self-confessed "old foggie", but in David Weston's 'Covering McKellan' he says a notable trend developing - and this was in 2007 - was young actors using the RSC and NT as springboards to television careers. I'm not saying that all of the young cast are guilty of such things but it does make you wonder.
However, in the same book it is evident that John Heffernan is a huge fan of theatre who, surely, should have been able to tell that this was a huge turkey throughout the rehearsals and, as lead, tried to tackle it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 10:11:15 GMT
I have a friend in the St George cast and they were worked to the bone in previews and rehearsals which were conducted in high panic mode because despite having programmed it noone had any confidence that the play was ready. I thought the play was full of promise and I'm a big fan of Lyndsey Turner's - but the Norris NT has worked its inverse Midas touch on talented people yet again. People on here will wail but the good shows are the exceptions now and it wasn't like that under Hytner. I genuinely think Norris could walk or be pushed within a year...
He is also looking at the indignity (republicans may differ!) of being the only former head of The National to not have a knighthood to his name.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 10:12:16 GMT
I think the same is true of writers and directors - many of them see Theatre as a stepping stone to careers in TV and - more specifically - film. They all want to go to Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 10:18:15 GMT
Gosh, I wasn't suggesting an audience panel of people who would read the play, that would be too mad for words, I just think there must be a stage where the play is in development/early rehearsal when someone from outside the NT bubble could shout "stop! This isn't working", I work in marketing and in this current climate a new product would never see light of day without any development research with the target audience, I accept this example is different but the principle is the same. Even the cast in St George looked bored, do they ever have a say on the content or are they just pleased to have a part in a play at the NT? Yeah, it's an interesting idea, but isn't that what the AD is there for? My very fleeting experience of am dram is that everything feels crap in a rehearsal space to the uninitiated (ie me!) and it's only when you're in front of an audience that you truly get a feel for what's working; it takes a lot of experience and expertise to sniff out the chemistry of a hit from a flop early on. As others have said, either Norris hasn't got that yet or he's too nice to give his colleagues a boot up the bum when needed. As I've said previously, it feels to me that what he really needs is some kind of mentor; this is a tough job and there's no shame in needing some support to develop in a job, whatever level you're on. Also - I'd imagine actors are delighted to have any job; there's a limit to how much they can kick off if they don't like the direction. Like any job, the boss has the ultimate say and very few bosses are open to candid 'this sucks' feedback from their workers...!
|
|