|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2017 23:06:16 GMT
My ideas were sent elsewhere Other than this forum And the winner of this year's biggest fantasist... 😂😂😂😂 Yes |
|
215 posts
|
Post by frosty on Dec 18, 2017 10:11:55 GMT
Bought tickets, was really looking forward to it as I loved the film back in the day. Got the mail about the cancellation...was very disappointed (I know nothing about the history of the allegations against whoever, and didn't care - I was just wanting to watch a play which I understand was very much of it's time, and being brought up on a rough council estate in the 80s gave the story added meaning to me), so bought the film and re-watched that instead and liked it a lot. When I finished watching the film, I then checked my mail and saw the note about changing their mind and the play was back on! I won't be rebooking, been messed about too much, and seeing the film again was enough. I feel sorry for the actors and other people involved that have also been messed about.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Dec 18, 2017 12:24:44 GMT
Bought tickets, was really looking forward to it as I loved the film back in the day. Got the mail about the cancellation...was very disappointed (I know nothing about the history of the allegations against whoever, and didn't care - I was just wanting to watch a play which I understand was very much of it's time, and being brought up on a rough council estate in the 80s gave the story added meaning to me), so bought the film and re-watched that instead and liked it a lot. When I finished watching the film, I then checked my mail and saw the note about changing their mind and the play was back on! I won't be rebooking, been messed about too much, and seeing the film again was enough. I feel sorry for the actors and other people involved that have also been messed about. I understand the frustration, but it's worth rebooking if you can. The production is very good (I saw it in Bolton), and the play is somewhat different from the film, and has a very different (and much more believable) ending. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 13:33:24 GMT
Out of interest, did anyone else get a "we haven't refunded you yet so your ticket is still valid unless you'd like a refund after all" email rather than a "sorry about the premature refund but you can have priority rebooking" one? I'm not entirely sure how much I trust that my original booking will be unaffected after all this.
|
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Dec 18, 2017 13:50:54 GMT
Out of interest, did anyone else get a "we haven't refunded you yet so your ticket is still valid unless you'd like a refund after all" email rather than a "sorry about the premature refund but you can have priority rebooking" one? I'm not entirely sure how much I trust that my original booking will be unaffected after all this. I have received that email and I trust that my seat has been kept. I will discover if this Christmas-inspired trust in others was a good idea on the 11th January... |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 18, 2017 14:06:04 GMT
the play is somewhat different from the film, and has a very different (and much more believable) ending. Yes, well worth seeing, even if you know the film well. |
|
173 posts
|
Post by paplazaroo on Jan 11, 2018 23:43:38 GMT
Really enjoyed this, very pleased they cancelled the knee jerk axing. It’s a perfectly timely play, shows how men can get away with abuse and honestly looks at the psychology in all the characters. Well staged and acted with a brilliant creepily slowed down 80s soundtrack. Definitely worth going!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2018 9:53:21 GMT
I thought this was excellent - still very fresh, challenging and relevant. I don’t understand why the RC made that initial decision not to show it. It absolutely belongs on the RC stage. It reveals for me a bit of muddled thinking. I wonder if theatres need to add people who are outside the theatre world to their artistic teams, real thinkers. Perhaps as well as literary managers and such they should employ philosopher-in-residence. In any case I am glad they changed their minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2018 10:00:38 GMT
Vicky Featherstone said yesterday that she reversed her initial decision after an hour-long conversation with Caryl Churchill.
This casts some doubt on Parsley's claim here that she changed her mind after heeding his advice.
|
|
2,058 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jan 13, 2018 10:46:11 GMT
Maybe Parsley is/was Caryl Churchill?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2018 11:12:48 GMT
Vicky Featherstone said yesterday that she reversed her initial decision after an hour-long conversation with Caryl Churchill. This casts some doubt on Parsley's claim here that she changed her mind after heeding his advice. Gosh. Isn't that longer than some of the running times of her plays? I don't think Caryl had anything to do with it. My guess is that it would have left a gap in the schedule and the new plays by the man in HR and the woman in finance weren't ready yet. |
|
1,107 posts
|
Post by alicechallice on Jan 13, 2018 11:30:27 GMT
Vicky Featherstone said yesterday that she reversed her initial decision after an hour-long conversation with Caryl Churchill. This casts some doubt on Parsley's claim here that she changed her mind after heeding his advice. Gosh. Isn't that longer than some of the running times of her plays? I don't think Caryl had anything to do with it. My guess is that it would have left a gap in the schedule and the new plays by the man in HR and the woman in finance weren't ready yet. Haaaaa!! She said on Front Row (yes, I know!) that Caryl got a bit sweary during the chat. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2018 14:10:36 GMT
Maybe Parsley is/was Caryl Churchill? That would explain why she only writes one act plays now, so that there’s no interval for her to escape in. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2018 18:20:10 GMT
The NT one had three acts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2018 18:24:16 GMT
The NT one had three acts. Watch and learn Sondheim. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2018 18:25:22 GMT
But no intervals.
|
|
2,058 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jan 21, 2018 18:46:27 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon, and while I thought it was good, I have to say I preferred the film version : maybe its because I have many years of remembering the film but that just seemed a far 'warmer' viewing experience than the play, but I'm glad I got to see this version - I saw the screening at the BFI last year and in the post film Q&A it was mentioned that the play was darker than the film, but thankfully this didn't turn out to be a Nil By Mouth sort of experience - the fact the girls are underage seems to be signalled a lot more in the play than the film (which is probably why there has been such a kerfuffle about putting this on at the RC), but the play does make you realise what a douche Bob is (underlined by how many times we have to witness his bare arse in his car). Got to stand next to 'Sue' in the RC bar afterwards while she was talking to two, ahem 'older' gentlemen - I wasn't tempted to go over and ask her if they were her real life Bobs...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 9:10:10 GMT
Vicky Featherstone said yesterday that she reversed her initial decision after an hour-long conversation with Caryl Churchill. This casts some doubt on Parsley's claim here that she changed her mind after heeding his advice. I suspect that we can all take most of what Parsley said with a huge amount of salt... If you actually believed half of what he said, apart from being stark raving mad you'd actually believe that there's someone out there who invests widely in productions but loves to tell all and sundry about how rubbish they are because, of course, they're not bothered about any return on their money... A 'great' Internet wind up - if you like that sort of thing - but no more and no less. |
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Jan 23, 2018 22:43:34 GMT
I too saw this play, much grittier then the film. A wonderful cast.
|
|
547 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Jan 24, 2018 8:45:14 GMT
The cast are truly flawless in this, so glad the Court put it on in the end.
A quick observation - the final scene wasn't in the film version, was it?
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 24, 2018 13:43:03 GMT
the final scene wasn't in the film version, was it? As far as I remember, no - the film was given an upbeat ending Dunbar didn't like. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 14:59:44 GMT
Well. To be honest, I spent a great deal of the play wondering why the actress playing Sue was also playing Michelle and if it was due to budget cuts. Then I saw them in the same scene together and realised that she wasn't.
I was also surprised that James Atherton's backside didn't get an individual credit on the cast list. It was on stage for more time than some of the other actors and probably put in a lot more work too really.
|
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jan 26, 2018 12:58:35 GMT
Just back from this. A really interesting bit of social history, as the man next to me observed. Truthfully, it was possibly a little too tatty looking by West End theatre standards - clearly a touring thing... and yet, and yet it was a fascinating insight into lives now and then. I think in many ways we haven't really changed much, just found substituted ways to do things that partly hide the truths. Did love the line early on Do you think he belives we were a virgin? perfection, two whole characters and a dynamic in a single line. Good summation. The film is beloved to me. I had seen a stage version it before (in St Helens) featuring Lee from Steps as Bob! Thought the acting was superb and it was great to hear the script in all it's original glory. Far greater depth to it than the film. I did think this "Metropolitan Liberal Elite" London crowd were definitely somewhat po faced about lines that were intentionally funny. I agree that more of a set would have been appreciated. |
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jan 26, 2018 13:02:51 GMT
The cast are truly flawless in this, so glad the Court put it on in the end. A quick observation - the final scene wasn't in the film version, was it? Correct. And although Andrea wrote the screenplay, she didn't agree with the ending (perhaps coerced into writing it by the producers and/or the director) She said going back to someone who'd done the dirty on you like Bob would have never happened - a distinct rule would have been broken. |
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Jan 26, 2018 13:42:32 GMT
|
|
