3,321 posts
|
Post by david on Apr 5, 2018 22:26:07 GMT
Having seen this tonight, all I can say is that is an absolutely fantastic night out at the theatre. For a central seat at £15 in the Royal circle back row, I think this must be an absolute steal at the Noel Coward. A great view at a cheap price. I wouldn’t hesitate in seating in those seats again - and with plenty of leg room to boot!
As for a review of the show, it is a laugh a minute and the guy doing the impersonations of the quiz hosts, Keir Charles, really got them down to a T. At times you could have sworn it was Chris T on stage the act was that good. For me it’s the kind of show where you can just switch off your brain for 2 hrs and just sit back and enjoy it. The audience participation part for me was a hoot and it helped that everyone in the audience joined in with it to create a really great atmosphere. I appreciate that audience participation isn’t everyone’s cup of tea at the theatre, but sometimes you just have to surrender the it and go with the flow. Alcohol (and lots of it)also helps in these situations.
Just to get serious for a moment, I get the message from the play about manipulation of people by the media and it was interesting to the 50/50 ish split by both this audience and previous ones as to whether the Ingrams where guilty or not. Maybe the evidence isn’t so clear cut after all.
|
|
1,134 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Apr 5, 2018 23:29:35 GMT
I was there tonight too. James Graham was in the stalls looking jolly and chatting away with the audience. Seats B27+28 (£15) are a great bargain especially in this production and very very little is left out of view.
Well, after being all hyped up, this fell a bit flat for me in the end. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by Mr Graham’s other work.
The performances were good I thought. Sarah Woodward and Gavin Spokes were the standouts for me. I thought that Spokes played the part of husband and military man well with his switching mannerisms and stance in different situations. I felt he also shone when the cameras were close on him. Woodward stole the spotlight with some interesting writing in the latter act.
I think that Graham writes comedy well, especially with regards to politics but in Quiz I felt many jokes failed to amuse. I’m not too sure if the warm up act is supposed to be a bit of a gimmick, I found it cheesy and unfunny. Perhaps I was expecting something with more than just a handful of really serious moments?
In the end I think that the fast pace, musical interludes, flashing lights and use of audience participation try to mask what, for me, is Graham’s weakest play to date. This play mainly served me an education into the events and maybe that’s not what I was looking for.
I don’t want to put anyone off seeing the play with my thoughts here. It’s still in previews in front of a West End audience and some things are likely to change. It is fast paced and something a bit different at least. Go and see for yourself and cast your vote!
|
|
2,762 posts
|
Post by n1david on Apr 5, 2018 23:39:49 GMT
I’m interested that responses to this so far seem to be mixed perhaps tending to negative. I saw it in Chichester and really enjoyed it, but there were reports (which I mentioned upthread) that it was being rewritten daily during its Chichester run, and there are aspects being reported here that seem to be new from the version I saw (in particular the warmup man). I’m interested to see this in the West End, which I am next month, but I wonder if there’s a risk of modern playwrights (or maybe just Graham) never feeling that something is actually finished? One of the aspects that great actors love is the fact that every night is different depending on how their colleagues play their parts, but is there a sense that some modern plays remain responsive and are never quite “done”?
|
|
1,134 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Apr 5, 2018 23:45:46 GMT
Interesting point @n1david
I got the vibe tonight from Graham that he was more interested in the responses from the audience to parts of the play than he was with what was happening onstage. I suppose that is natural as a writer during a preview period as after all he isn’t the director. .
I do wonder just how involved he was in rehearsals. I’d imagine very.
I am beginning to feel as though maybe I missed the point a bit here though. Most of the brief reviews thus far on twitter are glowing!
|
|
3,321 posts
|
Post by david on Apr 5, 2018 23:46:55 GMT
I was there tonight too. James Graham was in the stalls looking jolly and chatting away with the audience. Seats B27+28 (£15) are a great bargain especially in this production and very very little is left out of view. Well, after being all hyped up, this fell a bit flat for me in the end. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by Mr Graham’s other work. The performances were good I thought. Sarah Woodward and Gavin Spokes were the standouts for me. I thought that Spokes played the part of husband and military man well with his switching mannerisms and stance in different situations. I felt he also shone when the cameras were close on him. Woodward stole the spotlight with some interesting writing in the latter act. I think that Graham writes comedy well, especially with regards to politics but in Quiz I felt many jokes failed to amuse. I’m not too sure if the warm up act is supposed to be a bit of a gimmick, I found it cheesy and unfunny. Perhaps I was expecting something with more than just a handful of really serious moments? In the end I think that the fast pace, musical interludes, flashing lights and use of audience participation try to mask what, for me, is Graham’s weakest play to date. This play mainly served me an education into the events and maybe that’s not what I was looking for. I don’t want to put anyone off seeing the play with my thoughts here. It’s still in previews in front of a West End audience and some things are likely to change. It is fast paced and something a bit different at least. Go and see for yourself and cast your vote! Steve, definitely agree with you on a number of your points. The “warm up” act was really gimmicky and naff, but I just rolled with it. Comparing JG’s other work, this definitely wasn’t his finest moment. Maybe upon reflection I didn’t really learn anything new about the case that isn’t already in the public domain. Whereas in his other works I felt I got a bit more out of the material as a lot of it was new to me or I only had minimal knowledge of the people in the plays. As you say it’s fast paced and something different. I just hope his next works goes back to his strengths in political drama. As an aside, I think I may of seen you sat in the royal circle but couldn’t be sure so I didn’t come down and say hi in case it was the wrong person! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 23:49:15 GMT
Having met him
He is very very sweet
But he tackles the most dull subject matters
Not at all what you expect
From a 30 something year old
It’s hardly thrill a minute
I loved Ink
But all his political
Plays are so self referential and self conscious
It’s not real drama
|
|
1,134 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Apr 5, 2018 23:50:35 GMT
Next time David! Next time! I was the one in the Hollister Tshirt clutching my gin(s)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2018 0:54:15 GMT
The turbulent times of the late seventies (and boy were they turbulent), schisms in the Labour movement, the birth of tabloid journalism, revolutionary politics in the UK. Nothing dull there as far as I can see.
The only play of his I didn’t really like was Monster Raving Loony, which tried to cram too much in. It”s good that we have a playwright determined to write big, popular plays about serious issues. I loved the whole Saturday teatime telly feel of it, the audience participation having that seaside bingo, club comic vibe, I thought we might get 3-2-1 with Ted Rogers (and Dusty Bin) getting a look in but sadly (or thankfully) not!
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Apr 6, 2018 8:26:09 GMT
I think this play is probably best if you are there with a few other people. Was lucky to have seen it with a friend and two board members Peggs and Zoephile and the best bit was probably discussing afterwards if we thought they were guilty or not! I thought it did quite a good job of exploring how people's attitudes are coloured by prejudices (did the show people "like" the Ingrams) and our discussions afterward were all equally coloured by our experiences! Also interesting was how evidence can be presented in opposing ways....and whether we decide people really are innocent until PROVEN guilty without doubt? Is society now more ready to believe the worst of people and decide innocence and guilt on probabilities....have we actually subtely rewritten the rules on justice?
Did I like it as much as Ink and Labour of Love? Not quite, but I think the Ingrams are not the easiest people to like, and I think maybe that's the point!
Stage seats front row great!
|
|
7 posts
|
Post by plaskett on Apr 6, 2018 11:13:33 GMT
Interesting to read the varied responses so far.
(And sorry about that bloody gas leak the other night!)
As one commentator noted, there have been almost universally glowing reviews at Twitter.
I, at his request, had the temerity to propose a few amendments to James Graham. I´ll be seeing for myself next week how many were woven in. (Warm Up guy not one of them!)
Also noting several people are of the opinion that the playwright´s main concern was to draw attention to the cultural and media impacts which influence views and opinions ... and votes about what is true.
Indeed.
This is a West End production centred upon the book Bad Show, which I co-authored with Bob Woffinden about a court case. We thought a miscarriage of justice to have occured.
But only three people know what truly happened.
Those moved to consider their thoughts on that case may like to learn that I am to be interviewed, live, by the host of another quiz programme, Jeremy Vine of BBC TV´s Eggheads, at 12:30 p.m. next Tuesday, April 10th on his BBC Radio show.
Alongside me in the studio will be the Managing Director of Celador, the company which made Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? at the time of Charles Ingram´s victory, Paul Smith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2018 11:49:38 GMT
Interesting to read the varied responses so far. (And sorry about that bloody gas leak the other night!) As one commentator noted, there have been almost universally glowing reviews at Twitter. I, at his request, had the temerity to propose a few amendments to James Graham. I´ll be seeing for myself next week how many were woven in. (Warm Up guy not one of them!) Also noting several people are of the opinion that the playwright´s main concern was to draw attention to the cultural and media impacts which influence views and opinions ... and votes about what is true. Indeed. This is a West End production centred upon the book Bad Show, which I co-authored with Bob Woffinden about a court case. We thought a miscarriage of justice to have occured. But only three people know what truly happened. Those moved to consider their thoughts on that case may like to learn that I am to be interviewed, live, by the host of another quiz programme, Jeremy Vine of BBC TV´s Eggheads, at 12:30 p.m. next Tuesday, April 10th on his BBC Radio show. Alongside me in the studio will be the Managing Director of Celador, the company which made Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? at the time of Charles Ingram´s victory, Paul Smith. Welcome to the board, James! I like how the format of the play lures the audience into believing the more exciting conspiracy rather than the less dramatic explanation, similar to how people believe the political lie if it is put out there forcefully enough. For this reason I see it as very much of a kind with James Graham’s political plays. Sadly, we are suffering now from the way that conspiracy theories can subvert actuality. It’s a worrying time and I think the production is very timely because of that. |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Apr 7, 2018 17:33:27 GMT
Caught this today. I enjoyed it. Of course it’s not as incisive as his other plays, but it was fun.
I was in a front stage seat. They are fine and a steal for £15.
Has anyone else mentioned audience participation? The show looks back quickly over 3 earlier quiz shows. For each members of the audience are used. For 2, FOH asks for volunteers beforehand from stage seats and front row stalls. So you are not pressured during the show. However, for one the presenter does choose an unsuspecting member of the audience. I won! Got myself a free interval ice cream!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2018 6:27:32 GMT
I was there yesterday too, sitting in the opposite bank of stage seats to you. Congratulations on your success in the Yes / No interlude! I enjoyed it a lot - remembered the case but had no recollection of the outcome of the trial, so very interesting to see how that developed. And liked the structure with prosecution / defence in the two halves, which did change my mind about what may have happened over the course of the play. Also thought there was some interesting stuff in there about "professional quizzers" (still quite common for the same people to turn up on multiple quiz shows), and class (with the discussions on the fact the big winners didn't reflect the ITV audience) Didn't mind the warm-up man - having been to a TV quiz recording, this was quite accurate. Stage seats were a great bargain for the £15 I paid, although certainly in the back rows they were very uncomfortable. Interesting to see an audience from the perspective of the stage, surprised by the extent to which I could see people throughout the show. So yes, the cast do notice when you fall asleep  Thought the impression of Chris Tarrant's odd mannerisms was spot on. Oddly the other quiz host impressions by the same actor were quite poor - particularly the one of Leslie Crowther (who in my favourite showbiz fact, was Phil Lynott's father in law)  Doesn't seem to be selling well - balcony was closed, stalls about 2/3 full. |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Apr 8, 2018 14:54:47 GMT
Has anyone else mentioned audience participation? The show looks back quickly over 3 earlier quiz shows. For each members of the audience are used. For 2, FOH asks for volunteers beforehand from stage seats and front row stalls. So you are not pressured during the show. However, for one the presenter does choose an unsuspecting member of the audience. I won! Got myself a free interval ice cream! Thank God I booked a seat in the dress circle. It's not something I'd have made a trip to London specially to see, but I'll have a free afternoon in London on Thursday and there are some good seats available in the lower price band. And it looks like fun, and a nice easy follow-up to eight hours of The Inheritance the day before. I'm looking forward to it. (The alternative was Frozen, which... no thanks. At least, not when I'm basically just looking for light entertainment.) |
|
105 posts
|
Post by youngoffender on Apr 9, 2018 11:05:43 GMT
I saw the matinee on Sat 7th from a stage seat. There were technical problems near the beginning (which stopped the show) and during a protracted interval , inevitably taking the momentum out of proceedings, but I found it reasonably engaging. I had forgotten enough of the story to make its retelling worthwhile, certainly justifying £15 a ticket, even if Graham clearly has his own agenda. The Major is presented as a hapless dolt, and Graham clearly wants us to reconsider conclusions about what we saw/heard in the TV broadcast, but what he shows us here is itself partial and tendentious. What I enjoyed most were the incidental details, such as a hideous vacuum cleaner ‘prize’ in The Price is Right and the Coronation Street skit. The attempts to give the affair broader socio-political relevance seemed tacked on, and didn’t resonate for me.
Will this work in the West End? Despite a lot of advertising and the reviews from Chichester, the theatre was no more than two-thirds full on Saturday, with the balcony shut. Like a TV game show, despite the surface glitz there’s something essentially provincial about this, and while the cast is solid there are no stars to add to the draw.
|
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Apr 9, 2018 11:21:32 GMT
It's a suprisingly unstarry cast but then I guess the same could be said of Ink. But there's certainly nothing to encourage anyone to pay £70 to see it
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 11:22:30 GMT
I saw the Saturday matinee too. What with the technical difficulties happening here and at 'Bat Out of Hell' earlier in the week, I'm beginning to think I'm being stalked by Sheridan Smith.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Apr 9, 2018 11:25:09 GMT
Clearly we missed the opportunity for a Board meet-up on Saturday afternoon!
|
|
|
|
Post by basi1faw1ty on Apr 9, 2018 12:21:56 GMT
I have been fascinated with this whole so called 'Major Fraud' scandal for a while but the fact that the prices are so steep has put me off completely, not to mention as I said earlier the stage seats were up until a few days ago half and less than half the price they are now, which still has me absolutely raging. The Play That Goes Wrong has no starry cast but even that is far cheaper (and probably a far better show). Don't get me wrong, Greg Haiste, Sarah Woodward, and that Benidorm chap are good actors, but even they can't draw me in.
|
|
591 posts
|
Post by lou105 on Apr 9, 2018 23:09:46 GMT
I was going to recommend the sides of dress circle as an alternative cheap seat if the stage puts you off. Then I saw that C26, which I got for £15 in preview is now £67...I guess I got lucky whilst they were checking the sight lines.
|
|
1,134 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Apr 9, 2018 23:20:08 GMT
I have been fascinated with this whole so called 'Major Fraud' scandal for a while but the fact that the prices are so steep has put me off completely, not to mention as I said earlier the stage seats were up until a few days ago half and less than half the price they are now, which still has me absolutely raging. The Play That Goes Wrong has no starry cast but even that is far cheaper (and probably a far better show). Don't get me wrong, Greg Haiste, Sarah Woodward, and that Benidorm chap are good actors, but even they can't draw me in. As mentioned above, the side seats in the dress circle are a great bargain for this production (£15)I sat in B28 and missed almost nothing. This is helped by the fact there are two large screens also in view to see the action from different angles. |
|
591 posts
|
Post by lou105 on Apr 9, 2018 23:27:25 GMT
Even those at the extreme corners are £42.50 once it's open, though it looks as though are reductions as each date approaches.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Apr 10, 2018 8:46:56 GMT
I bought a balcony ticket for May and looking at the remaining seats unless this gets incredible press I am expecting to be upgraded.
I just don't think the idea has resonated with people (I love James Graham and quizzing but that is a niche audience) and the lack of star names isn't going to see audiences flocking there.
|
|
591 posts
|
Post by lou105 on Apr 10, 2018 9:43:17 GMT
I think word of mouth will help this show as much as reviews. The audience around me in the Royal Circle were enjoying themselves. There's a lot of laughter from recognition of the references and shared memories. I got the impression lots of people knew about the case but couldn't fully remember how it ended, which added interest especially when perceptions were challenged. More than worth the £15 I paid- I'd have been happy at double that but not much more.
|
|
|
|
Post by basi1faw1ty on Apr 10, 2018 9:46:16 GMT
Oh darn it everybody, now you're making me reconsider my options.
Yes I'm aware of the cheaper seats TM mentioned earlier, just I'd love to be on the stage, having just missed out such an opportunity with This House. I'm very picky.
I'll keep coming back and checking the prices however. You never know, Delf Mac might just ammend their prices? They've done it twice already so...
|
|
