5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 17, 2018 12:05:41 GMT
The TV version is a good way of seeing how Dame Judi makes Christine the real centre of the play. Thanks for posting this, just spotted it. Well, there you are. Like wot I said.. and nice to see a younger Nighy acting properlike. |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by Rory on May 17, 2018 18:40:29 GMT
I saw today's matinee and whilst I enjoyed it, I was happy when it finally ended. The Lyttelton seats with the low backs! I think my patience would have been severely tested had it still been at the preview duration of 3hrs 40, as opposed to 3hrs.
It's a beautiful looking production but as others have said, some of the intimacy and claustrophobia of the time and setting is lost in the cavernous set. The tone is uneven and the woman beside me said she felt like a designated driver wanting to escape from a party of drunken bores.
I liked the performances though and always like watching a massive ensemble piece. The couple beside me left at the interval and the overall response at curtain call was appreciative and polite. Still, I'm very glad I saw it and there is much in it to recommend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 18:57:07 GMT
I saw today's matinee and whilst I enjoyed it, I was happy when it finally ended. The Lyttelton seats with the low backs! I think my patience would have been severely tested had it still been at the preview duration of 3hrs 40, as opposed to 3hrs. It's a beautiful looking production but as others have said, some of the intimacy and claustrophobia of the time and setting is lost in the cavernous set. The tone is uneven and the woman beside me said she felt like a designated driver wanting to escape from a party of drunken bores. I liked the performances though and always like watching a massive ensemble piece. The couple beside me left at the interval and the overall response at curtain call was appreciative and polite. Still, I'm very glad I saw it and there is much in it to recommend. My quote of the day: “while I enjoyed it I was happy when it finally ended” Brilliant. |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by Rory on May 17, 2018 19:08:01 GMT
Ha! You can have too much of a good thing!
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on May 17, 2018 19:11:30 GMT
I saw today's matinee and whilst I enjoyed it, I was happy when it finally ended. The Lyttelton seats with the low backs! I think my patience would have been severely tested had it still been at the preview duration of 3hrs 40, as opposed to 3hrs. It's a beautiful looking production but as others have said, some of the intimacy and claustrophobia of the time and setting is lost in the cavernous set. The tone is uneven and the woman beside me said she felt like a designated driver wanting to escape from a party of drunken bores. I liked the performances though and always like watching a massive ensemble piece. The couple beside me left at the interval and the overall response at curtain call was appreciative and polite. Still, I'm very glad I saw it and there is much in it to recommend. Rory, very sad to have missed saying hello! Peggs and I were centre of row A! Having read Lynette's assessment I have to agree with it all...thought Kate Fleetwoood was miscast. Didn't really feel her despair. I did, however, just want to take dear Charles home and nurse him back to health and encourage him to write again.....as Peggs remarked he usually takes such dapper parts that this new "down at heal" character was quite a departure! |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 17, 2018 19:12:49 GMT
Went today too and rather enjoyed it, went in with low expectations that maybe helped but got rather drawn into this mass of unhappy, diversion seeking people. I was sure that I had seen the tv Judi Dench version but since only two brief moments were familiar I either have a worse memory than I realised or in fact have not seen it. Charles Edwards was just wonderful, I could cope with Kate Fleetwood who no didn't quite seem in the right part as it meant I was left free to just follow Mr Edwards around the stage. I did like the set too although I concede no it doesn't really fit what it's meant to be does it. It all got rather mad at times and I could have coped with less extras, they didn't seem to bring much to it and weren't necessarily very good. Missed Jonathan Slinger which was disappointing, could have seen him doing that part well. I suspect I might have enjoyed a smaller, more intimate production more but not having one to compare it too probably stood me in good stead.
And yes those seats are getting more uncomfortable as I get older but i'm clearly losing it too as I successfully managed to get into the auditorium with a ticket for a different play on a different day though granted was a national ticket.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 17, 2018 19:37:11 GMT
Just watching youtube Judi version, she is on a different level isn't she.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 20:11:21 GMT
The revival was feted becauee it put paid to the misunderstanding that everything pre Look Back in Anger was frivolous and populated by rooms with French Windows. Now we know all that and ‘Anger’ itself is just as distant to a present day audience.
|
|
1,239 posts
|
Post by nash16 on May 17, 2018 20:19:59 GMT
Just watching youtube Judi version, she is on a different level isn't she. DJD is just superlative. We were imagining: if they'd only managed to nab Olivia Colman for this run instead of the dodgy science one in the Dorfman... She'd have been brilliant: hilarious and heartbreaking. |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by Rory on May 17, 2018 21:03:16 GMT
Ah, such a shame not to have met peggs and Latecomer today. I see I also missed @neilvhughes at The Inheritance yesterday. As regards Absolute Hell, I agree - I didn't really feel Christine's devastation at the end. |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by Rory on May 17, 2018 21:04:39 GMT
I was right in the middle of Stalls Row F today. Glad to be up close for this one.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 17, 2018 22:05:22 GMT
Just watching youtube Judi version, she is on a different level isn't she. DJD is just superlative. We were imagining: if they'd only managed to nab Olivia Colman for this run instead of the dodgy science one in the Dorfman... She'd have been brilliant: hilarious and heartbreaking. Now that just might have worked, though Olivia Colman and Charles Edwards in the same production, I might have required a lie down. |
|
|
|
Post by basi1faw1ty on May 20, 2018 6:18:32 GMT
Finally saw this Marmite show this week, and here's my review (reviews are not my strong points whatsoever so please forgive me if this is not very good):
The good:
Ok so I'm going to get this out the way first, and idc how biased it may sound I'm still going to say it: Charles Edwards was sublime. Everything he did felt just so real and believable. His babbling and incessant nattering was great. His scenes with Nigel had heart, his scenes with his mother were hilarious, it was just... ugh! Charlie, you magnificent acting treasure! Also he was the only one who didn’t have to shout to be heard (unlike some - I'm looking at you Sam Mitchum). He has this thing where no matter where he was on stage, you could still hear him even over all the racket that went on. I could go on but I shan't.
Actors who deserve honourable mentions are Joanna David, Patricia England (playing the airhead known as Julia), Jonathan Slinger's understudy (nasty piece of work is Maurice Hussey - Slinger apparently had had a nasty fall at the start of the week so a man named Simon Hepworth had to step in), Kate Fleetwood (she's no Judi Dench but her breakdown at the end was good), Prasanna as Nigel (who utterly trumps TV film Nigel, not as rigid and showing a lot more emotion) and of course Eileen Walsh as Madge.
The set was gorgeous and I had a feeling the set designer had modelled the La Vie En Rose on Black's Club, which was then confirmed when I met the man known as 'Speedy' yesterday who actually walked me onto the set and showed me round (yes it's a long story and no I am not making this up).
It was actually funny. I found myself laughing more at this than the TV show.
The not-so good:
Dingy lighting. Yes it's a dingy club, yes they add atmosphere, but I get now why everyone said to sit as close as possible to the stage, but even sitting in row H stalls on Saturday, I at points struggled with seeing actor's facial expressions (unless that was my eyes but whatever) so imagine trying to watch this show in the circle slips!
Cut dialogue. At one point I spotted that some of Christine's dialogue from a cut scene her and Hugh was supposed to have in the original script (that would've happened before the 5 minute pause) had been cut and pasted into the scene when Hugh gets dumped by Nigel. They left out this lovely moment between her and Hugh and missed off some good lines that I would've loved to have heard Charles say.
Fifi. I'm sorry to admit I am in the Fifi dislike camp. The first few times I didn't mind her but she kept coming back, circling the set and obscuring the action and I'm like GO GET A ROOM AND SHOVE OFF!
The labour typist's typewriter types too LOUD. I nearly missed some dialogue thanks to her!
My Yank friend noticed Sam Mitchum's actor slipping into his regular accent at points. Meanwhile I just found him a boring ("...but what a cup!")
...
Anyway I think that's it. Overall I enjoyed myself, and it was good fun, but there were points where I could understand (to a certain extent) why people left at the interval. I mean I didn't get a lot of walkouts. I only spotted maybe 5 leave last night? They certainly weren't leaving in droves, what utter piddle.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 20, 2018 11:29:36 GMT
More about Black's Club please.
|
|
|
|
Post by basi1faw1ty on May 24, 2018 9:57:58 GMT
The repeat viewing on Saturday was worth it cus it was actually better second time round, even though I was sat further back than on Thursday.
Charles was better in Saturday, too, distractingly so in fact. His sad moments were a lot sadder and-- I'd better stop myself before I get carried away.
Also Black's Club? Haha well I've never been personally, but from the pics I've seen it is very reminiscent of the set, even down to the colour scheme. Speedy told me the cast went to the club for "research" purposes at the start of rehearsals. (I knew Charles was already a member and it's a members only private club, so maybe he had a hand in getting them all in?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 10:31:28 GMT
basi1faw1ty I’m glad you enjoyed this. It makes me a bit sad when a good night for the performance is when only 5 people leave at the interval. However I like your review which makes it sound interesting enough for me to want to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by basi1faw1ty on May 24, 2018 12:14:37 GMT
basi1faw1ty I’m glad you enjoyed this. It makes me a bit sad when a good night for the performance is when only 5 people leave at the interval. However I like your review which makes it sound interesting enough for me to want to see it. Oh no I hope you aren't going solely based on my awful review 😅😅 I'd only go if there's affordable tix going (which I believe there is, I've seen £15 seats flying about). It's good but not worth top tier at £60...even if it is 3 hours mainly watching Charles mope about and get drunk and cry, but being very good at it. |
|
3,320 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 12, 2018 20:31:29 GMT
If anyone is interested, there is a short you tube video about how they do the quick scene change in ACT 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 6:47:23 GMT
^ Some might say that video’s more interesting than the recent production of the play itself. Certainly a bit pacier!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 16:00:50 GMT
I really loved this. It gives you an insight into a bygone world, a world where the horrors of the war forced people to create communities made up of unlikely friends. When that world comes crashing down at the end of the war it really does feel like a loss, even though you can see the opportunity to rebuild. I loved the Demi Monde made up of idealistic artists and the way Acland pokes fun at them. It was saddening to realise that many in the audience didn’t seem to understand the literary allusions. I also liked the fact that this is part of the canon of work by gay writers and that Acland should be lauded for the boldness with which he treats the subject. There was a moving moment when Elizabeth recognises an old friend in a picture of rescued work camp survivors. An underrated masterpiece in my opinion.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 15, 2018 7:11:29 GMT
I can't agree with the masterpiece notion - too many longeurs and dramatic dead spots for that - but certainly an interesting play one is glad to have seen in such an all-encompassing production. Absolute Hell for these people is simply being alone - a situation none of them can cope with - and in this day and age (as in that one) there is much truth to this. The air of desperation hanging over La Vie en Rose is palpable and beautifully conveyed by an excellent cast. I thought Charles Edwards, in particular, was extraordinary. But there were no false notes from anyone so kudos to director Joe Hill-Gibbins for getting it right this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 11:07:55 GMT
I can't agree with the masterpiece notion - too many longeurs and dramatic dead spots for that - but certainly an interesting play one is glad to have seen in such an all-encompassing production. Absolute Hell for these people is simply being alone - a situation none of them can cope with - and in this day and age (as in that one) there is much truth to this. The air of desperation hanging over La Vie en Rose is palpable and beautifully conveyed by an excellent cast. I thought Charles Edwards, in particular, was extraordinary. But there were no false notes from anyone so kudos to director Joe Hill-Gibbins for getting it right this time. It’s funny how we can all receive a work so differently. I didn’t feel that there were any longueurs. I found it all very compelling - a bit like watching Chekhov where events seem so realistic that it’s a bit like being a fly on the wall. I did find some of the staging a little clunky (especially the “crowd” scenes) but I love the writing and the characters who were all so believable. It’s an incredibly ambitious work but the ambition doesn’t announce itself, is very quiet. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 15, 2018 12:31:12 GMT
I'm with cleo on this one. I haven't seen this production - but on the page, it is an incredible read. It does need a cast that can really bring it to life but I think it is a significant piece of writing particularly of that time. Ackland never got the recognition he deserved but he can certainly stand alongside other better known names from his generation.
|
|
528 posts
|
Post by vabbian on Jun 16, 2018 22:26:47 GMT
I feel sorry for the actress playing the prostitute
Imagine wanting to be an actress and getting that part
Walking squares around the stage for 3 hours
Riveting
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 13:19:49 GMT
I think I'd rather be the square-walking prostitute in Absolute Hell than a supernumerary raver in Julie. I found Absolute Hell a more interesting play, and even if it's an unusual role with no opportunity to deliver dialogue, you can still be easily identified in the programme if a casting director happens to be in the audience and thinks you've got the right look for, say, a major film they've been asked to provide a large crowd of actors for. Although most theatres seem to avoid having actors in roles that don't seem to serve any purpose, these roles do exist, and may as well be taken by someone, and at least the NT can afford it. If you're going to be pounding the pavement for 3-6 hours every day, there's nothing wrong with it being the fake Soho pavement on the Lyttelton stage for a decent wage, rather than traipsing from audition to audition with no guarantee of income at the end of it.  |
|
