|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 20:35:49 GMT
I am in row A and there are 2 empty seats next to me
At least there were in the first act
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 23:17:08 GMT
My
Thoughts are varied on this
Firstly I will be positive
Vanessa Redgrave gives a wonderfully
Sensitive and moving monologue indeed
She is a fine actress
And one of the best performances I saw her give
Was The Year Of Magical Thinking
At the NT
Kyle Soller proves again what an amazing actor he is
Have always loved him on stage
There are some excellent scenes across the 7 or more
Hours
What I particularly liked
Was characters reflecting on their mistakes
And trying to reconcile them
Often realising this was not possible
And one often has to live with the consequences
Of ones bad choices
Which come back to haunt us again and again
The staging was also effective
And worked due to the strength of the acting
However
I did fine the same usually cliches
As all plays about the gay community seem
To have to include
Again promiscuity
Being unfaithful outside of a committed relationship
And themes of drugs and alcohol
Were presented as causally
As a broken fingernail
What I have not seen in any play
Or even film
Is a playwright or scriptwriter
Question the real motivation
And morals
Of this behaviour
We see the damage which is done in The Inheritance
But many people lose their parents
And they don’t all turn into drug addicted narcissists who exploit others
I spent some time working in HIV medicine
The most challenging aspect I found
Was dealing with the psychological
Consequences
For
My patients
On the whole
Many of them were intelligent
Resourceful men
And the actions which in many cases which had lead to their diagnoses
Were associated with their lifestyle
And intrinsic to them
There were often huge feelings
Of
Guilt and self
Regret
I thought whilst The Inheritance
Still
Touched on the issues
And in a more relevant way than AIA
Which I find utterly dated and pretentious
I am still
Waiting for a play which looks more closely and really
Dissects the gay community
Without resorting to political lecturing
I don’t recognise any of the people I see in plays about the gay community
And this can feel alienating and isolating
Perhaps I am fortunate
Perhaps I am missing
Out ?
The whole
Thing becomes an
Endurance test
And I felt the running time
A lot more than
Imperium
Or Wolf Hall duo
Was there even enough material
To justify a work
This long?
I can’t see why it wasn’t edited down there is so much repetition in some parts
Sheer arrogance?
But overall some scenes are truly excellent
And I admire the cast very much
I stayed for the whole day
And went for a swim inbetween
Due to body envy
I felt motivated
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 23:24:45 GMT
Sorry
Had to add
Samuel H Levine
Is an amazing actor
And did amazingly
Well with his demanding roles
And taking his clothes off repeatedly!
Truly a performance from
The heart
|
|
1,243 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 17, 2018 23:35:42 GMT
The performances, direction, and simplicity of design are excellent in this, and will get the plaudits.
But the writing is indulgent and, ultimately, lazy.
It really could have been 2.5hrs (inc interval).
|
|
2,859 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 17, 2018 23:48:45 GMT
I had a two-play day today, I rewatched part 1 and saw part 2 for the first one. I felt part 1 didn't really hold up to a second viewing, this time it felt more enjoyable than good. It can be really funny, it has the most hilarious sex scene ever staged, but some bits are just odd. Act 1 ends with this 15 minute long monologue by Walter, that is not bad nor uninteresting, but felt incredibly random, like an overlong answer to a question no one asked. Some parts are very good, but others felt like from an early George Bernard Shaw's play, where characters are just an unsubtle mouthpiece for some idea.
Part 2, Act 1 is even funnier, almost farcical at times, but it manages to say even less. There is a political debate between two characters in the first act, and it desperately tries to be incisive, but despite being a current and important issue it fails to have that "fierce urgency of now" that, for instance, The Normal Heart had. The result is an interesting discussion between highly educated people, a conversation that resembles a rhetorical exercise rather than something that boils up till it becomes a fight.
The last two acts are the more dramatic, the ones that go deeper and tie everything up. And there are some really great scenes mingled with corny lines. At the end it got an instant standing ovation from the whole audience, but I felt that the director and the cast deserved it more than the script. While the first part flew by, the second drags a bit and there would have been at least three good moments to finish it before it ended for real. Actually, there is no justification for it to last seven hours, there is so much that you could cut without ruining the plot. What I really found criminal is that the first part ends with an amazing coupe de theatre that is barely mentioned in the second part: I found it misguiding and dishonest. It's as if there were no more angels in Perestroika. And, speaking of that, Tristan is Belize, isn't he?
I know it sounds like I hated it, but I didn't, I enjoyed, it moved me and made me laugh. There's just three hours of fat to cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 0:08:17 GMT
I had a two-play day today, I rewatched part 1 and saw part 2 for the first one. I felt part 1 didn't really hold up to a second viewing, this time it felt more enjoyable than good. It can be really funny, it has the most hilarious sex scene ever staged, but some bits are just odd. Act 1 ends with this 15 minute long monologue by Walter, that is not bad nor uninteresting, but felt incredibly random, like an overlong answer to a question no one asked. Some parts are very good, but others felt like from an early George Bernard Shaw's play, where characters are just an unsubtle mouthpiece for some idea. Part 2, Act 1 is even funnier, almost farcical at times, but it manages to say even less. There is a political debate between two characters in the first act, and it desperately tries to be incisive, but despite being a current and important issue it fails to have that "fierce urgency of now" that, for instance, The Normal Heart had. The result is an interesting discussion between highly educated people, a conversation that resembles a rhetorical exercise rather than something that boils up till it becomes a fight. The last two acts are the more dramatic, the ones that go deeper and tie everything up. And there are some really great scenes mingled with corny lines. At the end it got an instant standing ovation from the whole audience, but I felt that the director and the cast deserved it more than the script. While the first part flew by, the second drags a bit and there would have been at least three good moments to finish it before it ended for real. Actually, there is no justification for it to last seven hours, there is so much that you could cut without ruining the plot. What I really found criminal is that the first part ends with an amazing coupe de theatre that is barely mentioned in the second part: I found it misguiding and dishonest. It's as if there were no more angels in Perestroika. And, speaking of that, Tristan is Belize, isn't he? I know it sounds like I hated it, but I didn't, I enjoyed, it moved me and made me laugh. There's just three hours of fat to cut. WOW you are brave to watch some of it again!!! Sorry to have missed you 😒 |
|
5,062 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 18, 2018 0:16:05 GMT
Sometimes the world does spins backwards, when we are only confronted by our mere memories, sometimes nice, but other times abject miserable. As it does in bittersweet but insanely enjoyable play.
This 8 hour play gives Mark Ravenhill’s Sex and f***ing a run for its money, the only thing subtle here was oddly the HIV/AIDS aspect, nothing else was, if you are prudish this is not a play for you. I just hope Quentin Letts swerves on this on press night, otherwise this play flew by and a few laugh out moments, one of them very impromptu as a bonus.
I really have to mention Bob Crowley’s sensational set design, who has really been the principal set designer for Disney, so the man knows how to do scale and knows when to parr it back, as in this case - if a set is deemed to constrict the play, then get shot of it and while you are there jettisonthe whole stage too, as this can only make the play seem leaden. All what was available here was a platform where the middle just raised or sunk, this let the play breathe and do its job and put the play dead in the spotlight. Bob understands that less is everything.
Reading the programme I got a nice surprise of someone who was in the cast and that was John Benjamin Hickey who bagged a Tony for the Normal Heart, which I saw a recording of and he was brilliant and one of his scenes is permantley etched on my mind since - hence the Tony, so pleased I have seen him act in the flesh. Apparently Vanessa Redgrave was in this, her part wasn’t big, however she was pretty much terrible and the only weak link in the cast, her piece she just mumbled incoherently for 20-30 minutes, I had to really force myself to concentrate on her, the other cast were superb especially, Andrew Burnap, Kyle Soller and Samuel H. Levine.
You see some 80 minute sprint plays, where that seems so overlong you look at your watch waiting for the end or this no holds bar 8 hour marathons and you fern in remarkable great form even when you see the finishing tape. Given the producer who is backing this, this will likely end up in the West End and New York.
Stephen Daltry our finest director, who really knows how to present first class theatre, by his standards this seemed middle draw.
4 Stars
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 0:22:27 GMT
Sometimes the world does spins backwards, when we are only confronted by our mere memories, sometimes nice, but other times abject miserable. As it does in bittersweet but insanely enjoyable play. This 8 hour play gives Mark Ravenhill’s Sex and f***ing a run for its money, the only thing subtle here was HIV/AIDS aspect, nothing else was, if you are prudish this is not a play for you. I just hope Quentin Letts swerves on this on press night, otherwise this play flew by and a few laugh out moments, one of them very impromptu as a bonus. I really have to mention Bob Crowley’s sensational set design, who has really been the principal set designer for Disney, so the man knows how to do scale and knows when to parr it back, as in this case - if a set is deemed to constrict the play, then get shot of it and while you are there jettisonthe whole stage too, as this can only make the play seem leaden. All what was available here was a platform where the middle just raised or sunk, this let the play breathe and do its job and put the play dead in the spotlight. Bob understands that less is everything. Reading the programme I got a nice surprise of someone who was in the cast and that was John Benjamin Hickey who bagged a Tony for the Normal Heart, which I saw a recording of and he was brilliant and one of his scenes is permantley etched on my mind since - hence the Tony, so pleased I have seen him act in the flesh. Apparently Vanessa Redgrave was in this, her part wasn’t big, however she was pretty much terrible and the only weak link in the cast, her piece she just mumbled incoherently for 20-30 minutes, I had to really force myself to concentrate on her, the other cast were superb especially, Andrew Burnap, Kyle Soller and Samuel H. Levine. You see some 80 minute sprint plays, where that seems so overlong you look at your watch waiting for the end or this no holds bar 8 hour marathons and you fern in remarkable great form even when you see the finishing tape. Given the producer who is backing this, this will likely end up in the West End and New York. No way it has any life As a commercial WE venture It’s too long Even for a 2 parter Over 3.5 hours each part And too niche People aren’t going to be flocking |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 0:27:04 GMT
And Vanessa Redgrave is 81
By all accounts playing a
Frail elderly woman in the play
In fact I thought she seemed entirely at ease
And her speeches seemed a lot more
Naturalistic
And realistic
And
Convincing
For the character she was portraying
Normal people speak with pauses and corrections and additions
Much more than the artificial
Way in which several of the other characters spoke
Declaring all
Their lines
But hey
What do I know
I only see about 250 shows a year
|
|
3,580 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Mar 18, 2018 0:31:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 0:33:30 GMT
I found
The York Realist
Much more believable
Moving
And effective a play
Than this
The Inheritance
Might have a sparse staging
But someone should also tell the playwright
Less
Is more
|
|
5,062 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 18, 2018 0:43:01 GMT
Sonia Friedman, who wouldn’t concern herself with a limited run in a fringe venue. |
|
5,062 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 18, 2018 0:47:35 GMT
Sonia Friedman, who wouldn’t concern herself with a limited run in a fringe venue. Withdraw that statement, SF merely has a full page advert in the programme. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 0:50:12 GMT
The production is “Supported by” SFP And Nattering Way LLC |
|
2,859 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 18, 2018 0:56:26 GMT
The play is clearly written with a New York audience in mind, but it won't go anywhere unless they put some stars in it
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 18, 2018 1:07:20 GMT
Sorry I didn't see all your messages- I am still in the 20th c regarding mobile technology and don't have Internet roamu stuff on this antique phone (I'm typing this from my brothers sofa) oh well next time ill hopefully have 21st c tech! I was in row c stalls - enjoyed it but it could have lost an hour or two - will comment longer on Monday when I'm back at my keyboard - I think you get more out of it if you do know Howards end /. And it won't spoil it because it subverts some plot expectations . - ill add more detail on that on Monday if anyone's interested, but play was very much a dialogue with the novel and did it very well I thought Btw kiss of spider woman Sunday afternoon ie today if anyone's there for that
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on Mar 18, 2018 1:09:36 GMT
John Benjamin Hickey was enough of a 'name' to go above the title when he did Six Degrees of Separation on Broadway with Allison Janney last year. Admittedly it didn't run for very long...
|
|
247 posts
|
Post by barelyathletic on Mar 19, 2018 13:17:36 GMT
So, I sat through seven hours of The Inheritance on Saturday. I was most definitely entertained, occasionally moved (the end of Part One is a truly beautiful thing) and undoubtedly impressed with the quality of the acting and the production as a whole.
There isn't, I think, a weak performance in this, kudos especially to Samuel H Levine, Kyle Soller, Andrew Burnap and John Benjamin Hickey ('Hot' indeed). And to Bob Crowley, the simplicity of the design works extremely well in the play's favour. It's also a remarkably restrained piece from a usually very showy director. Credit to Mr Daldry for that.
I was seduced by the literary feel of the piece. At times, for me, it did feel more like a novel than a play, though as it's so inextricably linked with Howards End that's hardly a surprise. But, by the end of it, this was something I admired and enjoyed rather than being truly blown away by.
People are likening this to Angels in America. Personally, I don't think this has the theatrical imagination or intellectual fireworks of that play (even if I was not a huge fan of the recent production). Nor does it have the personal, truly emotional and powerfully political impact of The Normal Heart, which it also seems to be drawing comparisons with.
For me, The Inheritance seemed to be borrowing from these plays, much as its borrows from E. M. Forster. That's not a bad thing, but it did leave me feeling rather like I've seen all this before.
In fact, if I had to make a comparison it would be with Terrence McNally's Love! Valour! Compassion!, another play about the changing relationships of a group of somewhat privileged gay men that I enjoyed watching but felt slightly distanced from. Yes, in both plays the characters' experience is, to an extent, shared experience, but the backdrop of beautiful New York apartments, trips to The Hamptons and five bedroom country retreats made The Inheritance a gorgeous entertainment for me (I obviously lead a very dull life). Something I enjoyed immensely while watching, rather than a piece that would remain with me, or one that I'd be talking about in years to come.
Definitely worth seeing, but four stars rather than the five star theatrical event I was hoping it would be.
|
|
1,243 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 19, 2018 14:07:19 GMT
For me, The Inheritance seemed to be borrowing from these plays, much as its borrows from E. M. Forster. That's not a bad thing, but it did leave me feeling rather like I've seen all this before. This is the fatal flaw of this production. |
|
3,580 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 19, 2018 14:19:31 GMT
As I've seen none of the above plays and haven't read Howards End, I hope I'll be able to follow the plot but without being able to make adverse comparisons!
|
|
1,243 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 19, 2018 15:05:39 GMT
As I've seen none of the above plays and haven't read Howards End, I hope I'll be able to follow the plot but without being able to make adverse comparisons! Not knowing Howard's End is an asset, rather than a burden with this play. If you know it, it just makes the whole thing a bit more tedious as you tick off the characters/doubles. In fact, is say you don't need knowledge of any of the sources, direct or otherwise, noted in this thread to follow the plays. |
|
3,580 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Mar 19, 2018 15:23:16 GMT
As I've seen none of the above plays and haven't read Howards End, I hope I'll be able to follow the plot but without being able to make adverse comparisons! Not knowing Howard's End is an asset, rather than a burden with this play. If you know it, it just makes the whole thing a bit more tedious as you tick off the characters/doubles. In fact, is say you don't need knowledge of any of the sources, direct or otherwise, noted in this thread to follow the plays. I'm keen to experience The Inheritance on some level but not sure now, after very good but not mindblowing word of mouth,that I want to use up two out of my 3 theatre slots on it. Would it be daft just to book Part 1 only and then go to see Absolute Hell at the NT instead of Part 2?! |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 19, 2018 15:45:29 GMT
Not knowing Howard's End is an asset, rather than a burden with this play. If you know it, it just makes the whole thing a bit more tedious as you tick off the characters/doubles. I disagree - for me it's very much part of what made it interesting, especially seeing it so soon after the BBC adaptation which took a different tack with it. It wasn't 'ticking off' characters but engaging with them, and at certain points it played with your expectations regarding certain outcomes/events in a way which I think would be less significant/amusing if you don't know the novel. |
|
1,243 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 19, 2018 18:05:53 GMT
Not knowing Howard's End is an asset, rather than a burden with this play. If you know it, it just makes the whole thing a bit more tedious as you tick off the characters/doubles. In fact, is say you don't need knowledge of any of the sources, direct or otherwise, noted in this thread to follow the plays. I'm keen to experience The Inheritance on some level but not sure now, after very good but not mindblowing word of mouth,that I want to use up two out of my 3 theatre slots on it. Would it be daft just to book Part 1 only and then go to see Absolute Hell at the NT instead of Part 2?! Hi Rory I think your plan is a great idea. Then at least you'll have had an experience of it and can give an opinion. Part 1 has more going on and the ending is the highlight of both parts. Watching it you'll get to see great acting and great direction, if not a great story. But in seeing Absolute He'll you WILL get a great story. (And hopefully acting and direction too). |
|
1,243 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 19, 2018 18:07:55 GMT
Not knowing Howard's End is an asset, rather than a burden with this play. If you know it, it just makes the whole thing a bit more tedious as you tick off the characters/doubles. I disagree - for me it's very much part of what made it interesting, especially seeing it so soon after the BBC adaptation which took a different tack with it. It wasn't 'ticking off' characters but engaging with them, and at certain points it played with your expectations regarding certain outcomes/events in a way which I think would be less significant/amusing if you don't know the novel. Interesting to hear the flip slide. It just killed it for us, and took away a lot of engagement with it. Like I've said previously, it felt like very lazy playwrighting and didn't add anything. |
|
