No Man's Land at Wyndham's Theatre

I'll request a zip-wire, to deliver presents from one board member to a other!

Or, judging by some responses on here, one bored member to another.

I was in A5 last night. I felt like the Queen sat in my own little private box. THE. THE Queen. Not A. Filthy lot!

I have to say, Jan Brock can lump me in with all the other non-serious theatregoers I'm afraid. Some of it was funny (very funny in fact) and it was all delivered beautifully by the cast but I'm not sure I really had a clue what was going onto be honest. I was a bit flummoxed. My flumm was never so oxed. Sorry, been watching too much 'Up Pompeii' recently.

It left me like a 'Dynasty' end of season cliffhanger. More questions than answers. But perhaps that's the point. It was very enigmatic. Rather like myself.

I will say though, as much as I didn't really get into the play itself, I did love the use of the English language. So many delightful words used, and most of them rolled around his mouth and delivered magnificently by Sir Ian.

Also, next time I ask if someone wants coffee, I am definitely stealing Owen Teale's way of delivering the offer.

Just make sure you don't get caught polishing your crown jewels in the theatre 

books.google.co.uk/books?id=R7ZkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT53&lpg=PT53&dq=bunty+in+no+mans+land&source=bl&ots=bSaZJs-0IC&sig=NFoRtmsvG-I0sZ4RpeHYV4pMo2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL_KWDgqPPAhXGJMAKHcSgCMIQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=bunty%20in%20no%20mans%20land&f=false

My baffled conversation with my sister afterwards.
Me : But who was Bunty?
Her : They made up Bunty.

Nutty.

Ooh, intriguing...

He corpsed when I saw the matinee on Saturday - is that the same performance you saw?

I really enjoyed it. Felt to me that it was (among other things) about dementia.

Sat in the second price (£45) row Q seats at the back of the stalls which were great - excellent view, loads of legroom.

Very enthusiastic audience response, very surprised to read some of the negative feedback above.

Saw this today from back row of the balcony (excellent view and didn't feel far away atall) and really enjoyed it. It was nice to see the two leads having such a good time with it and I had that sort of confidence in their performances that means you forget they are acting and just enjoy it! Some excellent lines and plan to use "do I know you?" extensively at work tomorrow! Having seen Pinter before I didn't really expect it to make sense and I was not disappointed! Glad to see the critics have no clue about it either!
The person next to me bailed as she was ill (coughing and sniffing) so just before the second half I told one of the standing people to have her seat, right at the end of the row....only for an officious usher to rush over and make her stand up again! Apparently even if a seat is free you are "not allowed to sit when you have bought a standing ticket"....despite me explaining the woman had left and despite the seat being the same price! Humph....not impressed!
My friend sat in one of the "nest seats" and loved it! Thanks Theatremonkey!
All in all a great day out for £10! Theatre packed!

Saw this last night - front row day seat, amazing!! - and loved it. I don't think one needs to read too much into it. As with many Pinter plays it doesn't seem to be about a controlling central idea as much as a state of being, in this case the imprecision of memory and approaching death. The dementia idea occurs because Patrick Stewart is a particularly frail Hirst - last night he appeared to be fighting through a cold, his voice catching and croaking. I recall in the 2008 Rupert Goold production, Mike Gambon was a big, even dominating presence and it considerably shifted the balance between him and David Bradley's ultra seedy Spooner. But that production was different in every way - much darker and more menacing, more in line with the "nameless dread" thing that we associate with Pinter.

It's a mark of the greatness of this play that it works in so many interpretations. The prevailing takeaway from this production is its humour. From beginning to end the theatre was ringing with laughter. I had forgotten just how funny Pinter can be when played precisely as written, without the forcing that, for instance, Jamie Lloyd applied to his production of The Homecoming. Of course it helps to have a comic maestro like Ian McKellan as Spooner. I don't think I've ever seen a performance so rich in detail, not in the sense of being over busy or attention grabbing, but just being full in every moment. He's also a great colleague, elevating Stewart, so that the two become a first class comedy team. The long sequence in Act Two when they go into a shared fantasy past about Binky and Bunky and the old gang of Oxford chums with their womanizing and betrayals, was absolutely hysterical - it could not have been better played.

I liked that Sean Matthias kept it in period so that the dialogue references - "Did you have a good war?" - made sense. I loved the sleazy 60s attire, the tight suits and bell bottoms and voluptuous hair sported by the excellent Owen Teale (Briggs) and Damian Molony (Foster). Goold, in '08, had them in matching black suits with crisp haircuts and sunglasses, like Secret Service agents, which would certainly not have worked here.

Above all, this is an entertaining production. The seriousness of the piece is not undermined by this, it's enhanced. Spooner's aria of pleading supplication near the end - such a great piece of writing - was all the more powerful because only moments before we'd been laughing out loud at the man. That's down to Pinter and down to McKellan, two geniuses.

A fantastic blog post and very true. I remember that same feeling when I saw Speed the Plow and both Lohan and Schiff were absent, and that is no disrespect to the understudies who did a fantastic job, but it pretty much sums up the mood of the audience.

Thought that blog was arrogant and total rubbish in the "everyone is an idiot except me" mode, just projecting his own prejudices onto a group of total strangers he knows nothing at all about. Here's an example:

"But in doing so he revealed the audience as celebrity-obsessed philistines, come to watch a play they had no interest in, and mistakenly focusing their disappointment on the man who filled the gap."


That's directed at all of you who've seen this play - celebrity obsessed philistines.

It is quite badly written in an adolescent kind of way. Many points are laughably wrong-headed - he thought the audience was likely to be full of young fantasy fans, at £150 a go. Actually all he has done is project his own opinions on to an audience he knows nothing about. This passage is telling:

"It's everything you expect from the playwright, everything and more, but his work wouldn't be your top choice for a dramatic night out were it not for the actors inhabiting his roles."

So what was the blogger doing there then ?