|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 23:34:55 GMT
<sarcasm on>
Obviously friends of the cast and their agents posting from all around the country.
<sarcasm off>
It is funny how people liking something is met in some quarters with incomprehension and imaginary explanations. Maybe people just like different things. Yes, that might be it.
<sarcasm mode still on, dammit>
|
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Sept 6, 2018 23:45:49 GMT
Is the dishwasher bit when the party people in masks disappear via the kitchen cupboards? It was hard to tell in the NTLive broadcast since those shots were from a distance.
The NTLive broadcast of this... made me glad I didn't pay to see the play properly. The performances were good (although I found Julie quite irritating, and I say this as a usually avid fan of antihero female characters), but I felt I'd seen it all before. I mean I literally have seen a version of 'Miss Julie' before - but also the depiction of tragic rich partying horrors, which still manage to look glamourised and cool (the dance bits at the beginning), and money not being everything or even enough.
Despite the beforehand documentary bits basically framing the performance and how to interpret it for the audience in advance, I was left feeling there wasn't any point in modernising the play. The melodramatic elements and reasons for Julie being so trapped make less sense in our times, so what's perhaps universal about the play isn't given any greater meaning. Can't we instead have some new female centric plays that don't essentially still revolve around a female character feeling rejected and thus worthless because she can't be sure a man wants her? This version did foreground the mother's suicide as her greatest tragedy, I don't remember how much or if that's in the original, which is fine, but still inherently as a mostly two hander love story of sorts... inevitably having the tragic female character whimper about wanting to be wanted by men feels a bit... oh come on, can we not move past this?!
There's a bit where her lover asks why she doesn't use her privilege and money to do something, because from her place she can, and... well... exactly. It's hard to feel anything for her, whereas at least original Miss Julie is trapped by a (more) deeply misogynist society. I know some of it still stings horribly true, like Julie being called easy, etc, but it's also hard to deny that her circumstances are not the same as Miss Julie's.
More than anything I feel sorry for the cleaner/friend who will now feel haunted and guilty forever, for nothing that was her fault.
|
|
3,578 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Sept 7, 2018 8:08:27 GMT
People on Twitter are raving about how utterly amazing it was an how moved they were and how wonderful Vanessa Kirby was. I don't know what I missed. The acting *was* excellent but I agree with Billers' review on this one. Where was the real risk which fuelled the drama in this modern update? Honestly, if a roll in the hay causes that much anguish, she'd have been better off having a cuppa and a digestive instead. I can't ever recall having a bunk up which was so alarming I've had to contemplate fleeing to Cape Verde! And still disappointed I forked out 15 quid and didn't see a sinner in a dishwasher. Not one for Bill Oddie. |
|
528 posts
|
Post by vabbian on Sept 7, 2018 20:59:27 GMT
I attended the talk with Vanessa Kirby today at the Lyttleton.
I wouldn't say it was terribly insightful, as they didn't want to spoil the play for people who were due to see tonight's performance.
I did enjoy it though as Vanessa is very charasmatic.
Surprised the theatre was half empty! I thought this would have sold out.
|
|
1,239 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 7, 2018 22:14:17 GMT
I attended the talk with Vanessa Kirby today at the Lyttleton. I wouldn't say it was terribly insightful, as they didn't want to spoil the play for people who were due to see tonight's performance. I did enjoy it though as Vanessa is very charasmatic. Surprised the theatre was half empty! I thought this would have sold out. If you thought that was empty you should have been at the Cracknell/Stenham one after it... (Stenham arrived 15mins after it had started as well) One thing that was explained though: the dancers exiting into the dishwashers. (Cheers all round). Apparently it was improvised by the dancers, and Cracknell decided to keep it as it showed the descent of the upper classes into the maid's domain.  |
|
3,320 posts
|
Post by david on Sept 7, 2018 22:32:25 GMT
I attended the talk with Vanessa Kirby today at the Lyttleton. I wouldn't say it was terribly insightful, as they didn't want to spoil the play for people who were due to see tonight's performance. I did enjoy it though as Vanessa is very charasmatic. Surprised the theatre was half empty! I thought this would have sold out. If you thought that was empty you should have been at the Cracknell/Stenham one after it... (Stenham arrived 15mins after it had started as well) One thing that was explained though: the dancers exiting into the dishwashers. (Cheers all round). Apparently it was improvised by the dancers, and Cracknell decided to keep it as it showed the descent of the upper classes into the maid's domain. Hands up anybody who has seen the play and thought that. I certainly didnt! |
|
14 posts
|
Post by george123 on Sept 8, 2018 6:23:04 GMT
Suprising the number of people that did show up for the Kirby interview. It was just average and I had hoped for more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2018 7:13:37 GMT
I would probably have gone out of curiosity but it was in the middle of the day. They seem to do that for a LOT of platforms - not all of their audience is retired!
I adore how luvvie-ish the dishwasher explanation is.
|
|
528 posts
|
Post by vabbian on Sept 8, 2018 12:49:51 GMT
I would probably have gone out of curiosity but it was in the middle of the day. They seem to do that for a LOT of platforms - not all of their audience is retired! I adore how luvvie-ish the dishwasher explanation is. The interviewer (is that what you call them) did say something at the start of the talk along the lines of " nice you could all attend I guess you don't have jobs Lol |
|
528 posts
|
Post by vabbian on Sept 8, 2018 12:58:57 GMT
<sarcasm on> Obviously friends of the cast and their agents posting from all around the country. <sarcasm off> It is funny how people liking something is met in some quarters with incomprehension and imaginary explanations. Maybe people just like different things. Yes, that might be it. <sarcasm mode still on, dammit> I was thinking about reviews the other day, and how they are used for marketing I saw Exit the King at the National recently, and generally the consensus is that the production is quite bad But the National are advertising it everywhere with 4 star reviews Yes people have different tastes, and when a show gets lets say 20 reviews in the press, all it takes is one or two of them to give a 4/5 stars rating, and then the theatre company is able to take those ratings, even if they are not representative of the general consensus, and plaster them on every advert they send out |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 8, 2018 13:25:49 GMT
<sarcasm on> Obviously friends of the cast and their agents posting from all around the country. <sarcasm off> It is funny how people liking something is met in some quarters with incomprehension and imaginary explanations. Maybe people just like different things. Yes, that might be it. <sarcasm mode still on, dammit> I was thinking about reviews the other day, and how they are used for marketing I saw Exit the King at the National recently, and generally the consensus is that the production is quite bad But the National are advertising it everywhere with 4 star reviews Yes people have different tastes, and when a show gets lets say 20 reviews in the press, all it takes is one or two of them to give a 4/5 stars rating, and then the theatre company is able to take those ratings, even if they are not representative of the general consensus, and plaster them on every advert they send out In the marketing material I saw for one recent show the only quoted reviews were from that distinguished critic "Twitter User". |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2018 14:34:26 GMT
Caveat Emptor, all it needs is a bit of basic research.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2018 15:14:33 GMT
<sarcasm on> Obviously friends of the cast and their agents posting from all around the country. <sarcasm off> It is funny how people liking something is met in some quarters with incomprehension and imaginary explanations. Maybe people just like different things. Yes, that might be it. <sarcasm mode still on, dammit> I was thinking about reviews the other day, and how they are used for marketing I saw Exit the King at the National recently, and generally the consensus is that the production is quite bad But the National are advertising it everywhere with 4 star reviews Yes people have different tastes, and when a show gets lets say 20 reviews in the press, all it takes is one or two of them to give a 4/5 stars rating, and then the theatre company is able to take those ratings, even if they are not representative of the general consensus, and plaster them on every advert they send out Those four star reviews are as valid as the bad reviews. The whole idea of reviews are anathema to me. Why are the views of those particular individuals so important. I could see the point if plays were reviewed by Peter Brooks or Caryl Churchill. Novels are usually reviewed by other novelists and poetry by poets, dance by dancers and so on. Why is it that Theatre is reviewed by people who (in some cases) don’t even like Theatre. In fact, this forum is better than the mainstream reviews because you get a sense of what the play might be about, it’s themes etc. And more importantly you get a range of opinions. I think it was kathryn who remarked that what we get out of a play is determined by what we bring to it. Who in their right mind would send Quentin Letts to review a feminist play where 13 year old girls discuss their periods (I haven’t seen it yet so i’m Just guessing that this happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 8, 2018 16:41:20 GMT
I was thinking about reviews the other day, and how they are used for marketing I saw Exit the King at the National recently, and generally the consensus is that the production is quite bad But the National are advertising it everywhere with 4 star reviews Yes people have different tastes, and when a show gets lets say 20 reviews in the press, all it takes is one or two of them to give a 4/5 stars rating, and then the theatre company is able to take those ratings, even if they are not representative of the general consensus, and plaster them on every advert they send out Those four star reviews are as valid as the bad reviews. The whole idea of reviews are anathema to me. Why are the views of those particular individuals so important. I could see the point if plays were reviewed by Peter Brooks or Caryl Churchill. Novels are usually reviewed by other novelists and poetry by poets, dance by dancers and so on. Why is it that Theatre is reviewed by people who (in some cases) don’t even like Theatre. In fact, this forum is better than the mainstream reviews because you get a sense of what the play might be about, it’s themes etc. And more importantly you get a range of opinions. I think it was kathryn who remarked that what we get out of a play is determined by what we bring to it. Who in their right mind would send Quentin Letts to review a feminist play where 13 year old girls discuss their periods (I haven’t seen it yet so i’m Just guessing that this happens. In a mild defence of Letts, though I never read him or the Daily Mail, he is employed by the Mail to review plays for their readership firstly to entertain them with his review (pandering to their prejudices) even if they have no intention of seeing the play, and secondly to indicate to them whether they'd like the play or not. On that basis his reviews are probably do the job and it's hardly relevant that non-Mail readers don't like him. It used to be not that different at the Guardian, another paper I never read, where I used to avoid poor old Lyn Gardner's reviewing efforts because they were of no value in indicating to me whether I'd like the play or not. I find the reviews and comments on plays posted here far more useful than any MSM review. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 8, 2018 16:47:17 GMT
Quentin Letts does his job well - if he hates something there’s a good chance that I’ll like it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 0:14:16 GMT
Why is it that Theatre is reviewed by people who (in some cases) don’t even like Theatre It is now, but didn't used to be. That is one advantage of the web - many more of us who write online DO have broad theatre backgrounds, and it helps. This certainly helps and I find the long form reflections that those who also review elsewhere do are far more interesting than what is squeezed into the traditional format.
One thing I do have as a rule, never trust anyone who reveals nothing about who they are online. A twitter profile or a series of forum posts that reveal precisely nothing (and, to tell the truth, a few on here fit that description) makes me very suspicious. If they go around badmouthing people and shows or bigging them up you can guess that they have an agenda that they are keen to hide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 8:53:02 GMT
It is now, but didn't used to be. That is one advantage of the web - many more of us who write online DO have broad theatre backgrounds, and it helps. This certainly helps and I find the long form reflections that those who also review elsewhere do are far more interesting than what is squeezed into the traditional format.
One thing I do have as a rule, never trust anyone who reveals nothing about who they are online. A twitter profile or a series of forum posts that reveal precisely nothing (and, to tell the truth, a few on here fit that description) makes me very suspicious. If they go around badmouthing people and shows or bigging them up you can guess that they have an agenda that they are keen to hide.
Is that true of you? I don’t know who you are and I don’t need to know. Isn’t anonymity on a site like this (or any, really) important? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 11:01:12 GMT
This certainly helps and I find the long form reflections that those who also review elsewhere do are far more interesting than what is squeezed into the traditional format.
One thing I do have as a rule, never trust anyone who reveals nothing about who they are online. A twitter profile or a series of forum posts that reveal precisely nothing (and, to tell the truth, a few on here fit that description) makes me very suspicious. If they go around badmouthing people and shows or bigging them up you can guess that they have an agenda that they are keen to hide.
Is that true of you? I don’t know who you are and I don’t need to know. Isn’t anonymity on a site like this (or any, really) important? My personal details are threaded through here, background, job, philosophy etc., you get to know people over time (most people). It isn’t just about facts like that though, just about trust. The same with mainstream media reviewers, if I know who they are then I can measure what they say. Anonymity means trust isn’t a given. I have suspicions if someone is a blank slate, all they are is an opinion and, for all I know, they are a disgruntled ex employee or an agent. Especially if anyone goes on about specific people in the business, that’s a big red warning sign, to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 11:10:17 GMT
It is the right if anyone using a site like this to remain anonymous. I don’t much care if some people are disgruntled ex employees because their opinions will be leavened by the views of many others. We’re all disgruntled about something. This is probably a good place to vent - in a controlled manner of course. I can’t stand trolls.
|
|
