|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 3, 2018 16:57:14 GMT
I have no horse in this race in terms of desperation to see it (I will live without) what my particular nerd brain gets annoyed about is the use of spaces at the NT in the 'wrong' way. The Dorf/Shed/Cottesloe has always been the 'experimental' space supported (financially and artistically) by the other two. With the other two also being where you make your money (so whacking out a bog standard Shakespeare, or putting a star on stage). Anyway it's a minor nerd point but it irks me. That’s not 100% true. The Cottesloe hasn’t always been an experimental space. It’s been a space in which they put things they thought would be less commercial but that’s not the same thing - for example the last production of Rutherford and Son was in there and it wasn’t experimental (despite Katie Mitchell) Also they put productions in there for artistic reasons - they often used to programme Shakespeare in there, more than in the bigger spaces really. The big difference in the use of the space came with Norris turning it into a new play monoculture which has had several negative effects, not least requiring minority interest revivals (which they should be doing) like Exit the King going into the large theatres with not enough audience to support them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 16:59:55 GMT
The idea of a ballot is the fairest way, of course, and I can’t see how anyone need compain about that.
However.
This is a Katie Mitchell production of a Martin Crimp play. why on earth are people suddenly falling over themselves to see it? Because they want to see a particular actor? That’s crazy. If you wouldn’t get anything out such a production (and I fall into the camp of being keen to see it if it was going to be acted by a bunch of nobodies) then why think that one actor will make you like it better?
What will irk is anyone who gets tickets and then goes on about how difficult and pointless it all was and how they don’t see why it was such a big deal anyway. It’s Katie Mitchell and Martin Crimp, do your homework people!
|
|
1,243 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 3, 2018 17:06:05 GMT
Out of interest, why do you say this? I feel like, in instances where demand so massively outstrips supply like this or the recent Punchdrunk thing or the RADA Hiddlestone thing, having a ballot is the easiest way to give everyone a fair chance.
Don't get me wrong, it'll be frustrating to miss out, but it seems fair and at least I won't be sat for hours jumping between computers hitting refresh.
Because it puts up a wall. Because it excludes. Because it goes against how accessible I feel our National Theatre should be. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 17:11:09 GMT
This is a Katie Mitchell production of a Martin Crimp play. why on earth are people suddenly falling over themselves to see it? Because they want to see a particular actor? That’s crazy. If you wouldn’t get anything out such a production (and I fall into the camp of being keen to see it if it was going to be acted by a bunch of nobodies) then why think that one actor will make you like it better? What will irk is anyone who gets tickets and then goes on about how difficult and pointless it all was and how they don’t see why it was such a big deal anyway. It’s Katie Mitchell and Martin Crmp, do your homework people! BEEP BEEP! Irk Alert! Oh that's definitely me. I just want to see Cate Blanchett. I don't mind admitting it.  |
|
1,499 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Oct 3, 2018 17:13:15 GMT
I saw Gross und Klein from the Barbican balcony and didn’t have a problem reading her performance (though the overall piece left me cold). I loved Gross und Klein, but there was a LOT of walkouts at the interval of the performance I attended. And this was even after the Barbican pulled the elitist trick of pretending the show was in German with English surtitles, right up until the very last minute. Still, folks booked it just to storm out at the interval lol. I put this down to folks who booked to see a sequel to Elizabeth I, and instead got "Emo - The Road Movie," aka "Nobody Likes You, Is life even worth living?" At least this show is honestly titled, given Crimp's penchant for alienation, so nobody can claim that they were expecting a "Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones" mash up. Except the ballot has now got the papers touting "must have" tickets, so predictably people will book it for the heck of it, and walk out at the interval complaining how "boring" it is. At least there will be plenty of returns once the reviews come in. I really really want to see this, if only to count the number of people who walk out at the interval. And you know when the walkouts start, a "confrontational" Crimp will express his delight at forcing "the bourgeoisie" to "look at themselves in the mirror." I am so joining the returns queue.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 17:15:12 GMT
The way to do it badly is what the Royal Court did with The River, meaning that proximity to Sloane Square and a life of leisure was the way to get a ticket, cutting out pretty much anyone who has to sort accommodation and transport in advance and prioritising those not working who could get to the box office for that allocation.
|
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Oct 3, 2018 17:18:51 GMT
The way to do it badly is what the Royal Court did with The River, meaning that proximity to Sloane Square and a life of leisure was the way to get a ticket, cutting out pretty much anyone who has to sort accommodation and transport in advance and prioritising those not working who could get to the box office for that allocation. The tickets for "The river" were available online. I got one without being in London at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 17:19:29 GMT
This is a Katie Mitchell production of a Martin Crimp play. why on earth are people suddenly falling over themselves to see it? Because they want to see a particular actor? That’s crazy. If you wouldn’t get anything out such a production (and I fall into the camp of being keen to see it if it was going to be acted by a bunch of nobodies) then why think that one actor will make you like it better? What will irk is anyone who gets tickets and then goes on about how difficult and pointless it all was and how they don’t see why it was such a big deal anyway. It’s Katie Mitchell and Martin Crmp, do your homework people! BEEP BEEP! Irk Alert! Oh that's definitely me. I just want to see Cate Blanchett. I don't mind admitting it. Ah, Ryan, you don't count as you see a lot of more experimental stuff anyway (especially with particular actors experimentally getting their kit off)! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 17:22:05 GMT
The way to do it badly is what the Royal Court did with The River, meaning that proximity to Sloane Square and a life of leisure was the way to get a ticket, cutting out pretty much anyone who has to sort accommodation and transport in advance and prioritising those not working who could get to the box office for that allocation. The tickets for "The river" were available online. I got one without being in London at the time. Tickets only went on sale on the day, so you had to live at least pretty close to London or not be working, so being able to travel at the drop of a hat. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 17:25:27 GMT
Ah, Ryan, you don't count as you see a lot of more experimental stuff anyway ( especially with particular actors experimentally getting their kit off) Ah, my favourite kinds of productions . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 17:29:14 GMT
The idea of a ballot is the fairest way, of course, and I can’t see how anyone need compain about that. However. This is a Katie Mitchell production of a Martin Crimp play. why on earth are people suddenly falling over themselves to see it? Because they want to see a particular actor? That’s crazy. If you wouldn’t get anything out such a production (and I fall into the camp of being keen to see it if it was going to be acted by a bunch of nobodies) then why think that one actor will make you like it better? What will irk is anyone who gets tickets and then goes on about how difficult and pointless it all was and how they don’t see why it was such a big deal anyway. It’s Katie Mitchell and Martin Crimp, do your homework people! Honestly, those reactions are why I'm so excited. I just want to hear them first-hand in the theatre rather than on the internet afterwards. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 3, 2018 18:14:35 GMT
Gross und Klein from the Barbican balcony Ah. I really hate big spaces, though, when you are sitting far back - I even found SRB 'distant' at the Barbican. I saw Girl From the North Country from the OV circle and kicked myself that I couldn't shell out for closer seats (and that ushers wouldn't let me sit in the unoccupied stalls) because I could hardly make out Shirley Henderson's face and she's one of my favourite actresses. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 18:16:54 GMT
I have no horse in this race in terms of desperation to see it (I will live without) what my particular nerd brain gets annoyed about is the use of spaces at the NT in the 'wrong' way. The Dorf/Shed/Cottesloe has always been the 'experimental' space supported (financially and artistically) by the other two. With the other two also being where you make your money (so whacking out a bog standard Shakespeare, or putting a star on stage). Anyway it's a minor nerd point but it irks me. That’s not 100% true. The Cottesloe hasn’t always been an experimental space. It’s been a space in which they put things they thought would be less commercial but that’s not the same thing - for example the last production of Rutherford and Son was in there and it wasn’t experimental (despite Katie Mitchell) Also they put productions in there for artistic reasons - they often used to programme Shakespeare in there, more than in the bigger spaces really. The big difference in the use of the space came with Norris turning it into a new play monoculture which has had several negative effects, not least requiring minority interest revivals (which they should be doing) like Exit the King going into the large theatres with not enough audience to support them. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I didn't read Emi's 'experimental' (the clue is is in the quotes) as referring to dramaturgy but to newer work, perhaps work that is more risky in terms of commercialism. Didn't there used to be (perhaps still is) a direct relationship between the then Cottesloe and the Studio? |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 3, 2018 18:22:39 GMT
The idea of a ballot is the fairest way, of course, and I can’t see how anyone need compain about that. However. This is a Katie Mitchell production of a Martin Crimp play. why on earth are people suddenly falling over themselves to see it? Because they want to see a particular actor? That’s crazy. If you wouldn’t get anything out such a production (and I fall into the camp of being keen to see it if it was going to be acted by a bunch of nobodies) then why think that one actor will make you like it better? What will irk is anyone who gets tickets and then goes on about how difficult and pointless it all was and how they don’t see why it was such a big deal anyway. It’s Katie Mitchell and Martin Crimp, do your homework people! Of course there’s an element of bucket-list ticking for some people (I’ve joked about ‘collecting’ stage appearances of Lord of the Rings and Doctor Who actors before now), but it’s also that big name actors are seen as a stamp of quality. After all, Cate Blanchett is not short of work. She can pick and choose what she does. So if she is choosing to do this - instead of a different play, or a big Hollywood film, or some prestige TV, or something on Broadway - then, the theory goes, it will probably be good, or at the very least, interesting. Now, La Blanchett’s view of what is ‘good’ and ‘interesting’ theatre probably differs from the general public’s - but if you just know her mainstream film work chances are you don’t know that! |
|
1,243 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 3, 2018 20:52:20 GMT
^But you could use that argument about major football at Wembley for example, or particular exhibitions at subsidised art galleries and museums. There is a finite supply, and figuring out a fair way to distribute it is the only way. Aha, but I'm not using that argument about football lol. (Where did that comparison come from?) I'm using it about our (admittedly poorly) state funded theatre. |
|
5,910 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Oct 3, 2018 20:58:48 GMT
So much nonsense being said on here.
1. Cate Blanchett is a stage animal. She’s played huge stages, and small ones, and commands both with huge skill. Her performance in Gross und Klein was one of the most dazzling I’ve ever seen, and that was on a huge stage. She had the physicality of a dancer.
2. She won’t be doing this for money. The National will be paying her the same as any other leading actor in a play there. She’s doing this (and I hate the phrase) because of the work.
3. If I don’t get tickets I will go INSANE.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 3, 2018 21:38:09 GMT
So much nonsense being said on here. 1. Cate Blanchett is a stage animal. Hey, I was only wondering because I've never seen her on stage and on screen her style is very subtle, small gestures, slight movements, she does so much with her eyes! All I've seen of her on stage is a tiny fuzzy clip of Hedda Gabler, filmed up close. I wondered how her style (having only ever seen the screen aspect of it) would work if I was sitting at the back of the Olivier. Oh, and to clear up confusion - I was not for a minute suggesting Blanchett had stage fright in that earlier post! I was talking about Olivia Colman's much-discussed stage fright and a possible reason why her play Mosquitoes was put on in the smaller Dorfman space when there was clearly great demand for tickets - like this play, it was a production where the lead actress's name was trailed months in advance of tickets going on sale, with high ticket demand but was on in the NT's smallest space. |
|
951 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Oct 3, 2018 22:53:22 GMT
I'm sorry I'm just completely mystified how people don't understand what a draw Cate Blanchett is.
After all the average theatre goer won't know who Martin Crimp and Katie Mitchell are.
Even though I do know how bad they are likely to be and as much I'd rather see her in a classic role with an interesting director I will still try and see her in this instead of that's my only option.
After all Gross and Klein was a terrible play but she was still worth watching. Though I could have done without the 4 rounds of applause she forced on the audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 23:09:36 GMT
Even though I do know how bad they are likely to be and as much I'd rather see her in a classic role with an interesting director I will still try and see her in this instead of that's my only option. This just does not make any sense to me. Why go to something you are probably going to think is ’bad’? i liked Gross und Klein but it had a European sensibility that I can see may not translate. |
|
951 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Oct 3, 2018 23:14:50 GMT
Well the direction and play may be bad but the acting will make up for it. There's a good chunk of plays in a year where that is the case. It's not exactly unusual.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 23:27:47 GMT
1- the play is being staged in The Dorfman at the specification of the director who wanted this space due to the nature of material and the content necessitating intimacy
Katie Mitchell is particular about such matters
This “shove it in the largest auditorium” concept is bizarre
Yes they could stage in at Wembley and just do one night
2- the show was programmed and pencilled into the schedule BEFORE it was cast
3- not everyone will be subject to the indignity of a ballot
Best wishes to you all
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 3, 2018 23:44:16 GMT
There's a good chunk of plays in a year where that is the case. I'll go if there's an actor I like giving a great performance in a bad play - Erin Doherty made The Divide worth seeing, and Ben Whishaw Against. |
|
77 posts
|
Post by adolphus on Oct 3, 2018 23:55:27 GMT
"not everyone will be subject to the indignity of a ballot"
Only the smelly and lazy poor I guess
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Oct 4, 2018 4:20:05 GMT
But the normal system amounts to a ballot anyway; albeit one where not everyone has an equal chance.
Under the normal queue-IT system, everyone is randomly assigned a queue number at the start of the sale. The difference between this and a fair ballot is that it (a) requires you to be available at a specific time (b) allows people to effectively enter multiple times by having multiple computers, and (c) has multiple 'ballots' for those who can afford membership.
I get that a ballot is frustrating, but it hardly makes sense to complain on the grounds of access/fairness.
|
|
1,243 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 4, 2018 14:27:37 GMT
Aha, but I'm not using that argument about football lol. (Where did that comparison come from?) Talking about state funded / sponsored / subsidised events with "big name stars" in events or buildings paid for using taxpayers money. Still not sure about the football... |
|
