|
|
Post by londonpostie on Aug 22, 2019 21:19:35 GMT
Austerity. We're all in it together, remember.
|
|
1,866 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dave B on Aug 22, 2019 21:20:08 GMT
We saw it tonight (hi!) 90 minutes - no interval. Quite funny turning quite dark with a strong cast. We were in the third row, tickets were 15 and thought it well worth it. It turns into a lot more than the blurb might indicate.
|
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Aug 22, 2019 21:59:19 GMT
Thats good to hear Dave B Im not seeing it till the day after press night and have been hotly anticipating this production. Was there much going on with the sets at all? |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 22, 2019 22:12:43 GMT
We saw it tonight (hi!) 90 minutes - no interval. Quite funny turning quite dark with a strong cast. We were in the third row, tickets were 15 and thought it well worth it. It turns into a lot more than the blurb might indicate. Welcome to the Board, altdaveb This sounds an interesting 90 minutes. |
|
1,866 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dave B on Aug 22, 2019 22:30:01 GMT
Was there much going on with the sets at all?
Nope. A large English country house kitchen. It's a fairly static set, really just a backdrop to the discussions.
|
|
|
|
Post by theatre241 on Aug 22, 2019 23:32:28 GMT
The National is liking the static sets at the moment! Rutherford and Son, Anna
|
|
1,133 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 23, 2019 0:43:27 GMT
I've come to appreciate a simple static set. I thought the set for The End of History complimented the action perfectly. It makes the smallest changes interesting too.
|
|
|
|
Post by theatre241 on Aug 23, 2019 10:57:27 GMT
The National is liking the static sets at the moment! Rutherford and Son I don't call what it did at the end static... more like "self indulgent"... Oh yeh it turned lol! Also Anna was a really realistic and very static set |
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by andrew on Aug 23, 2019 17:04:35 GMT
The National is liking the static sets at the moment! Rutherford and Son I don't call what it did at the end static... more like "self indulgent"... Can we get some ice over here Polly Findlay has just been dealt an absolute burn!  Anna was a bit of a special case to be fair, but it's true that the Lyttelton has an enormous amount of space to the rear and to stage left, you can do whatever you like with scenery, why be boring? |
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by andrew on Aug 24, 2019 13:36:10 GMT
Well I can confirm that Hansard doesn't splash any money around, a very simple set, once scene, two hander, no crazy lighting moves, no effects other than a projector. I like it, it's funny and then finds emotional heft. An argument between a middle aged couple that goes on for an entire play. It doesn't outstay it's welcome. Alex Jennings was really great.
It's a shame because you can't really discuss what the play ends up being about without saying a bit too much for those yet to see it. Maybe as the run wears on we can get into that.
|
|
91 posts
|
Post by gazzaw13 on Aug 26, 2019 21:45:09 GMT
Just back from tonight’s preview with mixed feelings. Superb performances from two of our national treasures as a warring couple - an MP and his wife. Set and set up seem dated and I inevitably questioned whether we really need another upper middle class kitchen/dining room critique of the Thatcher era and Section 28. However the interest comes from viewing that era through an entirely different 2019 lens. Would we have reacted like the characters in 1988 or as our 2019 selves. The Section 28 arguments seem inconceivable now only 30 years on. Writer Simon Woods is clearly influenced by Albee but the play is quintessentially English with much mirth about how different we are from Americans.
The play packs an emotional punch which I found manipulative but the reaction of other audience members was very different. On balance I would say an interesting evening at the theatre - 3*.
|
|
426 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 27, 2019 13:47:31 GMT
I saw this last night ( Monday) it played well to a packed house. As Andrew says, we can't really talk about where the play goes without giving too much away. I will say this though, it's deftly written and staged and the performances are strong. There's more to this play than meets the eye and I admire the fact that while all of the dots end up being connected, it was left to us ( the audience) to connect a few of them after the fact. A very worthwhile evening.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 21:21:44 GMT
I rather liked this! From a writery pov, I thought it was confident and accomplished for a first-timer. Sharp, wry, some cracking lines, and an animated dialogue held the attention throughout. Lovely shape to this as well imo, with thoughtful and thought-provoking strands well weaved. Well played Simon Woods and thoroughly decent innings' from both A. Jennings and L. Duncan  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 21:32:28 GMT
This is the first thing I’ve been truly excited about seeing at the NT for a while. I’m aiming to catch the cinema screening - sounds intriguing from the reviews here so far.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Aug 29, 2019 18:08:17 GMT
This is a really strong work for a debut. A traditional play about conservative values. How incredible is Duncan, who I have never seen on the stage before? I also enjoyed Jennings but I found it hard to believe two such sexy people were not having sex with each other.
|
|
3,321 posts
|
Post by david on Aug 31, 2019 21:15:39 GMT
A good night tonight at the Nash watching this really well written and acted play. It was my first time seeing Lindsay Duncan on stage and for me she really was terrific in her role. The 80 minutes flew by. As others have said, the play despite having a lot of comedy does deal with a lot of issues that are going to be great to discuss on here further down the road. A definite must see if you have the time.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 31, 2019 21:16:51 GMT
Quentin Letts is going to hate it.
We loved it!
|
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Aug 31, 2019 21:29:40 GMT
Thought this was really brilliant and when it became clear what its focus was actually about and cleanly linked the political drama with human conflict it really hit its stride. I was worried it may end up an hour and twenty minutes of political back and forth with no real focus, especially given such a broad title as Hansard, but it zeroed in on one particular topic which I definitely did not expect to be the basis of this play but was especially relevant given the current discussions (even though it would have been equally as good without them). I did think it could have stood to end maybe a minute or so earlier at the (maybe spoilers but without context it shouldn't matter) projection scene. I just thought that might have been a little more poignant and equally demonstrated the husband's final line just a little less plainly but other than that a thoroughly entertaining night with laughs and also things to think about (and Lindsay Duncan was especially brilliant, even getting applause after some of her lines - she clearly has her timing down to a tee).
|
|
116 posts
|
Post by alexandra on Sept 3, 2019 20:13:08 GMT
Hated it. Sub-Albee, sub-Bennett. National Theatre audience giggling away at unfunny offensive lines. AJ and LD playing roles we’ve seen them play many times before and they can do with one arm tied behind them. A “revelation” you can see coming a mile off. NT middle class fodder, nothing to frighten the horses, including George Osborne whom Norris was practically cuddling afterwards, and Geoffrey Archer who’d probably heard his novels got a mention. Dire.
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Sept 3, 2019 22:06:57 GMT
Jeffrey Archer, actually. But his name check is the least of the play's problems including a joke about the Tebbit family that could have been written by Donald Trump and an oddly anachronistic name check for Norma Major given that John Major didn't become PM until 1990 so in 1988 she would not have been a name on these characters' lips. The Albee estate should sue.
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on Sept 3, 2019 22:08:06 GMT
Hated it. Sub-Albee, sub-Bennett. National Theatre audience giggling away at unfunny offensive lines. AJ and LD playing roles we’ve seen them play many times before and they can do with one arm tied behind them. A “revelation” you can see coming a mile off. NT middle class fodder, nothing to frighten the horses, including George Osborne whom Norris was practically cuddling afterwards, and Geoffrey Archer who’d probably heard his novels got a mention. Dire.
Absolutely. No story. Nothing new or interesting. Felt like listening to a few opinion columns from 'The Guardian' stitched together, with characters occasionally being gratuitously nasty to each other to keep the audience awake..
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 3, 2019 22:20:30 GMT
Jeffrey Archer, actually. But his name check is the least of the play's problems including a joke about the Tebbit family that could have been written by Donald Trump and an oddly anachronistic name check for Norma Major given that John Major didn't become PM until 1990 so in 1988 she would not have been a name on these characters' lips. The Albee estate should sue. I thought the Tebbit joke was intended to be crass so as to reflect an aspect of the character.
John Major was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in this period and established as Thatcher's chosen successor.
Fwiw, I sometimes think the NT is a little like the BBC; it has to programme for everyone but there is a demographic that subsidises what else can be shown. Given the Government chips in only 17%, in the expensive seats of the Olivier and Lyttelton middle class England does a lot of carry.
|
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Sept 4, 2019 16:21:24 GMT
If this was a writing exercise to see if you could hold an audience's attention with a two-hander in continuous time where the only forward plot action is the question of whether or not the couple will be able to serve lunch, then it would be a 5/5.
With those limitations as an actual play it's a 3/5 thanks to some snappy dialogue and very good performances.
I think Tory cabinet ministers and their wives would know who Norma Major is in 1988, but there was definitely some anachronistic dialogue.
Playing to the sort of audience who know who Noam Chomsky, Nancy Mitford and Ian McEwan are and are happy to laugh at non-jokes to let everyone know they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Sept 4, 2019 22:26:06 GMT
I think its fair to say that this was a slightly underwhelming experience considering how quickly tickets had sold and how expensive they were. Paid £89 for an 80minutes show, over a pound a minute to occupy a seat in the Lyttleton next to a man more than twice the size of the seat... Well, the performances first of all are stellar, both Duncan and Jennings are on top form exuding their brilliance which really fills the theatre. A most commendable debut from Simon Woods too as the play managed to find both humour and heartbreak. But the heartbreak as some critics have noted came a little bit too late and the witty snapbacks did get tiring after the 45mins point I thought. Still, the 80mins went by quickly, perhaps too quickly? As much as I wanted to love it, Hansard seemed to lack certain nuances which this company was certainly capable of demonstrating. By no means was this a bad play though but I did want a little bit more. 4/5
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 5, 2019 8:12:40 GMT
If this was a writing exercise to see if you could hold an audience's attention with a two-hander in continuous time where the only forward plot action is the question of whether or not the couple will be able to serve lunch, then it would be a 5/5. With those limitations as an actual play it's a 3/5 thanks to some snappy dialogue and very good performances. *** SPOILERY STUFF BELOW ***
After some reflection, I have started to settle on the idea that this play - rather quietly - covers a period of perhaps half a century.
As we know, the S28 amendment was passed in the week of the action. It was later repealed and the intervening three decades have perhaps culminated in the legalisation of gay marriage. It would have made sense for this to be put on last year (30th Anniversary of Clause 28) but stuff presumably got in the way. My sense is one thread of Hansard implicitly celebrates what has been achieved in those 30 years (look at fromwhere we have come).
Looking back from 1988 - and perhaps beginning with a Standing Jump - we spend quite some time questioning two opposing schools of parenting, as well as chart the rocky course of a marriage. Well, we could equally describe it as competing political philosophies.
In real-time - on the Wed, the day of the law passing - both separately took 'private' or personal actions that reflected the reality of this still being a family, albeit with one absentee.
Let me apologise in advance; I'm slowing being drawn into using Hansard - the son and the fathers version - to help with my own writing interests. I may feel a compulsion to comment further
Fwiw, I found this is a particularly helpful piece, not least because it includes civil actions mentioned in the play (plus the Sue Lawley moment):
|
|
