|
|
Post by cavocado on Oct 12, 2021 9:47:14 GMT
Thanks cirque - I will look out for that on Tuesday. I feel sad to think the RSC isn't considered a major player, but I suppose that's just my nostalgia... |
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Oct 12, 2021 10:10:38 GMT
mine too...cant tell you how sad it makes me feel
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Oct 12, 2021 13:42:48 GMT
rsc dismantle current structure-if you look at new jobs,leadership pack.
think bosses doing themselves out of their job......worth a look
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by mkb on Oct 17, 2021 0:06:43 GMT
I had high hopes for this having previously enjoyed parts 1 & 2, but found part 3 wanting.
As Rudge so astutely observed in The History Boys, history is just one f***ing thing after another. And that's essentially what we have here: a succession of events with little time to pause, reflect and flesh out characters. It felt very picture-book two-dimensional. During Act 1 particularly, I suffered the same ennui that I remember from school history lessons given by an unexciting teacher.
As for positives, I liked the framing device with Cromwell looking back from captivity to prior events, and Nathaniel Parker is superb as Henry VIII.
Three stars. Worth seeing, but don't expect the same masterly storytelling of its predecessors.
Act 1: 19:32-20:43
Act 2: 20:59-22:07
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 17, 2021 5:41:00 GMT
I had high hopes for this having previously enjoyed parts 1 & 2, but found part 3 wanting. As Rudge so astutely observed in The History Boys, history is just one f***ing thing after another. And that's essentially what we have here: a succession of events with little time to pause, reflect and flesh out characters. It felt very picture-book two-dimensional. During Act 1 particularly, I suffered the same ennui that I remember from school history lessons given by an unexciting teacher. As for positives, I liked the framing device with Cromwell looking back from captivity to prior events, and Nathaniel Parker is superb as Henry VIII. Three stars. Worth seeing, but don't expect the same masterly storytelling of its predecessors. Act 1: 19:32-20:43 Act 2: 20:59-21:07 sounds like they should have used an established script writer to do the adaptation rather than two newbies.... |
|
1,260 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Oct 17, 2021 6:54:24 GMT
I had high hopes for this having previously enjoyed parts 1 & 2, but found part 3 wanting. As Rudge so astutely observed in The History Boys, history is just one f***ing thing after another. And that's essentially what we have here: a succession of events with little time to pause, reflect and flesh out characters. It felt very picture-book two-dimensional. During Act 1 particularly, I suffered the same ennui that I remember from school history lessons given by an unexciting teacher. As for positives, I liked the framing device with Cromwell looking back from captivity to prior events, and Nathaniel Parker is superb as Henry VIII. Three stars. Worth seeing, but don't expect the same masterly storytelling of its predecessors. Act 1: 19:32-20:43 Act 2: 20:59-21:07 You can’t argue with an 8 minute second half though. Sounds like a dream  |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Oct 17, 2021 8:47:31 GMT
The Mirror and the Lightening Fast ..
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by mkb on Oct 17, 2021 9:11:03 GMT
I had high hopes for this having previously enjoyed parts 1 & 2, but found part 3 wanting. As Rudge so astutely observed in The History Boys, history is just one f***ing thing after another. And that's essentially what we have here: a succession of events with little time to pause, reflect and flesh out characters. It felt very picture-book two-dimensional. During Act 1 particularly, I suffered the same ennui that I remember from school history lessons given by an unexciting teacher. As for positives, I liked the framing device with Cromwell looking back from captivity to prior events, and Nathaniel Parker is superb as Henry VIII. Three stars. Worth seeing, but don't expect the same masterly storytelling of its predecessors. Act 1: 19:32-20:43 Act 2: 20:59-21:07 You can’t argue with an 8 minute second half though. Sounds like a dream Oops! Now corrected. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 17, 2021 9:15:56 GMT
I had high hopes for this having previously enjoyed parts 1 & 2, but found part 3 wanting. As Rudge so astutely observed in The History Boys, history is just one f***ing thing after another. And that's essentially what we have here: a succession of events with little time to pause, reflect and flesh out characters. It felt very picture-book two-dimensional. During Act 1 particularly, I suffered the same ennui that I remember from school history lessons given by an unexciting teacher. As for positives, I liked the framing device with Cromwell looking back from captivity to prior events, and Nathaniel Parker is superb as Henry VIII. Three stars. Worth seeing, but don't expect the same masterly storytelling of its predecessors. Act 1: 19:32-20:43 Act 2: 20:59-21:07 sounds like they should have used an established script writer to do the adaptation rather than two newbies.... Agree. It’s almost offensive really, as if they thought writing a play was not a special skill and was something an actor and a novellist could just pick up. This is not a mistake they ever make in the movies, I was just reading about the many films Tom Stoppard was involved with, several uncredited, to write or re-write or improve in some way. |
|
297 posts
|
Post by fossil on Oct 19, 2021 13:09:10 GMT
If anyone booked via Rush tickets already. Could you share where in the auditorium are these seats placed and how hard was to get them? Thanks! If you have not managed to get a decent Rush ticket yet - TodayTix and SeatPlan have the front three rows of the stalls on sale for £35 for some performances over the next couple of weeks. I have just bagged a central row C seat at this price. |
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 22, 2021 0:13:42 GMT
Wolf Hall on IPlayer if anyone needs a refresher and oh see a brilliant performance by Mark Rylance.
|
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Oct 26, 2021 9:51:48 GMT
Was extended to 23 January, however extension now cancelled as closing on its originally planned date of 28 November. Think I'll get a refund and look for offers as described above.
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Oct 26, 2021 9:55:56 GMT
this early closure demonstrates the delicate position subsidised theatre is in right now,
|
|
4,806 posts
|
Post by Mark on Oct 26, 2021 10:04:34 GMT
Very difficult show commercially though - being "part 3" of a trilogy which played years ago.
They'd be wise to stick 2:22 A Ghost Story into the Gielgud for a few more months before Mockingbird starts.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 26, 2021 10:26:19 GMT
This is all made worse by not announcing a run in Stratford for all 3 plays. Which is what should have happened before it came anywhere near London
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Oct 26, 2021 11:06:33 GMT
yes-a swan concept.
|
|
5,160 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 26, 2021 11:14:11 GMT
Time for John Godber to make a triumphant return to London's glittering West End. The tour of Sunny Side Up ends next week...in Hull, obvs. Four stars from The Guardian, compared to just three for this!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 26, 2021 11:56:02 GMT
this early closure demonstrates the delicate position subsidised theatre is in right now, It had commercial producers involved too though so I doubt the RSC will suffer much financially. Didn't they self-produce the first two parts - in UK at least ? |
|
584 posts
|
Post by princeton on Oct 26, 2021 12:43:12 GMT
Playful Productions were involved in the first two parts from the beginning. They either commissioned it and took it to the RSC, or else it was a joint commission. It was very much positioned as an RSC production at the time, though Playful was billed as lead producer by the time it reached the Aldwych.
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 26, 2021 13:03:57 GMT
Baffling why this didn't sell.
Bring Up the Bodies and Wolf Hall replaced Stephen Ward at the Aldwych, which was a box office disaster, however both Bring Up the Bodies/Wolf Hall really sold well and sold out, with no discounts. It could have easily extended by a few months.
I would have welcomed to see those 2 again, watching Wolf Hall on BBC Iplayer again, before seeing The Mirror and the Light.
Also must be gaoling for Ben Miles who cancelled his Broadway run in the Lehman Trilogy, to do this.
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Oct 26, 2021 13:28:06 GMT
It didn't sell for the simple reason that it wasn't good. There really wasn't any reason for it to be on the West End to begin with and Hilary M was revealed as a non-playwright, who did her own plushly written novel a serious disservice.
And, yes, galling for Ben indeed re Broadway, but Adrian Lester must be pleased !
|
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Oct 26, 2021 13:42:14 GMT
That’s a very short run. It must surely be extending longer than that this aged well. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 26, 2021 16:14:01 GMT
Baffling why this didn't sell. In 2014 into 2015 there was a lot of buzz around Wolf Hall/Bring Up The Bodies - both the Booker-prize-winning books which sold many millions and the upcoming BBC adaptation, and it started in the Swan which has an audience for this type of material. It was also very popular - even more so really - in USA. We're now 7 years later, The Mirror and the Light finally appeared and sold OK in UK (but I wonder how many of those actually read its 875 pages). It's been staged as a stand-alone play so potentially of no interest to people who haven't read or seen the previous two parts, and it has no star actors, and no American tourists. Just anecdotally I hear no straight plays are doing that well at the moment (musicals are doing better). Maybe there's also the fact that people don't want to see a gloomy play at this point. So to me not that baffling. RSC should have waited till the Swan reopens (2023 apparently) and staged all three parts together, then West End/Broadway if justified. As it is they've made a mess of it and squandered what potentially is one of their better assets. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 26, 2021 16:28:26 GMT
Baffling why this didn't sell. In 2014 into 2015 there was a lot of buzz around Wolf Hall/Bring Up The Bodies - both the Booker-prize-winning books which sold many millions and the upcoming BBC adaptation, and it started in the Swan which has an audience for this type of material. It was also very popular - even more so really - in USA. We're now 7 years later, The Mirror and the Light finally appeared and sold OK in UK (but I wonder how many of those actually read its 875 pages). It's been staged as a stand-alone play so potentially of no interest to people who haven't read or seen the previous two parts, and it has no star actors, and no American tourists. Just anecdotally I hear no straight plays are doing that well at the moment (musicals are doing better). Maybe there's also the fact that people don't want to see a gloomy play at this point. So to me not that baffling. RSC should have waited till the Swan reopens (2023 apparently) and staged all three parts together, then West End/Broadway if justified. As it is they've made a mess of it and squandered what potentially is one of their better assets. Assuming Mike Poulton grants permission... he might not be happy to have his scripts performed alongside the Mantel/Miles |
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 26, 2021 16:39:40 GMT
Given how well the first 2 parts did, then sounds that the RSC got complacent and made a bad assumption that this was going to sell very well because the first 2 did!!
The RSC therefore made 2 mistakes and that was closing Bring Up the Bodies and Wolf Hall on a high and not extending it, if if meant moving to a different theatre and re-casting, at the time I didn't understand why they closed it - it had momentum on its side and the other mistake is this, opening cold, they would've been better off doing trilogy in a couple years time, when the Swan reopens. So really I am saying what other posters are saying on this thread.
It goes to prove that the subsidised theatre do not make good commercial producers.
|
|
