1,107 posts
|
Post by alicechallice on Jul 5, 2018 15:51:26 GMT
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 5, 2018 15:55:55 GMT
I may be wrong but it seems that most of the casting these days is for our Ryan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 16:14:23 GMT
Oh how marvellous but isn't this play a bit racy for Chichester? I remember well the Royal Court production with dear Benny Whishaw, little Andy Scott and (future) Dame Katherine Parkinson. I shall very much look forward to this production. I like the play, I like Matthew Needham and I love co. . . Oh it's too easy no? I may be wrong but it seems that most of the casting these days is for our Ryan. Well quite. As it should be. |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jul 5, 2018 19:10:36 GMT
Ah, @ryan, but do you like Chichester, too? For me the location is part of the pleasure associated with anything I see there - though the train journey can be anything but enjoyable. Every time I visit, I indulge in a pipe dream about living in Chichester, but I know it would be completely impractical, not least in offering too little in terms of theatre.
|
|
8,159 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Jul 5, 2018 19:59:55 GMT
I can just hear the Chichester matinee crowd saying "I'm just off for a bit of cock"
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jul 6, 2018 3:39:24 GMT
I've no intention of uttering the word. I am seeing 2 plays in one day at CFT, so at the Box Office I shall say simply that I am collecting tix, one for the main house and one for the Minerva. Let them say it if they need to!
|
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jul 6, 2018 7:55:26 GMT
I've no intention of uttering the word. I am seeing 2 plays in one day at CFT, so at the Box Office I shall say simply that I am collecting tix, one for the main house and one for the Minerva. Let them say it if they need to! Why not? The definition for this play is that of a male chicken, hence the companion play Bull, which comes from the coaching inn The Cock and Bull. Any other meaning can only be in your mind... (Do you also refuse to order Coq au Vin?) |
|
1,863 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jul 6, 2018 9:47:11 GMT
@n1david , was thinking the same.
nothing is rude, but thinking makes it so
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2018 10:06:50 GMT
Ah, @ryan , but do you like Chichester, too? For me the location is part of the pleasure associated with anything I see there - though the train journey can be anything but enjoyable. Every time I visit, I indulge in a pipe dream about living in Chichester, but I know it would be completely impractical, not least in offering too little in terms of theatre. I do like Chichester, it's rather cute but it's such a faff to get to though. It's nice on a lovely summer day especially. Well except the car park. I can just hear the Chichester matinee crowd saying "I'm just off for a bit of cock" I've no intention of uttering the word. I am seeing 2 plays in one day at CFT, so at the Box Office I shall say simply that I am collecting tix, one for the main house and one for the Minerva. Let them say it if they need to! Oh I don't know, it depends on who is working the box office. To be honest, I've already got several double entendres lined up and ready that I might have to make several visits to the show just to use them up effectively. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2018 10:35:53 GMT
It's the name of the play. Obscenity is all in the intent, and the box office staff will understand there is a world of difference between "hello, one ticket for Cock please" and (for example) "this is terrible customer service and you are a c*ck". Although my friends will find it hard to believe, I'm incredibly non-sweary in an environment where I'm not particularly close to my audience, but I still managed to pick up my ticket for My Mum's A Tw*t *and* have a quick chat with the box office chap about Cock without feeling like I was being vulgar. In this context, it's really just the name of the play and there's nothing foul about it.
|
|
237 posts
|
Post by harrietcraig on Jul 6, 2018 13:49:37 GMT
It's the name of the play. Obscenity is all in the intent, and the box office staff will understand there is a world of difference between "hello, one ticket for Cock please" and (for example) "this is terrible customer service and you are a c*ck". Although my friends will find it hard to believe, I'm incredibly non-sweary in an environment where I'm not particularly close to my audience, but I still managed to pick up my ticket for My Mum's A Tw*t *and* have a quick chat with the box office chap about Cock without feeling like I was being vulgar. In this context, it's really just the name of the play and there's nothing foul about it. Completely agreed. And yet when the play was done in the U.S., some publications refused to print the title and (with the playwright's consent) referred to it as "The Cockfight Play" instead (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/us-media-trips-mike-bartletts-734761). Sigh ... the legacy of American Puritanism is a hard one to shake. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2018 14:25:59 GMT
All this talk of the Chichester crowd being reserved...
I don’t think it’s quite as naive as some people think.
Good old Daniel Evans has only been there for a year and in just one season he's managed to slip in Cock, The Country Wife and Flowers for Mrs Harris...
|
|
247 posts
|
Post by barelyathletic on Jul 6, 2018 16:23:33 GMT
It's the name of the play. Obscenity is all in the intent, and the box office staff will understand there is a world of difference between "hello, one ticket for Cock please" and (for example) "this is terrible customer service and you are a c*ck". Although my friends will find it hard to believe, I'm incredibly non-sweary in an environment where I'm not particularly close to my audience, but I still managed to pick up my ticket for My Mum's A Tw*t *and* have a quick chat with the box office chap about Cock without feeling like I was being vulgar. In this context, it's really just the name of the play and there's nothing foul about it. There's definitely something fowl about it though.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2018 23:11:38 GMT
I hear it's doing quite good advance business and some nights it's standing only (Sorry!)
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jul 7, 2018 8:18:26 GMT
Far too much crowing over paltry (well it's a near-homophone) jokes.
|
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Sept 29, 2018 23:04:01 GMT
I saw the second preview of this tonight, and considering this, it was fantastically tight. In the main it's an excellent play; extremely funny but also harrowing. For the most part it's about two Guys in a long term relationship and the complications that ensue when one of them falls for a girl. It's 95 minutes without interval and the first hour is just the three characters. One of the guy's fathers comes in for the last 35 minutes and I thought this was the least convincing part. I didn't think his part was fleshed out enough and the ending now feels a bit dated.
The scenes between Matthew Needham and Luke Thallon are absolutely electric and when Isabella Laughland joins them she is almost on their level.
It's a testament to the top notch performances that it engages totally because there is no set design as such (although Georgina Lowe is credited with this - what did she actually do?) - a totally bare stage, with not a single prop used. It strangely manages to be extremely natural but also very stylised at the same time.
Oh and there's an extremely funny sex scene that reminded me of a similar one in The Inheritance.
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Sept 30, 2018 4:31:01 GMT
Not about the play itself but:
Gutted to miss this last night (and waste my £20 ticket) as I hadn't seen the original Royal Court production and had booked a double bill at CFT (with Mrs Harris at the matinee) back in February, before the train timetables changed in May. The running time wasn't published until the day before so I relied on previous productions suggesting it would be c 90 mins straight through. In the event CFT said 95 mins which, assuming it started bang on time and allowing no time for applause and battling my way out of the auditorium, meant I'd have had less than 20 minutes to get the last possible train of the evening - and even then I'd have had a 40-minute wait en route for the last connection - or I'd be marooned overnight.
The theatre kindly moved me to a seat on an aisle but when it came to it I was so preoccupied by the travel issue that I decided not to risk it as I'd have spent the whole performance stressing about getting home, rather than focusing on the play. I know theatres have other things to think about but I really wish they would give some thought to those who travel some distance and use public transport; moving the start times in the two spaces to 7.15 pm and 7.30 pm (rather than as at present, 7.30 pm and 7.45 pm) would make all the difference but for one thing I think the CFT management assume the bulk of their patrons travel by car and for another, they probably want to maximise the potential for bookings in their two restaurants.
|
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Sept 30, 2018 8:50:10 GMT
I sympathise with you showgirl. I too had the same plan and, although I managed it, I agonised how to achieve it from my corner of Surrey. Although I love visiting Chichester I hate my normal train journey which involves three trains and a total journey time of two hours! I couldn't do this however on this occasion as I would have been too late for the last train. I therefore drove to Havant and trained it to Chichester. I'm quite proud of myself. Cock finished on the dot of 9.20 pm and with a very, very brisk walk to Chichester station I caught the 9.37 pm train to Havant. I was actually then back in Windlesham before 11.00 pm. |
|
|
|
Post by Boob on Sept 30, 2018 12:42:54 GMT
Not about the play itself but: Gutted to miss this last night (and waste my £20 ticket) as I hadn't seen the original Royal Court production and had booked a double bill at CFT (with Mrs Harris at the matinee) back in February, before the train timetables changed in May. The running time wasn't published until the day before so I relied on previous productions suggesting it would be c 90 mins straight through. In the event CFT said 95 mins which, assuming it started bang on time and allowing no time for applause and battling my way out of the auditorium, meant I'd have had less than 20 minutes to get the last possible train of the evening - and even then I'd have had a 40-minute wait en route for the last connection - or I'd be marooned overnight. The theatre kindly moved me to a seat on an aisle but when it came to it I was so preoccupied by the travel issue that I decided not to risk it as I'd have spent the whole performance stressing about getting home, rather than focusing on the play. I know theatres have other things to think about but I really wish they would give some thought to those who travel some distance and use public transport; moving the start times in the two spaces to 7.15 pm and 7.30 pm (rather than as at present, 7.30 pm and 7.45 pm) would make all the difference but for one thing I think the CFT management assume the bulk of their patrons travel by car and for another, they probably want to maximise the potential for bookings in their two restaurants. Pity you didn't chance it - I did the FFMH matinee and Cock in the evening and made the 21:39 train back to London with time to spare. |
|
|
|
Post by Boob on Sept 30, 2018 12:45:23 GMT
Oh and there's an extremely funny sex scene that reminded me of a similar one in The Inheritance. Wouldn't be surprised if Stephen Daldry saw the original production at the Royal Court and "took inspiration" from it for The Inheritance. |
|
