|
Post by theatremad on Oct 27, 2016 11:27:05 GMT
As an aside, I was in the Circle Slips (the cheap seats), and the view wasn't too bad at all (yes small amounts missed but nothing major).
|
|
441 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Oct 30, 2016 11:05:38 GMT
Really impressed with this yesterday. Stunning set and production, great play.
|
|
393 posts
|
Post by altamont on Oct 30, 2016 11:40:05 GMT
Very impressed indeed with the setting - the play not so much. It promised much. but I think in the end failed to deliver. Would have liked to see more of Hope Davis' character
|
|
76 posts
|
Post by bingomatic on Nov 3, 2016 19:33:09 GMT
Brilliant and will definitely make it into my highlights of 2016 awards list.
Loved the staging, music, everything apart from the person behind me saying 'where are we now ?' when it moved to the NY apartment, 'is that the end?' at the end and the brilliant 'did you order interval drinks ?'
|
|
|
Post by lolli on Nov 5, 2016 20:23:18 GMT
Disappointed by this. And very slow. Adding to the list of unbelievable moments that others have mentioned - why spend the effort getting three mattresses down to put on the floor by the fire, when there are already two very nice looking sofa things very near it? Illogical.
|
|
169 posts
|
Post by caa on Nov 10, 2016 18:53:09 GMT
Disappointed by this. And very slow. Adding to the list of unbelievable moments that others have mentioned - why spend the effort getting three mattresses down to put on the floor by the fire, when there are already two very nice looking sofa things very near it? Illogical. Yes and the cushion's weren't used, that said I did go with the story and the time flew by.
|
|
1,037 posts
|
Post by jgblunners on Nov 19, 2016 22:13:55 GMT
Saw this tonight and was really impressed after hearing many mixed opinions. Brilliant performances from the 3 leads, and I actually didn't mind the cinematic style - it took a couple of scene changes to get used to, but then I embraced it and found that, in combination with the set design, I found it quite effective. Speaking of set - wow! Thinking back, I just want to pull those screens back and see how it all fits together. I always find sets at the National to be wonderful, probably because of the unique and diverse nature of the theatres.
As for the play itself - probably the quickest 2 hours I've ever spent in a theatre. Despite many pauses and atmospheric spaces in the dialogue, the pace felt very good and carried me through without losing my attention. I was sceptical about how much of a thriller it would turn out to be as it progressed, but found that in the last 20/30 minutes my heart was pounding and I was genuinely quite invested and begging to find out what would happen next. Yes, there are moments where the speech seems a little unnatural but all in all I was very impressed.
Now I just wish that Entry Pass tickets for it hadn't sold out so that I could watch again and look out for all the little things that I'm sure will jump out with knowledge of how the plot unfolds!
|
|
1,865 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Nov 24, 2016 8:14:23 GMT
Saw this last night and have to say that while I didn't dislike it, I wasn't impressed either. Some interesting use of the framing and sound effects and music, but beyond that, didn't find much there to like. A thriller that wasn't particularly thrilling, populated with a cast of thinly sketched, uninteresting people. Main problem with a play about a boring schlub who only realises that he's a schlub (and finds out everyone else has thought the same of him all along) by the end , such a character wasn't interesting enough to care about what happened to him or the other characters after 2 hours in their company.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Nov 25, 2016 11:01:28 GMT
I wonder how much of the style of this show, the mis-en-scene, stems from David Hare? Everyone is assuming that the cinematic treatment, the iris-in/iris-out transitions, the scenic reveals, the flashbacks, etc., is Robert Icke's doing but I find it hard to imagine this play done any other way - so much so that I'm thinking Hare had this approach in mind all along. Otherwise, why do it? It would never work played straight. It's not overtly dramatic, not substantial enough. It's totally dependent on its stylized production.
But, as it turns out, that's no bad thing. The Hare/Icke collaboration has, in fact, produced a stunning piece of theatre. Sometimes style trumps (hate to use that word) content and this is one of those times. It's a play in which the atmosphere is everything. The languid pace, the pinched dialogue, the looks and silences, the forced focus on details - Mona's hand in the fireside scene, Donald's eyes - all contribute to a seamless synthesis of words and images and actions, such as I have rarely experienced in a theatre. I was drawn into the play's intricately somber world from the first moments and my attention never flagged. I fully believed what I was seeing.
Much credit must go to the cast. It cannot be easy to act within the constraints of such a production, to maintain the required tone and pace, and these actors were exceptional. Some here have said they didn't care enough about Donald, but I did. The way Mark Strong played him - diffident, uncertain, everything internalized - I was completely convinced and sympathetic. I thought he totally justified the ending - if I didn't see it coming, I was certainly not surprised. Hope Davis, strong, tightly controlled, almost spooky, and Elizabeth Debicki, an intriguing puzzle, were equally good.
I understand why some would not respond to this but, for me, it cast a spell, it worked on all levels - as it had to in order to succeed. A unique theatrical experience.
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Nov 25, 2016 11:45:13 GMT
I wonder how much of the style of this show, the mis-en-scene, stems from David Hare? Everyone is assuming that the cinematic treatment, the iris-in/iris-out transitions, the scenic reveals, the flashbacks, etc., is Robert Icke's doing but I find it hard to imagine this play done any other way - so much so that I'm thinking Hare had this approach in mind all along. Otherwise, why do it? It would never work played straight. It's not overtly dramatic, not substantial enough. It's totally dependent on its stylized production. The staging of the first (optician) scene with the iris in/iris out transition is in Hare's script. The rest of the transitions aren't, but I think a certain cinematic style is implied.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Nov 25, 2016 11:51:19 GMT
I wanted to like it so much but sadly failed to do so. I was waiting for that much-spoken about 'intensity" but it never grabbed hard. Although the staging is stunning visually and clever, with added music and almost cinematic quality it was just style over substance for me. The charaters struck me as cliched and barely interesting.. Totally illogical behaviour at times (come on, wear yur coat open in such storm?) made it too artificial to feel convincing. Performances are solid but it lacks that special something which makes your heart beat faster (considering it's advertised as a thriller). Left me cold even though the prodution values are remarkable. Never thought Lyttelton was capable of such magic.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Nov 25, 2016 12:21:38 GMT
I don't know whether I was the only one bemused by open overcoats but we acually do sometimes get nightmarish snow storms like this in Russia and you certainly want to button up your coat (or whatever outergarment you are lucky to have) from top to bottom. I just couldn't ignore it - such things tend to distract me (I wish they rather didn't) Don't get me started on that matrasses nonsense..
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 25, 2016 13:26:33 GMT
I don't know whether I was the only one bemused by open overcoats but we acually do sometimes get nightmarish snow storms like this in Russia and you certainly want to button up your coat (or whatever outergarment you are lucky to have) from top to bottom. I just couldn't ignore it - such things tend to distract me (I wish they rather didn't) Don't get me started on that matrasses nonsense.. No it got to me too, I am able to suspend disbelief only so far it seems and being voluntarily colder than you need to be wasn't one of them!
I think I might have benefitted from seeing this later in the run so I'd have known maybe what to expect and would have informed my expectations so I wouldn't have been thinking 'why is everyone speaking so slowly?'. It's quite different but vaguely on the same line The Hairy Ape caught me out as it was so far from my experience that I couldn't appreciate it as a different styled piece.
|
|
2,805 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Nov 26, 2016 17:19:22 GMT
Just back home from this, it was a mixed bag for me. It was beautifully acted, particularly by Mark Strong and Hope Davis, the set was very elegant and I loved the costumes. I didn't mind the framing at all, it wasn't nearly as bad as the stinky man at my right.
I liked the first part of the play, it worked well for me until the protagonist goes to New York for the first time. It reminded me a bit of A Single Man - the movie, not the novel. The second part was just meh... at the end you realize what they were doing but at the moment I felt some of the scenes (especially the one with the father) were just random. And even when you realize why they were doing it it's not a good enough epiphany to justify 20 minutes of the play. I enjoyed it more than I expected, but I had very low expectations so it doesn't mean much. I mean, it's not that bad but I doubt it will haunt me in the days to come. It's an elegant play and production, but I found it lacking.
|
|
2,805 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Nov 26, 2016 17:22:02 GMT
also, were the seats at the Lyttelton conceived to make people suffer for their sins?
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Nov 26, 2016 17:26:57 GMT
Also just out of Red Barn also. What couldileaveyou said!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 17:35:04 GMT
Well. I spent most of it wondering whether I liked Mark Strong with hair or not.
I like the 60s movie look and I actually did find it rather tense up to the end which I thought was a big let down. The framing was good and I do love that Lyttleton Theatre wide-screen curtain so nice to see it working hard for its money. The staging was very clever.
Good performances all round and nice to see Elizabeth Debicki giving her Night Manager performance another outing.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 28, 2016 13:12:38 GMT
Well. I spent most of it wondering whether I liked Mark Strong with hair or not. I thought his hair in this a very strong reason for not having a fling with him Ryan, I too spent quite a lot of time pondering it though
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 28, 2016 14:04:35 GMT
Good performances all round and nice to see Elizabeth Debicki giving her Night Manager performance another outing. Haha! Yes, we thought that, too. We wondered why she'd decided to play a character so similar (only with less depth) so soon, but I imagine it doesn't seem soon to her. I'm pretty sure you need to be in the front stalls to appreciate her performance - it was fairly subtle. Friend who saw it recently was back of stalls was not impressed by her.
|
|
515 posts
|
Post by callum on Nov 28, 2016 23:06:08 GMT
Enjoyed it a lot. Flew by and lack of interval very fitting. Was sadly in the circle slips (just missed out on front row stalls in day seat queue) so couldn't appreciate what's been said about Debecki on here. However I still found her very competent but Hope Davis really stood out for me. The nuance and tone of her vocal performance was phenomenal, really quite affecting. Also makes you wonder how Mark Strong has devoted himself so much to bit-parts in movies as he's such a terrific stage actor, though I suppose it just shows what a versatile performer he is.
Obviously I agree with the cinematic qualities and think that his resulted in perhaps the most visually elaborate play I've ever seen. The country house and Mona's apartment were equally lush and opulent and baroque - really something to behold. Reminded me slightly of the way Hangmen was presented.
Reading the mixed reactions on here definitely made me enjoy the play a lot more, would love to see it again but from front stalls.
|
|
133 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Dec 19, 2016 12:36:27 GMT
Very eerie and atmospheric play. I felt it to be about the type of destructiveness a relentlessly unforgiving superego can bring about. How falling short from what people believe they should expect from themselves can lead to devastating consequences. Mark Strong’s seemingly suave character, Donald Dodd, feels miserable because of how he sees himself and, especially, how he feels everyone else sees him.
The story is told as a thriller, in a very cinematic style, and things never quite happen the way you expect, but somehow events culminate to a very inexorable, unavoidable and unstoppable climax, almost as harrowing and intense as Iphigenia’s death in Icke’s own Oresteia. Mark Strong is very good and Hope Davis is just brilliant. I'm really glad I saw it.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Dec 30, 2016 23:58:59 GMT
Saw this tonight completely last minute. £5 standing at the back of the circle (I've stood for Les Mis before so 1hr50 wasn't going to be much of a struggle!). The effect of the technical side of the play was really outstanding from that far back, though it was balanced with not getting any nuances of facial expressions. Sound design also was a treat from back of the circle.
I'm a bit fickle in the sense that if there's anything vaguely impressive happening on stage, I'll be a sucker for it. LOVED the cinematic quality, the wide-screen framing which was massive yet claustrophobic at the same time and the ridiculously quick set changes. I'm sure if I'd paid £65 to sit in the dark and listen to pre-recorded vocals, maybe I'd be a bit miffed, but I didn't, so I wasn't.
Mark Strong really is a terrific actor, no less so are both Elizabeth Debiki and especially Hope Davis, her dead-pan drawl both hilarious and frightening at the same time. The play itself - well it's not the best I've ever seen. I couldn't say I was totally gripped from start to finish, nor was it continuously tense. In fact, nothing much physically happened at all, and I was a little disappointed by this as even though it's billed as a psychological thriller (which there's no doubt it is!), when you're told 'no re-admittance is allowed due to the tense nature of the play', you do start to conjure up your own conclusions as to why this could be - so I guess I have myself to blame!
Yes, not all of the script was terrific or completely natural, but I felt the cast managed to pull most - not all - of it off. It was pretty cool both to look at & as a piece of theatre, and I was a fan of the ending, but if the play itself had totally matched the brilliant aesthetic, then we'd be onto a real winner here.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 9:00:35 GMT
Wasted nearly two hours of my life at this last night. Yet another one where I got to the ending and thought: " Really?" I'm not sure what was psychological or thrilling about it. {Spoiler - click to view} It seemed like a fairly straightforward story about a guy who either deliberately put his cheating friend in a position to die, or who took advantage of the fact that chance had put the cheating friend in that position. And then he killed his wife because she realised what he'd done (and he realised his life had been a humdrum waste). Which is fine, and interesting, but hardly psychologically thrilling. I kept trying to spot where the twist was going to be, but it turned out there wasn't one.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jan 13, 2017 9:42:18 GMT
I don't think the show makes any claims to be thrilling. It's a show about the density of motives and relationships and the atmosphere thus created and as such I thought it was brilliantly realized. I found it hypnotic. Sorry you didn't go for it, jeanhunt.
|
|
1,865 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jan 13, 2017 10:43:42 GMT
The sign put up outside the theatre informing people there was no interval, and no re-admittances due to the 'tense' nature of the play, have been misleading to say the least.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jan 13, 2017 11:40:41 GMT
Yeah I agree about those signs, they are a little misleading. But there was never any reason to believe there would be a twist? So if you're going in with pre-conceived ideas of a massive twist apropos of not much, it surely can't be the plays fault that it doesn't have one? It never did! But yes, I'm also sorry it felt like a wasted time, awful feeling to have in a theatre especially with no interval.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 13:09:23 GMT
Well...if I watch a thriller/psychological thriller, I expect a twist. Just like if I watch a crime drama (and a psychological thriller is arguably one form thereof), I expect a twist. It's an expectation based on crime fiction fandom over nearly 30 years. Which was why I kept thinking, "Wow, the twist in this is really well hidden, I wonder what it can be...oh right, there isn't one. So it's basically just a drama then?"
It ran in my mind the NT billed it as a thriller - but I can't check because whenever I try to access the Red Barn page, I'm put in a queue for Friday Rush. That'll be thanks to their 'helpful' website redesign!
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Jan 13, 2017 13:16:40 GMT
Well...if I watch a thriller/psychological thriller, I expect a twist. Just like if I watch a crime drama (and a psychological thriller is arguably one form thereof), I expect a twist. It's an expectation based on crime fiction fandom over nearly 30 years. Which was why I kept thinking, "Wow, the twist in this is really well hidden, I wonder what it can be...oh right, there isn't one. So it's basically just a drama then?" It ran in my mind the NT billed it as a thriller - but I can't check because whenever I try to access the Red Barn page, I'm put in a queue for Friday Rush. That'll be thanks to their 'helpful' website redesign! Just checked the e-mail from the National Theatre when booking opened for this and it says : "David Hare's new psychological thriller "
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jan 13, 2017 13:24:22 GMT
Oh yes it was definitely advertised as a psychological thriller, but in my head that didn't necessarily translate as "there will be a twist", I thought it would be more mind-games. But then again I've not had nearly 30 years of crime fiction fandom so you arguably have a lot more experience & knowledge of the genre than I do!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jan 13, 2017 13:45:14 GMT
Is not having a twist a twist?
|
|