2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 11, 2017 10:55:19 GMT
I liked the mis matched underwear as am always suspicious every time someone strips off on tv and it matches, they either pre plan a lot or only wear matching sets and frankly they're making me feel poorly dressed. Yes did wonder if I'd originally mis heard, how could it be that expensive?!
|
|
4,028 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 11, 2017 13:17:43 GMT
Isn't there a suggestion that she is maybe taking him for a ride and the very inflated flight price is part of that?
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Oct 11, 2017 13:23:44 GMT
Isn't there a suggestion that she is maybe taking him for a ride and the very inflated flight price is part of that? That's an excellent point !
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 11, 2017 18:48:27 GMT
Isn't there a suggestion that she is maybe taking him for a ride and the very inflated flight price is part of that? That's an excellent point ! True but I thought there was another mention of the amount once they've travelled and he's knows the deal?
|
|
1,175 posts
|
Post by joem on Oct 11, 2017 20:34:06 GMT
Are they selling day tickets for this? Not minded to pay £100 for this after all the negative posts.
|
|
892 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Oct 12, 2017 7:24:20 GMT
I presumed it wasn't just for the flights but potential expenses while she was there - hotels, travel, meals etc - but it did feel a bit plucked out of the air.
I know he's a bit sheltered but I can't imagine him being unaware that flights to New York do not cost anywhere near that much.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Oct 12, 2017 8:21:07 GMT
Given that the character Duff is playing is supposed to have an indefinable charisma ("do you find me exhausting, yet captivating?"), I don't think I would say she's miscast here.
Obviously the play isn't for everyone, but I found it very far from dull when I saw it in NYC. Yet to see this production, but it sounds like it's got a lot more going on theatrically than the MTC "two tables on a bare stage" approach, which may not always be to its benefit. Fully intend on seeing it before the end of its run, which I hope isn't a premature one.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Oct 12, 2017 10:02:14 GMT
Are they selling day tickets for this? Not minded to pay £100 for this after all the negative posts. Yes, Row A for £19.50. Back few rows of the stalls are also £19.50 until the end of October on the Delfont Macintosh site. Given how it's selling I would expect that price to extend into November too.
|
|
1,175 posts
|
Post by joem on Oct 12, 2017 16:13:01 GMT
Ok. I got into row C for £19.50. At that price it was value for money!
Starts off promisingly, the first scene pulls you in - the zaniness of the Duff character and the relatively deadpan Cranham, but then it does lose its way. Frankly the whole Heisenberg thing is a huge millstone round this play's proverbial neck. It makes it sound clever but I fear it puts some people off from attending thinking the science wil be over-complicated. In fact there is little science and I fail to understand why the playwright chose to give it the name he did. Fine, the principle may underpin his thinking behind writing the play but the play isn;t about uncertainty, it is about the consequences of uncertainly.
Duff is fine, at first thought Cranham was miscast but the script does seem to call for a much older actor than the female part.
Stalls three quarters full, quite appreciative. Not sure if Upper Circle was open.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 13, 2017 21:30:46 GMT
Yes I admit I'd have liked and expected a bit more science but there's nothing more than a brief mention here so there's no fear of being baffled.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Oct 14, 2017 7:57:18 GMT
I saw it in NYC and found it rather dull as well as perplexing and the whole $15,000 thing very arbitrary and unbelievable. It's one of those plays where in order for it to be over all one character has to do is leave the room. I love Anne-Marie Duff but I think she needs to employ a script consultant. Her choices are challenging and that's to be celebrated but I find I'm no longer willing to see a play simply because she is in it. As for it's selection by Ms Elliott for the first play in her season, between her on-going and fruitful collaboration with Simon Stephens and the inexpensive needs for the production, this one was a no-brainer. Unfortunately I found the play itself that as well.
|
|
4,943 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 14, 2017 12:34:12 GMT
Listening to the radio this afternoon, it seems that Anne-Marie Duff agreed to be in the first Elliott Harper production, before even Elliott or Harper knew what it was going to be.
|
|
5,571 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 14, 2017 13:56:54 GMT
Well a short play and not up to much it seems so I need to organise decent eats as going with other people on my suggestion. Sheekey's it is.
|
|
4,943 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 14, 2017 13:59:37 GMT
Well a short play and not up to much it seems so I need to organise decent eats as going with other people on my suggestion. Sheekey's it is. At least you won't have far to walk, and if the weather holds, you can all sit outside and watch the world go by!
|
|
501 posts
|
Post by jampot on Oct 14, 2017 20:49:47 GMT
Stalls bar a few seats full pm today and this went down a storm...
|
|
|
Post by emicardiff on Oct 18, 2017 8:13:32 GMT
Playing catch up on my weekend's theatre- going today. Reviews later (hopefully)
I really liked this. Is it the best thing Stephens has written? no. Do I have some issues with the script? yes. But any issues I have I think make for interesting questions about the characters/story so I don't mind. Overall I'd say I found this an interesting reflection on relationships and relationship dynamics. An interesting set up that leads to some nice scenes and some nice ideas. I question some of the plausibility, but then again there's nowt as queer and folk and whose to say it wouldn't happen? I've seen stranger ideas passed off as plausible. Despite the slightly questionable set up I found the dialogue between the two characters and the conversations they have to be 'real' and 'interesting' in the issues, questions etc they create.
The performances were as expected universally excellent, and they both made their characters funny and engaging. And the direction/staging was, again as expected really wonderful. It's not a play that NEEDS a big flashy set, but hell if you can sometimes you should and the abstract feel really worked I felt. Again with the movement transitions-a bit of an Elliott trait obviously but in this play I felt that really worked to link together those snapshots of their lives.
Overall a really engaging interesting 70 minute play. I could have happily sat through more pieces of their lives but actually it's a marker of some good instincts from Stephens that he knew when enough was enough.
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Oct 18, 2017 8:22:40 GMT
Playing catch up on my weekend's theatre- going today. Reviews later (hopefully) I really liked this. Is it the best thing Stephens has written? no. Do I have some issues with the script? yes. But any issues I have I think make for interesting questions about the characters/story so I don't mind. Overall I'd say I found this an interesting reflection on relationships and relationship dynamics. An interesting set up that leads to some nice scenes and some nice ideas. I question some of the plausibility, but then again there's nowt as queer and folk and whose to say it wouldn't happen? I've seen stranger ideas passed off as plausible. Despite the slightly questionable set up I found the dialogue between the two characters and the conversations they have to be 'real' and 'interesting' in the issues, questions etc they create. The performances were as expected universally excellent, and they both made their characters funny and engaging. And the direction/staging was, again as expected really wonderful. It's not a play that NEEDS a big flashy set, but hell if you can sometimes you should and the abstract feel really worked I felt. Again with the movement transitions-a bit of an Elliott trait obviously but in this play I felt that really worked to link together those snapshots of their lives. Overall a really engaging interesting 70 minute play. I could have happily sat through more pieces of their lives but actually it's a marker of some good instincts from Stephens that he knew when enough was enough. Am seeing this next week so really pleased to read such a positive review.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 13:52:54 GMT
And the direction/staging was, again as expected really wonderful. It's not a play that NEEDS a big flashy set, but hell if you can sometimes you should and the abstract feel really worked I felt. Again with the movement transitions-a bit of an Elliott trait obviously but in this play I felt that really worked to link together those snapshots of their lives. Oh no, all those moving walls! It just seemed like they were padding out what was already an incredibly slight play and couldn't think of anything else to do except faff around with some fancy set. It's like they wanted to be like that play that was at the Nash about the man who killed his wife in the eye but they didn't have the same budget. Some of the sightlines must have been dreadful with some of the scenes too. Having said that, the set changes did allow for the nifty interpretive dance moves which added some much needed levity to the proceedings so I may forgive the director a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by emicardiff on Oct 18, 2017 14:00:27 GMT
And the direction/staging was, again as expected really wonderful. It's not a play that NEEDS a big flashy set, but hell if you can sometimes you should and the abstract feel really worked I felt. Again with the movement transitions-a bit of an Elliott trait obviously but in this play I felt that really worked to link together those snapshots of their lives. Oh no, all those moving walls! It just seemed like they were padding out what was already an incredibly slight play and couldn't think of anything else to do except faff around with some fancy set. It's like they wanted to be like that play that was at the Nash about the man who killed his wife in the eye but they didn't have the same budget. Some of the sightlines must have been dreadful with some of the scenes too. Having said that, the set changes did allow for the nifty interpretive dance moves which added some much needed levity to the proceedings so I may forgive the director a little bit. hahaha it is a valid point! I enjoyed the furniture moving out of the floors more than the moving walls- like how they'd suddenly appear sitting etc and I am a sucker for a bit of stylized movement. I do get as a company what they're trying to do, but I do also agree that this feels like a play for a different venue. But hey, my love is at least semi blind in this case so I'm being forgiving. (to the production I will be honest about the play when I finally write this review)
|
|
|
Post by emicardiff on Oct 18, 2017 19:40:43 GMT
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Oct 19, 2017 5:54:16 GMT
Lovely review thank you ! Appetite more than whetted for seeing this next week now.
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Oct 21, 2017 13:36:15 GMT
Just got an upgrade to front of Royal Circle. Will let you know what I think of the play later!
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Oct 21, 2017 15:45:40 GMT
It's fantastic. Shame it is clearly not selling that well.
|
|
|
Post by emicardiff on Oct 21, 2017 15:55:35 GMT
It's fantastic. Shame it is clearly not selling that well. Hooray! another Heisenberg fan, if I was in London I'd 100% see it again too. Such a shame it's not selling.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 16:03:34 GMT
It's fantastic. Shame it is clearly not selling that well. To be honest, I'm stunned that anyone involved in this production thought that it would sell in this venue. You have to question their judgement here. It smacks a touch of a vanity project. The Park Theatre or somewhere like that would have been more suitable.
|
|
|
Post by emicardiff on Oct 21, 2017 16:23:09 GMT
It's fantastic. Shame it is clearly not selling that well. To be honest, I'm stunned that anyone involved in this production thought that it would sell in this venue. You have to question their judgement here. It smacks a touch of a vanity project. The Park Theatre or somewhere like that would have been more suitable. While I love the play, I have to agree. It's not a show that really needs or can sell a big theatre.
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Oct 21, 2017 21:41:39 GMT
The Wyndhams is hardly a 'big' theatre though (746 seats in total and half of those are in the stalls). I would say though that this play is probably weaker at a distance, as most two-handers are!
I haven't been to The Park but could that accommodate the complexities of the set?
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 22, 2017 0:50:18 GMT
The Wyndham Theatre is the perfect play house.
Played a similar size theatre on Broadway, where it sold well.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Oct 22, 2017 9:00:35 GMT
The Wyndhams is hardly a 'big' theatre though (746 seats in total and half of those are in the stalls). I would say though that this play is probably weaker at a distance, as most two-handers are! I haven't been to The Park but could that accommodate the complexities of the set? It could have accommodated the set as it's laid out in the stage directions of the play, yes. Those have been ignored for the Wyndhams production.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 22, 2017 10:55:46 GMT
What are the stage directions as in the play text please?
|
|