|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 8:19:06 GMT
Maybe it was some of the previous comments about this had not been leading me to expect much from this production, but I was rather impressed with this: yes the dance scenes were a bit of a shambles, there wasn't much of a real chemistry between the two leads and the sex scene was slightly embarrassing rather than anything 'erotic' (up a ladder?) but I liked the way this built to this climax, all three actors were excellent and at 80 minutes, it didn't overstay its welcome. Not one to go and see if you're fond of pet birds though... People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. Given the cost of the seats, previews should be considerably more than a 'rehearsal'; of course they are not the finished product but they are there to assess how the piece that was finished in rehearsals works in front of an audience, and tweak accordingly. The piece itself should be audience-ready. If major changes are happening in previews it's usually a bad sign.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 8:46:30 GMT
If this works it is due to the force of Strindberg’s original play. Whether or not the playwright was racist or misogynist his original play is gutsy, raw and potent. Stenham’s script is half baked. The lack of chemistry is due to the undeveloped characters and script as a whole. If the Theatre is going to throw All it’s resources at a show like this (resources that cover up this shoddiness) at the very least they could start with a tight script. Great actors like Kirby can make a world of difference but their work is easier and more powerful of the script is good.
|
|
1,871 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Marwood on Jun 7, 2018 8:48:27 GMT
Places like the NT, preview prices are only £5-£10 cheaper than the main run: rehearsals of shows in front of an audience, that may or may not yet be fit for purpose, should either be free, or charge a very low price for those attending.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 8:54:32 GMT
Maybe it was some of the previous comments about this had not been leading me to expect much from this production, but I was rather impressed with this: yes the dance scenes were a bit of a shambles, there wasn't much of a real chemistry between the two leads and the sex scene was slightly embarrassing rather than anything 'erotic' (up a ladder?) but I liked the way this built to this climax, all three actors were excellent and at 80 minutes, it didn't overstay its welcome. Not one to go and see if you're fond of pet birds though... People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. A preview is a bit more than a rehearsal though isn't it? It should be pretty much ready by the preview shouldn't it? Anyhoo, lovely to have you with us though Vanessa. Loved you in 'The Crown', sorry you won't be in the new series.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 7, 2018 9:32:09 GMT
Maybe it was some of the previous comments about this had not been leading me to expect much from this production, but I was rather impressed with this: yes the dance scenes were a bit of a shambles, there wasn't much of a real chemistry between the two leads and the sex scene was slightly embarrassing rather than anything 'erotic' (up a ladder?) but I liked the way this built to this climax, all three actors were excellent and at 80 minutes, it didn't overstay its welcome. Not one to go and see if you're fond of pet birds though... People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. But you can't fix the lack of chemistry in the central relationship in Previews. A major contributing factor in why this production fails.
|
|
|
Post by christypoe on Jun 7, 2018 9:38:06 GMT
People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. A preview is a bit more than a rehearsal though isn't it? It should be pretty much ready by the preview shouldn't it? Anyhoo, lovely to have you with us though Vanessa. Loved you in 'The Crown', sorry you won't be in the new series. I think Vanessa might be a bit too busy at the moment to post on here, don’t you? Anyway, of course previews are fundamentally an extension of the rehearsal process. There is no way a production can be “ready by the previews” when the audience is a fundamental dynamic of any theatre production. What works in the rehearsal room and during the dress might well fall flat on its face when the audience dynamic is added. If you want to see a finished production pay the full price and go see the shows when they open. Personally, I love to watch previews as they are a fascinating part of the creative process, but I would never post a review as if I’ve watched the actual production.
|
|
|
Post by christypoe on Jun 7, 2018 9:43:19 GMT
People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. But you can't fix the lack of chemistry in the central relationship in Previews. A major contributing factor in why this production fails. You don’t know if this production has failed; you have only seen an early preview. I’ve seen productions change completely from first preview to opening night.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 10:08:01 GMT
People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. I think there is something in this - even if a preview (especially a late preview) is always markedly more than a rehearsal. Having said that I know of a couple of instances where the first preview has in fact been the first time the play has been performed in the space; no full dress rehearsal, just straight out in front of an audience. The first few previews of a show can obviously encounter all sorts of difficulties - especially if the production is technical, or the play is new, or the cast/creative team have had problems, or the rehearsal period has been difficult. The level of readiness varies massively, so those first handful of previews are always a slight risk for ticket-buyers as the production could be yet to find its shape - and in extreme circumstances the preview might be so far away from being ready that it could even be cancelled. Somebody said something about changes in previews being a bad sign. Possibly - on balance - that is correct. But sometimes previews allow a production to go through a significant tonal shift, or restructuring, that ends up being its making. I believe (anecdotally) Warhorse was one such example, but there will be many. If a production is pressed and open and hasn't got there then that is a failure - but not being there in previews (in my opinion anyway) is not.
|
|
1,848 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jun 7, 2018 11:02:54 GMT
As a rule when booking previews to save a few pennies always try to get the night before opening on the assumption this is the run through of the finished item, can’t imagine major changes being introduced on the afternoon of the Press Night.
The biggest fail in previews for me was in Wild at Hampstead where the stage flipped in the final scene which failed during and we were given a description of the effect. Caught the play later in the run and when it worked it was a phenomenal piece of staging.
Back to Julie saw an intimate and intense production at the Jermyn last year, seeing this in a couple of weeks so will be interesting to compare as I thought that was near perfect in a way that can only be attained in a small Theatre.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jun 7, 2018 11:04:39 GMT
I don't take much note of what anyone says about an early preview. Myself, I stopped going to them a long time ago. You don't get to set the tone of the initial conversation by holding back but you invariably get a better evening. Surely the way that some people routinely badmouth early previews and who then get defensive when they get good reviews should have given them pause. I recall one particularly deadly preview of a director's first London production at the old Whitehall, one that I would have barely given any stars to (Simon Godwin - Eurydice). It turned out to be fine in the end and the rest is history.
On what tends to happen, small things add up and make a whole lot of difference. Anyone who has ever been part of that process will know that. I have a number of scripts (both published and rehearsal copies) of plays that changed markedly, the hits as much as the flops. It's fascinating seeing what has been changed and that's a whole area of study in itself. The area of cut songs from musicals is also really interesting (well, to me, maybe not something widely shared). Most Sondheim shows have a large number of changes, for example. Great songs but the audience just didn't respond to them.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 7, 2018 13:38:11 GMT
But you can't fix the lack of chemistry in the central relationship in Previews. A major contributing factor in why this production fails. You don’t know if this production has failed; you have only seen an early preview. I’ve seen productions change completely from first preview to opening night. For us. It failed for us. I wasn't saying it failed for everyone. Vanessa's new fan girls c/o The Crown were loving it, as I noted in my review on page 1. Lots of laughter and gasps. It just didn't work for us. We'll see what the reviewers say tomorrow morning.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 14:01:40 GMT
Sometimes a production doesn’t really work but the performers pull it out of the bag for the press night. Of course they can’t do this every single night or they’d have a nervous and physical breakdown. . I am guessing this is why some shows get a fantastic critical reception but audiences are more lukewarm.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 14:06:51 GMT
Has Vanessa Kirby really acquired fan girls from playing Princess Margaret??
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 7, 2018 15:13:23 GMT
Has Vanessa Kirby really acquired fan girls from playing Princess Margaret?? If the squealing duo in Row G behind us were anything to go by, and the six (!!) in front of us to the left, then yes. The ones in front were showing off their gifts for her planned for stage door, one of which was, no joke, an A1 poster with various photos of her as Mags, and "Good Luck" in glitter (which was cascading onto the Lyttelton's carpet with each passing of said poster to each said fan. The poor cleaners lol). They laughed a lot, one at almost everything, although the now infamous "blender" moment seemed to bring silence, and subsequently tears. Check out Twitter too for the fan accounts: VK seems to be taking to this new found fan demographic well though. (but will she ever get the glitter off?) This age group, that night anyway, seemed to really engage with the play. But those of our age and older seemed less so. (One older gentlemen used the play to read the programme essays and biogs, rather than look up.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 16:28:10 GMT
Has Vanessa Kirby really acquired fan girls from playing Princess Margaret?? If the squealing duo in Row G behind us were anything to go by, and the six (!!) in front of us to the left, then yes. The ones in front were showing off their gifts for her planned for stage door, one of which was, no joke, an A1 poster with various photos of her as Mags, and "Good Luck" in glitter (which was cascading onto the Lyttelton's carpet with each passing of said poster to each said fan. The poor cleaners lol). They laughed a lot, one at almost everything, although the now infamous "blender" moment seemed to bring silence, and subsequently tears. Check out Twitter too for the fan accounts: VK seems to be taking to this new found fan demographic well though. (but will she ever get the glitter off?) This age group, that night anyway, seemed to really engage with the play. But those of our age and older seemed less so. (One older gentlemen used the play to read the programme essays and biogs, rather than look up.) Gosh. Well it's true what they say I suppose, "there's nowt so queer as folk".
|
|
3,088 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 7, 2018 16:45:31 GMT
I don’t normally read critic’s reviews about shows, but in this case I’m tempted to see if my own thoughts and tepid response about this production match up with theirs after seeing the production last weekend or I totally misjudged the play.
|
|
5,292 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 7, 2018 20:03:25 GMT
What a hot mess of a show.
I feel bad for Vanessa Kirby who gives it her all but what a misguided attempt this is by Cracknell. I predict some very negative reviews. Thank god it was short.
If you haven’t booked but we’re tempted- don’t bother.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 20:34:11 GMT
Oh no do we think the Littleton will be the next dud theatre as Tramslations has been very well reviewed other stuff there’s looks promising . This and Absolute Hell have not been the best received, I am quite looking forward to the Lehman Triology, that’s cant go wrong can it?
|
|
5,292 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 7, 2018 21:14:32 GMT
Maybe it was some of the previous comments about this had not been leading me to expect much from this production, but I was rather impressed with this: yes the dance scenes were a bit of a shambles, there wasn't much of a real chemistry between the two leads and the sex scene was slightly embarrassing rather than anything 'erotic' (up a ladder?) but I liked the way this built to this climax, all three actors were excellent and at 80 minutes, it didn't overstay its welcome. Not one to go and see if you're fond of pet birds though... People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. You are so wrong it’s laughable. Not a rehearsal at those prices. Plus they have 7 weeks of rehearsal at the NT. For a 80 min show. No excuses.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 7, 2018 21:51:33 GMT
A preview isn't a rehearsal.
A rehearsal is a rehearsal.
I've seen some fantastic previews - and they were made all the more exciting because you can tell the cast is enjoying the response from the audience (about which they might have been, until those first performances, unsure.) I like to be surprised by theatre and if I've read reviews/heard the hype, that sometimes takes away the enjoyment. I don't know any actors who consider previews rehearsals - they are very aware that they have a paying audience before them. But - I avoid booking early previews for technically complicated shows (having been burnt a couple of times) as they are more likely to have cancellations or stoppages. If you don't like previews, fine, but there are lots of reasons why people might choose to attend them. I'm more averse to going late in long runs when things can be very tired.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 8, 2018 12:47:48 GMT
Well, the reviews are as anticipated.
The 4* ones in The Stage and Whatsonstage seem utterly confused about whether it's good or bad, but have still ended up with 4* ratings??
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jun 8, 2018 16:14:19 GMT
Divisive reviews (a number of fours, some twos) as opposed to the heavily divisive ones for ‘The Writer’ (some fives, some ones).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 20:06:55 GMT
Well, the reviews are as anticipated. The 4* ones in The Stage and Whatsonstage seem utterly confused about whether it's good or bad, but have still ended up with 4* ratings?? I think that’s fair in a way. I assume the 4 stars are for Kirby not for the writing. At least Billington refused to have the wool pulled over his eyes in regard to the lazy writing.
|
|
1,220 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jun 9, 2018 17:00:30 GMT
Well, the reviews are as anticipated. The 4* ones in The Stage and Whatsonstage seem utterly confused about whether it's good or bad, but have still ended up with 4* ratings?? I think that’s fair in a way. I assume the 4 stars are for Kirby not for the writing. At least Billington refused to have the wool pulled over his eyes in regard to the lazy writing. Billington's problem with this is that the tragedy doesn't emanate from "an inexorable dramatic force." Well, I agree that Polly Stenham's version sidelines Julie's dramatic interplay with Jean, and instead focuses on humanising Julie, at the expense of that external dramatic force. Without that dramatic interplay, Stenham is able to reveal a hidden truth about Julie, that Strindberg was too mean to concede, that she is a mentally ill character with absolutely noone to rely on. The tragedy is milder, quieter, less dramatically diverting, but ultimately also, less programmatic, less constructed, more real, and desperately sad, in a way that's harder to dismiss than if Strindberg's "downfall of an uberbitch" dramatic motors remained in operation. This version thus reaches parts the original did not reach, which makes consideration of the original, in light of this production, richer. That said, it's bitterly funny what a bete noir the typically generous Michael Billington has become for Polly Stenham. Previously, he moaned about her focus on the wealthy, as if a person shouldn't write what they know, something she did marvellously in "No Quarter," in particular, with Tom Sturridge a Johnny Rooster Byron of the upper classes. Then, she tried to branch out, and Billington moaned about her focus on the poor, which she failed to successfully write about in her scattershot misfiring class revolution drama, "Hotel." Now Stenham is back to writing what she knows, about the miserable rich, and Billington is on Stenham's case again, this time for her audacity in not parroting Strindberg's original dramatic design. I, for one, am glad Stenham decided to do something original with the piece. And I'm grateful too that this version has wiped from my mind the glossy emptiness of the Juliette Biniche Miss Julie at the Barbican.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 9, 2018 20:50:20 GMT
I think that’s fair in a way. I assume the 4 stars are for Kirby not for the writing. At least Billington refused to have the wool pulled over his eyes in regard to the lazy writing. Billington's problem with this is that the tragedy doesn't emanate from "an inexorable dramatic force." Well, I agree that Polly Stenham's version sidelines Julie's dramatic interplay with Jean, and instead focuses on humanising Julie, at the expense of that external dramatic force. Without that dramatic interplay, Stenham is able to reveal a hidden truth about Julie, that Strindberg was too mean to concede, that she is a mentally ill character with absolutely noone to rely on. The tragedy is milder, quieter, less dramatically diverting, but ultimately also, less programmatic, less constructed, more real, and desperately sad, in a way that's harder to dismiss than if Strindberg's "downfall of an uberbitch" dramatic motors remained in operation. This version thus reaches parts the original did not reach, which makes consideration of the original, in light of this production, richer. That said, it's bitterly funny what a bete noir the typically generous Michael Billington has become for Polly Stenham. Previously, he moaned about her focus on the wealthy, as if a person shouldn't write what they know, something she did marvellously in "No Quarter," in particular, with Tom Sturridge a Johnny Rooster Byron of the upper classes. Then, she tried to branch out, and Billington moaned about her focus on the poor, which she failed to successfully write about in her scattershot misfiring class revolution drama, "Hotel." Now Stenham is back to writing what she knows, about the miserable rich, and Billington is on Stenham's case again, this time for her audacity in not parroting Strindberg's original dramatic design. I, for one, am glad Stenham decided to do something original with the piece. And I'm grateful too that this version has wiped from my mind the glossy emptiness of the Juliette Biniche Miss Julie at the Barbican. But it's sooooo boring. Give us "dramatic interplay" over "humanising" any day!
|
|
3,088 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 9, 2018 21:16:49 GMT
Billington's problem with this is that the tragedy doesn't emanate from "an inexorable dramatic force." Well, I agree that Polly Stenham's version sidelines Julie's dramatic interplay with Jean, and instead focuses on humanising Julie, at the expense of that external dramatic force. Without that dramatic interplay, Stenham is able to reveal a hidden truth about Julie, that Strindberg was too mean to concede, that she is a mentally ill character with absolutely noone to rely on. The tragedy is milder, quieter, less dramatically diverting, but ultimately also, less programmatic, less constructed, more real, and desperately sad, in a way that's harder to dismiss than if Strindberg's "downfall of an uberbitch" dramatic motors remained in operation. This version thus reaches parts the original did not reach, which makes consideration of the original, in light of this production, richer. That said, it's bitterly funny what a bete noir the typically generous Michael Billington has become for Polly Stenham. Previously, he moaned about her focus on the wealthy, as if a person shouldn't write what they know, something she did marvellously in "No Quarter," in particular, with Tom Sturridge a Johnny Rooster Byron of the upper classes. Then, she tried to branch out, and Billington moaned about her focus on the poor, which she failed to successfully write about in her scattershot misfiring class revolution drama, "Hotel." Now Stenham is back to writing what she knows, about the miserable rich, and Billington is on Stenham's case again, this time for her audacity in not parroting Strindberg's original dramatic design. I, for one, am glad Stenham decided to do something original with the piece. And I'm grateful too that this version has wiped from my mind the glossy emptiness of the Juliette Biniche Miss Julie at the Barbican. But it's sooooo boring. Give us "dramatic interplay" over "humanising" any day! How about an on stage recreation of the incident that occurred in the circle section that was reported in the press. That would definitely provide some “dramatic interplay”!
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 9, 2018 21:39:45 GMT
But it's sooooo boring. Give us "dramatic interplay" over "humanising" any day! How about an on stage recreation of the incident that occurred in the circle section that was reported in the press. That would definitely provide some “dramatic interplay”! [ Yes! Between Julie and Jean! Or Jean and Kristina! I'll take any combination. No Stenham words required. Ann Yee can continue having a crack with the movement on it.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 12, 2018 6:11:37 GMT
If this works it is due to the force of Strindberg’s original play. Whether or not the playwright was racist or misogynist his original play is gutsy, raw and potent. Stenham’s script is half baked. The lack of chemistry is due to the undeveloped characters and script as a whole. If the Theatre is going to throw All it’s resources at a show like this (resources that cover up this shoddiness) at the very least they could start with a tight script. Great actors like Kirby can make a world of difference but their work is easier and more powerful of the script is good. Yes I agree with this. Unfortunately I had seen an exemplary production of this play at Jermyn Street only last year and that made the flaws in this version all too obvious. This follows in a sad tradition of second-rate playwrights adapting a classic play and making it second-rate too - Anya Reiss' hatchet jobs on Chekhov are the template. There were so many subtleties and nuances in the original which were misunderstood or thrown away here - I will just mention one very small one as an example. The stolen wine - what's that about ?: Here we are presented with the fact that the chauffeur has stolen a bottle of wine worth hundreds of pounds (Chateau Latour) from his employer and offers as justification "we might as well drink well". We conclude simply that he's an untrustworthy thief (which is puzzling as it seems to go against his character and loyalty to his boss). At Jermyn Street it was just an ordinary bottle of wine which nevertheless the servants weren't allowed to drink. Jean pulls the cork and sniffs it, pours out a little, swirls it round, tastes it. He's a wine snob. It signals he has ideas above his current social station, he wants to be higher up the social scale and has adopted the mannerisms of his social betters, he is preparing himself for social advancement. As the play is driven by the difference in social class between Julie and Jean it is a telling point. As mentioned by others there is no chemistry at all between the leads - I think this is because Stenham has no gift at all for dialogue, it is hard to have chemistry when you're having to spout meaningless platitudes to each other all the time. Actually Julie's dialogue was believable but Jean and Kristina (not much different) wasn't in the slightest bit. Just due to the personal experience of the writer I suppose and no ear for different speech patterns. Carrie Cracknell really needs to stop putting bits of distracting and embarrassing choreography into plays - the "party" here was just terrible, it looked like what it was, a bunch of highly-choreographed professional actors. The blender incident got big laughs, as did several other dramatic moments - due to poor writing I think helped along by a few Kirby fans who were laughing at a lot of her lines. Nice set by Tom Scutt.
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Jun 12, 2018 6:15:52 GMT
Maybe it was some of the previous comments about this had not been leading me to expect much from this production, but I was rather impressed with this: yes the dance scenes were a bit of a shambles, there wasn't much of a real chemistry between the two leads and the sex scene was slightly embarrassing rather than anything 'erotic' (up a ladder?) but I liked the way this built to this climax, all three actors were excellent and at 80 minutes, it didn't overstay its welcome. Not one to go and see if you're fond of pet birds though... People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. Wrong! A rehearsal is erm a rehearsal. These are professional ticketed performances at the National freaking Theatre. Time to maybe fine tune before press night but thats it.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 12, 2018 11:11:22 GMT
I am quite looking forward to the Lehman Triology, that’s cant go wrong can it? The Lehman Trilogy has had really mixed reviews wherever it has been staged - it was booed by some audiences in Italy. I think there is a risk here that people’s expectations are so far adrift from reality that there may be problems. It isn’t naturalistic, it has stream-of-consciousness monologues and narration instead of dialogue, it doesn’t really cover the fall of Lehmans in our era, stagings so far have been with white-box sets, it is very long, etc.
|
|