1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 22, 2024 21:20:11 GMT
Here's a paradoxical one, but I considered leaving during the short interval of the 2014 Bath Theatre Royal's Who's Afaid of Virginia Woolf.
Only because when the late Tim Piggott Smith's crazed George went out to get something, I wanted to be far away before the shooting spree started.
When even a production is so tense and has you fearing for your own safety, even though it's not real, you know you're witnessing some great theatre.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 16, 2024 10:15:51 GMT
Am reviewing on Thursday so will share my thoughts! The Masque of the Worthies is going to have to be radically rethought to fit a contemporary setting I would imagine. Also I can't see a Sir Nathaniel in the cast list. Wondering about getting rush tickets on Friday midday so love to hear your thoughts
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 7, 2024 9:35:50 GMT
Was there as well last night. The Roger Allam Globe Theatre production remains the best for me. I appreciate that this production wasn't aiming to be very humorous, especially with Falstaff is concerned, but it wasn't quite as engaging as that. Phyllida Lloyd's all-female culmination of both parts I'd prefer by virtue of it being shorter. Both I'd recommend watching on Globe Player of Digital Theatre. There were elements of the 2014 RSC production I preferred, but Ian McKellen is better than Antony Sher. Less said about David Warner in the 2007 RSC production (though its nice to see Geoffrey Freshwater in this 17 years later after playing Shallow in that) You're not wrong nottobe that Part 2 is the weakest compared to Part 1, which is a fault of the material I'd say. Though the deathbed scene and ending is touching as usual. I'm just glad they didn't have the B-Grade replacement antagonist after Hotspur and the business with the recruits during the Shallow scenes. I thought Toheeb Jimoh was the highlight as Hal actually. Ian McKellen is great but I've noticed in his latest productions his habit of loudly drawing breath and smacking his lips in between sentences. Don't know if that's old age or an acting choice of his but particularly here it slows proceedings.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 6, 2024 16:39:34 GMT
I liked this. Heart warming and charming What drags it down for me was the writers go way overboard with Tuttys ‘manic pixie dream boy’. Found him very annoying to begin with. Like I know he’s the character to contrast with Dujonnas cynical, world weary character who helps to break down her barriers and see the light side of things again. But they dial up him 100% with all the trappings of this character (first time to New York, seen every movie, naive etc) and then add in the fact that this is a musical and good lord it’s overbearing. Sometimes I don’t even get his character. At times I wonder he’s on the spectrum before he becomes an expert on dating. And one point I think “does he see New York spiritually as the capital or does he seriously know what the capital of USA is” And normasturban if you’re referring to a moment in the hotel room in the second act, yeah it did seem uncalled for. Like he’s so invested in someone he barely knows But the musical started winning me over from the tinder song and it really shines when Tuttys character is dialled down and it’s just him and Dujonna singing together as their relationship grows. Tonally the way the musical goes from one thing to the next is a little jarring. Like Tuttys characters personality dialling up and down. And the incident with the cake didn’t feel quite as serious as it could be. Instead it’s quickly forgotten about as the pair continue getting to know I’m each other There were some very funny moments, including the aunt comment that got an applause In the end it won me over but I do have reservations about it 3.75 stars
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 18, 2024 0:14:35 GMT
If you want to stay safe and stick to only good shows then wait for reviews. Personally I trust this forum more than the mainstream critics any day.
Not that rule will work all the time. I do not get the praise for A Mirror for example. Opinions are opinions after all.
Also you will miss out on the initial cheap tickets and are at the whim of day, returns or even lottery tickets. I wish I got to see Sunset Boulevard last year but that's life for you.
But coming from someone who has spent hundreds on theatregoing over a decade, who used to go to any play or musical blindly just because I wanted to, I can say that sometimes you got to risk stumbling upon a gem here and there. And that means taking everyone's advice here and booking whatever takes your fancy.
Sticking to the writers and directors you like is certainly a safe bet, but remember that sometimes they will create duds.
More importantly, only you yourself can decide whether a show is good or not.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 15, 2024 15:20:46 GMT
The top 5 I'd watch first are
A View from the Bridge This House Twelfth Night London Assurance Ian McKellan on Stage (or swap it for King Lear if you're wanting an actual play)
The rest I have seen would be All My Sons, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Antigone, Behind the Beautiful Forevers, Best of Enemies, Dara (well I'd say this more fascinating than engaging), Frankenstein (prefer Cumberbatch's Monster and Miller's Frankenstein), Julius Caesar, King Lear, Medea, Othello (2013), The Deep Blue Sea
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 13, 2024 18:26:58 GMT
Salisbury Playhouse has comfortable seating and legroom and there's not a bad view anywhere Agreed, it’s a shame the theatre is so very patchy with their productions. Years ago they produced some wonderful revivals. Got the chance to see some wonderful plays from them. And they had the Studio theatre where touring fringe productions came. And they were my go to for pantomimes. Nowadays it's a sad to see the reduced number of productions they produce. Last year I believe it was just Jeeves and Wooster and the panto. And the studio hasn't been open again for productions since covid. But it's the same with a lot of local theatre with programmes full of tribute bands, comedians, q&as and so on. So far they've had a new play from Chris Chibnal and are putting on A Chorus of Disapproval, so it's hopeful.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 12, 2024 14:20:24 GMT
Oh I thought Daniel Mays was the standout. Followed closely by Andrew Richardson, Celinde Schoenmaker and Marisha Wallace. He threw himself into the role of Nathan Detroit and was like a born again New York gambler. I'm sure people can point out his singing limits but whilst Marisha could stand and belt he brought the acting, comedy and to some extent singing in 'Sue Me'
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 12, 2024 10:27:01 GMT
Salisbury Playhouse has comfortable seating and legroom and there's not a bad view anywhere
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 4, 2024 1:01:10 GMT
What everyone has said already I wholeheartedly agree. Course as Lynette says it might be worth waiting for reviews before deciding to go for a production. Regents Park Open Air Theatre is doing Twelfth Night this summer. May be worth an afternoon there.
If you then want to watch something at home afterwards there's the Bridge Theatre Midsummer Night's Dream and NT's Twelfth Night on NT at Home. Less traditional with gender bending in them but accessible for sure
For traditional and accessible I'd recommend the Globe Theatre's Much Ado About Nothing (2011) (not the 2012 one unless he's also learning French at the moment) and The Comedy of Errors (2014) on the Globe Player website.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 3, 2024 0:27:22 GMT
I'm sorry, I know to agree to disagree, but I have no idea where one can begin to praise this.
Johnny Lee Miller elevates a play that has nothing to say. I can save you money right now and recommend watching 1984 or any dystopia media again over this.
All Sam Holcroft has done is add a premise that is initially interesting and then writes a story that is not compelling, with uninteresting characters and has nothing to say but authoritarian government and censorship is bad. Not even the meta stuff adds anything we've seen before. I'm not even sure why the characters in this play would bother telling this story.
In fact you would barely have a story to begin with because I couldn't take the authoritarian government Johnny Lee Miller's character represented seriously. He's all "I want to elevate artists and give them a chance to speak and la-di-da" and I'm thinking aren't you supposed to be upholding your government's censorship rules? Why the hell do you care about this writer? He should be putting in him in prison, end of story, out in 15 minutes.
The two young actors were good, the bearded chap less so. Sure the twist at the end got my interest, only ruined by actor involved. Couldn't take him seriously.
2 stars
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 3, 2024 0:01:28 GMT
I enjoyed this. Well-rounded characters played by a wonderful cast in a heart-warming play.
Yes it is too long and I would shorten the amount of time with the children. Maybe sitting at the front row helped me feel engrossed in what was going on.
4 stars
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Mar 1, 2024 10:43:21 GMT
Am I a bad person for not feeling sorry for anyone who purchased tickets or were hired? They could have taken note of the lazily used AI images and spelling mistakes on the website (which I don't know how long it will be remain up for) willyschocolateexperience.com/index.html
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 29, 2024 23:58:03 GMT
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 28, 2024 15:30:04 GMT
For me, absolutely everything is in service of the story. Unlike La Navete Bete company there are no things going wrong 'accidentally on purpose', the show isn't about 'will the cast make it through ' it's 'will the characters '. The first wink at the audience is held til the end of the first song of Act 2. I wouldn't say it's farcical exactly: that tends to be one situation that gradually tangles (boringly) then unwinds (entertainingly). This switches styles. But physical theatre, elements of clowning, elements of naturalistic character reflection. It is priced beyond 'what the hell I'll just give it a go'. Thanks. The more I hear about it, the less it is appealing. You could certainly save yourself some money and just go and see the upcoming touring revival of The 39 Steps. In fact try that before paying top price for this. Okay, The 39 Steps isn't a musical and Max has certainly given a more nuanced view on what this show is. But seeing the show last year, I just couldn't help but feel I've seen plenty of touring and local shows like this before. Even if I hadn't, I'd still think myself glad to to have only paid for a lottery ticket. I still had fun watching this and there were some jokes here and there that set it apart. The cast efforts and execution is what makes this a four star show. The only thing that annoyed me was the introverted, buck-tooth, hunched nerd stereotype they use that feels very dated to me.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 28, 2024 12:39:47 GMT
I met someone recently who told me this was a wonderful musical (although I don't think they were someone who regularly sees musicals) Before I consider it, would anyone mind telling what what the style and tone of the show is? Any other musicals it bears stylistic similarities too? thanks If you have seen 39 Steps, any of La Navete Bete's recent shows like Three Musketeers or Treasure Island, or any small-scale touring production with a cast of 4-6 multi-rolling characters, singing and telling a story or subject matter with added humour, then this isn't anything new. It’s funny and has some highlights including that love letter song and the cross wired scene. And the cast gives they’re all, just like any cast of this type of show. If you, like me, enjoy shows like that I’d say yes see it. I personally wouldn’t pay the west end prices. Maybe wait for the uk tour
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 27, 2024 14:42:48 GMT
I can’t fathom why they think this is a good idea to make 2 films at all, apart from it making more money. It’s not that deep of a story, far from it. The story doesn’t naturally end with DG, that song is not a conclusion in any way. I can’t imagine leaving the cinema feeling satisfied having seen her fly off on a broomstick. It just doesn’t work. It’s obviously to do with money but the only way that they make money is if they have genuinely good movies. People aren’t going to the cinema like they used to and if part 1 is rubbish then it will bomb at the box office and then part 2 will be dead on arrival. Part 1 being a disaster just isn’t an option for them as they will then have that hanging over their heads for a whole year as they try and promote the next movie. Universal could have easily played it safe and made one movie but they must have felt really confident about how the movie was shaping up during preproduction to green light it for 2. I think people are wary of two part movies. It's years since Harry Potter and Twilight made it a thing. Sure Dune is doing well but I think good word of mouth helped it. MI Dead Reckoning Part 1 barely made money because people are thinking they'll wait till both parts are out and the movie wasn't that great so word of mouth wasn't there to carry it But as you say cinema isn't doing great nowadays and your movie has to really stand out to draw in people. Even a clever marketing ploy like Barbenheimer. Musical films are difficult to sell to the general public to begin with. Didn't the Mean Girls remake movie trailer hide the fact that it's a musical? I do wonder if Universal left it too long to do this Wicked movie.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 24, 2024 18:18:59 GMT
The second half was stronger with less gaff. Rolled my eyes at the load of present day references Matt Smith rounded off in his speech but he delivered it with alacrity
Didn’t mind the q&a either with many audience members giving their views. But it does against the outcome where the townsfolk turn against Stockmann. And it made the paint episode so out of left field as a consequence
Ending was abrupt
I feel that amongst this great play is a load of ideas Thomas Ostermeier threw together and what you get is a hand-fisted hodgepodge of a production that I have seen done better by other directors
3.25 stars
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 24, 2024 15:32:45 GMT
Good lord
There’s a four star production here…when they’re doing the play
This production is trying too hard to be modern, relevant and immersive by doing what Ivo Van Hove and other known directors have done better
The music jams go on too long, the immersion breaking is out of place, the scene transitions go on too long, and in setting up the town hall scene the whole schtick the young guy does had me cringeing
There’s changes the translation does that are interesting, particularly giving the wife more agency.
Matt Smith…I don’t know. I don’t know whether it’s him or the way he’s directed but he doesn’t show enough drive as Hugh Bonneville or Alex Kingston did. It’s like he doesn’t care enough about the publication of his report
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 11, 2024 0:32:21 GMT
Saw it again and enjoyed it immensely as last time.
I think criticalprole and viserys puts it well that this adaptation of a "Hot cocoa and warm blankets movie" can bring out your inner child and leave you in a good place
Had me beaming and teary eyed.
The pacing issues remain. The catbus sequence in the second act remains indulgent and other moments could be slimmed. This may be sacrilegious for Ghibli fans, but you could cut out most of the soot sprite stuff during the first 30 minutes and the play can get to the thrust of the story quicker.
I say fans of the film should go and see it. Those who have seen other Ghibli films and are aware of the pacing their stories go at would also enjoy this. I'd certainly recommend watching the film or a Ghibli work beforehand
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 6, 2024 15:23:08 GMT
Doesn't Tom Holland have a reputation for plot spoilers with his films and gets told off for it. So I wonder if there will be an interview embargo so that he doesn't give away too much of the storyline? Maybe they'll save him the trouble and give him the opening chorus.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 3, 2024 13:10:57 GMT
When you get down to it the writer always has an agenda. We all have agendas and motives behind what we do. Otherwise why do we want to do them. Why would a playwright waste days of his life writing a play he has no feeling or purpose to create
I’ve seen all sorts of escapist, message driven, enlightening or “historically accurate” plays and media in the past decade. What matters to me is how well written they are.
Now to be honest, nowadays I’m also very picky, for financial reasons, so I’m also factoring whether the writers agenda is something I want to spend my money and watch. And I trust people’s descriptions of the shows and their thoughts of the quality on this forum to make those decisions
But coming out of a play what matters to me is execution. Whether it’s just the writing, the acting, look of it, or whether the writer gets their agenda across consistently. If it’s good or bad I’ll say so
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Jan 31, 2024 14:14:08 GMT
As someone on the autism spectrum I am happy that disabled people are getting represented here and there. But there has to come a point where we can't have our cake and eat it.
The danger is if we say only disabled people should be casted as disabled characters, that could in turn pigeonhole them in those roles and nothing else
This is the problem with proclaiming representation and cancel culture (like this demand to cancel Michelle Terry from the role) that has been going on for years now. It opens cans of worms all over the place and as I say you can't please everyone.
Once upon a time you'd cast the best person that can deliver Shakespeare's lines and acts brilliantly. Sure it's not a perfect system. I find Terry's casting a bit nepotistic, but I know she's a capable actress who can play the role well. But casting by how you identify has caused more problems.
It's a good job no one cries fowl when amateur dramatics cast a non-disabled person as Richard III when chances are they don't have anyone of the sort in the company to start with. All they want to do is put on their version of the play.
And can I play Richard as an autistic or will I be blasted down unless I state very clear that I have an invisible disability.
Me and plenty of people are getting tired of all this. And companies of all kinds are starting to notice and are drawing the line.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Jan 31, 2024 7:40:53 GMT
What I find laughable is that when you advocate for inclusion and representation for so long, eventually you want to do something that upsets a group of people you’ve been advocating for
The Globe Theatre encountered this with I, Joan from women who see Joan as a figure head for them. And now they’re getting it from disabled people who believe a character should only be played by them.
Lesson: you’re not going to please everybody. And companies out there are starting to wake up to that.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Jan 25, 2024 0:20:44 GMT
I wonder how those people felt about Davros no longer being in a wheelchair in Dr Who because it's bad to represent disabled people as genocidal monsters
Or is murdering a few members of your royal family, including two kids, fine.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Jan 20, 2024 9:36:57 GMT
I'm thinking of going to watch this in Manchester. I've only ever watched Shakespeare once a long time ago while doing Alevels (King Lear in Stratford) and am really not familiar with any of the texts. Will I be ok not really knowing the text? Where is best to sit for something like this? Stalls or circle? I'll be on my own, so I'm hoping I can get a single seat in a good spot. Difficult to say how easy it will be to follow the story without knowing what Robert Icke has cut, but it’s his job to make the story clear Personally I’ve never had a problem following the story. If I do have a piece of advise to anyone new to the Henry IV plays is to not set your expectations high for part 2, or in this case the second act Part 1 is to me one of Shakespeares best with a nice balance between history and comedy. Falstaff is great, there’s lots of banter between him and Hal, a dysfunctional relationship between Hal and his father and an ongoing sub plot of a rebellion represented by Hal’s rival, Hotspur Part 2 is a more sombre play. Theres reflections of old age and change which if taken in isolation makes part 2 a good play, but coming off part 1 can feel disappointing. There’s less moments where Falstaff and Hal talk to each other, and when they do it’s not on the best of terms especially at the end. The rebellion ends on a whimper with a b-grade antagonist, and there’s this whole sequence of Falstaff in Gloucestershire that has its moments (with a lovely speech from the character Shallow) but one wonders where Shakespeare is going with this. But the resolution between Henry IV and Hal as the latter takes on his responsibilities is touching, certainly the highlight of part 2 The consistent story through these plays is Hal’s coming of age story to becoming the future Henry V
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Jan 20, 2024 0:19:21 GMT
I had trouble with 'Meetings'. Bought ticket and got the link but when I went in and logged in the website said I was not allowed access. And it was the last day with few hours left
Emailed them and they were able to send me the video itself so can't complain too much
Managed to access the video of She Stoops to Conquer but frankly the audio quality lets this down. Sounds too distant. And being in a small in the round theatre using only two or three cameras going between zoomed out and zoomed in with passable editing it isn't NT Live quality. Missed reactions that I could tell were getting laughs. It was fine for Meetings but for a comedy like She Stoops to Conquer it didn't work
And okay I can't really judge this on the small amount I saw but this production felt rather restrained compared to the Northern Broadsides and Bath Theatre Royal productions I saw previously. Isn't it meant to be big and farcical? Not sure the change of time period helped it. Tony Lumpkin stole the show before but here didn't stand out to me.
So I gave up half way through the first act. Just couldn't get into this production. Feel like booking to see Uncle Vanya in person.
It's good Orange Tree screen their shows but they really need to invest in lapel microphones and work on the camerawork/editing if they want to continue doing this
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Jan 16, 2024 12:36:29 GMT
Yeah sorry Alfred Enoch
And to be clear it's not as though we're getting Ian McKellen, Judi Dench and Patrick Stewart back but still actor's known in theatre circles and further afield that hopefully will get people in. And if the productions are great then hopefully good word of mouth will attract more.
But I'm trying not to be too optimistic. Daniel Evans and Tamara Harvey still have their work cut out to get the RSC out of the rut it's been in the past few years.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Jan 16, 2024 12:19:14 GMT
Yeah, that's an announcement all right.
Lots of Shakespeare. Even a ballet production of Romeo and Juliet, I wonder how that's going to look like on the thrust stage. A nice mixture of plays in The Swan. Might have been nice to see some more contemporaries but Daniel Evans heading Edward II is a start. Even a Ukranian language production of King Lear in the The Other Place.
And Daniel Evans has managed to get some names over to Stratford - Luke Thompson, Alfred Molina, Samantha Spiro, Stephen Daldry and Rupert Goold's back directing Luke Thallon as Hamlet.
It's just a question of whether these productions prove to be better than the uninspired output under Doran and Whyman. Only time will tell.
And I hope Evans and Harvey keeps this up in future years. I also hope they keep filming these productions and release on DVD.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Jan 8, 2024 13:41:04 GMT
Has anyone tried the in person rush for this? Wondering whether I can get there for 6pm on the dot or whether I should get there before? I turned up early than the advertised time for the matinee and they straight up gave me the rush tickets as there were only a few available So I’d say turn up when you can and see what they can offer
|
|