486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Apr 20, 2022 9:48:37 GMT
Dayseats: - x 14 front row tickets £10 each - a number of balcony tickets £10 each It's a very strong play and I am sure I don't need to 'review' it, as most people already seen it first time around, but.... ...I struggled to see how the 3 x 15 year old girls fit into this. All the male characters are given a story, but we learn absolutely nothing about the 2 young ladies. I also struggle to understand why 2 wholesome 15 old girls would keep coming back to a character like Rooster. Don't get me started on the 'dance', I cannot see a 15 year old girl wanting such a dance... Regardless, the rest was exactly as good as expected if not better. Were you front row for this? If so what was the view like please? Stage high or low? thanks!
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Apr 18, 2022 9:54:48 GMT
Difficult to know if they're worth it for a 3 hour show. Could put up with a restricted view for half the length. There were also a few £90 stalls seats. Yeah I decided against it. I have fond memories sitting in the front row dayseats on the last two occasions. If the dayseats this time turn out to be front row I may give it another go and get queuing. Have decent stalls tickets for next Monday but I'm planning ahead for if I want to see it for the 2nd time and will need to grab some on a Monday release. Day seats not an option for me unfortunately. Will have a think.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Apr 18, 2022 9:33:16 GMT
The 10am release of tickets arrived a few minutes late. Tickets in the the back two rows of the gallery - £25/£10 Difficult to know if they're worth it for a 3 hour show. Could put up with a restricted view for half the length. There were also a few £90 stalls seats.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Apr 16, 2022 9:42:34 GMT
Seeing the Jodie Comer footage, I can only assume it's a social media/bragging rights type thing.
A few years back we hung about near the stage door after a matinee of Dead Funny, solely to shake Ralf Little's hand - The Royle Family has always been incredibly important to me and I didn't know if I'd get the chance again. But it did feel really awkward and it was a wait and see type situation- reading the body language to see if it was appropriate to approach them. As it turns out the whole cast came over to us/another couple who were waiting, they were all really lovely and we got our programmes signed.
I appreciate it's a completely different audience but there definitely are ways of doing it respectfully. What's the point if you're forcing them into it?
But this was pre-covid of course, and the fact Jodie Comer had a mask on made me feel even worse for her.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Apr 9, 2022 22:38:49 GMT
And the other guy, will he be invited to present again next year? The comedian who made a joke and was assaulted? Yes quite possibly, because the academy clearly have sense and understand there is a difference between telling a joke (in poor taste admittedly) and physically attacking someone. Obviously.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Apr 9, 2022 12:50:06 GMT
Yes, but on the other hand he’s been doing awards-bait films for years ‘cos he wanted that Oscar, and now that he has it he can start doing the kind of films that never get nominated again, which he always excelled at. Most notably, comedy and action films. The films that tend to make actual money at the box office. So it’s not necessarily the worst thing in the world for his career. I guess that depends on how you define career. I would have thought he'll be gutted to have to go back to only making those types of movies, but that is a complete guess on my part of course. He's a bankable star in pretty much anything he's in and obviously doesn't need the money, so his career in that sense (box office and personal earnings) will probably be fine, but I can only imagine how demoralising it will be to have to take such a huge step backwards and be limited in the roles he'll now be offered (nothing traditionally seen as "Oscar bait" I'd guess). Sad to think where his career could have gone vs where it seems like it will now go. Whole situation is very sad really. No winners at all here. I hope he gets the help he needs to resolve his issues and I really hope he surrounds himself with the right people. I wonder if those who agreed with his actions (and are now very quiet) think it was all worth it. I doubt he does.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Apr 9, 2022 8:51:29 GMT
I've made no secret that I think Smith was very much in the wrong and there's no excuse for it, but ten years seems a long time. I was expecting it to be five or so. I wonder if it's because the Academy are themselves trying to compensate for messing up on the night. Though I see the news is saying that he can still be nominated for OSCARS, just not attend the events, though I imagine that would be awkward. I think Smith is more than established enough as an actor that I don't think it will have a huge impact on his marketability beyond the fall-out from the original incident. Though a return to the show sooner would be a useful part of his image rehabilitation, and if he's supposed to be the main promoter of a film that is in with a shout of other OSCARS it might make them less likely. A lot longer than I was expecting too - I thought maybe 2 or 3 years but this definitely sends the message that it won't be tolerated. I wonder if it will be reduced in due course. He'll still get acting work, as he should IMO (he's still a fine actor and I think most people who disagreed with his actions didn't want him "cancelled") but this surely will affect the type of roles he'll be offered? These days it's easy to spot films which are gunning for awards season and it would be a liability to cast him.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Apr 7, 2022 18:10:07 GMT
I think a lot more people would have sided with Jada smacking CR one than Will doing it. Can anyone remember on a US Talkshow in the mid 1970's Shelley Winters ran back on and emptied a drink over Olivier Reed's head as they had been having an arguement about sexism and he had told her to shut up. Ollie just carried on talking and didn't react with the incident although pouring alcohol over his head was like giving Popeye some spinnach So now we're making a comparison with a completely different situation where someone reacted in a completely different way to a completely different thing happening to them in order to justify something that didn't happen? What a mess. Would you say it would be OK for Jada to have got up on stage and hit Chris Rock?
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Apr 7, 2022 15:51:28 GMT
It wasn't the most pleasant joke, but certainly not the worst. He compared her to Demi Moore, not Matt Lucas. I think Smith's reaction would have been the same regardless of the type of joke. It wasn't about the joke, it was about being the "big macho man" etc. If we're talking hypotheticals then I tend to agree with this. He shouted to keep his wife's name out his mouth. Any joke about her (which SHE found offensive) was going to provoke the same response I'd imagine. And as for this constant "if Jada had hit him" idea - reading through this thread you can see that some people clearly find violence by a woman towards a man acceptable in certain circumstances (something I find repulsive having had a male friend who was a victim of domestic violence) so yes, I'm sure there would be plenty of sympathisers had that happened, although I get the feeling it's much the same people who think what Will did was OK.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Apr 5, 2022 21:18:35 GMT
Find it really unnerving this kind of talk of censorship. Always ultimately comes down to the idea that someone's decision of whether a piece of art (be it a joke, a video game or TV/film - all of which have been mentioned) is offensive or goes beyond a certain accepted line, when we all know art is completely subjective, that is the point of it. We've seen it repeatedly with this Government that they believe they are the judge as to what is morally acceptable and what type of jokes/shows are to be allowed airtime on the BBC. It deeply deeply troubles me.
Also find it very confusing that there's talk of white male privilege in the same breath as the promotion of the idea that it's perfectly fine for a woman to hit a man. What a bizarre contradiction to make.
Personally I think it's clearly, clearly wrong what happened at the Oscars (and judging by Smith's statements, so does he). I don't expect his career to be too damaged in the long term and neither do I particularly think it should be. A suspension should be suffice to send the message that it is absolutely not acceptable behaviour.
Another thing to consider is the safety of performers. Comedians in particular but also others. Are we now to say that if someone deems something offensive it is OK to attack a performer?
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 18, 2022 13:27:35 GMT
Could someone who has seen this please do me a favour and tell me how much bad language there is in this?
Appreciate it's a bit of a silly question but it's my Mum's favourite book and I'm considering getting her a ticket for mother's day, but she's fairly sensitive to a very high volume of bad language, bless her.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 6, 2022 10:01:32 GMT
I missed this the first time round, but saw it last night and loved it. One of the best productions I've seen at the NT recently. What was quite distracting though was that someone had brought their baby along with them and throughout most of the second act said baby could be heard until the person left the auditorium near the end. (They were sat in the stalls, while I was up near the back of the circle). Like seriously?! Oh I think the NT allows this unfortunately or they turn a bling eye. I had the misfortune a few years ago seeing Cate Blanchett in When we Have Sufficiently Tortured Each Other at the Dorfman. I was in the foyer and I saw a woman with her partner with a very small baby. I thought at first perhaps she’d come along to have a cuppa and her partner was seeing the show. Nope, in she schlepped to the front of Stalls where she got her baps out and started breastfeeding. Lots of murmurings and mumblings from the baby but in the whole didn’t make a huge noise, just distracting one’s. But on the whole thinking about how someone would believe it acceptable to bring a breastfeeding child into a theatre was more engaging than the play. You are David Brent and I claim my five pounds.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 3, 2022 11:50:35 GMT
I agree with all of this actually. Glad to have just about caught this in its final few days (despite a mad taxi dash which had me arrive at the Court at 7:27). I felt it spoke about grief and loss in particular in a very moving, original way and think almost everything managed to tie in well with the themes it set out to address and as a result didn't find myself confused and was able to let the (well told, in my opinion) story sweep me away. The scene at the beach near the end had me in tears. Interesting others have said that it has failed on its own terms considering it could be made in a media other than theatre, I don't agree. I'm so glad it wasn't made as a film/TV series/anything other than a live theatre show, which is so willing to embrace metaphorical storytelling and leave you questioning aspects of what you've just seen. Tying this story up in a neat bow (which is so often demanded of those other mediums) would have, in my opinion, taken away all/most of the impact I felt watching this. The 2 hours absolutely flew by, I couldn't believe when it ended. Just in case anyone is seeing it in the next couple of days: {Spoiler - click to view} I thought the writer was the husband of the Welsh woman, as she had just been talking about him and her grief over his loss. His scenes were in the 70s and hers the 90s - I can't see how it adds up that it would be her son? {Spoiler - click to view} I bought the text since it also acted as the programme for this show and it says that it's her son: "Ellen stares at her son, awestruck." I thought it was her husband when I saw it as well, I think just because metal detecting on a beach feels like a couple's activity haha. I just assumed her son died when he was quite young but I guess we weren't told so there's no reason he couldn't have died in like his early twenties or something - anyway, Ellen is retired in the 90s so she's relatively old, it wouldn't make sense for her husband to seemingly be a recent uni dropout in the 70s.
{Spoiler - click to view} Thanks for clearing that up. Actually that adds to the emotional heft of it, rendering his scenes all the more heartbreaking knowing he died young. He was a great character but had aspects of sadness to him. Wish I'd seen it earlier in the run as I'd definitely go back and rewatch with that hindsight.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 3, 2022 10:59:50 GMT
I thought this was really good. Really well staged, both a visually and dramatically engaging bit of storytelling. It's very well acted and I didn't find it hard to follow at all. And the final monologue was a perfect natural development from all that had gone before. Steeped in myth and history this was totally theatrical with some really beautiful moments in the writing. And, particularly in the second half, I found it very moving in its evocation of loss and loneliness and the need for human contact. A really beautiful piece of theatre and one of the best things I've seen at the Court in quite a while I agree with all of this actually. Glad to have just about caught this in its final few days (despite a mad taxi dash which had me arrive at the Court at 7:27). I felt it spoke about grief and loss in particular in a very moving, original way and think almost everything managed to tie in well with the themes it set out to address and as a result didn't find myself confused and was able to let the (well told, in my opinion) story sweep me away. The scene at the beach near the end had me in tears. Interesting others have said that it has failed on its own terms considering it could be made in a media other than theatre, I don't agree. I'm so glad it wasn't made as a film/TV series/anything other than a live theatre show, which is so willing to embrace metaphorical storytelling and leave you questioning aspects of what you've just seen. Tying this story up in a neat bow (which is so often demanded of those other mediums) would have, in my opinion, taken away all/most of the impact I felt watching this. The 2 hours absolutely flew by, I couldn't believe when it ended. Just in case anyone is seeing it in the next couple of days: {Spoiler - click to view} I thought the writer was the husband of the Welsh woman, as she had just been talking about him and her grief over his loss. His scenes were in the 70s and hers the 90s - I can't see how it adds up that it would be her son?
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 28, 2022 15:26:29 GMT
Gee, thanks, wiggymess: so glad you're benefiting from my lost 2 hours and £. Not surprisingly The Stage has given it 4 stars. Emperor's new clothes imo! Or just a subjective opinion, but who needs those in these times eh?
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 28, 2022 14:48:20 GMT
Well, having seen the 3rd preview last night I can't enlighten anyone and indeed am waiting for someone to tell me what on earth (they thought) was happening. The start was quite promising but after that the play - if that's what it was - seemed to degenerate into a random series of scenes with time shifting back and forth. I'm sure I nodded off at times but don't think that made any difference, other than sparing me some of it, as it seemed to continue in much the same vein for the whole 2 hours. So I've probably dismissed a work others will hail as a masterpiece. On the plus side, I tried something new before I could be influenced by anyone else's opinion; I gave a generous second chance to the writer of the appalling Pomona and the play was only 2 hours long, finishing as ruperto found on the dot of 9.30 pm Excellent. If you thought Pomona was "appalling" and didn't like this I'm even more excited to see it.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 7, 2021 20:26:56 GMT
It's a character with a name that is heavily implied to be Jewish who is portrayed as an immoral money grabber. What aren't you getting about this? I'm not getting why a villainous character can't be Jewish? You've completely lost me. I'm baffled as to how you can miss the point by so much. Honestly just re read what everyone is saying here, it's not particularly difficult to follow.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 6, 2021 22:44:32 GMT
The character isn't Jewish, but the derivation of the word 'Fink' is probably the German word for 'finch' which is used as a derogatory term for someone who is undesirable or untidy. (I've no idea why in German culture a bird would be linked with that, but apparently it is). So going to the dictionary definition does fit with the dramatic tradition of names referring to a character's qualities, but the specifics on this occasion don't help. And there are lots of prominent Finkelmans (surname) past and present who've contributed generally to public life, and specifically in the Jewish cultural sphere, so the problem is compounded. Lets image a future production that uses a media character - lots of Jewish people in the media - in the style of say Piers Morgan. Is it now unacceptable for that character to be called Peter Fink?
How about a comedian like say Jim Davidson featuring in a tv series, he also can't be called Jeremy Fink?
The dictionary term fink is now as unacceptable as the n word?
Hope no one responds to this. Just trolling now.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 6, 2021 22:27:30 GMT
Since all names have some sort of ethnic or religious origin/link, what happens if the playwright changes the name & then there are complaints from people from whichever ethnic group the character has been changed to? Is it going to get to the stage where villains will all have to be named Mr/Ms X, to avoid any possible offence? A complete non-point. Can you provide any examples of when this has happened? Since there have been plenty of unpleasant characters/villains named all sorts and with different ethnic connotations across all artforms, and there haven't been the complaints you describe. It's a character with a name that is heavily implied to be Jewish who is portrayed as an immoral money grabber. What aren't you getting about this? This isn't cancel culture, "you can't say anything anymore can ya", and I don't think anyone is going to have any long term repercussions, but it's bizarre to me how badly people are missing the point. Surely you must understand why this is upsetting for the Jewish community.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 6, 2021 20:59:42 GMT
lynette you are mistaken. It's not a Jewish character. He's like Elon Musk, apparently. The name Fink references the dictionary definition, which is pretty much how many see Musk. I'm sure people can be offended if they really need to me offended, it also looks like a characterisation of Elon Musk as much of the world see's him, using a dictionary definition. So to be clear, you've pivoted from complaining that non-jewish people aren't allowed to use Jewish names, to now claiming it isn't a Jewish name? What a mess these culture wars are. People so entrenched in their opinions on both sides they can't hear themselves.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 6, 2021 20:22:02 GMT
fwiw, the only Fink I've ever heard of is Barton Fink (title of a film by the Coen Brothers, which is a jewish name i am familiar with). So as I understand it atm, it's okay to use Fink if you're a US Jewish filmmaker but not if you're a British non-Jewish playright.
Unless the idea is that Elon Musk is "problematic", in which case I'm sure the amazed internet can help me with nuance. There certainly is an issue with who is portraying who, who is writing who, and most importantly who is being consulted and involved in the process. But no one is saying non-Jewish writers shouldn't write Jewish characters, and to go down the "oh, so it's OK for Jewish people to do it" route is either purposefully disingenuous or completely naive to what is actually happening here. The issue is that the character in this play is reinforcing very dangerous and ill-informed stereotypes about the Jewish community. Barton Fink isn't. And I say this with a heavy heart - the royal court is a very important place to me but they've misjudged this one badly.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on May 29, 2020 9:06:48 GMT
The 1k capacity makes sense, pay what you want £10 upwards is clearly more than fair. Yes, it would be if that is what they were doing, but it isn't. "Tickets will be priced as they are in our auditorium from £10–£65" "Tickets range from £10–£65" Assumption is there are only as many £10 seats as there normally are in the Old Vic. Once those are gone you will be paying more, it is not "pay what you want". Looks like I misunderstood it then. I still don't really see the problem and I don't really like that there is an entitlement these days that people expect their music to be free, they expect shows to be free, feel no shame in watching movies free online. Do you really think many people would give more than £10 if it was pay what you want? I'd suggest the response to this indicates that no, no they wouldn't - so why should they pander to that? Either pay, or don't - watch one of the weekly free shows they are putting online. This is a new, original venture from a theatre which is badly in need of generosity, and they are giving something unique back in return. I just expected a bit more from a clearly theatre-mad forum.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on May 28, 2020 20:25:29 GMT
Think its a good idea personally, don't understand all the negativity.
The 1k capacity makes sense, pay what you want £10 upwards is clearly more than fair.
Just because all this is going on doesn't mean suddenly everyone is entitled to everything for free.
I'm glad a big theatre is adapting, trying something new and most importantly, making LIVE theatre. Well done Old Vic!
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Apr 22, 2020 11:35:21 GMT
Worth checking emails - had a discount offer / access to gen sale a day early in mine today from having booked for the show before. Booked for the Sat before xmas, will be overly emotional this year I think.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 20, 2019 10:23:36 GMT
Interested to see what you thought of this, ronnette. Were the other 2 times you've seen it at the London production?
Been meaning to take my parents to see this, and the Oxford March dates are a lot more convenient if this production is worth it.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 1, 2019 11:26:30 GMT
I do wonder why the debate so quickly turns to dismissing differing opinions on a piece of (subjective) art. Especially when it's prefixed with being annoyed at have been dismissed for their own opinion. Odd to me.
Another discussion being hijacked by the "People only like it because of the name attached" argument.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 28, 2019 14:04:20 GMT
Out of interest, did you see The Flick? Sadly not. Circs didn't allow. Having read some about it, I did wonder if Baker worked part-time while a student Urm.. OK. Best to leave it sometimes I guess.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 28, 2019 11:44:15 GMT
Some thoughts that percolated around my head yesterday. I make no claims as to their merit Annie Baker was, of course, reaching for more. For example, surely there was a theme about the corporatisation of ideas – perhaps something more alien for those outside the USA (hierarchy, boardroom table, PA, etc). Once in the corporate environment, creativity suffocated in the bogus *dome* concept. The guy who had no ID and wasn’t getting paid – no idea, perhaps intended as a motivational tool for the group. The choice of brainstorming ‘grotesque’ as a subject. Parody? The whole set up felt pretty grotesque as a creative environment .. The chicken story (and dismissal of Danny 2) was certainly there for a, presumably, counterpointy reason. Was it the best story because it resonated at a very relatable, human level - the nonsense Greek myth-type story at the end has been parodied by Caryl Churchill recently so that did fall flat with me. Maybe the inward-looking table was indicative of how these environments produces, well, there’s a phrase: ‘a camel is a horse designed by committee’. Maybe our experience as an audience proved the point …
A couple of times I did think, for no reason at all I can discern, 'Netflix'. I also noted the artistic choice to mix UK and US accents.
I still wish someone with this talent would go out in the world.
Out of interest, did you see The Flick?
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 22, 2019 9:34:47 GMT
I was at the first preview last night! It was a mad, profound, hilarious and sad evening. Annie Baker asks us a lot of questions and allows us to find our own stories. The quietly explosive text is performed fantastically by the ensemble cast. The intimate space of the Dorfman was used well but it felt quite clearly like a preview. As they’re all sitting around a table a lot, the blocking could have been better in order to allow audiences to see all of of the cast more. It will be interesting to see how critics will react to this as it is really quite a unique piece. The first performance came just under 2hrs despite signs saying it would be 2hrs 10mins. The cast and the writing is brilliant as it all whizzes by and in a way I quite like the fact there is no interval as you are fully immersed throughout the whole show. Definitely would recommend! Thanks for this. Could I please ask regarding seating - do the seats at the side of the stage seem good or obstructed? thanks!
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Aug 19, 2019 10:25:15 GMT
I think it's OK To post this on here - Now can't attend the show I booked for this (Fri 06/09/2019) It's one of the pillar seats Q3. Was £21.50 all in with fees etc and just want to recoup that. If anyone is interested I have it as e-ticket already
|
|