1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 23, 2016 14:11:00 GMT
A Masque in Honour of Chastity. Sounds like a lot of fun.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 23, 2016 10:46:12 GMT
Yes, yes, Broadway audiences are so stupid and uncouth and they just don't know how to control themselves in public places, always showing so much dreadful enthusiasm and stuff. And entrance applause? Don't get me started. Standing ovations for everything no matter how lame it might be? It should be criminalized. Frankly, I'm embarrassed for those people every time I'm in a Broadway theatre. I really should stop flying over there and spending a fortune on hotels and tickets just to experience such awfulness. Maybe some day I will.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 22, 2016 16:38:24 GMT
That's how I would see it, mrmusicals. Minus the descent part.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 21, 2016 23:14:42 GMT
Interesting. I thought the audience hesitation at the end was due to the long fade out. But I thought the final image was haunting and quite perfect.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 21, 2016 10:19:06 GMT
Can we start a campaign for free tickets for anyone who's posted at least [checks profile] 238 times on theatreboard? We're far more important and influential than bloggers and professional critics!
I agree with you, xanderl, only I'd draw the line at somewhere around 203 posts.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 20, 2016 17:30:56 GMT
Not exactly on point but I was in a theatre audience which included Stephen Sondheim and, of course, my eyes kept shifting in his direction and I noticed that when he applauded he slapped one hand against his knee - I presume that indicates some sort of problem with the other hand. But he still applauded everything, probably because he's American.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 20, 2016 13:30:15 GMT
There really is no need to see this play. It's enjoyable, which Mallardo might see as providing the quintessence of human scintillation. But so's a Starburst. We might as well just go for the Starburst.
Huh??? I said I thought it was "brilliant". Does "brilliant" equate with "the quintessence of human scintillation" in your lexicon?
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 20, 2016 11:31:17 GMT
A number of people have posted here to say that they enjoyed this even though it didn't work. Folks, if you enjoyed it, it worked. Not necessarily, maybe those people expect not only "fun" but also some sort of substance from a theatre experience. (I sadly didn't get either in this case)
But enjoyment is enjoyment, never mind breaking it down into categories. It's a positive overall feeling. So why do so many people tell us they enjoyed it but didn't think it was any good? Seems like they feel guilty about enjoying it.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 20, 2016 7:04:16 GMT
A number of people have posted here to say that they enjoyed this even though it didn't work. Folks, if you enjoyed it, it worked.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 18, 2016 8:26:47 GMT
I don't think I've ever identified with the characters in a play as much as I did with this one. And I mean all the characters, even though each of the three protagonists is a deeply unique individual played here by deeply unique actors. Playwright Annie Baker has found the perfect setting and the perfect tone for a long look at life as we, or at least I, know it.
The Flick is as contrived and carefully plotted as any other play but it doesn't feel that way. It feels organic. It feels like it moves at the speed of life, real life. And, yes, life often moves slowly and in tiny increments and with long intervals of brooding silences. And they are all here, to the apparent consternation of those who prefer a play that "keeps things hopping".
But what I noticed last night at the Dorfman was the attentiveness of the audience. No coughing, no shifting, no rustling of candy wrappers. People around me were sitting rapt, totally captivated by two guys, Sam and Avery, sweeping the floor of an empty theatre, making small talk (very good small talk), while ever so gradually unpeeling their lives. And, of course, Rose, the projectionist, the only female (and thus the key to everything) who arrives in bursts of manic energy but soon settles into the established rhythm. Watching life unfold at its own pace turns out to be riveting, even thrilling.
There is a story. Characters develop, things change and in a big way. There is a theme - each of the three is a solitary, unable to connect, with each other or with anybody. Hence the movie theatre setting. They love movies but cannot love life. The big emotional outburst of the play is a declaration made to a movie screen, the character never once looking at the person he's talking to. Rose reveals at another point that her sexual fantasies are all about herself. They're all locked up tight. But, as happens, they deal with it, make accommodations, make excuses, move on.
The three main actors are superb, true in every moment. One can understand why Matthew Maher and Louisa Krause were brought over from the original New York cast - they are singular performers who embody the people they're playing. But special kudos to Jaygann Ayeh, the local guy, who steps into the mix so perfectly and so seamlessly. And to director Sam Gold for a pitch perfect production.
This is an utterly original piece of theatre that feels - and is - utterly familiar. It's one of a kind.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 16, 2016 18:47:29 GMT
Which is a perfect example of irony, as they specifically made up their own slang rather than using existing 1950s slang to prevent it from aging as quickly. I've never heard this. Do you have any examples of made up slang from West Side Story?
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 15, 2016 18:23:57 GMT
Can I just pipe in here to say I didn't even notice the issue with the pizza ;-) Okay, play on...
Ha! But you saw it a while ago, foxa, and I saw it yesterday so I have an advantage. It's not the kind of detail I would necessarily remember either.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 15, 2016 14:10:45 GMT
She's playing the Emily Skinner character, Daisy.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 15, 2016 10:58:53 GMT
Steve, you're more of a student of human behaviour than I am. I'm more of a nuts and bolts guy who, yes, favours "meta-explanations" and tries to determine the motives of the creator. So we come at this from different angles.
What we agree on is that Letts must have had all of the above (both of our takes) in mind when he wrote Bug. In my earlier remarks I questioned whether he would write a play that didn't have a plot reversal as a pay off but, to retreat slightly, a scenario in which that plot reversal is simply a strong possibility would also get the job done. Obviously the play worked for both of us even though we disagree as to exactly what happened. Perhaps Letts himself never made a final decision as to the ultimate truth of the piece but worked it out so meticulously that it could go either way. But, honestly, that kind of authorial neutrality feels unreal to me.
I don't think the massiveness of Bug's conspiracy theory is a factor here. There's a sci fi element to it that doesn't require deep credibility - it works within the world of the play and that's enough.
Where I have difficulty countering your argument is in the spiritual implication, the "search for meaning" aspect. I have to acknowledge that it's there and is, in fact, the emotional heart of the piece. But I don't think it changes things vis a vis the plot. Again, I have to revert to my default position - what was the author's intention? Was this the main thrust of the piece for him, to weave this complex web of a plot around two sad and possibly delusional characters in order to demonstrate their need for some sort of explanation - any sort of explanation - of their existence?
It seems a long way to go to accomplish that end. But I'd have to say it's possible. So I'm conceding ground, slightly.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 15, 2016 5:07:11 GMT
Yes, Letts does want it both ways and the play is very carefully written so that that's the case. I agree that both interpretations can be valid.
But I also believe in the adage that a conspiracy theory story ONLY works if the theory turns out to be true. Otherwise what have you got? A deluded individual who turns out in the end to be... a deluded individual. Where's the drama in that?
To me Bug, as a play, depends on the Big Switch at the end. Peter is portrayed as a strange but sensitive and highly intelligent man. Much of what he says about himself and his history is validated by Dr. Sweet, himself, of course, an equivocal figure. Peter is never caught in a lie.
Dr. Sweet is only "inept" because he fails. He was sent in first to try for a peaceful solution, a not unknown tactic. But the helicopters are circling overhead and someone is trying to break the door down. I do not believe that that someone is Goss and I do not believe that Goss has anything to do with the pizza. If it was him they would have recognized his voice and they do not. As for a pizza "misdelivery", is that really a possibility in such a tightly plotted piece?
Yes, the linking of Jim Jones and Timothy McVeigh to the conspiracy is pretty far out and may just be Tracy Letts having some fun with history but, in the context of this story, I have to see it as true. I have to see everything Peter says as true. That "nefarious organization" is the US government and who can doubt that anything is possible with that bunch? The examples Peter cites - the LSD trials, the Tuskegee experiments - are as horrific as the Bug conspiracy and they are certifiably true.
Perhaps we have a cultural gap here. I, as an American, may be more inclined to believe in conspiracy tales and I must acknowledge that. The unresolved political assassinations of the 60s still resonate.
But, even so, I simply don't see Letts writing a play in which everything we thought in act one turns out to be exactly true in act two. What would be the point of that? I can't believe he was interested in simply writing a study in blue collar paranoia. The paranoia has to pay off - and it does. And the play works because of it.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 14, 2016 18:13:11 GMT
I finally saw this on its last day and enjoyed it with reservations. James Norton was very good in a very difficult role and Kate Fleetwood was even better. But the play didn't quite explode (figuratively and literally) in the final scene - the raison d'etre of the piece - in the way that it should. Much rearranging of the action has been done in order to, I believe, accomodate the venue. Playing it in this intimate space with rows of spectators on every side, almost inside the action, is a huge inhibitor.
The plot is stood on its head in the play's last moments and it needs to be staged and played in the most extreme way, to mirror that fact. Here it's all too controlled - as it has to be. The actors do their best but they never achieve the emotional frenzy of the original staging - the one that's in the text.
Incidentally, EmiCardiff, I respectfully disagree with your take on the plot, SPOILERED above. It closes tonight so I think I can say this.
The whole point of the play (for me and, perhaps for me only) is that the apparently mad bug fixation of Peter (Norton's character) turns out, in the aforementioned last moments, to be accurate and TRUE! The retrospective connections worked out by Peter and Agnes in their wonderful final scene explain everything. If that's not the case, if they are simply lunatics spinning a fantasy, tell me who ordered the pizza.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 14, 2016 7:14:55 GMT
I must be the last person here to have seen this so there's no need to repeat what's been said - even my sky high expectations were surpassed. Denise Gough as Emma... there are no words. And the rest of the cast. And the play itself which is an immaculately constructed piece of work in which everything planted early pays off late in ways that ring unexpectedly and shockingly true.
As someone with some experience in these matters I was glad to see the "upside" of the drug experience acknowledged; the bliss, the sense of confidence and what passes for contentment that can be attained in no other way, even by someone as articulate and intelligent as Emma. Addiction is so hard to combat because the addict doesn't really want to give up all those great feelings, despite knowing full well what the consequences will be. I thought Duncan Macmillan and Denise Gough caught that. As Emma's mother tells her so devastatingly, it was only when she was drunk or stoned that she was interesting. I'm sure all addicts feel the truth of that.
I also loved the parallels drawn between the drug high and the acting experience - both of them an escape from oneself into something that seems so much easier than coping with the daily improvisatory struggle with reality.
So much truth in this, so well dramatized, so well played. Amazing theatre.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 12, 2016 13:03:21 GMT
Is this the production with the puppet child? If so it's amazing.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 12, 2016 12:52:59 GMT
For some reason row F is actually the fourth row Yeah, they moved the orchestra into a pit replacing rows A and B after mallardo's fourth visit .
To quote Groucho Marx, I resemble that remark!
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 11, 2016 16:25:56 GMT
I think King & I have some elements that are still of interest and still of relevance. First of all, its score is simply better, more recognizable and more popular. Casting wise, it typically is more exciting as its leads tend to be at least star cast within the theatre community, if not also well known to the general public. It's definitely more lavish and visually appealing, and gets more notices for its look and feel. Theme wise, I think it plays into topics that are still very relevant such as its East meets West basis. Overall, I just think that a show like the King & I gets a warmer welcome and is one of those in demand revivals be it on Broadway or the UK.
Okay, now I get it. Not sure I agree though. What sells King And I is that it's a big successful Broadway production with, presumably, a big Broadway star ( who may not mean much here, but still...). I don't think its relevance counts for much.
And I might argue with you about the relative merits of the two scores.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 11, 2016 15:54:40 GMT
I've said this before, it didn't do well because it is simply not necessary to have. I would think that The King & I would fare much better when it comes to London.
And why is The King and I necessary to have? I don't follow your logic.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 11, 2016 7:18:46 GMT
It doesn't actually finish until 2 June - you had me worried for a moment, mallardo, as I knew I'd booked for June!
Yikes! Why did I think it was ending? Thanks so much for correcting me, showgirl!! I edited my post.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 11, 2016 6:21:50 GMT
I saw this last night - so glad I did. It's amazing to think of this as an "unfinished" play - Lorraine Hansbury was still working on it when she died so tragically at age 34 - because it feels utterly complete. It's cleverly plotted, the characters immaculately drawn and, as Steve said in his review, everything pays off.
It's a big play with big themes but it never for a moment felt overblown or preachy. We get all sides, no one is without a voice, even the bad guy (Clive Francis, wonderful) gets a long and eloquent speech providing a context for his hateful actions. This is great writing.
Loved the production, loved the cast. It's one of those shows where one feels fortunate to be there, to have such an opportunity. No other theatre in the world could mount a production like this, of such scope and quality. For all its flaws, how lucky we are to have the NT.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 10, 2016 16:26:51 GMT
Kind of sad that she'll be putting her clothes on though.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 10, 2016 5:36:00 GMT
I was there as well, andrew, and I agree with you. Who would have thought dreary old Doctor Faustus could be such fun? Not being a fan of Marlowe's dramatically inert original, I welcomed Colin Teevan's script interventions and, frankly, preferred them. Faustus selling his soul for celebrity is hardly a new or profound take on this material but Jamie Lloyd has thrown everything (including a kitchen sink) into it and I thought it was pretty damn dazzling.
I have not much enjoyed some of Lloyd's recent work - the Pinter on steroids Homecoming, the overblown and hence unfunny Urinetown - but here he has a project perfectly suited to his gifts. He's not a thinker he's a showman - like Lucifer himself - and this is a great show.
I thought Harington was shouty and uneasy at the beginning (the Marlowe bits) but once the concept took hold he came into his own and I thought he was tremendous thereafter - a perfect fit in virtually every way. He earned his applause. I also loved Jenna Russell (of course) and her interval cabaret and Tom Edden, whose extravagant second act monologue was quite astonishing and Forbes Masson, whose camp Lucifer was a darkly entertaining presence throughout. But the whole cast was wonderful.
I can see why Marlowe afficionados wouldn't care for this but for me it turned a dutiful evening of "classic theatre" into a great night out.
And then, to emerge into St. Martin's Lane to find a mob of smartphone wielding fans swarming around Harington's waiting limo, screaming for his attention, was icing on the cake. Was this too part of the show? It was the perfect coda. Life and art conjoined.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 10, 2016 4:58:42 GMT
"That phlegm gargling thing"? Abby, you put me right off my breakfast.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 10, 2016 4:50:51 GMT
Her feistiness and f*ck you spirit are what I like about her. She's not careful about her career, she's out there, like it or not. In fact, I think it helps her enormously with the public. She's not a diva she's a real woman giving as good as she gets. Obviously she needs to control some bad habits and that's no easy thing as a lot of us know. But there's a long tradition of fragile, self-destructive performers in our culture, amplified now as never before by social media. And she fits right into it. It's still early days but the legend is growing.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 9, 2016 10:45:27 GMT
A shout out to Rhiannon Chesterman who was on recently for Emma Williams in Mrs. Henderson - one of the more exposed roles for any understudy to step into.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 9, 2016 10:35:58 GMT
I just got one at 11.20!! Latest ever.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 8, 2016 11:10:29 GMT
Back To Before in Ragtime.
|
|