404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 21, 2018 7:27:44 GMT
Well I'm late to the party on this one having only just caught up with over the weekend. Other than the last 15 minutes which are electrifying and exhilarating I found the whole enterprise to be rather dull and amatuerish . The book scenes were especially trite with line after line loaded with exposition that gave information but didn't develop character. I watched the proceedings feeling entirely detached from them. Adrienne Warren certainly sounded like Tina when she sang but not when she spoke. And the staging was rudimentary at best. I found it odd that except for the finale there were no real show-stopping moments the entire evening. The person I was with loved the show and when I brought up these points he said" yeah, but does it matter?" So I know I'm in the minority but overall : "meh".
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 5, 2018 4:04:58 GMT
Saw this last night ( Saturday ) and Ms Kirby wasn't in. Nor has she been in for most of the past week. No where on the NT website was this information in evidence, nor on the e-mail reminder of "Your attending an event at the National Theatre this week." Refunds were not offered nor were apologies. The NT is usually pretty great in terms of customer service but not this evening. I bought tickets to this because of Vanessa Kirby and my disappointment in not seeing her was rather profound. Her understudy gave a solid performance but one which did not meet the extravagant larger-than-life demands of the role.
I didn't find the production boring, but that's not to say that its good. By taking away the mystical aspect of it being Midsummer's eve, Ms Stenham's adaptation is really not more than an extended episode of Made in Chelsea or another nighttime soap wherein an entitled-drug using-rich girl plays a power game with a servant. The play became small. The people even smaller, which given the vast scale of the production could not have been the intention.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 3, 2018 7:09:55 GMT
By and large I'm a huge fan of Mr Bennett's, but this was mean-spirited crap.
Full of cliched characters and idle musings on the "state of the nation" with a bevy of old time songs to lull us into a sense of false comfort. The audience however was made up of people who will no doubt be in care homes within the next few years if not immediately following the performance. We were in row E in the stalls and it took a full 10 minutes to get to the lobby at the interval. The hobbling and confusion of the OAPs was rather astonishing. ( And I'm no spring chicken but the median age for this near capacity audience had to be in their late 70's or early 80's.)
I'm glad that Hytner and Bennett continue their collaboration but I hope this isn't the last one - I'll content myself for the time being with the likes of "King George" and "The History Boys" and "The Habit of Art" .
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 2, 2018 7:43:36 GMT
I saw this in New York where it starred Michael Urie and Robin DeJesus and while the play is kinda sketchy but not bad and never boring, it provides great opportunities for the two performers. Certainly worthwhile - though Mr Urie would be hard to beat.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jul 30, 2018 8:36:36 GMT
I caught this on Saturday and was shocked at just how God-awful it was. it's one thing when the Hampstead dramaturgy fails a play - but the design was notably without imagination and Laurie Sansom's direction was non-existent. Hampstead is now working on a half commercial - testing the waters for the West End subsidy basis, hence Caroline ( or Change) and the upcoming The Humans ( with the original Broadway cast) - so there must be some major money behind this truly lousy play to even get it on here. I'm not familiar with Ms Kennedy's other work so please forgive this question: Is she married to someone rich? Is she Harry Enfield's niece? Or Arthur Darvill's girl friend? Who does she know that this could get a production? I'm beginning to think that Hampstead is making a return to the dark days of Anthony Clark's stewardship. Bleah!
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jul 24, 2018 23:27:20 GMT
Parts of this thread had me laughing out loud ( Tommy Steele as King Lear with his daughter Flash, Bang and Wallop) but now that I've actually seen the show I'm not laughing.
1. There is no author listed in the programme. That's never a good sign. 2. Neither Tommy Steele or Marti Webb even attempt American accents. 3. The band is good but not great. 4. Bill Deamer's dance routines are just that: routine.
Now the hard part. 5. He's an old man. There is no denying it . He can't dance anymore he only suggests movement he doesn't really move. He can't sing very well anymore either. What he can do is smile and charm the die hard fans in the audience . However, they are a dwindling lot. it was only at the "encore" where I realized that this show is more about Tommy Steele's need as a performer to keep performing no matter how dire the circumstances ( and these are pretty dire) . And so what I was left with was a feeling of sadness more than anything else. He needs either to stop performing or relegate himself to small cameo in someone else's show.
This was a sad evening and while the stalls were pretty full, the dress circle was three-quarters empty and the upstairs was closed. This is not the way a star should end their career. Bill Kenwright shouldn't keep enabling him. How they are going to get through 7 weeks of performances with empty houses is beyond my comprehension.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jun 26, 2018 17:12:48 GMT
I saw it last night and while I admired Andrew Scott's performance the play itself was so bent on being elusive and elliptical that it left me cold. On the other hand I stayed for the 4 NHS monologues at 8:30 and they were superb. Beautifully performed and written. They packed quite a powerful punch. Everything that I was looking for from the Steophens/Scott collaboration.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jun 18, 2018 9:47:51 GMT
So does he actually travel by public transport? I did wonder... He does! I saw him standing looking befuddled at the Highbury and Islington Station last year. He didn't appear approachable but I was tempted to walk over and ask if he was lost.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jun 18, 2018 9:37:28 GMT
I guess I hadn't been paying attention because I never even heard of this version until I saw it on a recent flight from the states. Beautifully acted and it builds to a harrowing climax.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jun 13, 2018 15:51:11 GMT
I think even with Cate Blanchett the NT is cautious about Katie Mitchell. Hence the Dorfman. Hytner wasn't too kind to her in his memoir and he HIRED her a lot.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jun 8, 2018 8:18:34 GMT
I found the programme notes far more interesting than the play itself. I didn't feel that the three strands actually connected in a theatrical way and felt that the dialogue was neither witty or trenchant - just sort of getting the information and thoughts out there. For me the soup scene was the best realized in the play despite the cheapness of the performance by the actress playing the Grand-mother. I stayed for the whole show but the theatre was only about 2/3 full by the time it was over. People even fled during the pause between Act Two and Three and I thought : you made it this far why not stay for another half an hour?
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jun 7, 2018 12:38:49 GMT
I think it's a very smart and logical choice. He's done great work in the past few years - sometimes star-driven, sometimes not. And while I haven't liked all the plays he's done ( or even the productions for that matter) there is a solid integrity about his work that gives one hope. My only fear is that he might get distracted away by the prospect of film-making which has been a distraction for many of our top directors - Ms Rourke, Mr Grandage, Mr Cooke etc. I know the money they make from films is great, but running a building is a full time job and I hope he commits to it completely.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 17, 2018 8:51:14 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon and found it exasperating, fascinating, challenging and sometimes downright stupid. I thought the first scene was as infuriating as Oleanna but then I liked the "meta" aspect of the talkback and the cassuolet scene I thought was terrific but then the forest scene I thought was over the top pretentious but then... well as you can tell I went back ands forth throughout the play. She raises some valid points about the needless exploitation of women's bodies in scene one but by the end of the play she was undercutting them by her own exploitation of women's bodies and sex . If that last scene had been written by a man it would be condemned as wildly sexist. But maybe that's part of her point. Ultimately though I found myself asking if a playwright's internal and creative struggle is of interest to anyone but another playwright?
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 17, 2018 8:37:20 GMT
I saw this last night ( Wed) and it was tough going. As seems to be the usual case with the Donmar these days there were quite a few empty seats ( The York Realist being the notable exception). The sheer general lifelessness of the production had many in attendance fast asleep. As has been noted here I don't think Mr McDonald had a clear "take" on the play so the acting styles were all over the place and the complex plot wasn't well communicated . The set design was totally uninspired as well. Ms Rourke has clearly lost interest in this building. If you're going to produce a rarely produced classic there should be some passion for the property evident in the production. There wasn't any here. Even the essays in the programme were from dull academics.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 17, 2018 7:26:46 GMT
I went to this last night ( packed house by the way) and more than anything else I just grew tired of the play. Rarely have I seen a production that is so uninspired on every level. The dystopian design scheme, the performances all are proudly declamatory and yet I didn't believe a word that was being spoken. It's all grounded in ...nothing. It's a money maker for the National ( and after Pinnochio they need it) but it's nothing to be proud of. Serving up dull Shakespeare is the job of the RSC isn't it?
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 12, 2018 18:37:22 GMT
I went this afternoon ( Thanks Today's Tix!) and I think it's a bit of a mess. Not awful by any means I just think that Mr Graham wants to say tooooo much. So much of the plays construction feels haphazard and pointless. He's usually adept at making the political personal and the personal political but this time I don't think he succeeds. Still flawed James Graham is better than a lot of other stuff around and for 20 quid it was worth it.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 11, 2018 16:47:07 GMT
I wonder if it doesn't speak as strongly to those of a different persuasion (obviously I'm yet to see half of it and maybe I'll feel different after that, but Billington's complaint that the (almost)-all-male-ness of it is limiting seems to misunderstand the plays point about gay men passing on this "secret" or inheritance to other gay men. Billington may be the dean of our drama critics at the moment but he isn't aging well in terms of his tolerance of the depiction of gay life in our theatre. He's a straight guy of a certain age and while he's on the liberal side of things, he's simply not comfortable watching two men kiss on stage. Don't get me wrong he's a long way from Quentin Letts but he's just not as comfortable with graphic gay content as someone younger might be.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 11, 2018 6:12:14 GMT
I saw this last night and while there are moments which are theatrically effective and some sincere performances, I felt that it was more of a TV Movie of the Week than a hard-hitting expose of political compromise and deception. There's also a sizable spoiler in in one of the essays in the programme. I suppose that given that it's a factual drama there is an assumption that all of us in the audience know what the outcome is, but I didn't and so wishing to be enlightened I read the programme. That knowledge lessoned the impact of the play significantly.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 9, 2018 16:41:34 GMT
Ummm, I don't think Catherine Tate is too shabby in the theatre department personally . . . You're right, I guess it was just that she wasn't that effective a host and she's an infrequent personage on the stage. I understand the need for a TV name but perhaps someone who had a more balanced career divided between TV ( or film ) and theatre would've brought something more personal to the proceedings.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 9, 2018 13:37:20 GMT
Until SOLT figures out a way to create an Oliver Awards Ceremony that doesn't always feature a tribute to either Cameron and/or ALW , or an irrelevant guest star ( remember Barry Manilow a few years ago?) and an actual host with a relationship to the theatre and a script for the ceremony which mixes intelligence with snarkiness, then they will always be less important than the Tonys. And to have a ceremony telecast at 10:20 at night after the winners have been announced on Twitter and Facebook ( but no facebook streaming to the UK because of the delayed telecast -WTF?) is something which automatically demeans the awards themselves. It also doesn't help that the categories are peculiar - Best New Comedy? Comedies aren't plays? Who exactly wins the revival category - director? Then why doesn't the director get the Best Director nod? Outstanding achievement in Music? How does what Lin Manuel does compete with what the music department accomplished with Follies? SOLT needs to do some serious soul searching in order to maintain ( or attain) relevance.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 8, 2018 21:06:00 GMT
So the Guardian says if you wanted a seat for Hamilton you'd have to wait until a Thursday matinee in August. And yet having just gone on the Delfont Mackintosh website, there are seats ( premium ) for virtually every performance except in July. While none of us can deny its a hit and to a great extent deserves to be, I can't help but be annoyed that the show's PR are prone to exageration and worse than that the Guardian doesn't even check a fact such as that when it is handed to them.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 6, 2018 8:10:16 GMT
I've only seen Part One ( last night - Part Two tonight) and I think it's one of the most thrilling hilarious and deeply moving pieces of theatre I've ever seen. The issues that it raises in terms of gay history and identity are all too real to those of us older Gay men who meet younger ones who have little idea of what our various struggles are /have been. the fact that it is done through the prism of upward mobile gays in NY in the 80's and beyond and the eyes and mind of E.M. Forster makes the play even more reasonant for me. In the programme note Mathew Lopez talks about growing up in the Florida panhandle and a the age of 16 he went to see Howard's End and it "spoke" to him. Despite the fact that there was nothing in his upbringing that in anyway related to Howard's End - he felt a connection. No one told me at the age of 8 to be mesmerized by Judy Garland, I just was. My brain sensed an "otherness" that I didn't understand. The Inheritance is very much about that "otherness" that gay people once possessed but now, because of our being more open and a part of mainstream society, is getting lost . What Mr Lopez is trying to reconcile is whether that's a good thing or a bad thing . I can't wait for Part Two tonight. It's thrilling theatre.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 3, 2018 8:04:34 GMT
I guess I was in a sour mood when I saw this because despite the lines themselves being funny and the lyrics very clever, this was one of the most amateurish pieces of theatre I've ever seen in the West End. Cheap sets ( I get the director's concept but the execution was haphazard) ill-fitting costumes ( but the wigs were swell) as well as sluggish direction and apathetic choreography. There really wasn't an aspect of this that I felt was "professional". Oh well.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Feb 27, 2018 6:20:23 GMT
I went to this last night ( thank you Todays Tix lottery) M20 in the stalls. I've now seen 4 productions of this play ( as well as the film) and I'm done with it. I don't hate it, I think that unlike other Pinter plays which continue to fascinate me time and again ( Old Times, No Man's Land, The Homecoming) I feel that I've seen what great directors and actors have gotten out of it and I'm no longer as fascinated by it as I once was. I thought tonight's performances were across the board fascinating. But what didn't happen for me was that despite the first class production all around the ensemble never fused together for me, each performance seemed independent of the other - unlike current productions such as The York Realist, Long Day's Journey or Beginning. That certain spark seemed to be missing. I still gave it 4 stars like most everyone else here on the board , it is very worthwhile it's just not "that" production which illuminates something new for me.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Feb 23, 2018 5:05:14 GMT
I finally caught up with this tonight ( the cast change is coming in March) and found it completely satisfying. An old-fashioned ( but far from dusty) West End thriller in a terrific setting. The place was packed and the heavily tourist crowd had a great time. David Yelland was terrific as the lead barrister andPatric Godfrey was swell as the Judge. I had half expected to find it all dreary and instead had a grand time. I had loved the Billy Wilder film and enjoyed the tv adaptation and thought I remembered them both well so the ending(s) when they happened caught me by surprise. Sure, it's a touristy thing to do but so what? I think it's going to be playing there for years. The location is perfect (adjacent to the London Eye) and the setting can't be beat.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Feb 20, 2018 9:59:39 GMT
I remember seeing the film when it first came out and loving it. I then saw the play some years later on broadway and thinking that it just felt... dated. And years after that I saw the musical version at the Papermill Playhouse which re-confirmed my feeling that the material is very much of its (original) time. Or maybe now that I'm closer to Maude's age than Harold's it will prove itself more relevant?
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Feb 20, 2018 8:13:10 GMT
I think I agree somewhat about the interchangeability (is this a real word?) of the play’s and I think that has something to to with the ADs taste and vision about what Theatre should be. Fair enough...although I think that an AD has to programme against their own taste once in a while. That said, I can’t recall the last time I saw a new play at the RC that was set on a housing estate. A fair amount of My Moms a Tw*t was set in various housing estates as well as other locations. As for the ADs vision of what theatre can be I think that’s actually the problem right now- I feel somehow that all of the Courts Outreach programmes ( largely due to Arts Council demands) is keeping the Court from doing their primary job which is to produce plays - all KINDS of plays. Looking at the upcoming season we could change the titles between them and be none the wiser - so vague and generic sounding are the plays and their titles. That was really my initial point . Sorry it got lost in this shuffle.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Feb 19, 2018 14:11:13 GMT
"The RC hasn’t put new plays about disaffected youth plays on council estates on as a priority for decades. In fact it has been the opposite, with middle class concerns being the focus. Someone mentioning Jumpy, Posh and Clybourne Park from someone else making the point, just comfort food for the Sloane Squarites."
Actually that's not true the My Mom's a Tw*t and Gundog and there have been others along the way which in my mind have become inter-changeable Pests, Yen etc. I guess my point really is that the Royal Court is in a down phase of some sort where the programming is generally unexciting and that's reflected in their marketing copy as well. Yes there's buzz when they come up with a Ferryman ( but it was always a short pre-west end engagement) or when they snag a star like Carey Mulligan, but the rest of it has been dull and/or predictable .The Almeida went through this when Michael Attenborough was there - you sort of felt as if the plays that were producing by name authors were at the bottom of that author's drawer or had been rejected by every other theatre in town. The last few times I've been in the theatre downstairs there were plenty of seats available - that's not a good sign. I'm not saying I want comfort food, I just want better plays. Lucy Kirkwood's The Children was pretty wonderful. A young author ( relatively speaking) dealing with larger issues of people not in her age group. My overall point being - I didn't book for anything they've announced. That's a reason for concern on their part because I'm a faithful theatregoer and when I can't find anything to book in a new season announcement for a major theatre then something has gone terribly wrong.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Feb 19, 2018 9:37:12 GMT
Others have posted about Ghost and while I thought the show was awful, there were some effects that were simply extraordinary. I saw it in the West End and except for the effects had an awful time. Circumstances found me seeing it again when it played in New York and because I knew the show was sh*t I was was able to concentrate on the effects and illusions. By doing that, I actually had a good time.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Feb 19, 2018 7:55:33 GMT
After more than a decade of seeing most of what the RC had to offer I took a break a couple of years ago from going as often as I did. Their idea of "new writing" could be easily translated into "young writing" and the plays I was seeing were almost interchangeable with disaffected youths and council estates always part of the action. I came back a few times The Ferryman(great) , The Kid Stays in the Picture (awful) and coming up "Boys and Girls" ( or is it "Girls and Boys"?) etc. and the results were mixed. However, I found myself thinking: I miss going there. I'll see a few of their attractions when I see the new season offerings. Then they announced it and I wanted to book but I found myself thinking: I really don't care about any of these plays. I'll wait. Judging by their availability chart I'm not alone. They have some serious marketing issues with which they should deal. Everything they've announced feels as if we've seen it there before . It's not helped by the bland clip-art aspect of their overall "look". Something is seriously wrong when one of our major theatres with a strong identity has sunk into this level of blandness.
|
|