404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Oct 14, 2017 7:57:18 GMT
I saw it in NYC and found it rather dull as well as perplexing and the whole $15,000 thing very arbitrary and unbelievable. It's one of those plays where in order for it to be over all one character has to do is leave the room. I love Anne-Marie Duff but I think she needs to employ a script consultant. Her choices are challenging and that's to be celebrated but I find I'm no longer willing to see a play simply because she is in it. As for it's selection by Ms Elliott for the first play in her season, between her on-going and fruitful collaboration with Simon Stephens and the inexpensive needs for the production, this one was a no-brainer. Unfortunately I found the play itself that as well.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Oct 14, 2017 7:40:19 GMT
I've scanned the 204 pages of comments and somewhere along the way I saw Amber Riley's performance schedule but cant find it now, nor is the show's website helpful in the least. Is she still in the show? Is she just doing 5 perfs a week? Hopefully one of you DG people here can help me. Thanks.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Oct 13, 2017 8:55:04 GMT
I disagree completely with Pledge's evaluation of the play and the production. I caught up with it this past Tuesday and while I don't think it's a great piece of dramatic literature, I found it to be a deeply satisfying night in the theatre. The performances were all pretty terrific and Mr Lindsay's wasn't the expected "look-at-me" performance which he has given in the past few years. Mr Johnson's staging was perceptive and elegant; perceptive in that anyone who has ever shared space with a victim of Alzheimer's knows, they rule the room, every moment something can change for them and consequently for everyone else in the room. And elegant because of a couple of scenic coup d'theatres that are surprising and organic to the proceedings as well. A completely worthwhile evening and one that, even if you don't know who Jack Cardiff was, is involving and intelligent.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Oct 9, 2017 13:53:54 GMT
I caught this in its last week as well and while I found it engaging and impecably performed and staged, I also found it to be a minor play. I think Mr Storey covered much the same material more effectively with In Celebration. A worthwhile evening just not a great one. I can sort of understand why the play has been neglected for these past 30 years or so.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Oct 9, 2017 13:49:59 GMT
I'm a longtime fan of both the play and the musical version of it, as well as of Ms Stevenson and I have to say this production was a sizable disappointment to me. I felt that Ms Abrahami's direction was an intrusion onMr Kopit's text which presents the mental terror of what's happening inside a stroke victims mind, Ms Abrahami's direction made it seem like a great deal of fun. Somewhere in all that cleverness I felt that the play got lost.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 30, 2017 6:26:06 GMT
Amazing to think a show ran 18 months but lost money. The cast is large - 37 but certainly no bigger than a lot of blockbuster musicals which also have huge sets. The current cast of 42nd Street is over 50 I think. If this show costs a lot to stage then isn't the NT effectively throwing money down the drain if it cannot transfer. Actually the NT shouldn't be staging shows which could transfer, they should stage shows which commercial producers won't touch. I don't know the specifics of this production but it could've been driven by some of the performer's availability and willingness to commit to a long run which would've made a commercial run economically unrealistic. Having it at the National and and NT Live broadcast probably means that this Follies will be seen by more people all over the world than any other production ever. That's a good thing. The NT hosting the production of Oslo for what amounts to a three and a half week run before a transfer to the commercial sector ( like The Ferryman at the Royal Court) is an unfortunate use of the National. It's a fact of life now, but it's unfortunate.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 28, 2017 7:07:35 GMT
Much like the Committee musical this one seems to be a box office loser for the Donmar. Under other artistic administrations there were maybe one or two plays that were not a hot ticket, but under Ms Featherstone there have been quite a few. While I like a certain level of unpredictability in programming, I like to be able to "trust" that what s programmed will be of a certain level. I've come to the difficult decision to not renew my membership simply because I'm not in agreement with Ms Featherstone's choices. The theatre seems in danger of losing its profile, the way Hampstead did in those awful Anthony Clark years.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 28, 2017 6:57:46 GMT
Yes, this is interesting actually: How many on this board would say they've tweeted about a show if they've felt negatively about it? And if not, what were their reasons for not tweeting? (Especially those who've not loved Follies: what did you write on Twitter after the show, or did you choose not to tweet?) I don't tweet after every show. Sometimes I have no opportunity, sometimes I am not in the mood. But I do certainly tweet both, positive and negative. Although I would never shame an individual person directly into their face, e.g. by mentioning them with their twitter name. And I cannot lie into peoples faces how much I liked it and how they were amazing, so in those cases I don't got to the stage door.
If I write more about individual bad performances I usually do that on Facebook with a private setting.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 27, 2017 7:34:01 GMT
Quick question - is it not thought of as one of his better works? Only reason I ask, is that in the recent poll of favourite Sondheim musical on this board it didn't get a single vote. Not one! This really surprised me. Especially as with this revival it must be high on people's minds. As other members have said, it hasn't been done in a full out London production for 30 years or so and so the lack of familiarity with the show, its subject matter and its innovative structure have gotten in its way in terms of this board's polling. We all know the major songs but because of the pastiche nature of the score the knowledge of those numbers doesn't really reflect the scope and brilliance of Mr Sondheim's score and Mr Goldman's libretto. For me, if I had to choose one show that encapsulates Mr Sondheim's genius this is it. Hopefully audiences ( and our fellow Theatreboard members) will feel the same despite this production's various ( and ultimately minor) flaws.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 24, 2017 18:55:28 GMT
I thought Mr Whishaw was fine as was the rest of the company and I'm a big fan of Mr Shinn's work, but this play while never boring, didn't really work for me. Some great individual scenes and a strong premise but there were few answers in a play with a whole lot of questions.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 24, 2017 10:10:11 GMT
I find that the whole Sally-Buddy-thing takes up way too much room in a show that should be about showbiz memories and not a soapy relationship drama. But I understand that's me, I'm sure there are tons of women clutching their pearls and weeping for poor poor Sally and her unrequited love. Actually Viserys, I think you've hit upon both the show's genius and its failings - I don't think it's a show about show biz memories, that's just the show's metaphor, for me it's about the death of the American dream ( way back in 1970) and the bright prospects of post WWII America. It's not just Sally and her unrequited love - it's everyone: Buddy's love for Sally, Ben's love for only himself, as well as Phyllis's unreturned love for Ben. Not to mention all the subsidiary characters who share their disappointments - Is there anyone in the show that isn't in some way or another disappointed with their lot in life? It's the unhappiest bunch of characters that's ever populated a musical.I don't think anyone watches the show and hopes that sally and ben get together. There are no relationships to root for. Remember the show was written in 1970 - the self-help generation was about to happen, it wasn't there as yet. In the post WW2 era in America , the role of women and was still defined by getting married and raising a family. At the time Follies was being written, women were just beginning to be able to have that choice ( with society's approval) about how to live their lives not in a man's shadow. The show biz stuff is there for contrast. Unfortunatly I think because people go to a show called "Follies" there is an expectation of some sort of escapist entertainment and while there is a parade of show stopping songs and performances, there is a bitterness there that can't be escaped.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 24, 2017 9:23:12 GMT
I've been seeing Follies any chance I've gotten since the original Broadway production and when I first saw it I was young and blown away by the sheer audacity and bitterness of the book and the dazzle of the score however over time I've come to appreciate just why middle age people and the wider popular audience didn't take the show to its heart. No one in the show is happy - except maybe Stella Deems, Hattie Walker and Solange. Everyone else looks at their lives as a disappointment of some sort ( and some worse than that) . At this point in my life one of the aspects of Follies that I love is that it's a show that can constantly be discovered by the creatives involved and by the different audiences that find themselves there. It's a great work of art that can be debated until the sun comes up. This production at the National has more than its share of flaws ( choreography, Loveland design, Janie Dee's dresses) but it's also thrilling because the show itself is so ambitious and bold. If you love the theatre and if you're passionate about musical theatre , Follies is the musical theatre equivalent of the Acropolis. You simply must go and pay homage to it.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jul 29, 2017 9:14:40 GMT
I think he's a better director than a producer or administrator. Some people can run buildings and maintain an artistic high standard ( Hytner, Grandage, Kent, Mendes, Daniel Evans) but some can't. It's a difficult balancing act. I think he's in over his head and as an artist he doesn't know how to say no to his colleagues when he should ( Salome, Common, Wonderland) . It's a hard job and I just think he's in over his head.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jun 8, 2017 14:12:00 GMT
Saw Lettice over the weekend and was very unimpressed. Almost no laughs. I remember the original with Dame Maggie being hilarious, thin but hilarious. This was simply deadly.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 18, 2017 17:12:43 GMT
First Wonderland and now this? Neil Eckersley is the kamikaze pilot of producers - what's next? Tuck Everlasting?
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 14, 2017 8:28:59 GMT
Saw this last night and found it rewarding for the performances, direction and design. The play is odd in that Ms Raine ( who I think is one of our best playwrights) has written a play with selfish entitled central characters whom I never grew to care about. We watch them self- destruct or self-absorb but in the end they all really get what they deserve. It's a smart evening to be sure, but for me it lacked an emotional connection.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 14, 2017 8:15:56 GMT
I caught this last week and thought it was a genuine treat. I didn't know the play at all and found it surprising and funny. Wonderfully acted and designed.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 13, 2017 7:32:27 GMT
Does anyone on this forum know how the Offies work? When is there cutoff date? Who are the nominators? etc. It seems that some shows have their press night and two or three days later they announce their Offie nominations - Tick Tick Boom and Brimstone and Treacle are two recent examples... Just curious.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 12, 2017 10:21:04 GMT
The peak of celebrity there was Gok Wan, says it all. To be fair Ian McKellen, Maxwell Caufield, Juliet Mills, Hayley Mills and quite a few others - but Gok wan was the only one courting anyone with a camera.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 11, 2017 23:37:26 GMT
Was there tonight ( press night) The orchestra was great, all the supporting people were just fine, the choreography terrific ( especially the second act ballet) and visually it was Lonny Price's usual smart staging. But the two leads were bad. They have no connection with one another and the "bench" scene one of the best scenes ever written for a musical was dull. Neither of them can act well in the first place but this was rather agonizing. However, the most appalling thing was Mr Boe 's bow which he milked for what seemed like forever. If you've never seen Carousel it's worth it for the scale of the production. But if you have seen it, well you can give this one a miss.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 9, 2017 8:39:12 GMT
Frankly I don't understand the love that this show gets from critics and most of the audience. We know the songs but really how many times can we hear them re-purposed in show after show after show? And while it's gorgeously designed is the Stairway to Paradise number any better than something from a Royal Variety performance from the mid-70's. Robert Fairchild is terrific and while the structure of the show is solid the dialogue is leaden and witless. I didn't have a bad time, I just didn't have a good one.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 8, 2017 22:15:24 GMT
Just back from this and it was terrific. Oliver Coopersmith was amazing. I think it's deeper than Ryan ( see above) does and I can easily see it having an extended life beyond this engagement . Happy that I went. Audience loved it.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 1, 2017 10:02:13 GMT
I haven't seen this production but I saw the original on Broadway. I think the most offensive thing about this show is that it wasn't written as a"cheesefest" or a rollicking musical comedy. It was written by 3 straight white guys of a certain age projecting their fantasies of what fun being a whore in 1970's New York must be. The first draft of this show was, I think in the early 80's if not before, so it's not a fond look back, they were writing it in "the present" but it took so long to get produced that it became "the past". I think the reason so many of us over here enjoy it ( not me but the rest of us) is there is a sense of detachment from the whole slice of life that it portrays. I wonder if there are any Yanks on this board who have seen it and what their response to it is.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 31, 2017 9:00:49 GMT
The advertisements say: "Warning contains strong sexual content, brief nudity and musical theatre references" needless to say I booked for next Saturday.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 31, 2017 6:12:35 GMT
It was a lovely afternoon, far too long but lovely nevertheless. I think with three or four more performances, it would get trimmed down and be ready to go on the road. The thrill of three Salieri's together on stage, the quartet of actors from the original Royal Hunt of the Sun and of course Dame Maggie were the highlights for me. Mr Callow was, as usual, an affable and intelligent host. The real flaw though was not telling us who was who. Only the Michael Pennington reference made me realize that it was Michael Pennington, themusical performers ( and the pieces performed) will remain a mystery. I was surprised that Peter Firth wasn't there. What did become clear though was that other than Dame Maggie , he really didn't write for women -not that he was obligated to, but in looking at his long career, the number of good women's parts seem to be few and far between. Still a memorable afternoon.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 31, 2017 5:58:08 GMT
I think an actress such as Eve Best would be a terrific choice for Shakespeare's Globe. She's proven her ability as an actress interpreting Shakespeare, thanks to interviews she's shown us that she's smart and if we look at her career choices, she's been pretty smart about those as well. I've no doubt this time around the Board will make sure to ask the appropriate questions about maintaining their mission statement in the choice of directors and designers for their productions. And I feel similarly about Jamie Parker ( but that's a different thread.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 26, 2017 7:32:05 GMT
Please don't let this come to London. The whole piece has no heart and lame comedy. I honestly don't know why it got produced over here.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 26, 2017 7:25:09 GMT
I thought the performances were downright terrific and as always both Roger Allam and Tom Goodman-Hill prove themselves to be among our very best actors. It was also nice to be in a theatre with virtually no American tourists.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 24, 2017 17:58:47 GMT
It's not a great play by any standard and as much as I love David Tennant, it's not worth the outrageous prices they're charging. I'll pass.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 24, 2017 17:56:42 GMT
I thought it was one of the worst things ever...It feels as if McBureny was hired to use his bag of tricks in a project for which he had no feeling or passion. Ugh.
|
|