1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 17, 2016 18:45:28 GMT
I'm here now.  |
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jun 17, 2016 19:07:52 GMT
I love the stairs! It was a Christmas tree at Christmas!  |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 17, 2016 20:10:07 GMT
Interval. Liking it so far. Some lovely acting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 21:00:48 GMT
Interval. Liking it so far. Some lovely acting. Just missed you Am going tomorrow Is the text on sale please Also I am sure it will be good His last play was so excellent indeed Let us know what you think at the end please It's quite long isn't it - 2H 40M ? |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 17, 2016 23:08:02 GMT
Am heading to this Sat evening - good to hear some positive feedback
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 23:26:27 GMT
Am heading to this Sat evening - good to hear some positive feedback We shall meet? |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 17, 2016 23:44:09 GMT
I'll probably post more about this later, but I'd definitely recommend. Parsley, the texts were on sale and the running time is long. It was the first preview so started a bit late, probably about 8 p.m. and we didn't get out until about 10.40. But it is really interesting, frustrating at times, but I loved a lot of the acting - detailed, believable, nuanced. It's a wonderful role for Alec Newman (younger board members will remember him as the headteacher for a couple of series of 'Waterloo Road') and he grabs it with both fists. It was in very good shape for a first preview. Besides Newman I also thought Susan Stanley, Leah Whitaker and Ony Uhiara were all great.
A seating tip: don't bother queuing up to get the best seats - it is traverse staging with almost pew-like benches on two sides and they ask that you fill in from the end. I was fine about a quarter of the way down the front row, but there were quite a few complaints from the people further along (whose seats were also, oddly, lower than the rest of the row.) The pew/benches are also hard to get in and out of - a couple of older women with canes took to good-naturedly throwing their legs up onto the seats so people could get by.
Hope you enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 23:50:39 GMT
I'll probably post more about this later, but I'd definitely recommend. Parsley, the texts were on sale and the running time is long. It was the first preview so started a bit late, probably about 8 p.m. and we didn't get out until about 10.40. But it is really interesting, frustrating at times, but I loved a lot of the acting - detailed, believable, nuanced. It's a wonderful role for Alec Newman (younger board members will remember him as the headteacher for a couple of series of 'Waterloo Road') and he grabs it with both fists. It was in very good shape for a first preview. Besides Newman I also thought Susan Stanley, Leah Whitaker and Ony Uhiara were all great. A seating tip: don't bother queuing up to get the best seats - it is traverse staging with almost pew-like benches on two sides and they ask that you fill in from the end. I was fine about a quarter of the way down the front row, but there were quite a few complaints from the people further along (whose seats were also, oddly, lower than the rest of the row.) The pew/benches are also hard to get in and out of - a couple of older women with canes took to good-naturedly throwing their legs up onto the seats so people could get by. Hope you enjoy it. Thanks I will report back |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 18, 2016 8:10:51 GMT
Am heading to this Sat evening - good to hear some positive feedback We shall meet? That's a good idea. I'll get there around 7. |
|
1,475 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jun 18, 2016 12:32:22 GMT
I'll probably post more about this later, but I'd definitely recommend. Parsley, the texts were on sale and the running time is long. It was the first preview so started a bit late, probably about 8 p.m. and we didn't get out until about 10.40. But it is really interesting, frustrating at times, but I loved a lot of the acting - detailed, believable, nuanced. It's a wonderful role for Alec Newman (younger board members will remember him as the headteacher for a couple of series of 'Waterloo Road') and he grabs it with both fists. It was in very good shape for a first preview. Besides Newman I also thought Susan Stanley, Leah Whitaker and Ony Uhiara were all great. A seating tip: don't bother queuing up to get the best seats - it is traverse staging with almost pew-like benches on two sides and they ask that you fill in from the end. I was fine about a quarter of the way down the front row, but there were quite a few complaints from the people further along (whose seats were also, oddly, lower than the rest of the row.) The pew/benches are also hard to get in and out of - a couple of older women with canes took to good-naturedly throwing their legs up onto the seats so people could get by. Hope you enjoy it. Hate the Fox report, love the Foxa report. Hope there is more to come, especially as Hampstead Downstairs doesn't review, so the Foxa Report is extra newsworthy. . . unlike the infuriating Fox Report, which is never anything but fog and propaganda lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 22:04:01 GMT
Can't say I liked this unfortunately
Mainly due to the awful awful seating meaning neck crane
It's overlong
Melodramatic
And not really that believable
The 7 year old daughter is played by an actress almost as tall as her mother
Just looked stupid as there were several direct references to her age
What was excellent was the central role acting by Alec Newman
Really well done to him
But the staging and direction are amateur
It's a shame as RC upstairs pull out all the stops for shows and don't skimp just because they have a limited run to a small audience
I wish Hampstead downstairs would make a bit more effort
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on Jun 18, 2016 22:48:03 GMT
Bad things happen. The main character complains a lot. More bad things happen. He complains more. Etc, for 2h 40
Not much point to it really. In some circumstances, the bad things would have been appropriate. In others, they're not. Because the audience doesn't know the facts for most of the play, sympathy for the character is limited.
There was potential for a much better play here - if the wife, and her doubts and the conflicts those gave rise to within the relationship had been the focus of the play, and not so much the husband's suffering. And perhaps if she'd been more of a feminist, and at least ideologically in favour of the system and procedures that are also causing the family grief...
I give Hampstead credit for putting lots of stuff on, but they really let their writers down in terms of providing effective dramaturgy.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 18, 2016 22:51:18 GMT
I did wonder if the traverse seating would be a deal-breaker for you, Parsley. I have a weakness for the Hampstead downstairs - I like being almost on top of the actors and don't mind it being a bit rough around the edges at times (which is in accord with their very low ticket prices) but that seating was ridiculous especially as it was so hard to get in and out of (lots of muttering about health and safety behind me.)
I know what you mean in terms of your other comments. My main quibbles were a few clunky moments (the lawyer's unlikely admission in the second act and the central metaphor which involved the definitely not seven year old girl.) Sometimes I wondered if it had to a play at all, if it wouldn't have been equally as effective as a tv show - so that's not so good. And yes, I thought it could have been 15 minutes shorter - but then I think that about almost everything.
BUT I disagree that the direction was amateur. Judging from this and Bug, Simon Evans has a knack for creating a sort of claustrophobia which worked well with both scripts. I believed Alec Newman and Susan Stanley as a husband and wife (and often I don't buy stage couples.) Watching them as each new bit of information landed, with one expression shutting down or a new one flickered - I love that. Newman's trajectory was, to me, believable and nerve-wracking. Despite its length, throughout it I really wanted to know what had happened - and cared.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 22:55:15 GMT
I did wonder if the traverse seating would be a deal-breaker for you, Parsley. I have a weakness for the Hampstead downstairs - I like being almost on top of the actors and don't mind it being a bit rough around the edges at times (which is in accord with their very low ticket prices) but that seating was ridiculous especially as it was so hard to get in and out of (lots of muttering about health and safety behind me.) I know what you mean in terms of your other comments. My main quibbles were a few clunky moments (the lawyer's unlikely admission in the second act and the central metaphor which involved the definitely not seven year old girl.) Sometimes I wondered if it had to a play at all, if it wouldn't have been equally as effective as a tv show - so that's not so good. And yes, I thought it could have been 15 minutes shorter - but then I think that about almost everything. BUT I disagree that the direction was amateur. Judging from this and Bug, Simon Evans has a knack for creating a sort of claustrophobia which worked well with both scripts. I believed Alec Newman and Susan Stanley as a husband and wife (and often I don't buy stage couples.) Watching them as each new bit of information landed, with one expression shutting down or a new ones flickered - I love that. Newman's trajectory was, to me, believable and nerve-wracking. Despite its length, throughout it I really wanted to know what had happened - and cared. It's my local theatre And I want to praise it But it's over priced and underpowered Dud after dud Upstairs and downstairs And time and time again I find the directing sloppy and lazy I know there is no need to force comparison But I keep being reminded of the RC Which has not been perfect of late But both places have an up and down And both champion new work It's just that one is SO much better than the other Plus you can go there for £10 The hampstead main house pricing is not cheap |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 18, 2016 23:34:57 GMT
Just got home from this. I tend to agree more with Foxa on this one. I liked not knowing the facts - was I caring about someone who I would regret caring about? I also felt much of it was very believable. There were some odd touches - things said to the lawyer that seemed out of place. I wondered if this was to throw us off, but if so, they were clunky. I agree with Parsley on the age of the girl. Clearly not 7 (height not the only way of telling!). I thought she acted well and she does look young. Would it have worked as well with the daughter being 14 (which she would have been believable playing)?
On the seating, I agree it is an issue. I was really lucky, but I think many felt squashed in. Also traverse arrangements are OK, but I think this one must have been a bit of an issue for those at the ends - feeling a bit distant from action at the far end. The comparison with RC is interesting. I agree the main house pricing at RC offers more for those on a limited budget. However, downstairs at Hampstead is usually cheaper that RC upstairs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 23:40:10 GMT
Just got home from this. I tend to agree more with Foxa on this one. I liked not knowing the facts - was I caring about someone who I would regret caring about? I also felt much of it was very believable. There were some odd touches - things said to the lawyer that seemed out of place. I wondered if this was to throw us off, but if so, they were clunky. I agree with Parsley on the age of the girl. Clearly not 7 (height not the only way of telling!). I thought she acted well and she does look young. Would it have worked as well with the daughter being 14 (which she would have been believable playing)? On the seating, I agree it is an issue. I was really lucky, but I think many felt squashed in. Also traverse arrangements are OK, but I think this one must have been a bit of an issue for those at the ends - feeling a bit distant from action at the far end. The comparison with RC is interesting. I agree the main house pricing at RC offers more for those on a limited budget. However, downstairs at Hampstead is usually cheaper that RC upstairs. Sorry not to have met you Arrived at literally 1944 My comparison to RC was that the quality of their work as an overall And the attention to staging and seating there Is of a much higher quality all round Hampstead just seems crappy in comparison on all fronts I can't think of a single play I have seen at hampstead downstairs which is better than anything I have seen at RC upstairs To be honest the casting at RC upstairs is always of the highest quality and they have amazing names appearing there I know the prices are going up to £25 But it's cheap for such a small space and I feel it's an honour to see things there and one of the best places in the world for new writing |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 18, 2016 23:51:36 GMT
Ah yes, I ingored your much more important point! I bow to your greater knowledge of H downstairs. Hampstead is a bit of a trek for me, so I tend to head for the main theatre shows. RC, on the other hand, is a short walk from work, so I head there much more often. I like the attention to quality also and that they are not afraid to push boundaries.
Also, sorry to have missed you! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 23:54:45 GMT
Ah yes, I ingored your much more important point! I bow to your greater knowledge of H downstairs. Hampstead is a bit of a trek for me, so I tend to head for the main theatre shows. RC, on the other hand, is a short walk from work, so I head there much more often. I like the attention to quality also and that they are not afraid to push boundaries.
Also, sorry to have missed you! You have hit nail on the head Don't get me wrong RC make many boobs But they totally push the boundaries We don't realise until we go to somewhere like Hampstead And see namby pamby work I am sorry to say but Hampstead pander like a bitch to their local audience Who are generally generic plain grey and boring- other than me A few more risks and a bigger sense of ambition and they would attract a more diverse crowd and interest which would pay off no end |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2016 8:50:27 GMT
It's interesting to compare Hampstead and the Orange Tree because they're both primarily local theatres although with strong regional and national presence. Except for its excellent Local residencies in Tottenham and Pimlico, the Royal Court is primarily a national theatre and in fact it's generally accepted that it went too far off the rails of this remit in the latter days of the previous artistic regime when it began pandering like a bitch to the Kensington and Chelsea audience.
The Orange Tree seems to have really blossomed with its policy of serving different sectors of its local audience with different shows, and with its various collaborations with a very broad spectrum of other UK theatre companies. And it has a strong working relationship with the Royal Court too!
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 19, 2016 18:24:51 GMT
I have always (almost) loved the Royal Court and have over the years gone there much more than I have the Hampstead Theatre - the Court is more local to me and I have seen some exciting/'beautiful work there (and some absolute stinkers, of course, as well.) Whereas it's only this past year I've begun to go regularly to the Hampstead Theatre (my most recent previous outing before 2015 was bringing a school group to see 'Chariots of Fire' which was fine.) I'm not enamoured of the upstairs season and find something a bit dead about the auditorium - it's easy to feel cut off even if you aren't that far from the stage. My experience of the 'Moderate Soprano' was exactly that sort of dull/safe experience.
But,if you'll allow me, I'd like to fight my corner for the Downstairs Theatre a bit. I like their focus on early career writers and also the large female presence in the writing/directing/casts. Firebird was produced in conjunction with the Children's Society and was very powerful/gut-wrenching with excellent performances. This was not a safe bit of programming. Very different in tone, but Pine dealt with the under-employment of graduates so well, had a diverse cast, was written (and I think directed) by a woman. My guest to that was in his twenties and there were many other youngish people in the audience. In my opinion, where they don't succeed is when they revert to more established writers (the William Boyd play was probably the weakest thing I've seen there and the Terry Johnson piece was more a curiosity.) In terms of pricing their £5 previews can't be beat - and I'm not a member of the theatre, but find I can usually get them if I'm quick on public booking. £12 after previews is also very reasonable. Lastly, I like the public spaces - lots of loos, a terrace, plentiful seats and tables, okay bar food, great FOH, a book exchange. I know some people who aren't going to see shows but live in the area meet up there because it's so pleasant.
So could they be more daring? Sure. But is it a theatre worth supporting? Definitely.
|
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Jun 20, 2016 21:53:56 GMT
I'm seeing this on the 6th July matinee show. Most plays I have seen downstairs have been excellent, in which I rate better than the plays in the main theatre.
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jun 21, 2016 3:50:32 GMT
I'm seeing this on the 6th July matinee show. Most plays I have seen downstairs have been excellent, in which I rate better than the plays in the main theatre. Also seeing it soon (and due to running time, so glad that as usual I played safe + booked a matinee!) and agree that the standard downstairs is far more consistent than in the main house. Can't recall any real duds downstairs, though I haven't seen quite everything, whereas upstairs there have been occasions when I've been embarrassed to be present. |
|
1 posts
|
Post by jessapple on Jun 23, 2016 13:44:24 GMT
Saw this on Tuesday.
Have to say I found the child irritating, I found myself rolling my eyes when ever she appeared - how old was she meant to be? the actor playing her seemed too old and was playing it too young/childish if meant to be young teenager?, unless (no mean to offend) was the child meant to be autistic? if not it was very odd characterisation and unrealistic
a part from that a decent play on a taboo subject - a tad too long though
Didn't find the seating restrictive either
|
|
22 posts
|
Post by clive on Jun 24, 2016 10:55:26 GMT
I enjoyed this but couldn't understand the decision to have a 7 year old played by a 22 year old actress. That just didn't work at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 11:13:08 GMT
Almost certainly, they couldn't budget for child actors in this role at the Hampstead Downstairs because two or three alternating actors and more rehearsal time would have been required. And a younger adult actor would still have been obviously not seven!
|
|
