4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 12, 2016 10:31:05 GMT
Managed to score Front Row tickets on Dec 29th!! I'm really going to
miss Front Row.
|
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Dec 12, 2016 12:28:46 GMT
Would love to see Ruth Negga as Joan. Would be great to see another Irish actress triumph in the role after Siobhan McKenna and Anne Marie Duff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 13:06:21 GMT
Would love to see Ruth Negga as Joan. Would be great to see another Irish actress triumph in the role after Siobhan McKenna and Anne Marie Duff. Goodness, you learn something new every day. I always thought Anne-Marie Duff was Scottish! You never stop learning until you die. |
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Dec 12, 2016 17:58:36 GMT
Anne Marie Duff was born and raised in London, but her parents were Irish. I think I've read that she considers herself Irish.
|
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Dec 12, 2016 20:19:51 GMT
Thats right. We consider her Irish in Ireland because of her parents and she has excelled in many Irish roles, Amongst Women for the BBC along with The Magdalene Sisters and Garage on Film. She was also a superb Pegeen Mike in The Playboy of the Western World for Druid opposite Cillian Murphy in Galway and Dublin as part of the run up to DruidSynge. She had become famous in Shameless when the full cycle was staged a year or two later and didn't repeat the role.
|
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Dec 12, 2016 20:22:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 20:57:49 GMT
Well. I am LOVING it after the first half so far. Don't tell me how it ends!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 23:39:15 GMT
Love Love LOVED it! I'd never seen the play before and I know they've fiddled around with the ending but I didn't care a jot. I just adored it. Gemma Arterton is quite possibly one of the most gorgeous creatures in the world and is absolutely enchanting. I could watch her for days. I hope the stage never loses her entirely to film. Great cast including Studly Fraser, didn't mind the modern bits, the whole thing zipped along nicely and I love a revolve - a winning evening.
|
|
87 posts
|
Post by greenswan on Dec 15, 2016 7:29:54 GMT
I'm not quite sure yet what to think about it. Rather than being about the protagonist, it seems to be mainly about the men having reactions to her. A lot of it doesn't feel like she has agency but is driven by circumstances.
The debates were interesting, certainly the text is good at giving fair points to all sides. Although certain viewpoints are clearly reflected.
The modern framework I didn't mind but I also don't see what it adds. I do think references to today would be clear anyway. I didn't like projections they seemed pointless a lot of the time.
Actors were fairly settled in, just a few minor hiccups. Running time is as advertised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 20:57:39 GMT
I have NEVER been so relieved to leave at the interval as I have done just now
What a directorial mess
The pace is leaden
The cod accents used by the actors are truly laughable
Gemma Arterton seems to be playing Nell Gwynne again
A truly awful and ugly set rotating for no reason at all
The acting is truly awful and the actors seem to realise it
There is the oddest doubling up of roles
Why? Can't they afford extra actors
The NT staging was such a landmark that the Donmar version doesn't even seem like the same play
The desperate attempt to "update" the text with a bit of video work and using laptops and mobiles just seems desperate
What a let down in every way
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by ldm2016 on Dec 17, 2016 10:21:06 GMT
Gemma Arterton was wonderful as Joan, in my opinion, and just like I thought when I left the NT after seeing Piper in Great Britain, Arterton is, if she is given the right role, is going to soon give us a performance for the ages just as Piper did in Yerma. It's not this role - though that's not to take anything away from it- but it is coming soon.
As for the rest: good casting all round with each playing the role (and interpretation of the role) given to them well.
The modern setting makes sense with the every age's Christ quote projected onto the wall before the play (the pre performance is set in a church and is very atmospheric btw). However, one can only guess that the seemingly pointless rotational stage is the result of the director panicking that the dialogue driven play will be received poorly and as boring with a conventional set. That's a challenge that should have been tackled as I and others found it distracting.
Finally, it is a play to spark debate and, in th age of Brexit and monolithic corporations, it clearly sets out to do so. Is Arteton's God calling for a return to a more simple age with local communities actually being communities? Also, although someone above commented negatively about another play with another Brexit twist - and it can get tiresome, I agree - I did feel that this had the courage and conviction to go against the default position of some in the theatre universe.
Please see this play.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Dec 17, 2016 12:12:40 GMT
I very much agree with idm2016, above. This is a brilliantly conceived production featuring a luminous performance from a great young actress at its core.
Josie Rourke's updating with its stock market report screens and its boardroom setting works wonderfully well because Shaw's take on Joan totally supports it. This is a play of boardrooms: of arguments and discussions, of confrontations across a table, superbly reasoned and as contemporary now as they were when Shaw wrote them down. The structures of power, both religious and secular, are the structures of civilization itself - nothing changes or has changed. Joan may be accused of heresy but her real crime is her direct appeal to the populace, rendering both the church and state irrelevant, or threatening to. This is made clear by all concerned, especially by Power's chief spokespersons: Warwick (Jo Stone-Fewings), Cauchon (Elliot Levey) and The Inquisitor (Rory Keenan) - all three actors giving full weight to some of the smartest dialogue ever written for the stage.
The trial scene is just sensational, rivetingly dramatic, heartbreaking and terrifying at the same time, because everyone involved is so eminently reasonable (from their own points of view) in expressing the needs and concerns of the occasion. Shaw said that this was a play without villains and, I suppose, this is what he meant. Everyone wants a just result - but things are simply the way they are.
Rourke's production captures all of this so clearly and so well. And she has a great leading lady. Everyone speaks of Joan's strange power, a sort of inner light that elevates both her and all who come into direct contact with her. And Gemma Arterton HAS that inner light. She has such strength and conviction, absolutely personifying the saint-in-spite-of herself girl who cannot and will not be dissuaded from her destiny. For all its intelligence and dramatic force, this play only works if we believe in Joan - and we do.
A word on the slightly rejuggled ending. Shaw's original is, well, unconvincing and not a little bit clunky. Rourke has shifted some moments forward and changed the staging of others and she has fixed it. Joan's final lines are still there, but they are now spoken in context where they truly resonate.
This is a powerful play being given an illuminating production. For me it's a must see.
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Dec 17, 2016 12:16:50 GMT
Perhaps Parsley could tell us in advance which shows they're seeing so we could have the ticket after the Interval.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 11:14:44 GMT
Amazing reviews: Times 3* ES 3* WOS 3* Times 2* Upcoming 2* |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 11:17:49 GMT
Perhaps Parsley could tell us in advance which shows they're seeing so we could have the ticket after the Interval. We could have a ballot system! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 15:42:36 GMT
Amazing reviews: Times 3* ES 3* WOS 3* Telegraph 2* Upcoming 2* Guardian 3* FT 3* I am sure this is not what they were hoping for The RSC plays at Haymarket have been much more favorably received In my mind the issue is with Rourke She just is not up to the job of a major artistic director and her own directorial work is patchy at best |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 15:55:21 GMT
Tbh, I can't think of a single AD who I enjoy as both an AD and as a director. Josie Rourke is definitely an AD I admire, working hard to ensure a decent balance of male and female representation on stage (though I wish she'd done Splendour before My Night With Reg, I was fairly unforgiving of the latter being all-male, not realising an all-female play would be on the way), though that said, just because I'm not super-fussed about her as director-director, there are other ADs who are MUCH worse directors (Greg Doran and Dominic Dromgoole springing instantly to mind).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 16:26:25 GMT
Tbh, I can't think of a single AD who I enjoy as both an AD and as a director. Josie Rourke is definitely an AD I admire, working hard to ensure a decent balance of male and female representation on stage (though I wish she'd done Splendour before My Night With Reg, I was fairly unforgiving of the latter being all-male, not realising an all-female play would be on the way), though that said, just because I'm not super-fussed about her as director-director, there are other ADs who are MUCH worse directors (Greg Doran and Dominic Dromgoole springing instantly to mind). What about Dominic Cooke (from the past) and Michael Grandage (from the past) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 17:26:56 GMT
Dominic Cooke's alright actually, but Michael Grandage seems to panic a bit if you give him too large a stage. I definitely rate him as an AD more than as a... well, D.
|
|
2,048 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jan 1, 2017 16:50:07 GMT
Saw this on Friday, and I have to admit I found the first half more than a bit, erm, lets just say...dull (the woman sat next to me kept slipping into a slumber, it was only the thought of the drinks I'd ordered for the interval that kept me from falling asleep too), far too much discussion on the nature of the forthcoming legal case, and Joan off stage for long stretches, and there was no need for this to be 'updated', I hate period dramas/musicals where iPads and mobile phones etc. are introduced for no other reason than someone in the theatre being afraid that a contemporary audience will not be able to relate to whats on stage (the 'Celebrate Good Times, Come On' bit was cringeworthy not amusing). I'd seen Man and Superman at the NT previously, and enjoyed it, proving Bernard Shaw plays can be put on these days without dumbing down, but things like a newsflash about egg prices brought absolutely nothing to this.
Thankfully the second half was a lot better,and seemed to zip through to the end- Gemma Arterton again proving what a great actress she is, I was also impressed by Niall Buggy's performance as the Archbishop. although as Parsley has said, having people playing dual roles was just confusing, seeing people who were playing allies of Joan in the first part then playing totally different characters who were involved in the case for the prosecution against her just needlessly complicated matters for the audience.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Jan 7, 2017 23:34:22 GMT
First the bad things. I have an open mind on modern dress for historical plays but often it's a lazy decision to put old wine into new bottles. I don't think it adds anything to this production. "Dauphin Co." (or whatever it was) indeed! It was all visual tinkering, not working with the text and sometimes against it. Secondly, the last scene of the first part dragged. Thirdly the coda which was the last scene (aesthetically pleasing as it was) should have been cut and the play ended with the line "the last you'll hear of her."
The good things - and there are far more of them. A superb performance from Gemma Arterton, although I don't think she is physically suited to the part. The rest of the cast did not disappoint either. The pace was good, there was variety, the conflicts in the play were handled well. This did not feel like a 93 year old play and I'm obviously not referring to the gimmicks. The revolving stage, of which I'm not a fan, was not intrusive except for the trial scene when Arterton was forced to keep moving like a mouse on a frying-pan.
Suffice to say I was expecting to be mildly bored and ended up quite fascinated.
An afterthought. This is a feminist play. The actors represented a spectrum of races, physical disabilities, presumably sexual inclinations - none of these contained in the text. The Shavian tropes of the time have been updated by this production, except for the fact there is only one woman in the cast. I'm not necessarily suggesting there should have been gender-blindness but it seems as if gender is still the one change which does not come naturally to the stage. Not commenting, just observing.
|
|
13 posts
|
Post by sadephram on Jan 21, 2017 13:10:05 GMT
Has anyone else seen that on the new Donmar website?
KLAXON tickets
Every Monday, short notice tickets are released – for performances two weeks later – at each price band.
So that as many different people can see the show as possible, you can only book one pair of tickets per production. There is very high demand for these tickets. If you are not successful on your first attempt, don’t forget we release more tickets every Monday. These tickets are only available online.
There will also be additional surprise releases of KLAXON tickets. Follow us on Twitter or sign up now for email alerts about our KLAXON tickets.
Does that mean no more £10 front row tickets!?
|
|
2,848 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Jan 21, 2017 13:37:03 GMT
Yes, no more £10 front row tickets was announced a while ago
|
|
13 posts
|
Post by sadephram on Jan 21, 2017 14:05:45 GMT
Yes, no more £10 front row tickets was announced a while ago Thanks for your quick response. I guess I missed that  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 12:20:09 GMT
I saw this last night after snagging a return or release that popped up the night before.
I usually suffer a distancing from productions of classic plays, which is why I generally prefer to see new work, but I was engaged by this production. It respects the play, but without seeming to be in Shaw's voice, and I think that's an accomplished achievement. Reflecting on it, it reminded me of Howard Brenton. For me, every aspect of this production works, and the many varied production details impact on each of us to different degrees, according to our interests and tastes.
This was one of those shows which may disrupt my regular theatregoing habits and encourage me to investigate some more classics again. Recommended!
|
|
