|
|
Post by lolli on Jan 23, 2016 23:02:32 GMT
Previews tonight. Anyone going? Was excellent at the Tricycle.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jan 24, 2016 20:53:15 GMT
Not until February but really looking forward to it, thought a shame Oliver Ryan is in Stratford as he was excellent as Charles Kean in the Tricyle version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 23:35:28 GMT
This is the Tricycle production remounted at the Garrick, not a new version.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jan 26, 2016 20:30:32 GMT
The Garrick has just been evacuated half an hour into the performance tonight. Members of the audience in the balcony heard creaking sounds and rushed out of the theatre thinking the balcony/ceiling was about to collapse, causing the entire theatre to be evacuated. It turns out that it was just a speaker malfunction that sounded as if something was creaking/breaking.
Scary for all involved I'm sure - what with the horrific Apollo incident you can't blame those audience members for coming to that conclusion!
Expect to hear about it in the Evening Standard soon:
Audience are back in and the play has now resumed!
|
|
|
|
Post by firefingers on Jan 26, 2016 23:36:09 GMT
|
|
27 posts
|
Post by mickeyjotheatre on Jan 27, 2016 0:43:01 GMT
From the front row at least, this sounded NOTHING like anything other than speakers crackling. It was quite shocking to see three levels of the Garrick jumping to their feet at once with no prompt from the front of house team. I've written about it here if anyone's that interested, it was probably the strangest thing I've ever seen happen in a theatre... www.theatreviews.weebly.com/my-blog |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 8:34:35 GMT
Interesting phrasings - you do make concessions for the acoustics not necessarily being the same across the whole house, but it really can't have been *that* obvious it was just sound issues not worth evacuating the theatre for, else the entire rest of the theatre wouldn't have left! I particularly like your note about the "many pages in the programme detailing the recent, extensive restoration work made to the Garrick theatre", as though everyone has not only bought an over-priced programme but also read it, like there's always time for that, or people don't save the programme for the train home, or they're more interested in the building than the cast they've come to see. Also I really fail to see how it's shocking or startling that an audience with genuine concern for safety manages to evacuate a theatre promptly and safely - I would go with "reassuring" or "heartening", personally. I'm a fire marshal, and I've read articles and seen videos on what to do in an emergency, and the experts always ALWAYS advise that a quick evacuation is the best thing you can do, and although it'd put a serious dampener on my journey home, I'd rather evacuate a theatre then feel silly afterwards than stay in my seat and wind up seriously injured. There's nothing "trivial" about people being sensible enough to ensure their safety, even when it turns out to be a false alarm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 9:06:48 GMT
Whoa there Baemax, you might be being a bit unfair! Looks to me like what mickeyjotheatre has given us here is an entertaining first hand account of what happened in the theatre. He's even applied a humorously jaundiced eye to proceedings (how come an audience can clear a theatre so quickly and calmly when normally it takes about 5 minutes for your row to start moving after curtain call?!).
It does indeed pose interesting questions, because the way this audience seems to have reacted goes against pretty much every piece of psychological evidence about group behaviour observed so far, surely?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boob on Jan 27, 2016 9:17:50 GMT
There was a moment during The Winter's Tale when I thought I heard the same but being near a speaker, it definitely wasn't coming from there. Even saw some FOH staff looking anxious. It is a Nimax Theatre after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 9:20:23 GMT
See, you think I'm being unfair to mickeyjotheatre, and I think he's being unfair to the evacuees. The beauty of the internet bringing differing viewpoints together for discussion strikes again!  My best one was The Crucible at the Old Vic. Having sat for over 3 and half hours, I couldn't wait to get to my feet at the end, as much for a leg stretch as anything else, and the woman next to me made a point of sternly telling me she wasn't going anywhere just yet so I would just have to WAIT for her while she stayed seated and rummaged through her bags for five solid minutes. I hope I'm not sitting next to her again if ever I encounter a potential emergency in a theatre! |
|
6 posts
|
Post by hatfinisher on Jan 27, 2016 12:28:34 GMT
As one of the 'evacuees' I think it's only fair that I get to share my version of the events, too.
I was sitting in the stalls in row K, that is, right underneath the front edge of the dress circle and probably about one row away from the speakers that triggered last night's events.
During one of the first scenes of the play the speakers above our heads started to let out pretty loud noises that sounded not unlike cracks opening in a wood structure - it is perhaps not a case that these sounds have been described as "crackling". What was slightly puzzling was that these noises went on for quite a and apparently not much was being made to make them stop. I'm surprised to read that they couldn't be heard from the front row, since they were apparently loud enough for the cast to hear them and - to an extent - acknowledge them. Indeed, several of the actors started to glance at the circle with every crackle, and this was in the middle of a scene which clearly did not require any staring out into the auditorium (as opposed to other scenes of the play, which do involve loads of that), and well before people made a move to leave.
At one point some people just stood up and started to move towards the exits and the actors quite promptly left the stage. At that point, the stage manager came out and invited everyone to "move away from the centre of the auditorium" and exit towards the foyer. There was never a real sense of impending danger, probably because most of us could tell that those sounds were coming from the speakers, but the memory of the Apollo events must have played a role in all this, since last night's noises, their source and the cast's reaction did bear some similarity to those described at the time of the 'Curious' accident. The fact that we were in another Nimax theatre probably didn't do much to reassure people. I for one didn't buy the program and I honestly wouldn't have spent my time reading about the extensive restoration of the theatre... and to be fair, it's probably not what I would want to read about in a program (but then again, maybe there was maybe not enough to say about the play or the production). Given the circumstances, I didn't find it that surprising that people were quick to move out of the auditorium at all... and I did move along, not so much because I was startled by the noises, but because the initial reaction from the cast on stage and the stage manager weren't necessarily reassuring.
However, if there's any reason why the performers will have to work much harder to engage the audience's attention here is that they are left to deal with a text that is, IMHO, poorly written and includes some of the least inspired and most repetitive dialogues I've had to endure in a theatre. While the themes and issues at the basis of the play are definitely relevant to this very day, and Ira Aldridge's story is a potentially very good material for a play, I found the production quite bland, and the scenes tended to drag on forever for no valid reason. By the time Pierre told Ira for the fifth time (in the same 5-minute scene!) that he had warned him and suggested that he play his character with less intensity, even the malfunctioning speakers had got the proverbial point...
In all honesty, it is one of the very few times that I have considered leaving at intermission. All in all, I found it all very underwhelming, and it was a very odd night at the theatre in many ways... there were people around me who were chatting to each other during the scenes and commenting (loud enough for me to hear them clearly from the row behind) on what was being said... one lady sitting right in front of me spent the most part of act two fidgeting with her mobile and very distinctly recording random videos of the play (FOH people, where are you?!). So please, forgive me if I'll probably remember last night more for having almost evacuated a West End theatre than for the (disappointing) quality of what I saw on stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by DebbieDoesDouglas(Hodge) on Jan 27, 2016 12:39:50 GMT
Nice to see the new forum is as pissed off as the last!
|
|
27 posts
|
Post by mickeyjotheatre on Jan 27, 2016 17:23:50 GMT
Interesting phrasings - you do make concessions for the acoustics not necessarily being the same across the whole house, but it really can't have been *that* obvious it was just sound issues not worth evacuating the theatre for, else the entire rest of the theatre wouldn't have left! I particularly like your note about the "many pages in the programme detailing the recent, extensive restoration work made to the Garrick theatre", as though everyone has not only bought an over-priced programme but also read it, like there's always time for that, or people don't save the programme for the train home, or they're more interested in the building than the cast they've come to see. Also I really fail to see how it's shocking or startling that an audience with genuine concern for safety manages to evacuate a theatre promptly and safely - I would go with "reassuring" or "heartening", personally. I'm a fire marshal, and I've read articles and seen videos on what to do in an emergency, and the experts always ALWAYS advise that a quick evacuation is the best thing you can do, and although it'd put a serious dampener on my journey home, I'd rather evacuate a theatre then feel silly afterwards than stay in my seat and wind up seriously injured. There's nothing "trivial" about people being sensible enough to ensure their safety, even when it turns out to be a false alarm. I feel I should clarify, at no point in what I wrote did I suggest the audience did anything wrong by leaving the auditorium. I'm not suggesting anyone was foolish to put their safety first, and re the post that said they were surprised I said I couldn't hear the noises (I don't know how to quote more than one response) I said the front row DID hear the noises but they were VERY clearly coming from the speakers. Also, of course people aren't obligated to buy a programme (and for the record I don't find them that over-priced), but the restoration work on the Garrick has been very well publicised by Nimax, I only meant to suggest that there was no physical evidence in the theatre of any impending danger other than 'the noises'. Yes it is reassuring that an audience is able to leave so quickly, but I still found it incredibly bizarre to witness as a British audience is usually reluctant enough to interrupt a performance for any reason, and here were three levels simultaneously exiting mid sentence. I was just making the point that theatregoers clearly don't feel as safe as they did before the Apollo incident. |
|
27 posts
|
Post by mickeyjotheatre on Jan 27, 2016 17:28:27 GMT
As one of the 'evacuees' I think it's only fair that I get to share my version of the events, too. I was sitting in the stalls in row K, that is, right underneath the front edge of the dress circle and probably about one row away from the speakers that triggered last night's events. During one of the first scenes of the play the speakers above our heads started to let out pretty loud noises that sounded not unlike cracks opening in a wood structure - it is perhaps not a case that these sounds have been described as "crackling". What was slightly puzzling was that these noises went on for quite a and apparently not much was being made to make them stop. I'm surprised to read that they couldn't be heard from the front row, since they were apparently loud enough for the cast to hear them and - to an extent - acknowledge them. Indeed, several of the actors started to glance at the circle with every crackle, and this was in the middle of a scene which clearly did not require any staring out into the auditorium (as opposed to other scenes of the play, which do involve loads of that), and well before people made a move to leave. ... However, if there's any reason why the performers will have to work much harder to engage the audience's attention here is that they are left to deal with a text that is, IMHO, poorly written and includes some of the least inspired and most repetitive dialogues I've had to endure in a theatre. While the themes and issues at the basis of the play are definitely relevant to this very day, and Ira Aldridge's story is a potentially very good material for a play, I found the production quite bland, and the scenes tended to drag on forever for no valid reason. By the time Pierre told Ira for the fifth time (in the same 5-minute scene!) that he had warned him and suggested that he play his character with less intensity, even the malfunctioning speakers had got the proverbial point... Nobody's denying you the opportunity to share your version of events, worry not. Again, I didn't say the front row couldn't hear it, I just said it was obvious to us from where we were that it was coming from the speakers, as it seemed obvious to you as well from what you've written. And for what it's worth, I thought the play was gripping and rather brilliant. I do think it could have showed a broader extent of his life rather than focusing with a fairly slow pace at a single event, but the scene you seem to be objecting to was the one I found the most thrilling. Actors at the top of their game negotiating rapidly fluctuating tension levels brilliantly. Everyone of course is entitled to their own opinions! |
|
703 posts
|
Post by theatremiss on Jan 27, 2016 21:33:49 GMT
Well I wish I'd been evacuated tonight. I really didn't like this one bit. In fact I went outside for some fresh air during the interval and decided not to return. An aching hip and the lure of an earlier train home was too invitingly. I can't quite put my finger on what I didn't like, I may have to think about this but if I'm honest I think it is the writing. I was debating about paying more money to get a better seat as my hip is dodgy (dodgy hipster) and I'm so glad I didn't as at least I only paid £15
|
|
181 posts
|
Post by caa on Jan 28, 2016 8:44:24 GMT
I wonder if this a play that works well in a small theatre but shows its failings when put into a larger theatre?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 10:19:00 GMT
Next time I need to get to my seat in the middle of the row and no-one stands up I'll just take a recording of a bit of a creak and a crack and they'll all be up and out of the row like lightning.
Perfect.
|
|
219 posts
|
Post by PalelyLaura on Jan 28, 2016 11:19:59 GMT
Surprised and concerned about the negative responses to this - it was one of my top 5 plays of 2012 (and I saw 100 plays that year so I had a lot to choose from!) and I'm sorry it hasn't been better received on the forum. Of course, everyone's opinion is valid and differing opinions is what keeps this place interesting :-)
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jan 28, 2016 11:35:19 GMT
Surprised and concerned about the negative responses to this - it was one of my top 5 plays of 2012 (and I saw 100 plays that year so I had a lot to choose from!) and I'm sorry it hasn't been better received on the forum. Of course, everyone's opinion is valid and differing opinions is what keeps this place interesting :-) It might just be the standard, preview teething problems but I agree. I really enjoyed this at the Tricycle and it is shame to hear it isn't engaging people at the Garrick. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 11:45:50 GMT
Maybe it's a casting thing - I saw it at the Tricycle, but have subsequently felt very sad for anyone who didn't get to see it with Ferdinand Kingsley in it. Or yeah, it could be a venue thing, as something really does have to be super to be enjoyable at the Garrick. Seen some great shows there, but it's NOT my favourite theatre.
|
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 28, 2016 15:45:46 GMT
I wonder if this a play that works well in a small theatre but shows its failings when put into a larger theatre? Different audience. Tricycle had a following, mixed of all kinds, very open, very appreciative and supportive. Not the same in the West End. |
|
6 posts
|
Post by hatfinisher on Jan 29, 2016 16:22:33 GMT
Nobody's denying you the opportunity to share your version of events, worry not. Again, I didn't say the front row couldn't hear it, I just said it was obvious to us from where we were that it was coming from the speakers, as it seemed obvious to you as well from what you've written. And for what it's worth, I thought the play was gripping and rather brilliant. I do think it could have showed a broader extent of his life rather than focusing with a fairly slow pace at a single event, but the scene you seem to be objecting to was the one I found the most thrilling. Actors at the top of their game negotiating rapidly fluctuating tension levels brilliantly. Everyone of course is entitled to their own opinions! Oh, I wasn't worrying at all, but thanks for granting me that right : ) I am very glad that you enjoyed the play, and I will certainly not try in any way to change your opinion. As you say we're all entitled to one, and this world would be a lot duller if we all were to agreed all the time. Unfortunately, in that very scene that you found so thrilling, I thought I saw a pair of very good actors dealing with a poorly written dialogue and, therefore, working hard to unearth some subtext that probably wasn't there to begin with. That sort of flaws throughout the play made the experience not quite as memorable for me as it was for you, but I am very happy that you were gripped and entertained by it. I hope some other time we can share an enthusiastic response about some other work : ) |
|
|
|
Post by jaqs on Jan 31, 2016 12:53:40 GMT
Quite enjoyed this from my cheapseat in the second row. Cracking cast putting loads in with lovely costumes.
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Feb 1, 2016 14:33:45 GMT
I do wonder if we are drawing a link from that event to the Apollo a little too eagerly. How many of the patrons at Red Velvet last week would have even known about the Apollo incident, know what type of noises started it and, most of all, realised they both houses are owned by the same company?
I also really enjoyed the production at the Tricycle, however haven't yet found myself booking for this short West End run. I suspect most of the £15 tickets have long since disappeared, mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by DebbieDoesDouglas(Hodge) on Feb 1, 2016 14:59:50 GMT
How many of the patrons at Red Velvet last week would have even known about the Apollo incident, know what type of noises started it and, most of all, realised they both houses are owned by the same company? Why would know who owns the theatre be at all important? I dint know. the Apollo thing WAS big news even for none theatre people. I still get people joking about theatre falling in whenever I go see something. People really get on my tits |
|
