77 posts
|
Post by avfan on Oct 4, 2024 15:16:35 GMT
I wonder what the consequences would be if the press ignored the embargo and published on Sunday anyway? It’s not for the management company to manage expectations by interrupting the news cycle because they suspect their product not being favourable? Spiderman reviewers did this on Broadway, after another aborted opening night, the critics lost patience and went ahead anyway. But Juno has A superstar producer? There would be no legal ramifications as the production is now deemed open and charging full price so a critic could argue it's in the publics interest to have a balanced critical opinion. They would however, incur the rath of Sonia Friedman and might be blacklisted from future press nights! |
|
|
|
Post by nottobe on Oct 4, 2024 16:48:19 GMT
First and foremost I have not seen this yet, however looking at the post on the plays social media of the bows last night it is possibly quite telling that no one at all is stood up. Say what you want about standing ovations but I think we can all agree that it seems at most shows people always stand up, especially on a press night no matter the play. I look forward to the reviews...
|
|
41 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by jake on Oct 4, 2024 17:12:46 GMT
First and foremost I have not seen this yet, however looking at the post on the plays social media of the bows last night it is possibly quite telling that no one at all is stood up. Say what you want about standing ovations but I think we can all agree that it seems at most shows people always stand up, especially on a press night no matter the play. I look forward to the reviews... By coincidence, a friend asked me about audience response - specifically standing. I'm not sure it means that much (and, of course, I was at an early preview, not the first night) because I think that kind of thing depends more on the composition of the audience than the quality of the performance; but I had to reply that, if I could have been bothered, I could easily have counted the number of people who stood up. And the three just in front of us who stood to applaud quickly sat down again when they realised nobody was joining them. I also noted the complete absence of whistling and whooping (which, speaking for myself, is a thing whose absence I find quite welcome in any circumstances!). |
|
|
|
Post by kate8 on Oct 4, 2024 17:33:41 GMT
I saw it earlier in the week. My first time seeing this play, so I didn’t know what to expect.
I agree with those saying that Rylance‘s approach to the play doesn’t seem to match that of the rest of the cast. I didn’t know what to make of it - wasn’t sure if it was meant to be a Brechtian-type thing, constantly taking us outside the play and our emotional responses to it…but if that was the intention, why the mix of styles? I ended up feeling bored and irritated - such an unlikeable character, but acted in a way that sabotaged the other characters, so it was hard to care about them or their situation.
So I’ve gone with 2 stars, but also happy to hear if it was me missing something, not understanding the play. I was checking for reviews earlier and am surprised to hear about the embargo. What is that going to achieve?
There was a standing ovation from around half the people I could see, but not sure that says much, as at least three people I could see on their feet had slept through large parts of the play!
|
|
4,968 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 4, 2024 17:36:17 GMT
I wonder what the consequences would be if the press ignored the embargo and published on Sunday anyway? It’s not for the management company to manage expectations by interrupting the news cycle because they suspect their product not being favourable? Spiderman reviewers did this on Broadway, after another aborted opening night, the critics lost patience and went ahead anyway. But Juno has A superstar producer? There would be no legal ramifications as the production is now deemed open and charging full price so a critic could argue it's in the publics interest to have a balanced critical opinion. They would however, incur the rath of Sonia Friedman and might be blacklisted from future press nights! Thanks. I know it isn’t legally binding. However the original embargo should be respected, a new embargo shouldn’t be respected, unless a genuinely good reason, such as cast illness, even if it does risk the wrath of Sonia Freedman. Changing the embargo isn’t there to cover for artistic failure. |
|
167 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Oct 4, 2024 17:44:38 GMT
I saw it earlier in the week. My first time seeing this play, so I didn’t know what to expect. I agree with those saying that Rylance‘s approach to the play doesn’t seem to match that of the rest of the cast. I didn’t know what to make of it - wasn’t sure if it was meant to be a Brechtian-type thing, constantly taking us outside the play and our emotional responses to it…but if that was the intention, why the mix of styles? I ended up feeling bored and irritated - such an unlikeable character, but acted in a way that sabotaged the other characters, so it was hard to care about them or their situation. So I’ve gone with 2 stars, but also happy to hear if it was me missing something, not understanding the play. I was checking for reviews earlier and am surprised to hear about the embargo. What is that going to achieve? There was a standing ovation from around half the people I could see, but not sure that says much, as at least three people I could see on their feet had slept through large parts of the play! Yes I agree completely with this assessment. Tonally the production is all over the place because of Rylance, mugging, winking at the audience and generally breaking the fourth wall. I've liked him in previous productions but he ruins this. In Act One he has several moments of physical comedy that really don't work - they feel totally inauthentic, mere shtick that isn't rooted in any kind of reality. Then in Act Two, Anna Healy comes on as Mrs Madigan and instantly provokes genuine laughter because she feels like a genuine, human being. The contrast between the two performances is profound. I felt for the rest of the company having to share the stage with Rylance's show boating. Poor J Smith Cameron looks pretty fed up. |
|
|
|
Post by parsley1 on Oct 4, 2024 18:03:37 GMT
|
|
77 posts
|
Post by avfan on Oct 4, 2024 20:30:58 GMT
First and foremost I have not seen this yet, however looking at the post on the plays social media of the bows last night it is possibly quite telling that no one at all is stood up. Say what you want about standing ovations but I think we can all agree that it seems at most shows people always stand up, especially on a press night no matter the play. I look forward to the reviews... By coincidence, a friend asked me about audience response - specifically standing. I'm not sure it means that much (and, of course, I was at an early preview, not the first night) because I think that kind of thing depends more on the composition of the audience than the quality of the performance; but I had to reply that, if I could have been bothered, I could easily have counted the number of people who stood up. And the three just in front of us who stood to applaud quickly sat down again when they realised nobody was joining them. I also noted the complete absence of whistling and whooping (which, speaking for myself, is a thing whose absence I find quite welcome in any circumstances!). it didn’t get a full standing ovation last night at press night which is generally always a guarantee. Even Fawlty Terrible Towers got a full standing ovation at press night. |
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Oct 5, 2024 2:13:40 GMT
I saw it earlier in the week. My first time seeing this play, so I didn’t know what to expect. I agree with those saying that Rylance‘s approach to the play doesn’t seem to match that of the rest of the cast. I didn’t know what to make of it - wasn’t sure if it was meant to be a Brechtian-type thing, constantly taking us outside the play and our emotional responses to it…but if that was the intention, why the mix of styles? I ended up feeling bored and irritated - such an unlikeable character, but acted in a way that sabotaged the other characters, so it was hard to care about them or their situation. So I’ve gone with 2 stars, but also happy to hear if it was me missing something, not understanding the play. I was checking for reviews earlier and am surprised to hear about the embargo. What is that going to achieve? There was a standing ovation from around half the people I could see, but not sure that says much, as at least three people I could see on their feet had slept through large parts of the play! Yes I agree completely with this assessment. Tonally the production is all over the place because of Rylance, mugging, winking at the audience and generally breaking the fourth wall. I've liked him in previous productions but he ruins this. In Act One he has several moments of physical comedy that really don't work - they feel totally inauthentic, mere shtick that isn't rooted in any kind of reality. Then in Act Two, Anna Healy comes on as Mrs Madigan and instantly provokes genuine laughter because she feels like a genuine, human being. The contrast between the two performances is profound. I felt for the rest of the company having to share the stage with Rylance's show boating. Poor J Smith Cameron looks pretty fed up. |
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Oct 5, 2024 2:20:55 GMT
Such a pity having being passed over for Maisie in Druid/O'Casey last year (despite being in the ensemble), Anna Healy now gets to play her in an inferior production. Her chance will surely come again in Ireland. Her career has been stellar in the last few years after an incandescent turn as Maggie May in Marina Carr's Portia Coughlan at the Abbey. She really is a national treasure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Oct 5, 2024 10:44:49 GMT
Yes I agree completely with this assessment. Tonally the production is all over the place because of Rylance, mugging, winking at the audience and generally breaking the fourth wall. I've liked him in previous productions but he ruins this. In Act One he has several moments of physical comedy that really don't work - they feel totally inauthentic, mere shtick that isn't rooted in any kind of reality. Then in Act Two, Anna Healy comes on as Mrs Madigan and instantly provokes genuine laughter because she feels like a genuine, human being. The contrast between the two performances is profound. I felt for the rest of the company having to share the stage with Rylance's show boating. Poor J Smith Cameron looks pretty fed up. What they said. Whilst I enjoyed the later parts, Mrs Snow (who enjoyed the first act) and I came away from our first exposure to the piece, wondering why it's so often revived that it enjoys classic status. Not a good thought. {Spoiler - click to view. 2 Questions about this production.}
Wondering if his accidental shooting of his friend at the end, is in the script? It wasn't in the precis I read after.
Are the daughters political feeleings e.g. the trade unionism, only ever clear in Act 1? |
|
|
|
Post by compoundpasta on Oct 5, 2024 10:55:32 GMT
Have to say, with no previous knowledge of this play, I absolutely loved it.
I think Mark Rylances performance (which will definitely be polarizing) was brilliant- it provided some lightness, but in the sense of we are laughing at the character and how much of a loser he is. He is definitely a character who is living in his own world, and for that I think the performance works.
Juno and the supporting cast were all brilliant, and I think the tragedy of the end hit really well.
5/5 from me
|
|
|
|
Post by nancycunard on Oct 5, 2024 16:13:18 GMT
I enjoyed this but think, as above, that my lack of familiarity with the text helped. My dad had studied it for O Level (as it was) and was nonplussed about this interpretation of it, although he did find Rylance amusing. J Smith-Cameron really struggled with the accent in the first act but settled into it and was a highlight in the final third.
I can really see why people are struggling with it because the tonal shift is radical, and if I was living in comparison to a previous production I think I, too, would find that jarring. There was someone outside afterwards giving out paper with a QR code on to link to a review on Monday, so I assume at least one pan is in the offing.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Oct 5, 2024 16:59:04 GMT
This was most excellent at today’s matinee. 4 ½, at least. Not having seen Seán O'Casey’s work before, this tragedy-comedy belongs on the same shelf as the best of Brian Friel, and I can’t offer much higher praise than that. It’s a piece about a very particular moment in Irish history. For a second cultural reference, events take place around the same period as The Banshees of Inisherin (though, geographically, a long way distant). We observe issues around a newly independent country wrestling for its way forward. If you aren't familiar with events it could make this harder to appreciate. On a human level, similarities might be seen in the corresponding roles of the men and women; some men are drink-sodden, idling fools while women mostly struggle with the twin tyrannies of their men and the Catholic Church - during the Irish Civil War. Matthew Warchus and Mark Rylance clearly chose a new path for Act 1, which is now played in an almost vaudeville fashion. Audiences will have ther own views on Act 1. Fwiw, I'm mostly grateful they chose radically, which I think is also a compliment to O'Casey. Perhaps the idea was to note, on this centenary anniversary, that at the time of the depicted events, 'the talkies' were just starting out and this form of theatre was what the masses went to see: contrast and compare
I liked this so much. It felt like an explanation of that moment from the pov of a poverty-stricken family, so folks 100-years later know how it was. In fact, the woman sitting next to me studied this play at the Irish equivalent of A Level, which sounds about right to me. |
|
|
|
Post by max on Oct 5, 2024 17:23:46 GMT
What they said. Whilst I enjoyed the later parts, Mrs Snow (who enjoyed the first act) and I came away from our first exposure to the piece, wondering why it's so often revived that it enjoys classic status. Not a good thought. {Spoiler - click to view. 2 Questions about this production.}
Wondering if his accidental shooting of his friend at the end, is in the script? It wasn't in the precis I read after.
Are the daughters political feeleings e.g. the trade unionism, only ever clear in Act 1? Answer to Mrs Snow's questions hidden in spoiler: {Spoiler - click to view}
There's no accidental shooting in the play, so I'm guessing you're referring to Boyle and Joxer? If so: No, in the script Captain Boyle absolutely does not shoot his friend Joxer! Wow - not sure if I'm glad I read your spoiler or not.
I think Mary's interest in Trade Unionism is only mentioned in any detail in Act 1 when her boyfriend is Jerry Devine. I don't think her values necessarily change when she is later with Charles Bentham: though perhaps his professional status suggests Mary's 'moving up in the world' and losing touch with her working roots. O'Casey may be showing that; particularly as Bentham has another floaty side to him: interest in spiritualism and the mystic. |
|
|
|
Post by johnjohotspur on Oct 5, 2024 20:42:18 GMT
Having read some of the comments here, I had some reservations about what to expect at today’s matinee. It was brilliant - true to the spirit of the play. All the comedy is in the text and the tragic finale was played out very sensitively. The performances across the board were exceptional. Saw Judi Dench superb as Juno in ‘80s, J Smith-Cameron perfectly pitched in the role today. Strongly recommend this production.
|
|
5,794 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Oct 5, 2024 21:03:54 GMT
Are these last few posters Mark Rylance or something?
|
|
2 posts
|
Post by romoladesloups on Oct 5, 2024 21:38:13 GMT
I saw this today and thought it was excellent. The tonal shift came directly from the characters and the situation. You do have to mentally leave behind the play as written and previous productions and approach it as a separate entity but I tend to do that with everything anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by lookingatthestars on Oct 5, 2024 21:43:44 GMT
Are these last few posters Mark Rylance or something? I was reading this at the back of a quiet auditorium and lol'd out loud. Thanks for the light relief from a boring show! |
|
|
|
Post by adamkinsey on Oct 6, 2024 7:40:57 GMT
I saw this today and thought it was excellent. The tonal shift came directly from the characters and the situation. You do have to mentally leave behind the play as written and previous productions and approach it as a separate entity but I tend to do that with everything anyway. Mentally leave behind the play as written?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by lt on Oct 6, 2024 7:53:49 GMT
Are these last few posters Mark Rylance or something? I was reading this at the back of a quiet auditorium and lol'd out loud. Thanks for the light relief from a boring show! I'd love to know in the history of TB if this has ever happened if the voting has been influenced! |
|
|
|
Post by aileenpmcl on Oct 6, 2024 8:50:56 GMT
Sorry to say it did not strike the right tone for me. The whole of the first half was played for laughs. O'Casey does employ humour but not like this.
I just did not feel the poverty and the slum conditions of the Dublin tenements. Characters were reduced to Irish stereotypes - yes Jack Boyle avoids work and is a drinker but it is a bit more complex than that and not a joke. Here the Irish are portrayed as feckless drunks, mindless terrorists or nagging wives. I thought it was lazy.
|
|
3,528 posts
|
Post by Rory on Oct 6, 2024 9:17:21 GMT
Glad I'm giving this a miss.
|
|
|
|
Post by aileenpmcl on Oct 6, 2024 9:33:06 GMT
I saw this today and thought it was excellent. The tonal shift came directly from the characters and the situation. You do have to mentally leave behind the play as written and previous productions and approach it as a separate entity but I tend to do that with everything anyway. Mentally leave behind the play as written? ? If you ignore the original play and context then are you really putting on a production of Juno by O'Casey. Or are you using the fame of the play to show a crowd drawing, audience pleasing comedy? The latter imho. It is formulaic and I think it did not work |
|
|
|
Post by lookingatthestars on Oct 6, 2024 10:12:57 GMT
Sorry to say it did not strike the right tone for me. The whole of the first half was played for laughs. O'Casey does employ humour but not like this. I just did not feel the poverty and the slum conditions of the Dublin tenements. Characters were reduced to Irish stereotypes - yes Jack Boyle avoids work and is a drinker but it is a bit more complex than that and not a joke. Here the Irish are portrayed as feckless drunks, mindless terrorists or nagging wives. I thought it was lazy. Oh no, does Juno really come across as a nag? Then that is lazy. She's a fantastically strong woman, representing all the woman who married (perhaps not always for love), had children, lost children and kept the household in running order and by extention keep society running, all through adverse conditions; poverty, war, ill health - not to mention mental health. Juno makes descions at the end of the play which fly in the face of a strict catholic society. A great character. Might be difficult for J Smith Cameron to act realistically as a such a wife if she has a panto paycock to play against. I havent seen it, I'm just going on what others are saying about Rylance's portrayal. |
|
? 