|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 14:10:51 GMT
Of course the critics are allowed their own opinions, but they're the ones that are going to go on record in the future for people looking back to study these productions, they should be holding themselves to a higher standard. Billington's apparent not-getting-it would be able to be examined in context with the other reviews and any archive recording, but Cavendish's "Elsi-snore" and Treneman's "just don't care" are going to be significantly less helpful in the long run. If I wanted pithy snootiness and apathy towards a play, I could come here and read everyone's opinions for free for heaven's sake. As someone who uses reviews in research, Baemax puts it really well- reviews are useful for looking at past productions, placing them in context of their reception etc etc, but only when like Billington's writing- even when I don't agree with his reviews, reasoned analysis can be found. So even when he doesn't seem to get it, we can place it alongside similar critics and try and reason out a response to the production. All to say, if a critic gives us some 'meat' their review is useful to see/read/preserve just for a wider picture of a production. If it's just 'meh I didn't like it' well as said above we may as well read our opinions here or on twitter.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 2, 2017 17:08:41 GMT
I wonder actually whether the ending is still evolving night to night at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised; it didn't seem quite right to me. Does what I said about it seem familiar to others who've already seen it? (please use spoiler brackets) Artsjournal.com had a good review on the watches - I have to say I didn't really pick up on that aspect. I'm female, from an unconventional family, so the 'loving father giving gift of watch to son' tradition - if it is - wasn't something that ever featured in our lives!
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 2, 2017 17:33:33 GMT
Thanks crowblack, that WAS interesting. He doesn't mention Hamlet trying to hand in his watch and discovering he doesn't have it. Luckily I'm seeing it again, so perhaps that will be clearer.
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 4, 2017 23:39:05 GMT
I'm with Alexandra on this one. A brilliant Hamlet, a production that sets out the store for a Hamlet of today. Yes, the modern dress, yes, video gizmos used to great effect here, wow the close up on Claudius, and some stuff I don't think I've ever seen before in any production ( she rushes to the text to try to find lines she has not heard before...) but not just all that. There was something new and fresh here, a theatricality I really loved. I've always thought that the speeches of instruction to the actors are Shakespeare's real voice but in this prod we are drawn into the action even more, invited in and shown ourselves.
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 4, 2017 23:41:04 GMT
Ps why the problem with the watches? You don't need one when you are dead and we know how long a body takes to rot because the grave digger tells us. Time out of joint..
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 4, 2017 23:46:40 GMT
Pps aha! The alternative scene to Act 4 Sc 6 is in this prod, the one where Horatio tells Gertrude Hamlet is back. In Q1 but I've not seen it before. Made good sense here.
|
|
|
Post by tlt on Mar 5, 2017 0:41:40 GMT
Ps why the problem with the watches? You don't need one when you are dead and we know how long a body takes to rot because the grave digger tells us. Time out of joint.. My take on it was that by the end it became a video editor's Hamlet which fits with the camera work and video technology - Marcellus seemed like the hired hand for that! So the watch, as well as highlighting the rivalry between Laertes and Hamlet where both have lost, feels like a deliberate continuity gaffe as Hamlet enters the court's wedding party Valhalla. Which itself is like a rewind to the beginning. This also makes sense of the problematic Hamlet/Claudius scene, it seems to me. Of course this could just be me soliloquizing and if anyone has a better theory, I'd love to know it! trafficlighttheatregoer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/review-hamlet.html?m=1
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 5, 2017 12:23:37 GMT
Interesting. Is the problematic Claudius /Hamlet scene the one where C is praying and H could kill him? If so I was intrigued by this. But of course Shakespeare challenges us anyway by having them so close that H could kill him with a sword or dagger. I think this director just ..just...took it further. They are perhaps in a very very out there fashion together but not in the same plane . A bit sci fi. Makes our Willie way ahead of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 14:26:08 GMT
Poor Billington in particular seemed flummoxed by the Hamlet/Claudius scene (Clapp, as his Sunday sibling giving it five stars today, by the way). They are both in the same space physically and not in the same space physically (same with mentally), a deliberate ambiguity so that different possibilities exist. Some critics cope badly with that sort of thing, I took at as being akin to F Scott Fitzgerald's dictum of being able to hold two opposing ideas at the same time and still being able to function (be or not be, as it were).
|
|
|
Post by tlt on Mar 5, 2017 18:46:58 GMT
Poor Billington in particular seemed flummoxed by the Hamlet/Claudius scene (Clapp, as his Sunday sibling giving it five stars today, by the way). They are both in the same space physically and not in the same space physically (same with mentally), a deliberate ambiguity so that different possibilities exist. Some critics cope badly with that sort of thing, I took at as being akin to F Scott Fitzgerald's dictum of being able to hold two opposing ideas at the same time and still being able to function (be or not be, as it were). Well, I feel Michael Billington's comment about the Young Vic's A Midsummer Night's Dream is apt about this version of Hamlet as well - it was worth doing but you wouldn't want it done every time. I still think video editing makes sense of the Claudio/Hamlet encounter. Although for me too, the Claudius/Hamlet scene could equally be Hamlet's mental state of course. Hi, Yes, that's it. Oor Willie was ahead of the game in so many things. I agree totally about the scifi, especially at the end. I nearly put that exact thing in my review! Especially with the end news reel with a photo of the Crown Prince Hamlet, it felt as if there had been a twilight zone coup with everyone trapped in a video rewind!!
|
|
95 posts
|
Post by herculesmulligan on Mar 6, 2017 17:08:53 GMT
Well this was long wasn't it. Fantastic though. Sat in Stalls E25 / E26 which are restricted view officially but the restriction is almost non-existant. Incredible value. Also the chairs were very comfy.
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 6, 2017 18:51:13 GMT
Yes forgot to mention the seats are now comfy. Hence a long Hamlet. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by lolli on Mar 7, 2017 10:44:22 GMT
One good ticket for 6th April now available on the website
|
|
152 posts
|
Post by alnoor on Mar 7, 2017 17:23:32 GMT
One circle ticket for 11 March on website
|
|
2,848 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 7, 2017 18:31:20 GMT
I just had to return a ticket for tomorrow's matinee if you're looking for one
|
|
167 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 7, 2017 23:28:51 GMT
I enjoyed this a lot, principally down to the brilliant Andrew Scott, who is never anything less than fascinating to watch. And I liked the ending: I found it rather touching.
Juliet Stevenson was good and Peter Wight's Polonius was delightful, but ye Gods Angus Wright is a dull actor. His entire performance is a mumbly monotone where he just sounds like he's reciting lines without investing any meaning in them: save for a couple of times when he gets angry. Elliot Barnes-Worral as Horatio was another weak performance in a generally very strong cast: although a bit more volume from some of them would have helped. I was in Row F of the Stalls and struggled to hear some of the lines: God knows how the back of the Circle managed.
(On a baser note, Luke Thompson makes a very sexy Laertes too - and he has lovely calves!)
Main thing though was that I wasn't bored. And at 4 hours that's no small achievement - principally due to Scott, I have to say. He elevates a 3 star production to 4 or 5 stars, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 14:28:18 GMT
It was a real privelege to attend this Hamlet. So well staged for this theatre, with the audience a part of the production. The text spoken in such a way that it sounds completely understandable and never archaic or impossibly dense, but also not updated or modernised, although odd words and lines have been refreshed for comprehensibility and coherence. Everything seems so well considered that it doesn't matter that you can't take proper notice of everything - for example, the music mostly passed me by. The gestures and movement contribute a significant layer to the experience, but you won't feel confused if you don't follow that aspect. No movement director credited, so I assume that Robert Icke does this without any assistance? The direction and design are incredibly mature, miles away from the old tradition of setting a play in a specific place and time and bashing a round peg into a square hole, but instead creating a bespoke world to clearly present the play. This was the first time I've seen a Robert Icke classic play so I wasn't distracted by building a mental theory of how he works and could instead just throw myself cold into this production and get from it as much as I could. It is amazing!
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 9, 2017 15:22:16 GMT
If you loved this HG you'd also have loved his Oresteia. Never mind. I missed Summerfolk.
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by dave72 on Mar 9, 2017 15:48:27 GMT
Still no notice of a transfer?!
|
|
181 posts
|
Post by caa on Mar 9, 2017 19:03:40 GMT
If you loved this HG you'd also have loved his Oresteia. If it's even half as good as Oresteia, then thank goodness I'm booked . Thanks alexandra1. I'd say its better than the Oresteia
|
|
196 posts
|
Post by rockinrobin on Mar 9, 2017 20:16:14 GMT
If you loved this HG you'd also have loved his Oresteia. If it's even half as good as Oresteia, then thank goodness I'm booked . Thanks alexandra1. It is as good as Oresteia (which I loved). Even better perhaps. You will probably find these two productions slightly similar, when it comes to stage design for example... But Scott's performance really is a tour de force.
|
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Mar 10, 2017 0:32:21 GMT
Any idea how busy the day seat queue is? I didn't succeed in getting a ticket so was thinking of coming over from Ireland on spec in April if there's no transfer. Are any particular days (like Monday / Tuesday) quieter?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 1:18:07 GMT
I really liked the last 1/3 Excellent
And Ophelias demise is one of the best ever portrayed I have seen
Almost like a different director was involved
However there are 3 hours prior to this which are average at best
And overall it is underpowered
Flashes of brilliance
But too long
And Angus wright was a f***ing disgrace
Monotone robot
Totally miscast and ruined it for me
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 6:14:05 GMT
Any idea how busy the day seat queue is? I didn't succeed in getting a ticket so was thinking of coming over from Ireland on spec in April if there's no transfer. Are any particular days (like Monday / Tuesday) quieter? I saw a reference on twitter to people queuing from 5:30 AM. Returned single tickets pop up quite often - I picked up one for the week after next after regularly checking the website. This link should show any performances with available tickets - ticketing.almeida.co.uk/single/PSDetail.aspx?psn=190
|
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Mar 10, 2017 7:50:26 GMT
Any idea how busy the day seat queue is? I didn't succeed in getting a ticket so was thinking of coming over from Ireland on spec in April if there's no transfer. Are any particular days (like Monday / Tuesday) quieter? I walk past the theatre most mornings. There were 11 on Tues at about 9.30, at 8.30 Weds 5 and 8.30 Thu 6.
|
|