4,977 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Oct 10, 2016 6:29:32 GMT
Anyone seen this yet ? What sort of a play is it ? (I haven't read the book).
|
|
1,280 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Oct 10, 2016 18:11:50 GMT
Some £15 Stalls tickets available now for a few dates in November!
|
|
2,048 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Oct 10, 2016 23:52:43 GMT
Thanks for the heads up, I had originally booked to see this next Saturday, but due to circumstances beyond my control I would not have been able to make it - with my credit I have now swapped a £60 ticket for a £15 one a few weeks later - thank you (again).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 0:35:27 GMT
2hrs, no interval?? yikes.
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Oct 11, 2016 1:23:32 GMT
What's the big deal with 2 hrs no interval??? Most Oscar candidate films are a lot longer than that and ALSO have no interval. Not worth comment.
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Oct 11, 2016 4:14:00 GMT
What's the big deal with 2 hrs no interval??? Most Oscar candidate films are a lot longer than that and ALSO have no interval. Not worth comment. Some people, including me, may find the trend towards interval-free productions, and their length, worthy of comment. It's certainly something of which I prefer to be aware before booking as I can't sit in one position for a prolonged period so in such a case I would either not go or book an aisle seat so as to be able to move a little. If you don't mind sitting next to someone mid-row who is trying to shift about as unobtrusively as possible, great, but I would rather avoid the risk of disturbing others. In some cases a lack of interval is defensible so as not to break the flow of the play but the longer the running time, the more I find it counter-productive as your attention can wander. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 5:54:13 GMT
Some £15 Stalls tickets available now for a few dates in November! Thanks for that, just had a look and there are still £15 stalls seats for December and January dates |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 7:48:41 GMT
What's the big deal with 2 hrs no interval??? Most Oscar candidate films are a lot longer than that and ALSO have no interval. Not worth comment. But in cinema there is less of a stigma leaving and returning for the bog. And u can shout at people that talk |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 8:58:55 GMT
Cinema seats are also generally more comfortable than theatre seats (probably owing to many cinemas being more recent builds than many theatres), but nonetheless I do heartily agree that if you can sit and watch a film for two hours with no interval, then you can sit and watch a play for two hours with no interval (understanding of course that some people aren't physically able to do either and I apologise if it sounds like I'm assuming everybody can). Hell, I've seen some plays with intervals where a single act was two hours. And considering this is a Robert Icke show, we should be impressed that he's not dragged it out to four hours with an interval. Two hours no interval is impressively brief for him!  |
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Oct 11, 2016 9:20:42 GMT
RSC Lear is 2 hours until interval....
|
|
378 posts
|
Post by Ade on Oct 11, 2016 10:40:47 GMT
Bladder issues aside, has anyone seen this yet?
|
|
77 posts
|
Post by adolphus on Oct 11, 2016 12:35:41 GMT
Well I heard a few people muttering that this was boring, but its one of the most chilling, devastating plays I've seen over the last few years. The staging is problematic - the play is presented cinematically so that the much of the stage is often screened off to emphasise particular pieces of action, but such "close-ups" simply don't work if you are on the wrong side of the auditorium or at the back. Sometimes though it works to spectacular effect - the long shot, widescreen blizzard shot at the start is superb.
Hare has absolutely nailed Simenon who was less concerned about the actual crime (which here as in much of his work is low-key and off-stage)than in surgically and mercilessly unpicking the psyche of his protagonists. Strong is as good as you would expect, but Debicki and Davis more than match him (if they didn't, this play would fail.)No political ranting from Hare here but instead a subtle and sympathetic exploration of the devastation wreaked on US Waspville by the late 60s counterculture
|
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 11, 2016 12:42:28 GMT
Adolphus you make this sound quite good. Let's be optimistic then. But 2 hours without a break is right at the limit for me. I don't go to the cinema, prefer to see a film at home ( after everyone else) because sitting that long ain't good for me.
|
|
77 posts
|
Post by adolphus on Oct 11, 2016 13:02:58 GMT
I don't think an interval here would have spoiled the play at all. Its by no means a fast moving, action packed thriller, but rather a subtle, Pinteresque depiction of meltdown. A chance to process what you've been watching on your way to the loo would in fact have been welcomed.
I think this is going to divide audiences, particularly the staging, but I loved it
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 13:29:36 GMT
I find the structure of a play should be borne in mind when deciding to put in an interval. Sometimes they're written in a traditional two-act structure with a clear hook in the middle, so it would be weird to not have an interval here. But sometimes they're written in a more cinematic three-act structure without being particularly over-long, where shoehorning an interval in would really kill the momentum. So I reckon it really is a case-by-case basis, and there aren't that many plays that don't fit in one of these basic structures (apart from all the really old ones with five acts and the really long ones with two intervals). |
|
781 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Oct 11, 2016 13:34:16 GMT
Well I heard a few people muttering that this was boring, but its one of the most chilling, devastating plays I've seen over the last few years. The staging is problematic - the play is presented cinematically so that the much of the stage is often screened off to emphasise particular pieces of action, but such "close-ups" simply don't work if you are on the wrong side of the auditorium or at the back. Sometimes though it works to spectacular effect - the long shot, widescreen blizzard shot at the start is superb. Hare has absolutely nailed Simenon who was less concerned about the actual crime (which here as in much of his work is low-key and off-stage)than in surgically and mercilessly unpicking the psyche of his protagonists. Strong is as good as you would expect, but Debicki and Davis more than match him (if they didn't, this play would fail.)No political ranting from Hare here but instead a subtle and sympathetic exploration of the devastation wreaked on US Waspville by the late 60s counterculture Thanks for you review, personally much looking forward to this! And I like straight-through productions. I tend to just wander around in the intervals waiting for it to end... And what is the "right" part of the auditorium to be in please? I'm in front rows anyway )
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 12, 2016 23:36:55 GMT
Oh dear. It looks very impressive, but the play itself and especially the script is bad. We found it very hard to care about Mark Strong's character, and in order for the play to succeed you sorta have to care about him. It starts and ends with a bang, but the middle sort of plods along, via a million scene changes during which black screens come in and you sit in the dark hearing sound design or character's phone conversations. Strong is very good, and yet also miscast. Debicki is very good and strikingly beautiful. Hope Davies has the most intriguing character, but little is done with her. It tried to tread the fine line between stock thriller and intelligent thriller, but ends up in neither. The end bright gasps from some and actual laughter from others. Certainly not Uncle Vanya levels of detailed characterisation here, but then they haven't got the material here at all. Enjoy the view, because the play itself gives very little over its 2hrs to reward the viewers. A very expensive looking miss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2016 23:37:24 GMT
Please note that due to the tense nature of the play there will be no re-admittance
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 20:42:32 GMT
Oh god
It's so sh*t
What pisses me off
Is that it's not a thriller
Nor a psychological drama
Not thrilling or exciting or startling
An episode of Murder She Wrote is more complex
It's SO boring
There is zero tension
And actually nothing happens in 2 hours
The stage design is clumsy and noisy
And the whole thing is like the rejects from the offcuts from an episode of Mad Men
Really really disappointing as it has been advertised as mysterious
And worthless compared to Shopping and f***ing and Oil which I saw this week
Also one of the actresses has a severe case of "needs a bloody good meal" going on
Not nice to see
People will be stupidly paying WE prices to see this awful play and much of the dialogue is just entirely unbelievable
Stunted sentences and huge pauses
I cannot find anything to recommend this
The acting is sh*te too
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 14, 2016 23:53:49 GMT
Oh god It's so sh*t What pisses me off Is that it's not a thriller Nor a psychological drama Not thrilling or exciting or startling An episode of Murder She Wrote is more complex It's SO boring There is zero tension And actually nothing happens in 2 hours The stage design is clumsy and noisy And the whole thing is like the rejects from the offcuts from an episode of Mad Men Really really disappointing as it has been advertised as mysterious And worthless compared to Shopping and f***ing and Oil which I saw this week Also one of the actresses has a severe case of "needs a bloody good meal" going on Not nice to see People will be stupidly paying WE prices to see this awful play and much of the dialogue is just entirely unbelievable Stunted sentences and huge pauses I cannot find anything to recommend this The acting is sh*te too As I put in my review above, glad it wasn't just us then. Did you see this: www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/what-to-see/most-theatre-is-boring--i-just-walk-out-says-director-robert-ick/It sort of beggars belief. Normally he at least provides intervals (to leave). |
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Oct 15, 2016 3:37:32 GMT
Oh god It's so sh*t What pisses me off Is that it's not a thriller Nor a psychological drama Not thrilling or exciting or startling An episode of Murder She Wrote is more complex It's SO boring There is zero tension And actually nothing happens in 2 hours The stage design is clumsy and noisy And the whole thing is like the rejects from the offcuts from an episode of Mad Men Really really disappointing as it has been advertised as mysterious And worthless compared to Shopping and f***ing and Oil which I saw this week Also one of the actresses has a severe case of "needs a bloody good meal" going on Not nice to see People will be stupidly paying WE prices to see this awful play and much of the dialogue is just entirely unbelievable Stunted sentences and huge pauses I cannot find anything to recommend this The acting is sh*te too As I put in my review above, glad it wasn't just us then. Did you see this: www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/what-to-see/most-theatre-is-boring--i-just-walk-out-says-director-robert-ick/It sort of beggars belief. Normally he at least provides intervals (to leave). It's obvious now - Robert Icke is Parsley! |
|
91 posts
|
Post by gazzaw13 on Oct 15, 2016 9:25:25 GMT
I can't understand the negative comments above. I thought this was excellent, easily the best National production under Rufus. It's stylish, tense, hugely cinematic with great performances. As added bonuses we have a lift on stage and Liz Debicki gets her kit off....what's not to like? This was David Hare channeling Arthur Miller and American Beauty, with many parallels between Mark Strong's character and Lester Burman. Amazing staging, brilliant performances and thought provoking story. Highly recommended
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 9:33:29 GMT
I can't understand the negative comments above. I thought this was excellent, easily the best National production under Rufus. It's stylish, tense, hugely cinematic with great performances. As added bonuses we have a lift on stage and Liz Debicki gets her kit off....what's not to like? This was David Hare channeling Arthur Miller and American Beauty, with many parallels between Mark Strong's character and Lester Burman. Amazing staging, brilliant performances and thought provoking story. Highly recommended Her skeletal body was not a pleasant sight And cinematic is best left for the cinema Where they have the proper budget for it If a film was like watching a play it would NOT be a good thing No need for stage shows to try and do things outside their remit badly |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 9:38:48 GMT
T.E.O.R.E.M.A.T./ Barbican Centre, London
The above was a properly cinematic staging in 2010
Breathtaking in its scope
Although I doubt may here will have seen it
The NT lacks the sort of ambition needed to pull off something truly different
They are constrained by their somewhat stunted core audience and inbred artistic policy
Comments from a "typical" older NT couple last night
Who were in middle of row B and could be hear whispering like idiots all the way through
"Oh there aren't many people in the cast"
"She's incredibly attractive that naked woman"
"I hope I don't get scared the music is very scary already"
"David Hare didn't write it he just amended it"
"There isn't anyone very well know in it, is there?"
Is it any wonder that what we then get on stage is so crappy most of the time?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 15:06:15 GMT
How blessed are we that the NT's "stunted core audience" includes Parsley, selflessly attending a preview of each and every NT show and pronouncing here on their merits.
|
|
