1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 23, 2017 20:21:27 GMT
There isn't a rail? The wall is fairly high, but I think you will be OK. BTW, mallardo, on the strength of your review, I've booked for this - can't get there until June, but still... I've shelled out £15 on a front row seat, so...
I'm pretty sure it's for you, TM, but in case it's not I think I might be out of the country in June.
|
|
2,050 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Marwood on Feb 23, 2017 23:57:34 GMT
Doris be damned, I left work early and got into Waterloo with plenty of time to spare - I was rather impressed with this, I was sat in the centre of the front row and had an excellent view of proceedings (when Little and Fleetwood go 'up on the roof' to watch the space shuttle take off, they were only a couple of feet away directly in front of me, a bit of splashing going on when Little opened his Pabst but nothing landed on me)
I thought the whole cast were good, and enjoyed the scenes between Little and Fleetwood the most, but Kate Fleetwood is indeed excellent in this, if you do try and book to see this, I recommend you get as close to the stage as possible to see the excellent make-up used for her to play the part. Not a masterpiece, but it's the best thing I've seen at the NT in a long while.
|
|
378 posts
|
Post by Ade on Feb 25, 2017 12:27:12 GMT
Saw this last night. Have to say it didn't quite hit the spot for me. It was good, but not great. All the cast were very good and I thought the characters were nicely realised. But it was just too fragmented for my liking and seemed like it was jumping around too much. I agree with the above that it's at its best in the scenes between Fleetwood and Little, but even those scenes just felt like they ended before they really got going. Loved Devlin's designs for it and there are some nice transitions near the start - this is a really nice example of set design and projection coming together as one. If anyone is interested, I've popped full thoughts up on the blog: westendwanderer.com/2017/02/25/review-ugly-lies-the-bone-national-theatre-london/ |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 13:21:05 GMT
Saw this last night. Have to say it didn't quite hit the spot for me. It was good, but not great. All the cast were very good and I thought the characters were nicely realised. But it was just too fragmented for my liking and seemed like it was jumping around too much. I agree with the above that it's at its best in the scenes between Fleetwood and Little, but even those scenes just felt like they ended before they really got going. Loved Devlin's designs for it and there are some nice transitions near the start - this is a really nice example of set design and projection coming together as one. If anyone is interested, I've popped full thoughts up on the blog: westendwanderer.com/2017/02/25/review-ugly-lies-the-bone-national-theatre-london/Oh I LOVE your blog Nicely done and I like your style of writing 🤗🤗 |
|
378 posts
|
Post by Ade on Feb 25, 2017 13:41:52 GMT
Saw this last night. Have to say it didn't quite hit the spot for me. It was good, but not great. All the cast were very good and I thought the characters were nicely realised. But it was just too fragmented for my liking and seemed like it was jumping around too much. I agree with the above that it's at its best in the scenes between Fleetwood and Little, but even those scenes just felt like they ended before they really got going. Loved Devlin's designs for it and there are some nice transitions near the start - this is a really nice example of set design and projection coming together as one. If anyone is interested, I've popped full thoughts up on the blog: westendwanderer.com/2017/02/25/review-ugly-lies-the-bone-national-theatre-london/Oh I LOVE your blog Nicely done and I like your style of writing 🤗🤗 Cheers  |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Feb 25, 2017 21:44:12 GMT
Just out. As others have said the staging is quite something. Indeed it is worth noting that there are projections on the stage floor so being able to look down is an advantage.
Performances varied. Kate Fleetwood is good but I was not convinced by all her delivery. Ralf Little was good and Kris Marshall was Kris Marshall. However I did not like Olivia Darnley's performance - seemed artificial.
The play is an interesting concept but I did not get on with the writing. Some dialogue felt forced and not natural to me.
So overall it is worth seeing, but it has issues.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Feb 28, 2017 0:29:59 GMT
Have to side with Ade and bellboard27 in not liking this tonight. It started promisingly enough, with a different type of set from Es Devlin (looks a bit like the inside of an inverted Death Star with 3hours hindsight), and nice video projections on top of it.
But the play itself is weak. A balancing of niceties, and never any real drama or propulsion in making us the audience meet these characters, who seem to be suffering slightly at one minute, then laughing along with life the next. But neither at any extreme at any point. My friend and I both came out saying we didn't really care, which isn't a good sign, and not the expected outcome of an evening about a soldier returning from the wars with such horrific injuries.
Fleetwood acquits herself well, with obvious attention to detail, especially in the movement. But Ralph Little gives her little (oops) to work with, but then it's a fairly lukewarm and thankless part. Kris Marshall is fine, but plods along. And I have to agree with whomever said Olivia Darnley was bad. She shouted everything. Maybe she had been given a note about not being heard, but they're all mic'd up, as is the way these days at the NT, so why the bellowing? She is a good actress normally, but here, awful. Like something out of a 50's set American musical
Left wishing the writer had been braver and gone deeper and more truthful with her presentation of these people in this situation. As it is, it's almost a nice evening out, that bores its audience gradually over 90minutes. And you don't even need to see it for the set, as the production photos will do that for you. A shame.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Feb 28, 2017 22:20:36 GMT
I'll echo a lot of what's been said:
I didn't hate this play. It was an engaging enough evening at the theatre - I definitely wasn't bored. But it was pretty mediocre. The script had some nice moments but they were pretty drowned out by the play's glaring flaws. I thought the performances were all pretty middling. I didn't like the sister at all. But I think a lot of the blame goes to the director, not the actors. The problems with the acting were fairly consistent throughout the cast, which leads me to think that they were all just directed poorly. All the emotion was very broad and general, without any nuance to it. Kris Marshall was my favorite out of the 5, though I thought Fleetwood did a good job too.
Cool design and nice use of projections.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 22:37:32 GMT
Well. I don't know if it was the play or the insanely large glass of Merlot washed down with a Double Decker but I found myself tearing up at a few moments in this play. It looks great, it's a bit funny, it's a lot sentimental, there's some great special effects and you've got Kate Fleetwood galloping around the stage like the monster in 'Young Frankenstein' - what more could you want for 90 minutes of your time?
It's all very slight and there's not much meat on the bones but Kate Fleetwood is rather good in it (and this is coming from someone who Ms F has left pretty cold in the past) and she's supported well by the cast. I rather liked Kris Marshall and Olivia Darnley too. And as I said, I did find something in my eye on a couple of occasions.
I think it might have been the Merlot.
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 1, 2017 5:54:19 GMT
Well, I know you said it was a large glass, Ryan, so presumably you had some to spare, but I've never heard of anyone using it as eye wash before. Seriously, I am seeing this tonight (or however much I can stay awake for) and am really looking forward to making up my own mind, given the mixed reviews so far.
|
|
1,477 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 2, 2017 12:59:42 GMT
Saw it last night, at the same time as the press. Completely agree with everything Mallardo said, so will focus my thoughts instead more generally. Some spoilers follow. . . About ten minutes into the production, I thought this is a "the-sun-will-shine-tomorrow" (TSWST) play. Anyone who sees a bit of new writing in fringe venues will see a lot of TSWSTs. Writers of such plays avoid melodrama, fantasy, extremes and exaggeration of all types, so as not to appear forward or silly. Such plays consist of a modest character with an immodest problem who engages in small tangible real moments of empathy with other characters, after which, the play modestly concludes with the coda "the sun will shine tomorrow." This coda avoids the dreamy optimism that life's problems can be solved, as well as avoiding the equally large pitfall of excessive pessimism. I like these kinds of plays. They usually teach me something about something, and frequently the characters and situations are recognisable in my own life. However, with the passage of time, these are not the plays that I remember best. It is the writers who go somewhere unsafe, exaggerated, dreamy, insane, who risk being thought incredibly silly, that write the plays that sear into my memory. With respect to the soldier-home-from-the-war scenario touched on in this play, I think of Sean O'Casey's bitter "The Silver Tassie," which I saw on this same Lyttelton stage, which presented the returning soldier with the cynical and miserable message "absolutely nobody cares about you." No rays of sunshine for that poor fellow, and it upset me so much I won't ever forget it lol! Anyway, I just throw it out there without knowing the answer: are many of today's playwrights limiting their longevity by being too reasonable? I don't answer the question about whether this particular production turned out the way I expected, of course, as that would be too much of a spoiler. But what I will say is I do love Ralf Little. For some reason, unknown to me, he gets a bad rap. But in "The Nap," "Dead Funny" and this, he's been pitch perfect every time. In this, he's incredibly likeable, tentative, sensitive, as Kate Fleetwood's character's ex-boyfriend. Excellent. And like Mallardo said, Kate Fleetwood nails this part. She made me feel her physical pain by the way she appeared to not want her agonised flinching to be noticed. 4 stars  |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Mar 2, 2017 18:03:44 GMT
Your TSWST thing is fascinating, Steve. Would I be right, I wonder, in thinking that American playwrights of the current generation are particularly prone to this? Speech and Debate could fall into this category as would something like The Flick. American optimism per se seems to be a thing of the past - especially now - but the playwrights can't quite consign it to the graveyard so we have small optimism or TSWST. It's still rare to see an American play of recent vintage go the full pessimist route - not so rare for UK or European plays. Or am I way off base?
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 3, 2017 4:59:51 GMT
The TSWST theory is indeed fascinating; I too am now wondering about other plays to which it may apply. Shame though that it makes me think of that ghastly song from Annie!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 22:37:51 GMT
Thumbs down from me, I'm afraid. I only wish it had bored me gradually, nash16 - sadly I was bored from the off. So was the guy next to me, who kept looking at his watch.
I couldn't see that the play said anything new about people facing a challenge like Jess's. You're coping with constant pain. People change how they behave towards you. You ache for things to be how they used to be. Well, yes, but...all that's been said before. I was hoping for something new.
Also, it's not that funny. Jess is supposedly this tough, sarcastic character, but her line in repartee is closer to annoying, eye-rolling, sarky teen than anything that hints at it being armour against any deeper emotion. And I felt for Marshall and Little, who are hardly inexperienced at comedy but struggled to get much response from the audience until near the end of the play. Generally there were little pockets of laughter, but not exactly waves of it.
I did think the idea of VR being used to treat the wounded was fascinating, and I'd be interested in reading about the scientific fact behind the play. But those scenes were so fragmented I never really got a sense of Jess's journey, and frankly there were times I just wanted to shout to her: "If you don't punch irritating disembodied-voice-woman, I will!"
However, I do agree the make-up is very good and Fleetwood's almost-marionette movements convey her character's pain very well.
|
|
1,477 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 4, 2017 11:45:29 GMT
Your TSWST thing is fascinating, Steve. Would I be right, I wonder, in thinking that American playwrights of the current generation are particularly prone to this? Speech and Debate could fall into this category as would something like The Flick. American optimism per se seems to be a thing of the past - especially now - but the playwrights can't quite consign it to the graveyard so we have small optimism or TSWST. It's still rare to see an American play of recent vintage go the full pessimist route - not so rare for UK or European plays. Or am I way off base? Yes, I do suspect that recent American playwrights have been more likely to add an optimistic coda, as well as more likely to feature characters that are across-the-board empathetic. Even Neil LaBute, who I NEVER thought would write one of these plays, given how misanthropic he used to be, now seems to want to write a whole trilogy of TSWST plays. Well, we shall see, as the third part in the "Reasons" trilogy hasn't yet surfaced, but I'm predicting he stays "reasonable," that Tom Burke will star, and the title will be "Reasons to be Reasonable." I love Theatremonkey's way of putting it lol! |
|
2,848 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 4, 2017 17:15:55 GMT
If ever an actress deserved a solo bow it's Kate Fleetwood in this. Let's hope they arrange for her to get one. They did. I saw the matinee today and I wasn't impressed. I didn't think it was bad, I enjoyed watching it (despite of the very repetitive structure), but I felt it was aimless. Kate Fleetwood was good and so were the projections and make up, but the visual aspect of the play is better than the play itself. |
|
1,345 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Mar 4, 2017 17:28:45 GMT
Just come out of the matinee. I found it OK, nothing more. Underwhelmed by the Es Devlin design as I've now seen too many of her efforts and they are all very samey (the Royal Opera House seem to love her for some reason.)
I was put in a bit of a bad mood since I was seated in the middle of the front row stalls which are pretty narrow seats and the woman next to me had a MASSIVE arse - she was practically sat on my lap and the bloke next to me on th other side was a rugby type with a well developed posterior. A pretty uncomfortable 90 mins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 17:58:39 GMT
Just come out of the matinee. I found it OK, nothing more. Underwhelmed by the Es Devlin design as I've now seen too many of her efforts and they are all very samey (the Royal Opera House seem to love her for some reason.) I was put in a bit of a bad mood since I was seated in the middle of the front row stalls which are pretty narrow seats and the woman next to me had a MASSIVE arse - she was practically sat on my lap and the bloke next to me on th other side was a rugby type with a well developed posterior. A pretty uncomfortable 90 mins. If I had made that comment People would make a complaint As they would say you are mocking and being nasty to people Although I agree with you |
|
2,848 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 4, 2017 18:26:19 GMT
I was sitting behind you, that lady had a huge head that obstructed my view... but I'm quite petite, so I live at tall people's mercy
|
|
516 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Mar 12, 2017 10:06:45 GMT
Think I enjoyed this more than others. Perhaps a bit underwritten, maybe from the short scenes. Kate Fleetwood's performance is more than her makeup, and the play is more than its design. Really interesting.
|
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Mar 13, 2017 15:30:31 GMT
Going to see this tonight. Looking forward to it despite the lukewarm reception. Will report back!  |
|
516 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Mar 13, 2017 18:06:10 GMT
I thought there were some interesting bits about reality vs. illusion in the play, aspects which came together in Es Devlin's set nicely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 8:31:40 GMT
I'm catching the matinee of this today. Intrigued to see what I think. Probably one of the shows I'm going into not really knowing much about it.
|
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Mar 15, 2017 15:02:11 GMT
I liked this a lot. Great visuals, interesting story, loved the VR and the space programme background, the latter of which was particularly interesting, a fascinating landscape for the plot to play out in. Cast was great. Kate Fleetwood transforms herself, well and truly transcending the (impressive) makeup, to inhabit her character Jess entirely, and I particularly loved her scenes with Ralf Little - extremely painful, the scene on the roof made me shed a few tears. I thought Kris Marshall was very good too (and I like him a lot in other stuff (Death In Paradise is a fave TV show of mine ) so it was nice to see him in this), and Olivia Darnley was great as well. Wish the story meandered less though, or was long enough to fully flesh out each character and explore each plot line. It seemed really slow towards the end, and I thought it had finished on at least 3 separate occasions, and yet I still felt unfulfilled by a few of the story's threads. Overall I did really enjoy it though! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 12:10:59 GMT
Question 1. The National Theatre of Great Britain wishes to stage a relevant play addressing themes of post-traumatic damage and the societal effects of de-industrialisation on the immediate community. Should it:
(A) commission a writer to work on this project, with particular focus on the UK?
(B) do a UK premiere of a New York play about Florida?
Answer 1. (B) There is no need for the NT to be relevant to the UK, and it's so much cheaper and easier to just pick a text off the shelf, and anyway the NT loves the USA and really doesn't do enough American work - only about half of its output.
Question 2. The NT is currently preparing a very expensive, technically complex production of Angels in America for its Lyttelton stage. Should it:
(A) increase its ticket prices for Angels in America?
(B) run it in rep with a play with only five actors?
Answer 2. (B) So much money can be saved by employing only five actors, especially if one does it between shifts at The Bull, and Kate Fleetwood's performance is stupendous in every detail and Ralf Little's is mature, touching and complex so that should suffice.
Question 3. The Lyttelton has an enormous stage and is technically very well equipped. Should it prioritise the staging of:
(A) excellent plays?
(B) excellent scenic effects?
Answer 3. (B) The NT should be at the forefront of expensive design and production in the UK because no one else can afford to do this as the NT gets most of the funding. And it doesn't matter if the play is competent but nothing special, as long as it looks good.
|
|
