2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jul 5, 2017 9:45:46 GMT
Cancelled again tonight and tomorrow matinee, resuming tomorrow evening. What's the reason? Cast illness or have the wheels come off the desks? "Continuing indisposition of a company member". But they must know the company member is going to be unindisposed by tomorrow night. |
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Jul 5, 2017 9:49:04 GMT
What's the reason? Cast illness or have the wheels come off the desks? "Continuing indisposition of a company member". But they must know the company member is going to be unindisposed by tomorrow night. I'm guessing they are getting someone new in and they are learning the part today and tomorrow. That's what happened when I went to City of Angels and as Katherine Kelly was indisposed, Caroline Sheen stepped in. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 11:59:39 GMT
Cancelled again tonight and tomorrow matinee, resuming tomorrow evening. Just got the text that I won't be going to the matinee tomorrow. Boo. |
|
5,138 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Jul 5, 2017 13:15:18 GMT
Just a thought, but couldn't the 'real' people step in?
|
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jul 6, 2017 16:40:16 GMT
Not impressed by the Donmar over this. The text and email yesterday both said, "please be patient, we'll be in touch as the box office is contacting everyone". A day and a half later and they haven't been in touch. I've rebooked myself for tomorrow as there were good seats available, but given that only three performances in total were cancelled and the Donmar isn't that large, I can't quite see why it is taking them so long...
|
|
4,955 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jul 6, 2017 19:40:17 GMT
I know understudies are expensive but if the privatly funded Menier can have them then why not the publicly funded Donmar - after all the main priority is to produce works on stage each night
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 19:51:03 GMT
I know understudies are expensive but if the privatly funded Menier can have them then why not the publicly funded Donmar - after all the main priority is to produce works on stage each night A privately funded enterprise will have more freedom to spend as it wishes than an organisation in receipt of public funds. Not that it will necessarily have any impact on the hiring of understudies, but public funds all come with strings attached. |
|
71 posts
|
Post by samjane92 on Jul 6, 2017 21:02:10 GMT
Rebecca Lock seems to have been involved tonight according to her twitter, I wonder in what capacity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 21:43:01 GMT
Sandra Marvin is a force of nature and the sort of personality needed to play Camilla. What accent does she play the role in as Camilla was from Tehran originally but Sandra in all the outfits might make you think of someone of more African origin. It is the sort of show that could work very well with over the top parodies of the principle characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by firefingers on Jul 6, 2017 22:08:51 GMT
I know understudies are expensive but if the privatly funded Menier can have them then why not the publicly funded Donmar - after all the main priority is to produce works on stage each night A privately funded enterprise will have more freedom to spend as it wishes than an organisation in receipt of public funds. Not that it will necessarily have any impact on the hiring of understudies, but public funds all come with strings attached. Indeed, I've worked both publicly and privately funded shows and the public ones have far tighter purse strings across the board, with every penny justified. Frustrating as it puts on a lot of pressure on the company as there is often no cover for actors or technical teams. |
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jul 7, 2017 22:06:04 GMT
Rebecca Lock in for Liz Robertson tonight as Cheryl Gillan. Rebecca had the book to hand but didn't use it much (it's a very wordy show, I can understand why she wanted a prop but she did a great job.
As for the show, well I thought it was interesting in that it provoked a discussion amongst attendees about the role of Camilla and Yentob, I don't think it particularly worked as a musical - unlike London Road, the repetition and chorus didn't add much to the source material. I wondered if a straight text performance of this a la Tricycle would have achieved the same goal.
|
|
1,561 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Jul 8, 2017 2:04:33 GMT
A privately funded enterprise will have more freedom to spend as it wishes than an organisation in receipt of public funds. Not that it will necessarily have any impact on the hiring of understudies, but public funds all come with strings attached. Indeed, I've worked both publicly and privately funded shows and the public ones have far tighter purse strings across the board, with every penny justified. Frustrating as it puts on a lot of pressure on the company as there is often no cover for actors or technical teams. What about understudies at The National? Do they hire them? |
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 8, 2017 7:41:05 GMT
Not impressed by the Donmar over this. The text and email yesterday both said, "please be patient, we'll be in touch as the box office is contacting everyone". A day and a half later and they haven't been in touch. I've rebooked myself for tomorrow as there were good seats available, but given that only three performances in total were cancelled and the Donmar isn't that large, I can't quite see why it is taking them so long... That would get my back RIGHT up. Patronising or what? |
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jul 8, 2017 8:02:42 GMT
Not impressed by the Donmar over this. The text and email yesterday both said, "please be patient, we'll be in touch as the box office is contacting everyone". A day and a half later and they haven't been in touch. I've rebooked myself for tomorrow as there were good seats available, but given that only three performances in total were cancelled and the Donmar isn't that large, I can't quite see why it is taking them so long... That would get my back RIGHT up. Patronising or what? Yes, and three days later they still hadn't been in touch. Box office said they were "about 75%" of the way through the contacts. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 8:18:00 GMT
That would get my back RIGHT up. Patronising or what? Yes, and three days later they still hadn't been in touch. Box office said they were "about 75%" of the way through the contacts. Oh but don't you know They have an in house team now Offering all box office facilities They are a small theatre And proud to offer a personalised service ATG would have sorted this out in 2 hours The new attempt at saving money and taking the BO In house Is pathetic There is now an online queue even for members booking This was never the case with ATG Who had high capacity and whilst not perfect Are quite capable given the sheer number of venues they cover |
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Jul 8, 2017 8:26:47 GMT
What about understudies at The National? Do they hire them? For shows in the Lyttleton and the Olivier, generally yes. In my experience, shows in the Cottesloe/Dorfman haven't had understudies previously, but that may have just been the nature of the shows I was seeing there, rather than a general rule. The Donmar aren't alone in not having understudies though. Almeida generally don't, Hampstead Theatre, Southwark Playhouse and so on. The Donmar never ever has, so they should be past masters of dealing with cancelled shows, as they have them more than most. |
|
4,974 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 8, 2017 20:47:16 GMT
A report of a meeting for a parliamentary sub committee doesn't really make for a riverting musical.
However this musical was fair as I expected it to push Camila Batmanghelidjh under the bus, which it never did, it just presented facts from both sides and asks the audience to make up its mind, for me she is obnoxious and manipulative and used child poverty to further her own gain. As a musical this didn't sore, but then again it wasn't terrible and provided a lot of absorbing information to grapple with, however they should have made this a play as the source material, didn't have the emotional punch and the protagonist wasn't likeable.
However I did enjoy the acting, I like Alex Hanson, but would advise him to stay away from political roles in future!!! Good choice by the director having a straight through 80 minutes, any longer and it would have became leaden. Thought Sandra Marvin and Anthony O'Donnel were excellent value.
Not a fine start for Hadley Fraser's composing career, but then again I urge him not to give up and still t continue with his musical adaption of Houdini.
3 Stars
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 8:31:40 GMT
Was planning to write my £10 ticket off to experience but ended up swapping to a different night (the Donmar will do this for free if there's availability, which is nice). Enjoyed it more than I expected although it is a bit pointless. Odd that they spend 10 minutes giving irrelevant background re Brexit and the recent election, but don't give any context about Kids Company or what happened next.
I was in the far corner of row C (next to the band), which actually was a great view for this one. Top price stalls will see the back of Yentob and Batmanghelidjh's heads for the most part. Possibly a reason for lukewarm reviews as that's where the critics would be sitting! From where I was I got added entertainment by seeing the titles of the "Songs" on the band's music - two I remember being "Trustees Are Doing It For Themselves" and "Yentobämmerung"
Lots of empty seats, more than I've ever seen in the Donmar. At least 30 I think, mostly in the stalls. If you want to see this I'd book a standing place for £10 as you'll probably get upgraded - nobody standing last night.
Still Rebecca Lock on with the occasional look at her text. No notice at the Donmar that I could see saying we had a cast replacement.
I love the square tickets the Domnar has now!
And why do people in the front row think it's OK to leave their drinks sitting on the stage?
|
|
4,955 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jul 16, 2017 10:41:42 GMT
Yentobamburg (or However you spell it!). Ha I love it
|
|
133 posts
|
Post by japhun on Aug 4, 2017 9:51:43 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon and enjoyed it more than I thought I would. Appreciated the effort of making it into a musical- was quite riveted by the fact that as a play it would probably be more popular and better reviewed...but kudos risk taking!
Loved the set and thought the Donmar is perfect for this type of experimental theatre.
An enjoyable 75 minutes- I felt drawn in and connected.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 4, 2017 13:03:17 GMT
I also saw it yesterday afternoon, and I was impressed - superb performances and direction, intelligent script, and I liked the music.
It's also refreshing these days to see a musical where the accompaniment is all 'proper' instruments - in this case, a piano and a string quartet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Aug 4, 2017 16:14:05 GMT
Were Committee to have had less courage in its convictions, I think it would have been a minor masterpiece. As it is, I think it’s a fantastic, if weirdly clichéd, obscurity. By Sondheiming the facts and nothing but, it does something fascinating with the form – but whether this particular story will quite capture the imaginations of the world remains to be seen, and it genuinely could have. Nonetheless, as it is, I was still a fan of this obscure and odd little show.
Committee dramatises a court case, as a court case, and on paper, that seems to be that. So, um, to ask the bleeding obvious, if it’s just the facts and just the words, why does this need to be a musical? Well, as the person behind me said as we walked out, “I suppose it stops it from being boring”. And genuinely, I do think that is, in no small way, that. Perhaps there’s a comment that, in this age of rolling news where entertaining matters as much as informing, this was not meant to be a show-trial, but all trials can be. Simply restaging it would grate, would be untheatrical. Making a musical of it brings it to the masses, makes a point about populism in politics. And it’s worth mentioning that I enjoyed its music – I’d hugely enjoy a cast recording.
But where Billington says “By shaping our response to the material, it overlays it with editorial comment”, I rather feel he’s missing the wood for the trees. OF COURSE it does! OF COURSE this is biased! Were it not biased it would just be talking heads – by making an editorial comment, Rourke and Fraser turn it into a battle, and clearly come on Kids Company’s side. Solely on the basis of these 80 minutes, so did I, because as it’s presented here, one wants to be idealistic and help as many people whatever the cost. The “£150 shoes” moment is defines it – for one party, that’s a scandalous waste of our money, whilst for the other there’s no price tag on autonomy and rehabilitation; taken as a political point alone, it’s easy to feel one way; taken as the 11 o’clock number in a musical, our biases are swayed towards our heroes, deliberately, obviously, willingly. And given the artifice is laid on thick, that’s completely fine. I think it’s constructed in such a way as to remain somewhat balanced – no-one would leave thinking Batmanghelidjh was anything but an idealist perfect for people skills but lacking in leadership skills, for example, whilst Yentob’s somewhat po-faced throughout – and the facts complicate the fictionalising, but the music and the structure makes its biases obvious.
Superficially, then, this ‘musical’ seems a successor to London Road – and, indeed, it’s hard to imagine this existing without that blazing some sort of trail in how ‘real’ a musical can be – but actually, the far more apt comparison would be with In The Matter of J Robert Oppenheimer, that hit Broadway smash we all know and love. Anyone who saw Morton-Smith’s more recent play (which clearly was none of the Olivier committee, given Cumberhamlet was up for an Olivier and the Heff wasn’t) would be able to tell you plenty of biographical details about Oppenheimer’s life, but equally could tell you that there were obvious elements of artifice – for starters, bombs don’t talk. Instead, anyone who sees Kipphardt’s version of that trial would assume that the court transcript is the truth. And yet, naturally, what Kipphardt presents as the honest facts are skewed and subverted to suit his argument. His Oppenheimer is HIS Oppenheimer, not the real one. It’s hard to hear that final speech Oppenheimer gives in court and not consider the man a poet, a rebel, a tragic hero – and yet it’s complete fiction, something Kipphardt wrote in addition to Oppenheimer's own words. Yet it’s presented as fact, in factual context. And indeed, isn't the rest of it skewed to make Kipphardt's point anyway? Oppenheimer objected to it, of course, primarily objecting to the entirely fictional final speech, but the entire text skewed his words to make Kipphardt's point, and Oppenheimer seemed to dislike that dishonesty too - by making his own words theatre they become fiction again. Committee is the successor to ‘let’s just stage a trial’, but by layering this ‘true’ trial with clearly overdramatic music, Rourke and Fraser lay their biases on the line, and give it to us not as the truth, but as one truth, as their truth – as show trials are, as all trials are. By “overlaying it with editorial comment” they make it work as drama.
That issue of reality/artifice has been true of verbatim works in the past, although far less over the last fifteen years or so (Simon Stephens is very interesting about that here, apparently his verbatim play’s a musical too!). I remember some discussion here, about Another World, about one of the talking heads being somewhat unscrupulous – whereas in that show (which I rather enjoyed) he’s depicted with integrity intact. Everything in that show was presented as the simple honest truth – and whilst I thought it made some worthwhile points, given the breadth of the subject tackled there, that’s clearly not true, and dishonesty in reportage is dangerous. And that’s why Committee works as a musical – unlike London Road, which was a musical about overcoming which happened to use verbatim voices to make it more real, this is a verbatim play which uses music to wear its biases on its sleeve and make its sometimes boring story literally sing. There’s an absolute honesty in this fiction, by wearing its fiction so heavily, and by balancing the boring truth and the fictionalised fantastical battle in this way, it’s an interesting step forwards in both what musicals can get away with and what verbatim plays can get away with.
That does lead to the next question: why does this need to be verbatim? Weirdly, that’s a more pertinent question than why Alan Yentob’s singing – why is it Alan Yentob using Alan Yentob’s words in the first place? For a verbatim play to work, the voice or collections thereof need to be interesting, relevant, new. This tends to be using multiple voices, multiple viewpoints, multiple times, and making something through combination. London Road used ordinary cadences to make extraordinary music (music I enjoy humming along to), and collated the themes of hurt to tell the well-trodden story of overcoming a tragedy as a community chorus. David Hare’s verbatim work is a collection of researched voices. More relevantly, in Oppenheimer, Kipphardt gives voice to one of the greatest minds talking about one of the greatest moments of the century – and truth be told, even after openly fictionalising portions to make it more morally grey and more palatable to theatre, it’s still a wee bit too static, and a wee bit too dull.
Here, there are two distinct sides – Company (good) and Committee (bad) – and the editorialising is fine, it’s what makes it drama, and it’s upfront about its drama – and that’s it for characters. As any drama goes, that’s a bit didactic, a bit stilted, a bit still. In theory, this trial transcript lends itself to some cornerstones of basic drama, as explicitly edited and editorialised. In this version of the truth, the case happens to tackle some of the oldest themes in the book: with a liberal dose of liberal bias, the trial centres on personalities vs parliament, on idealism vs accountancy, on success vs failure. The facts are almost clichéd in their archetypical approach to debates. There are moments of great drama, moments of inadvertent comedy, moments of David vs Goliath – all the moments you want in an issue like this – as the best verbatim plays do, it actually would hold up to literary criticism. But unlike the best verbatim plays, it doesn’t use the real words to comment or critique – it just uses them because they’re the words – and despite the editorialising making the themes more explicit, it’s one side vs another for 80 minutes, neither budging, until we’re dismissed, the winner dictated by fact. I rather think that by sticking solely to the transcript, the scope of Committee becomes too limited. Were this willing to expand out more, makes its characters characters and not arguments in exciting costumes, and deal with the politics politically, I think this would take Broadway by storm in its innovation – I think London Road absolutely has global appeal, and this would have too. As it is, it’s too monotonous. None of the ideas are particularly profound or fresh beyond the bizarre but brilliant concept, and whether this court case is really the best way to explore these themes I don’t know (its 80 minute run time does mean that any broader, murkier, interesting issues get put to the wayside, and that is a shame). There are also some factual gaps, as any 80 minute version of a three hour event will have, and whilst some of those would be footnotes, some omissions are bad – particularly the ending, a matter upon which the script doesn’t properly deliver, and which is necessary to know. At best, this uses deliberate artifice to make a gripping fictional debate out of interesting fact – but unlike, say, the Donmar’s past Frost/Nixon, it doesn’t delve into the two sides of its debate as anything more than two sides of its debate. In fact, I was a fan of Temple, which was sheer Socratic debate – strophe/antistrophe for 90 minutes, based on fact – but Waters made his characters caring and carefully crafted people amidst an otherwise balanced debate. By editorialising activities outside the courthouse Committee could have done this too, but in being too daringly focused in form, it remains too factual to be fascinating.
Despite this, I was very much a fan of this flawed show. I think that Fraser and Rourke have crafted a (kind of clichéd) story about the eternal debate between idealism and accountancy, between what charity is but what charity needs, and what society should offer and what society is capable of offering. I think the music was fantastic, awkward, engaging stuff. I thought the debate was crafty, the characters larger than life. And I felt there was a grand honesty in how this presented its biases. It’s somewhat simplistic and sometimes on-the-nose, but nevertheless it’s a novel idea well executed, fascinatingly done, and musically astute. Perhaps it’s more interesting in theory than in actuality, but it’s engaging and exciting nonetheless. I’d give it four stars, for the exact reasons Billington gives it two.
P.S. Is Josie Rourke secretly the most radical AD in London? In the five years (!) since she’s taken over, she’s done a great job at balancing perfectly good sell-out fodder (from The Recruiting Officer to Saint Joan), via left-of-centre revivals (Anhouil, Peter Gill, My Night with Reg) and new plays with a topical dint to them (Steve Waters’ new works), to productions which really dare to do something different – the techy well-researched wizardly of Privacy, the national study of one moment in time of The Vote (which I’m sure was going to have a rewrite and revival in 2020, thanks for botching that one up too Mrs May), to this strange adventure, to the genuinely groundbreaking Shakespeare trilogy, a four-year-long, unashamedly political, almost Hamilton-esque deconstruction of national norms and clichés, one of the most remarkable theatrical achievements, perhaps, of the decade? The Donmar still doesn’t have a reputation for being as adventurous as other theatres – perhaps because it sometimes does shamelessly populist or famous, perhaps because it’s closer to the West End – but given her track record I don’t see why. She recently did this as well, pushing the building's potential further – and given Michelle Terry’s new gig, their relationship bodes very very well for that building too. Quietly in Covent Garden, I think that building’s become far more unpredictable, progressive and exciting than it’s ever been before. Let’s step back and celebrate what a five years she’s had.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boob on Aug 4, 2017 18:28:20 GMT
Superb analysis, Nicholas. I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above but couldn't have put it as eloquently or intelligently.
|
|
|
|
Post by SamB (was badoerfan) on Aug 5, 2017 17:44:00 GMT
Saw this today, from Row B of the balcony, and quite enjoyed it. It's a topic I was relatively familiar with, but had forgotten a lot of the details of, so it was interesting to be reminded of it, and to see the passion shown by all sides (in some cases, perhaps misplaced).
I agree with some that the introduction to each of the committee members, which profiles them as pro-Brexit, is unnecessary and probably influences the audience's opinion a little too much - other than that, it's often quite even-handed. It doesn't let the committee themselves become evil pantomime baddies, and it's not afraid to make fun of the fact that often Batmanghelidjh doesn't have an answer for the questions.
Bravely staged, too, I thoroughly liked the use of the desks and the committee 'room' with the screens. I assume the part where the member on the right knocked his glass over wasn't supposed to happen though!
I mostly enjoyed the music, but by the end it perhaps became a little monotonous - part of the musical's inherent structure and concept is one of its flaws, and that's the fact that the lyrics are taken verbatim. It means that much of the singing is a little sing-talky, without obvious hooks or specified choruses, which makes it all a little samey and unmemorable.
Never been to the Donmar before - lovely venue! Very comfortable, even up in the circle, and it's a good view from up there.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 5, 2017 19:08:19 GMT
I assume the part where the member on the right knocked his glass over wasn't supposed to happen though! I assume it was, given that it also happened on Thursday afternoon. |
|
