|
|
Company
Oct 31, 2018 15:31:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 15:31:29 GMT
When this transfers to Broadway (when, not if) I hear a rumor that Audra McDonald will be Bobbie....she would be AMAZING! And she's friends with Patti so that would keep the KWEEN happy too Is that not just iteration 101 of the constant rumour that Audra is coming back to Broadway? Each with as little substance as the last rumour...I swear only a few weeks ago she was rumoured to be doing a play... |
|
1,568 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Oct 31, 2018 15:39:53 GMT
I am not sure if it is true or not, which is why I said it was a rumour. It is 100% not substantiated.
Just a note - Raul Esparza played the role about ten years ago and he was no way 35 then either LOL.
Maybe they will try to get a star like Anne Hathaway?
|
|
5,168 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Oct 31, 2018 15:51:55 GMT
The thought of it makes me shudder, but it'd be Anne Hathaway I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 15:59:19 GMT
Raul Esparza is currently 48 and played the role twelve years ago when he was 36. Audra McDonald is also currently 48. Full stop. I will never look as good as Audra McDonald looked on her worst day, but that doesn't automatically follow that 35 is still easily within her playing range. If Bobbie were mid-30s without the age being stated, she could pull it off, but playing a role explicitly stated to be 35 would garner comment from audience members.
|
|
5,866 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Oct 31, 2018 23:08:47 GMT
Whoever they get can only be an improvement on Rosalie Craig. Wow is she lucky to have been given this role. She brings nothing to the role at all except a blankness that denies the show any heart.
I usually quite like her but she was so weak in this.
|
|
|
|
Company
Oct 31, 2018 23:31:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 23:31:37 GMT
Loved this. Met Patti and Jonathan. My life is complete.
More thoughts later (or tomorrow).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 23:39:24 GMT
I've heard the Anne Hathaway rumour for ages that she will take over from Rosalie for the Broadway production, with Patti and Jonathan being the two to transfer with the production, especially with the reviews being heavily focused on them and both will likely win the Oliviers come Spring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2018 7:41:13 GMT
Raul Esparza is currently 48 and played the role twelve years ago when he was 36. Audra McDonald is also currently 48. Full stop. I will never look as good as Audra McDonald looked on her worst day, but that doesn't automatically follow that 35 is still easily within her playing range. If Bobbie were mid-30s without the age being stated, she could pull it off, but playing a role explicitly stated to be 35 would garner comment from audience members. I agree with the above. But I’m mainly quoting to add Raul is currently also stretching the Hamlet playing age to the edges of its already very loose definition. Mainly to point out that the rules for men never seem to apply in the same way. (And in Shakespeare of course) and that the man unreasonably annoys me. But also, god love Audra, and damn the woman looks good. But as the age is stated/integral to the plot...I think she’s just outside that bracket sadly. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Nov 1, 2018 8:09:05 GMT
Was the perception of what it is to be '35' the same in 1970 as it now?
Was the perception of a man in 1970 the same as a woman now?
Is the current production addressing these issues?
Just how tight are these 'rules' about who can play what, being drawn?
That's the thing about Theatre, it involves a personal decison whether you go or not. If actor 'A' is not right for the part then you don't have to go. Anything else is too restrictive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2018 9:35:48 GMT
Was the perception of what it is to be '35' the same in 1970 as it now? Was the perception of a man in 1970 the same as a woman now? I can't speak for men (and unlike men doing so for women wouldn't presume to) But I think 35 is dead on the money for an age that women get all this sh*t now. 30 is now considered a bit young to be 'worried' about settling down etc etc as generally women are doing so later. But by 35 show me a woman who hasn't heard some or all of what Bobbie gets and I will eat me 35th Birthday balloons. Yes, this production is addressing them, one would argue that's rather the whole point. So, that said to my mind the actress needs to look about 35, not older because it is very age specific. |
|
|
|
Post by MrsCondomine on Nov 1, 2018 10:11:00 GMT
Was the perception of what it is to be '35' the same in 1970 as it now? Was the perception of a man in 1970 the same as a woman now? I can't speak for men (and unlike men doing so for women wouldn't presume to) But I think 35 is dead on the money for an age that women get all this sh*t now. 30 is now considered a bit young to be 'worried' about settling down etc etc as generally women are doing so later. But by 35 show me a woman who hasn't heard some or all of what Bobbie gets and I will eat me 35th Birthday balloons. Yes, this production is addressing them, one would argue that's rather the whole point. So, that said to my mind the actress needs to look about 35, not older because it is very age specific. Plus, 35 has become more poignant just now - as in certain areas of the UK, IVF is now being refused if you are 35 or over!! |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Nov 1, 2018 10:28:10 GMT
emi I don’t wish to pick you out but in theatre Juliet and Coco San to name but two, are rarely the age they are supposed to be in the plot. But the right actress/actor working with the right Director can convince us they are (or have a new perspective on the character to present). I know that’s simplistic, but that's my point. People are tying themselves in knots trying to dictate who is appropriate to play which part.
If the actor can make it work then you’ll enjoy yourself. It’s all part of the magic of Theatre and shouldn't have to be achieved by someone who doesn’t start off naturally closely resembling the known specifics of the role. What’s close enough for me, might not be close enough for you. So we make our choices at the box office. I don’t want to see plays disappear because it becomes impossible to cast someone who can shift tickets and we reduce the art. We should allow and encourage Directors to take risks with the casting, not restricting themselves to an actor who naturally looks right.
I do think this is ironic when (with the authors permission) this production makes such a basic fundamental character shift and this discussion focusses on another point about appropriateness.
Think we’ll just have to disagree on this one.
Happy Birthday!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2018 13:13:07 GMT
So, this really lives up to the hype. It was the highlight of my entire year. Amazing production, the staging is genius, and what a cast!
When Patti appears for the first time, I couldn't stop smiling. Seeing her live, 20m aways from me, that was a dream come true. And she's perfect. Her "Ladies Who Lunch" was glorious.
Jonathan Bailey, what a star! "Not Getting Married" was hysterical. The applause after that went on for about a minute.
"You Could Drive a Person Crazy" is right there in my top 3 moments. Wonderfully sung and choreographed.
Rosalie. I don't get all the hate. I thought she was really good!
Richard Fleeshman, yassssss!! He had me drooling.
So yeah, perfect show!! Would kill to see it again!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2018 14:52:13 GMT
I think I must be the only one who thought Jonathan Bailey was utterly unbearable in this (sorry). Just so predictable. I quite liked Rosalie, apart from her annoying 'wows' at the end of each scene. I thought she sang it well, and was very emotional throughout. Her Being Alive was quite moving. The accents overall were painful to listen to, particularly the husbands/wives. The priest was a riot. Alex Gaumond was adorable. Patti was the highlight giving nuance to every moment - Ladies Who Lunch has never been this poignant or chilling. She is fully loaded for this production. My favourite moment was (spoiler alert?) just before the nightclub scene when the set piece containing Patti & company starts to slowly come down stage accompanied by techno music. Patti centre, with sunglasses on, looking blankly ahead. Perfection. And then for her to build on that moment with her scene with Rosalie and the song. I felt privileged to experience her in this show.
|
|
5,168 posts
|
Company
Nov 1, 2018 15:44:24 GMT
via mobile
manu likes this
Post by Being Alive on Nov 1, 2018 15:44:24 GMT
Second trip tonight. And I get to see Rosalie finally which is a delight. Can’t wait.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2018 15:52:29 GMT
emi I don’t wish to pick you out but in theatre Juliet and Coco San to name but two, are rarely the age they are supposed to be in the plot. But the right actress/actor working with the right Director can convince us they are (or have a new perspective on the character to present). I know that’s simplistic, but that's my point. People are tying themselves in knots trying to dictate who is appropriate to play which part. If the actor can make it work then you’ll enjoy yourself. It’s all part of the magic of Theatre and shouldn't have to be achieved by someone who doesn’t start off naturally closely resembling the known specifics of the role. What’s close enough for me, might not be close enough for you. So we make our choices at the box office. I don’t want to see plays disappear because it becomes impossible to cast someone who can shift tickets and we reduce the art. We should allow and encourage Directors to take risks with the casting, not restricting themselves to an actor who naturally looks right. I do think this is ironic when (with the authors permission) this production makes such a basic fundamental character shift and this discussion focusses on another point about appropriateness. Think we’ll just have to disagree on this one. Happy Birthday! Well you're about 10 months early for my 35th Birthday but sure I'll take it. (also if you're going to talk to me please tag me in future so I know you've said something thanks) That's a really condescending post. Thank you SO much for explaining what the 'magic of theatre' is to me, honestly in all these yeas of going, I had no clue that we could, gee take liberties with the text. I mean who would have thought, maybe next time, maybe Bobby could be a man? the specific question above was 'is Audra McDonald's playing age still feasible for her to play Bobbie who is 35' several of us contributed to say, specifically 'not'. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Nov 1, 2018 16:03:06 GMT
Was the perception of what it is to be '35' the same in 1970 as it now? In the Roundabout Theater revival in New York in the mid-1990s, Robert was 38, not 35. Yes, things have changed, and even 20+ years ago the perception of what it means to be 35 wasn't necessarily the same as it had been when the show was being written. |
|
86 posts
|
Post by abitoftap on Nov 1, 2018 17:59:02 GMT
More in hope than expectation...
We had tickets for today's matinee (my birthday gift!). We travelled down from Norwich this morning but never got further than Shenfield. After close to 2 hours on the platform and no chance of a train into London for at least 30 minutes, we gave up and made our way back home.
I thought I'd try the Gieulgud box office to see if they could help (without much hope to be honest, but at least I'd feel a bit better that I'd tried), but can't find the box office direct number. The 0844 number seems a general (and expensive) Delfont Mackintosh booking line.
Can anyone help with the number?
I'll now go away and sulk in a corner...
|
|
58 posts
|
Post by carriesparkle on Nov 1, 2018 18:20:55 GMT
More in hope than expectation... We had tickets for today's matinee (my birthday gift!). We travelled down from Norwich this morning but never got further than Shenfield. After close to 2 hours on the platform and no chance of a train into London for at least 30 minutes, we gave up and made our way back home. I thought I'd try the Gieulgud box office to see if they could help (without much hope to be honest, but at least I'd feel a bit better that I'd tried), but can't find the box office direct number. The 0844 number seems a general (and expensive) Delfont Mackintosh booking line. Can anyone help with the number? I'll now go away and sulk in a corner... Try 020 7812 7494. |
|
86 posts
|
Post by abitoftap on Nov 1, 2018 19:01:18 GMT
Thanks to you both for the numbers! Fingers crossed.
|
|
5,168 posts
|
Company
Nov 1, 2018 19:15:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by Being Alive on Nov 1, 2018 19:15:05 GMT
A word of warning - if you have legs, you will have issues in the Grand circle slips.
I thought it’d be tight, but I don’t actually think I can get in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2018 19:22:15 GMT
I thought it’d be tight, but I don’t actually think I can get in. Oh gosh, that takes me back to my time as an intern with the Archbishop of Canterbury. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2018 19:38:05 GMT
I thought it’d be tight, but I don’t actually think I can get in. Oh gosh, that takes me back to my time as an intern with the Archbishop of Canterbury. must resist temptation to pen naughty limerick
there once was an intern in Canterbury ... |
|
879 posts
|
Company
Nov 1, 2018 20:25:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by daisy24601 on Nov 1, 2018 20:25:23 GMT
Has anyone been successful getting rush tickets for this? I want to try on Saturday but my friend is only in town that day so not sure whether to risk it.
|
|
|
|
Company
Nov 1, 2018 20:31:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by danb on Nov 1, 2018 20:31:07 GMT
Oh gosh, that takes me back to my time as an intern with the Archbishop of Canterbury. must resist temptation to pen naughty limerick
there once was an intern in Canterbury ... ‘who would show anybody her fairy’ Next? |
|
