5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 27, 2016 11:31:22 GMT
foxa, this review is a delight. And noted! Ain't gonna book for this.
|
|
2,048 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Nov 27, 2016 11:49:40 GMT
Saw this last night and have to say I rather enjoyed it, it wasn't hilarious by any means but it all seemed rather good-natured and sweethearted, maybe its the other productions I've seen recently, but nice to see something where no-one dies (that doesn't really qualify as a spoiler IMO), no-one is threatened with violence and there are no outbreaks of ultra-swearing (but not really a surprise because it was written nearly 90 years ago).
Everyone in this seemed to be enjoying themselves, but it's a bit misleading to have Harry Enfield advertised as the star - yes he'll get bookings on his name alone, but he's not really in this that much (and he's not really acting as much as extending that Badiddlyboing Odawidaho sketch from his TV series, so not going to win any awards), it was about 40 minutes or so before he turned up, and in a 2hr 20 minutes, show, he's maybe in it for half an hour or so. Most of the main acting was done by Claudie Blakley and John Marquez (who came out best in my eyes, took until the interval and looking at the programme to realise I'd seen him in Doc Martin) and I thought they both acquitted themselves well. A bit strange to have Kevin Bishop in basically the straight-man role, he was OK but not really given much to do TBH.
Anyway, I'm sure there will be other people saying they hated this, but like I said, I enjoyed it, and only paid £10 so no complaints from me (maybe it's because I saw this after Buried Child yesterday that I enjoyed it so much, but I haven't got round to putting my thoughts on that, ahem, 'treat' into words yet).
|
|
421 posts
|
Post by schuttep on Nov 28, 2016 9:27:41 GMT
Couldn't find a thread for this so I started one  www.youngvic.org/whats-on/once-in-a-lifetimeHave tickets to see this on Monday (but I am also seeing Candide, Dreamgirls and Side Show next week so I might be theatred out Would be interested to hear what people think if they go. The cast seems pretty good and it could be a fun comedy but I wasn't a huge fan of the director's The Trial or Annie Get Your Gun tbh. Please forgive this slight detour, but where is Candide on, theatrelover123, please? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 10:24:57 GMT
I assume it's the Sedos production? Amateur, but usually top quality.
|
|
209 posts
|
Post by Flim Flam on Nov 28, 2016 10:29:43 GMT
|
|
1,254 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Nov 28, 2016 15:43:05 GMT
Thats the one.
|
|
|
|
Post by theatremad on Dec 2, 2016 12:00:31 GMT
Really don't know what to think on this. There were moments I loved, even Harry Enfield but I still have fond memories of the National Theatre production a few years ago. The production is too cramped and though the revolve works it felt cramped especially in Act 2.
Answers on a postcard about what the last scene really means (the one with all the yellow boxes)
|
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Dec 4, 2016 6:02:16 GMT
Really don't know what to think on this. There were moments I loved, even Harry Enfield but I still have fond memories of the National Theatre production a few years ago. The production is too cramped and though the revolve works it felt cramped especially in Act 2. Answers on a postcard about what the last scene really means (the one with all the yellow boxes) Went today, Pretty much a full house. Audience loved it, they laughed throughout. Its very funny - not least because of Claudie Blakley's deadpan character, and Lizzie Connolly's hilarious US country girl. Harry's pretty credible as the lost Glogauer I thought the end was clear? {Spoiler - click to view}
The motto seemed to be throughout that stupid rules in Hollywood OK. By the end 2000 planes needed room to live in. That logically meant knocking the studio down to get the props (!) in. ...Blowing the studio up with the yellow detonators, had unfortunate consequences for those who worked there? |
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 9, 2016 4:38:00 GMT
Really regret not only wasting my money on this but also the fact that it cost me double the original outlay as I had to change the date to avoid a 4-stage journey each way (rail engineering work yet again). I couldn't get out fast enough but had to wait for the interval, obviously. Parts of the first act literally sent me to sleep and what I did see, I hated. I don't recall this issue from my previous visit and think it was mainly due to the direction and lack of pace in particular, but the set design was also peculiar (broad but shallow for many of the most talky scenes) and looked cheap. One of those situations when others were laughing but I didn't feel any line or delivery had earned it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2016 8:40:53 GMT
Have seen it years ago but can't even recall when or where, let alone anything about the production, so happy to revisit it now. Twice in a lifetime! Oh, just one and a third times in a lifetime. |
|
421 posts
|
Post by schuttep on Dec 10, 2016 10:32:57 GMT
Thank everyone. No more detours. |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Dec 11, 2016 11:38:08 GMT
What a bizarre play this is. One thinks of Kaufman and Hart mainly for their classic You Can't Take It With You, an affectionate comedy of eccentrics, but this one is far removed from that. Written six years earlier, in 1930, it's a VERY broad satire but not at all an affectionate one. This is satire based on resentment, written by New York theatre guys about a Hollywood they didn't really know but very much feared. The advent of talking pictures was seen as a direct threat to Broadway with actors and writers and directors all trooping out west to cash in - and that's the theme of the play.
Virtually everyone in it is a stereotyped grotesque, from the overbearing studio head to the dumb starlet to the self-obsessed gossip columnist to the uber-arch wunderkind director - all of them very funny but containing as much reality as characters in a Marx Brothers film. Not a coincidence since Kaufman wrote two of the Marx Brothers films. The intent clearly is to make everyone in Hollywood look like dummies, achieving fame and fortune in spite of themselves. And as the play goes along the message is increasingly amplified until what began as satire has morphed into full blown surrealism.
All of which rather suits the expressionistic proclivities of Richard Jones whose production picks up the weirdness of the piece and runs with it. The cartoonishness of the play is definitely to his taste and the highly stylized sets and costumes reflect that. As do the expansive performances of the cast - everyone has been encouraged to "go big" and, for the most part, it works.
Harry Enfield as Glogauer, the studio head, with his stream of consciousness bluster and his funny walk, is hilarious, an original take on a clichéd character, and young Otto Farrant as the cool and willowy German director is equally funny. The always hysterical Lizzy Connolly does a great turn as the aggressively untalented starlet and Daniel Abelson has some nice frantic moments as an underworked writer, ignored into non-existence.
But the play really revolves around three people whose journey to Hollywood forms the spine of the plot. Kevin Bishop and Claudie Blakely are both excellent as the characters who are most grounded, i.e. who most resemble human beings, but John Marquez as their dim-witted accomplice is in a class by himself. As a well-meaning imbecile who passes for smart because he can quote Variety articles from memory you know he's going to prosper in Hollywood so his performance is truly the hinge of everything - and he is amazing. Convincingly dense and sweetly sympathetic, he carries great chunks of the play. If this production is a success - and I think it is - it's because he is a success.
Interestingly there was a good house but not a full house and the crowd skewed older than one usually sees at the Young Vic. It's something different for them and perhaps not for the regulars. Too bad, it's a good, funny show.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2016 18:01:38 GMT
Well. This is a bit of a queer one. Some bits are very funny and there are some really super performances but it's all just a bit slow. It needs a bit more zip and snap. However when it's on format, it's terrifically funny and there's a reason for that. He's called John Marquez. It really is a truly delightful performance, nay, it's really rather a sensational one.
Great cast though, Claudie Blakley channels Katherine Hepburn but doesn't quite get there and her accent is a combination of several disparate states glued together but she is very funny at being sharp. Lizzie Connolly gives what is becoming a very Lizzie Connolly performance (great though it is), Otto Farrant gives two nicely different performances and Amanda Lawrence is quite physically hilarious as the harassed Miss Leighton. There's a fabulous doughnut scene that still makes me giggle. Lucy Cohu with some glorious blue hair gets a terrific first scene but then it seems like they don't know what to do with her. The set is a bit cramped but the revolve works hard for it's money.
Brian Rix would have zipped it along a bit though.
|
|
