816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Feb 1, 2017 7:49:08 GMT
Just wondering if anyone else is booking for this at the OAT in July/August ? ( one of my favourite Dickens books )
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Feb 1, 2017 8:21:45 GMT
Seems an odd choice given that a production toured quite widely last year.
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Feb 1, 2017 12:24:56 GMT
Yes, I did, was curious. It could be the best of plays, or the worst, don't know. Yes I hope it could be far far better than we dare to expect.... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 13:05:58 GMT
Maybe the two guys who are meant to look like each other will actually look enough like each other this time that the audience won't descend into snickering every time someone mentions the likeness, no matter how serious the scene.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Jul 10, 2017 0:25:40 GMT
Maybe the two guys who are meant to look like each other will actually look enough like each other this time that the audience won't descend into snickering every time someone mentions the likeness, no matter how serious the scene. The eternal casting problem when "The Comedy of Errors" is produced. Has anyone been to this yet? I'll be there tomorrow (well tonight now). |
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Jul 10, 2017 23:11:11 GMT
I have never left a produtcion before, but I was very, very tempted here.
Calling this Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" should be banned by the Trade Descriptions Act. This thing uses the name of the novel and (loosely) elements of the plot to build an amorphous harangue against whatever moving target is in the eyeline of the adapter and director. Ill-conceived, and ill-executed, the plot is so badly delivered that the first half passed me by in a sequence of mob scenes, pointless modern music and the odd bit of lavatory humour.
The design was unprepossessing, three revolving containers on stage - they stopped working in the second half and the production was stopped but, sadly, they got them to work again - to evoke the horrors of Calais. The costuming was all over the place, mostly modern but the old doctor is inexplicably dressed in 18th century gear which makes a nice contrast with the 21st century border guard uniforms.
Since the whole novel hinges on the uncanny similarity between Darnay and Carton the director cleverly got that out of the way by making one of them white, tall, curly-hared and bearded (with a Scottish accent) and the other black, significantly shorter, shaven skulled, with a moustache and an African accent. Genius.
The second half is better largely because it sticks closer to the novel but even chunks of Dickens read out virgo intacto cannot save this bcause the plot has been well lost by then.
It was most certainly not the best of plays, but has a strong claim for one of the worst of plays I've ever seen. If you have a ticket give it away or get a refund. Buy yourself a nice big pot of point and splash it on the walls then wath it dry. It will be far more interesting and rewarding.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 10, 2017 23:34:08 GMT
I have never left a produtcion before, but I was very, very tempted here. Calling this Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" should be banned by the Trade Descriptions Act. This thing uses the name of the novel and (loosely) elements of the plot to build an amorphous harangue against whatever moving target is in the eyeline of the adapter and director. Ill-conceived, and ill-executed, the plot is so badly delivered that the first half passed me by in a sequence of mob scenes, pointless modern music and the odd bit of lavatory humour. The design was unprepossessing, three revolving containers on stage - they stopped working in the second half and the production was stopped but, sadly, they got them to work again - to evoke the horrors of Calais. The costuming was all over the place, mostly modern but the old doctor is inexplicably dressed in 18th century gear which makes a nice contrast with the 21st century border guard uniforms. Since the whole novel hinges on the uncanny similarity between Darnay and Carton the director cleverly got that out of the way by making one of them white, tall, curly-hared and bearded (with a Scottish accent) and the other black, significantly shorter, shaven skulled, with a moustache and an African accent. Genius. The second half is better largely because it sticks closer to the novel but even chunks of Dickens read out virgo intacto cannot save this bcause the plot has been well lost by then. It was most certainly not the best of plays, but has a strong claim for one of the worst of plays I've ever seen. If you have a ticket give it away or get a refund. Buy yourself a nice big pot of point and splash it on the walls then wath it dry. It will be far more interesting and rewarding. Oh FFS - that is not what anyone (other than the director) wants. Not good, not good at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 9:08:38 GMT
Dickens plots are always complicated and confusing so it makes sense not to attempt to make it crystal clear, so the audience can soak in the drama without worrying about a detailed plot arc. I'm surprised that anyone is still alive who can't accept blind casting, but there we are. The Imogen adaptation at Shakespeare's Globe was thrilling so this follow-up sounds enticing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 10:35:07 GMT
Publicity says 'adapted from the novel' and 'a new play' rather than 'an adaptation of'. I suppose some might not appreciate the difference but it' is made clear.
Given the divide made so clear recently in London, it seems ripe for updating.
EDIT: Just done a twitter search and not too much comment so far, apart from the usual 'well done's'.
However....
A pretty vile screed from someone who really wanted to spread their hate. Called it left wing and Corbynite and - the - worst - thing - ever. I mean, this is based on Dickens, are they so insular and closed minded that they think it might turn out to be a nice jolly UKIP style romp about those funny Foreigners? What planet exists where a Dickens adaptation isn't a polemical piece decrying the evils of conservative society and its worldview? So it appears likely to anger people politically or theatrically or maybe both. Should be fun.
Also, it really is depressing to see confusion over mixed eras, costume, theatrical rather than literal casting etc. Is it that Dickens is Victorian so the style of theatre has to be too? My best regional show of the year so far, Persuasion at the Royal Exchange, did exactly the same thing.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Jul 11, 2017 14:35:10 GMT
Since the whole novel hinges on the uncanny similarity between Darnay and Carton the director cleverly got that out of the way by making one of them white, tall, curly-hared and bearded (with a Scottish accent) and the other black, significantly shorter, shaven skulled, with a moustache and an African accent. Genius. It will be interesting to see how the press handle the reporting of that one, joem . I think you did it very well. Personally, I couldn't find an angle to comment on it at all, so will be leaving it out. Well colour-blind casting is one thing for the audience, but for the characters? Note I am not suggesting both should be white or black, but there should be consistency where this is so essential to the plot. I think it is sheer laziness or arrogance. You don't have to be "literal" in every aspect of the production but unless you're performing Dadaist theatre you do have to have things an audience can grasp on to. I don't know about Corbynite, the "adapter" does have a rant in the programme about how people were muredered at Grenfell Tower were murdered because they were poor, but it is a very odd novel to pick on if you have a left-wing agenda given how much kowtowing there is to the right sort of aristocrat and to how much time is expended pointing out the ignorance abd cut-throat tendencies of the people. It is a typically confused and exemplary aspect of this unsavoury mishmash. |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 11, 2017 14:49:19 GMT
I see. So we can expect in the near future the two sets of twins in Comedy of Errors to be cast as above. There is a difference between blind casting and daft casting.
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by frosty on Jul 11, 2017 14:57:24 GMT
I had tickets for the 1st preview last Friday that was cancelled (found out just after I had packed my picnic and about to set off for the train!)...reading these comments, looks like it was a blessing in disguise - just phoned and got me a refund, I won't be rebooking. Shame cos 'On the Town' was great, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing Jesus Christ Superstar again.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by bee on Jul 11, 2017 18:44:05 GMT
I got an e-mail today from the theatre warning me about the swearing and violence, and asking me to give them a call if I have any issues with the "age suitability" of my party. Presumably they've some negative feedback from folks who assumed a Dickens adaptation would be a good night out for all the family.
Since my party is, well, me, then I don't think there will be a problem, but I have to confess I'd rather dreading it now.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by bee on Jul 12, 2017 18:48:58 GMT
^You could always say "thanks for the warning, I am religious and I'd rather not, if I can have a refund, please." Ha ha, yes doing something like that did cross my mind, but what the hell, I'll stick with it. I could probably do with stepping out of my comfort zone now and again. Who knows, maybe I'll end up being pleasantly surprised! |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jul 12, 2017 18:52:32 GMT
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by bee on Jul 12, 2017 19:01:08 GMT
Shame. That's the one bit I was looking forward to. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 12, 2017 19:49:31 GMT
Publicity says 'adapted from the novel' and 'a new play' rather than 'an adaptation of'. I suppose some might not appreciate the difference but it' is made clear. Given the divide made so clear recently in London, it seems ripe for updating. EDIT: Just done a twitter search and not too much comment so far, apart from the usual 'well done's'. However.... A pretty vile screed from someone who really wanted to spread their hate. Called it left wing and Corbynite and - the - worst - thing - ever. I mean, this is based on Dickens, are they so insular and closed minded that they think it might turn out to be a nice jolly UKIP style romp about those funny Foreigners? What planet exists where a Dickens adaptation isn't a polemical piece decrying the evils of conservative society and its worldview? So it appears likely to anger people politically or theatrically or maybe both. Should be fun. Also, it really is depressing to see confusion over mixed eras, costume, theatrical rather than literal casting etc. Is it that Dickens is Victorian so the style of theatre has to be too? My best regional show of the year so far, Persuasion at the Royal Exchange, did exactly the same thing. I find it very hard to agree that it has been made clear. Just looking at the text on their website: A new play by MATTHEW DUNSTER Adapted from the novel by CHARLES DICKENS It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us. Sound familiar? How much more do those in power think Europe’s poor can take? When will the people take to the streets of the cities and roar enough is enough? -------- They are clearly leading with the most famous line from the novel. The rest of it does not give you any clue as to significant changes to the narrative or setting and seems to be missing the fact that the novel uses the events surrounding the French Revolution as the backdrop to the story of Carlton, Darnay and the Manettes - all very much middle class and above. It isn't the story of Europe's poor. If Dunster wanted to take a classic 19th Century novel that does deal more directly with the life of the poor in France, he would have been far better advised to look at Hugo rather than distorting Dickens. Clearly they are using Dickens to sell this and it comes as no surprise that some will object to seeing something other than an adaptation of a well-loved novel. Calling it a 'new play' doesn't cover it. If they wanted to be clear it should have been given a different title and reference made to it being inspired by or as a response to the Dickens tale. But that would have lacked the marketing clout necessary for it to sell tickets. It feels slightly similar to the production of The Beggar's Opera that opened the new theatre space in Chester recently - where they kept the title and dumped most of the plot and the original tunes. There is certainly space in our theatres for a new play tackling the issues of social dislocation brought about by world events but forcing a political agenda onto a classic novel adaptation does just feel - well - forced. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 20:04:48 GMT
"Sound familiar? How much more do those in power think Europe’s poor can take? When will the people take to the streets of the cities and roar enough is enough?"
Well, that screams out update to me. As for the middle class we are in times where the conservatives appear to be more trusted by the less educated and poor whilst the labour party are so by the more educated and well off (going off analysis of the recent election), so maybe they are onto something.
You can't win when adapting, either you change the title and have people going on about how you are using other people's ideas passed off as something new, or you use the title and get complaints that it isn't the original. There has to be a fruitful middle ground where something is neither slavish or totally new, Shakespeare made new stories from old all the time, I presume he got complaints about how he should have called King Lear something else as he obviously ripped it off from King Leir and tried to get away with it by changing jus one letter and hoping that people wouldn't notice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 22:23:19 GMT
There is certainly space in our theatres for a new play tackling the issues of social dislocation brought about by world events but forcing a political agenda onto a classic novel adaptation does just feel - well - forced. And you don't like what you consider forced, so you think they shouldn't do it? There are other people in the world than you who are happy with the concept of this adaptation. Just don't go if you're not. |
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Jul 12, 2017 22:26:59 GMT
I had tickets for the 1st preview last Friday that was cancelled (found out just after I had packed my picnic and about to set off for the train!)...reading these comments, looks like it was a blessing in disguise - just phoned and got me a refund, I won't be rebooking. Shame cos 'On the Town' was great, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing Jesus Christ Superstar again. Didn't see On The Town but JCS was very good indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 13, 2017 0:12:40 GMT
There is certainly space in our theatres for a new play tackling the issues of social dislocation brought about by world events but forcing a political agenda onto a classic novel adaptation does just feel - well - forced. And you don't like what you consider forced, so you think they shouldn't do it? There are other people in the world than you who are happy with the concept of this adaptation. Just don't go if you're not. No. I was making the point that the production has not been described accurately in the marketing and thus setting up expectations from an audience who book to see an adaptation of the original novel and actually seeing something rather different. I do not set limits as to what theatre-makers can or can't do (within the realms of legality, of course) - but I do think it is incumbent on theatres to ensure that the productions they present are marketed as clearly as possible. If this production had been described as a re-imagining or a re-working then I would have no issue. But that has not happened. Calling it a 'new play' 'adapted from' is not sufficient when it has been altered significantly. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 8:32:14 GMT
Well that's my ticket going back then! |
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Jul 13, 2017 8:46:02 GMT
I have to say I thought it was a straightforward adaptation of the novel.
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Jul 13, 2017 8:50:58 GMT
I have to say I thought it was a straightforward adaptation of the novel. That was my original assumption too  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 9:17:32 GMT
but I do think it is incumbent on theatres to ensure that the productions they present are marketed as clearly as possible. As Cardinal Pirelli has already pointed out above, the final paragraph of the theatre's official blurb, which you quoted to us, makes it perfectly clear. I don't really understand your point. |
|
