|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 9:24:15 GMT
I thought it was a straight forward adaption too. Nothing in the promotional material suggests added sex and swearing. The poor take to the streets in Les Mis and dont swear and get naked to make a point. 'A new play' just means the play is new as the source material wasnt a play in the first place, in the same way 'A new musical ' does.
If you want to make a point using these kind of gimmicks write a new play, dont use something everyone knows so that people book then complain when they dont get what they are expecting because you have changed it
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 9:42:21 GMT
Tsk!
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 13, 2017 13:23:11 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. But it doesn't. It really doesn't. Some might interpret it that way - but it is far, far, far from clear. The focus of their marketing is the title and the key Dickens quote. You shouldn't have to decipher a marketing statement - it should immediately be evident to the casual reader. |
|
295 posts
|
Post by fossil on Jul 13, 2017 13:27:06 GMT
They are warning people now. I never understand why theatres invite problems by not adequately warning people in advance. This has been going on for years. The National did this all those years ago with The Romans In Britain when they ended up having to defend a court action, simply because they invited controversy by not giving adequate warning resulting in people attending trusting it was actually a historical drama.
From a news report:
Regent’s Park Open Air Theatre has been forced to defend a sex scene and strong language in its adaption of A Tale of Two Cities, after audience members walked out.
Reports in the Sun claimed that families with children were seen leaving, while a Regent’s Park spokesman argued that the play contains no nudity and had not been marketed to young children.
The scene that attracted criticism has now been removed from Matthew Dunster’s adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel, following its first preview performance on July 8.
During the preview performance, the character Sydney Carton was seen to pay a prostitute who then removes her underwear before a sex scene.
However a spokesman for Regent’s Park says this was a “brief, fully clothed-scene” in which there was no visible nudity.
In a statement, he said: “The production is billed as a ‘new play adapted from the novel by Charles Dickens’ which seeks to frame the original, often shocking, story within a contemporary context.
“At the first preview on Saturday night there were very few children among an adult audience of more than 1,100.
“On arrival, those accompanying any children were spoken to individually and offered a refund for their party should they not wish to see the performance. The vast majority of the audience stayed for the entire show.”
The spokesman added that, as the play is developed through the preview period, the scene with Sydney Carton and “much of the strong language” was removed before the second preview on July 10.
Additionally, the theatre’s website has been updated with advisory information and all customers who have booked for future performances have been contacted.
A report in the Sun newspaper claimed that up to 100 people left the audience, however Regent’s Park Theatre argued that such figures were an overstatement.
The spokesman added: “There are a number of inaccuracies in the reporting of Saturday night’s performance of A Tale of Two Cities, which is neither aimed at nor marketed to young children.
“In particular, the three-hour play contains no nudity and reports of the number of children in the audience and the number of people leaving are overstated
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 14:13:40 GMT
The sex scene was fully-clothed but was still graphic for all that, and went on for a good bit longer than felt comfortable to those watching. A couple of minutes, but felt a lot longer (no smutty remarks, Ryan).  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 16:52:18 GMT
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. But it doesn't. It really doesn't. Some might interpret it that way - but it is far, far, far from clear. The focus of their marketing is the title and the key Dickens quote. You shouldn't have to decipher a marketing statement - it should immediately be evident to the casual reader. I can understand why the lack of warning about the sex scenes was a really big issue but I really don't understand why using a well known title and story is. Adaptation happens all the time, whether it's Greek, Shakespeare and so on. The simultaneous announcement of Oliver Twist for younger audiences correctly says 'adapted by' instead of the 'a new play by' of Tale of Two Cities, so they did make a clear distinction. People are reacting because of the age inappropriate content and no warning, that's where the problem lies. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 17:09:29 GMT
Goodness. Some people aren't happy unless they're complaining about something or another. I bet all those people walking out of 'A Tale of Two Cities' because of a pair of knickers and a bit of swearing are more than happy to schlep back to Regents Park to see a nice little play about child exploitation, criminal activity, domestic abuse and a questionable old man living with lots of young boys.
I blame 'Points of View'. Barry Took and Anne Robinson have got a lot to answer for.
Why oh why oh why . . .
|
|
245 posts
|
Post by barelyathletic on Jul 14, 2017 13:16:55 GMT
Every decision made about this production was the wrong one. Even the set refused to perform last night. I reckon most of the actors would have if they could have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 14:43:27 GMT
I have always found this venue
Sickeningly pathetic
And generally sh*t
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by frosty on Jul 17, 2017 10:27:41 GMT
I blame 'Points of View'. Barry Took and Anne Robinson have got a lot to answer for. Why oh why oh why . . . Showing your age there! |
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Jul 21, 2017 22:14:32 GMT
Rained out tonight 10 or 15 minutes into act two which is a bloody nuisance for those of us who were determined to stick it out at all costs --- yes, it was and is as bad as you've heard but not controversially so, just doggedly and determinedly inert. and abysmally acted pretty much down the line, lots of attitude and posturing and not an iota of characterisation.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jul 26, 2017 9:32:19 GMT
Saw it Monday night. Having read about it and knowing what to expect, it was not as bad as I was expecting. In fact some scenes were rather good. Some of the acting leaves a bit to be desired and the start is particularly confusing if you don't know the story. However, I quite liked the mix of old and new and the staging (which had no problems). Having said this, overall there was still something unsatisfying about the play as a whole.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by bee on Aug 6, 2017 13:58:33 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon. It certainly helped to go in with low expectations, since I ended up coming out thinking it wasn't that bad. Nicholas Karimi was good as Carton, really quite moving at times, and there were other good performances such as Kevork Malikyan as Lorry, Nabil Elouahabi as Barsad and especially Nicholas Khan who doubled up as Jerry Cruncher and an enjoyably thuggish Monsiegneur. I also thought the set worked well and was used quite skilfully.
There was also, unfortunately, some real guff in there. The linking sections, where cast members would read what I assume were chunks of text from the novel, accompanied by some godawful miming by the company, were painfully embarrassing. I'd have thought it's the playwright's job to write some scenes to move the story forward and explain the backstory, otherwise we might as well buy an audiobook. Plus there were some scenes which were just silly, like the part close to the end when Dr. Manette, Lucy et al were fleeing and either leaving France or entering England (it wasn't clear which) and for some reason the French and English travellers got split up and one lot got carried off screaming to presumably some horrible fate, though exactly what we never found out. Presumably the writer was making some point there but I'm not sure what and it didn't fit with the story at all. Another weird scene featured a bunch of the actors sharpening axes and swords on grindstones in preparation for chopping the heads off the aristos, but it was interesting that even though they were supposed to be part of a savage, rabid mob, they still remembered to put on their safety goggles in case of flying sparks. Obviously Health & Safety was a big deal in pre-revolutionary France.
Still, there was no sex scene and only three or four swearwords so from a take-the-kids point of view you could have just about got away with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 18:59:27 GMT
Did it rain?
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by bee on Aug 7, 2017 19:15:47 GMT
Started raining during the interval, lasted 30 minutes or so, so the second half was delayed for a bit. |
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Aug 8, 2017 10:05:23 GMT
I managed to pass my tickets on to a work colleague, felt a bit guilty ( but hey it soon passed ! )
|
|
