19,663 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 21, 2017 16:23:09 GMT
Probably goes straight back up into the header tank to be used again. Does in a lot of shows as the water effects are in a "closed system" not on the mains...
It must be filthy and rank by the end of the run. Surprised they're not all going down with typhoid! |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jul 21, 2017 16:43:09 GMT
If it's anything like the system used in "Singin' In The Rain," the stuff was so thick with chemicals it was more like jelly when it hit the front row. Or containing piss, if you worked with Tommy Steele during SITR....apparently! |
|
5,801 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jul 21, 2017 21:20:06 GMT
That is true. The crew hated him, If it's anything like the system used in "Singin' In The Rain," the stuff was so thick with chemicals it was more like jelly when it hit the front row. Or containing piss, if you worked with Tommy Steele during SITR....apparently! |
|
5,139 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Jul 22, 2017 12:26:53 GMT
Well it clearly didn't do him any harm. He's 81 and still going strong.
Perhaps that's the secret to a long and healthy life!!
|
|
5,801 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jul 23, 2017 8:37:17 GMT
He'll only get employed by Bill Kenwright.. hardly "going strong"!! Well it clearly didn't do him any harm. He's 81 and still going strong. Perhaps that's the secret to a long and healthy life!! |
|
19,663 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 23, 2017 9:23:33 GMT
I'm no fan of the honours system but when you look at some of the people in showbiz that have got a life peerage you wonder who Tommy Steele must have annoyed during his lengthy career.
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 23, 2017 15:26:40 GMT
I agree, BB. Mind you the bods who deal out the honours these days have 1) lost the plot and 2) don't know who anyone is who was before their celebrity driven era.
|
|
4,977 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 23, 2017 19:36:58 GMT
A cucumber is a fruit which grows...like above the ground. A fruit is something that grows above ground, a fruit contains seeds, which as you say is a cucumber, but you can include tomatos, peppers, aubergines, courgettes and olives. Incidentally a banana isn't a fruit, it is a herb. |
|
4,977 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 23, 2017 19:39:00 GMT
Confused. Thought she was a character in Les Miz? A cucumber is a fruit which grows...like above the ground. Major trauma flashback. On a school trip, we were taken to a cucumber greenhouse* and were supposed to be fascinated with how they grew. Also that the stems the grow on are turned into walking sticks, as they are very straight and very strong. Trauma came from the fact "The Day of the Triffids" was on TV at the time... *Not to be confused with the Houses of Parliament. Where we were never taken on a school trip. Even in the 70s and 80s, there were a few decency guidelines. Oh you start to worry when you had the cucumber and condom, in biology and the teacher was as horny as hell!!? |
|
4,977 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 23, 2017 19:42:38 GMT
I'm no fan of the honours system but when you look at some of the people in showbiz that have got a life peerage you wonder who Tommy Steele must have annoyed during his lengthy career. Are we talking about the same Tommy Steele who was in the Christmas Carol at the Palladium and his face looked enlightened whenever he remember his lines? |
|
19,663 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 23, 2017 21:30:12 GMT
I'm no fan of the honours system but when you look at some of the people in showbiz that have got a life peerage you wonder who Tommy Steele must have annoyed during his lengthy career. Are we talking about the same Tommy Steele who was in the Christmas Carol at the Palladium and his face looked enlightened whenever he remember his lines? Do you think Sir Bruce Forsythe would have bumbled hisway through the last couple of series of SCD without autocue? Im talking about lifetime achievement. |
|
4,977 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 24, 2017 12:04:57 GMT
I have never watched SCD, also I am no proponent of the honours system.
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Jul 24, 2017 15:19:19 GMT
This is all wonderfully entertaining, but does anyone have anything to say about the production?? Is it like Andrews's Young Vic STREETCAR in style/affect? How is Miller? :-)
|
|
6 posts
|
Post by culturevulture on Jul 24, 2017 18:47:03 GMT
It would be fantastic if someone could post something constructive about the actual production rather than talk about Tommy Steele.
|
|
19,663 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 24, 2017 19:33:50 GMT
Welcome to the forum, we love a bit of sarcasm.
Maybe no-one has anything more interesting to say about the production at this time. That's often the reason why threads go off track. Get is back on track by telling us what your expectations are.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 24, 2017 20:52:22 GMT
This is all wonderfully entertaining, but does anyone have anything to say about the production?? Is it like Andrews's Young Vic STREETCAR in style/affect? How is Miller? :-) From friends who have seen it: Miller is meant to be shockingly bad. Totally exposed on a totally exposing set. O'Connell fairs slightly better, but his towel keeps "falling off". You get to see his wang, a lot. Hayley Squires cameo is meant to be great. The first half is half the length of the second. It's all off-balance. Ultimately Andrews has cast it for stars rather than talent, and it could be a very embarrassing (and sad) sign off for Lan with this misguided West End money-making venture. |
|
367 posts
|
Post by Jonnyboy on Jul 24, 2017 22:29:27 GMT
4* Telegraph
|
|
195 posts
|
Post by tal on Jul 24, 2017 23:26:29 GMT
3* The Stage
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jul 25, 2017 0:01:44 GMT
I was there tonight, and I would say 3* is absolutely right. This is complete bog-standard, middle-of-the-road, uneventful, harmless theatre. Didn't hate it by any means so wouldn't go for 1* or 2*, and it teased the dizzying heights of 4* but never really quite reached it. It thought the acting, all round, was fine. Not an offensively bad performance from anyone in my opinion, but certainly nothing outstanding. Act 1 is all but a monologue from Sienna Miller, and she delivers it with aplomb but with hit-and-miss skill. She tries a tad too hard, maybe. Jack O'Connell does indeed fare slightly better (no towel-slipping tonight) and Haley Squires is fun, but everyone else is pretty inconsequential, to tell the truth. A rather annoying sibilant 's' from the actor playing Gooper did start to grate as it began to mess with his accent (accents were not offensive either, but then again I'm not Southern American!). Anyway, the acting. Again, middle of the road, if not a tad boring. The nudity isn't completely gratuitous, it didn't effect my perception of the acting. It wasn't *so* bad that it felt like the nudity was there to distract, in my opinion. Directing was a bit dodge, though. Lots of 'arriving just in time for the character to be needed' and quite a bit of walking on for a couple of seconds and walking off. A nice design, would've been nicer if something 'happened' with it I guess. Very, very bare. There are some cute kids, too.
This was my first experience of the play, having held off watching the film which I have recorded at home, and to be honest, I wasn't particularly enamored with it. Maybe it was this production, but not much seemed to happen. Little drama (and just because people shout and throw things - boy is there a lot of mess made!!!! - doesn't fool me into thinking there's drama), no stakes, nothing much to keep an audience invested at all really. I came out thinking "why is this a play?". Why do these people's stories so desperately need to be told? What is special about their lives, about this evening that we are dropped into? I'm all for a bit of drama that centres around normal people, where no big events happen and it's all a little "psychological", but there didn't even seem to me to be much of that, either. Much like the acting, I found it all to be rather inconsequential. Yes there's a lot to be said about the truth of a family and the consequences of the lies we tell, maybe this production just didn't totally grasp it. And my goodness don't they repeat things a lot. Maybe it's because the period writing jarred a little with the modern setting, but Act 2 could be half the length if the characters didn't repeat themselves and other characters quite so much!
Again, it's not to say I hated it at all. There's some comedy to enjoy, some nice one-liners, and even though Act 2 is over double the length of Act 1, I found it didn't actually drag much. So even though I have my reservations about the play, I must've been engaged one way or another. And again, maybe those reservations are down to a possible sub-par production which was, as I mentioned, my very first introduction to this play. But I am looking forward to watching the film.
Lovely spread at the after party, though!
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Jul 25, 2017 0:10:55 GMT
4* from The Times
I was there tonight as well and agree with Treneman (for once) and Cavendish: a mightily compelling evening that makes an apt companion piece to Andrews's YV Streetcar, though I actually thought this production was better.
I wish people would realise that it isn't that act two is "twice the length" of act one, as if that is somehow to fault the play: in fact, Andrews has (wisely) bled the second and third acts of Williams's play into one extended act, thereby eliminating the need for a second interval - and it works just fine.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jul 25, 2017 0:18:18 GMT
^ Sure, but in the context of this production, there are two physical acts the audience sits through. Disregarding what is joined together when, Act 1 is around 45 mins and Act 2 around 1 hour 40. It's twice the length, despite Act 2 technically containing two acts in itself. I don't think people are faulting the play, but commenting on the choice made for this production.
|
|
141 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Jul 26, 2017 11:21:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2017 11:25:22 GMT
Jack O'Connell does indeed fare slightly better (no towel-slipping tonight) Well that's one star off the show review for a start. The nudity isn't completely gratuitous, And there goes another. |
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 26, 2017 11:59:24 GMT
I'm no fan of the honours system but when you look at some of the people in showbiz that have got a life peerage you wonder who Tommy Steele must have annoyed during his lengthy career. Virtually everyone he worked with |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2017 12:00:19 GMT
Brantley is well worth listening to, i know he gets much more space than his British counterparts, with their paltry word limits but he knows his stuff. Hitchings in the Evening Standard could probably give him a run for money if he was given the chance but very rarely do others back up their opinions with such clear reasoning. Thanks for the heads up, I always read his London reviews but there is no set pattern as to when he turns up here! |
|
