|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 15:06:54 GMT
The reviews were quite odd - some used words like 'ugly' and 'slow' but still whacked on pretty high stars (certainly I think 4 is high for this.) Some thought the women's scenes didn't work, others that they were the highlight. (They weren't, with the exception of Aislin McGuckin) I felt there was a whiff of 'National Treasure' or 'Treasure-to-be' in the indulgence in the reviews of a couple of the performances. However, I saw a preview and I'm sure it is in better shape than when I saw it (I'm assuming the gun goes off and someone helps Ralph out of the pit.) But in terms of compensations - you are up close - I enjoyed seeing Fiennes acting from Row H in the stalls at the Almeida more than I enjoyed seeing him in the Master Builder at the Old Vic way at the back. He has a fantastic voice - at one point he came booming down an aisle near me shouting and it was chest-rattling loud. Other moments he can create some quite subtle or surprising line readings. He spoke to the audience well - at one point seeming to suggest that one of us was Tyrell. I like James Garnon so he's always worth watching for. Didn't get a programme so can't advise on that, but there is a free cast list. Looking forward to hearing what you think! My problem with the female quartet in this production was that they were just all so underpowered. Joanna Vanderham even seemed to realise and just gave up half way through the performance. I must say, I thought Aislin McGuckin was by far the weakest of the four. She was just so screechy and shouty that I almost wished that Richard would put us out of our misery and throw her in the car park pit too. |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 17, 2016 15:50:42 GMT
That's interesting - I thought her scene with Fiennes in the second half was bonkers, but at least I was interested in it. She was really trying, almost desperately so - if there was a bench or something to stand on, she'd do it, if there was a chance to strike a pose with an upraised arm, there it would go. But at least it didn't feel like an unsuccessful meeting of the Women's Institute....
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 15:59:46 GMT
The play is about the twisted mind of a man who still manages to charm the audience - not about physical ticks or theatrical tricks. If you play the psychology, it should all fall into place.... For me Fiennes is a non entity I am sorry I don't rate him Think he is an average actor at best Gives boring interviews Don't fancy him And wouldn't dash across the road to gush or ask for a selfie Perhaps this is the issue He lacks the wow factor I felt this about Martin Freeman. For me, no-one will ever come close to Spacey or Rylance. |
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Jun 17, 2016 16:09:34 GMT
Yes I agree Foxa, at least Aislin McGuckin threw herself into it.
Having the quite-together Susan Engel next to the all-over-the-place Vanessa Redgrave just showed up how awful Vanessa was even more. I mean it was as if she had no idea what the next word to come out of her mouth was going to be or what it would mean. Truly the most embarrassingly bad bit of acting I've seen on stage in a long time.
Vanderham really didn't do it for me either, although it's a rotten part.
I quite liked most of the other performances and overall quite enjoyed myself, but I just don't understand why it was all mobile phones and machine guns until the final 10 mins when it went all RSC with parchment paper, swords and suits of armour. A rather confused production of what still proves to be a cracking good play.
|
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Jun 17, 2016 16:12:44 GMT
Rylance was great. Spacey overdid it a bit, I felt. Richard Clothier in the fantastic Propeller production was the bees knees. |
|
5,795 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 18, 2016 7:31:30 GMT
Oh dear, I might give my tickets away now. Gone right off seeing this.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 18, 2016 8:34:25 GMT
This Board has interesting effects. Obviously this thread seriously lowers expectations. Hence mine were not great last night (though reviews published yesterday had some alternative views). I also had no build up in my mind as I did not plan to go (just spotting a cheap ticket online about 11.30 pm the night before). As a result I had a reasonable time. Yes, there are some odd production decisions, but also some nice touches. The acting is mixed. So, a bit of a curate's egg - but that's not bad if you expected only bad eggs!
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 18, 2016 10:05:02 GMT
I agree. This isn't a production where I would say don't go if you have already bought tickets or could get cheap ones. The only point in it when I was miserably unhappy was during the dream sequence - I found myself thinking, 'If this is what theatre is, boring the pants off people, what's the point?' but most of the rest had something or other to divert you. And it's a collector's item.
Did they keep in the weird bit of business where Ralph squeezes Vanessa's plastic doll's head and it goes all squished? Then Vanessa watches it as it slowly expands back finally settling back into its original position with a little 'bloop' noise. That was diverting.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 18, 2016 10:18:06 GMT
Yes, Ralph still squeezes the doll's head, but it didn't seem to get back into shape so readily. Goodness knows what state it will be in by the end of the run!
I also agree about the dream sequence. It is clunky in the play in any case, but this is such a political play - just making clear that absolutely everyone that Richard has killed supports the (dubious) inception of the Tudors. I seem to remember in the BBC Hollow Crown they included Henry VI at this point for added emphasis!
|
|
1,052 posts
|
Post by David J on Jun 18, 2016 10:48:07 GMT
Henry VI does appear in the dream according to the text
You'd only see that if Richard 3 is performed alongside Henry 6 because other than being a corpse Henry has little impact in the former
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 18, 2016 12:47:37 GMT
Henry VI does appear in the dream according to the text You'd only see that if Richard 3 is performed alongside Henry 6 because other than being a corpse Henry has little impact in the former Thanks. You are quite right. The Almeida production used a skeleton rather than a whole body so introducing the character would make recognition difficult without adding "hey, for those that don't recognise me, I'm the late King Henry". I'm not convinced this would work! |
|
1,052 posts
|
Post by David J on Jun 18, 2016 14:29:22 GMT
Pretty average really
This falls into the trap of "let's make this modern and have everyone in suits". Very uninspiring
The cuts and adjustments to the text feel odd and makes the pacing sluggish. I didn't realise or else forgotten the bishop of Ely had a monologue after Hastings death
The 3 hour running time feels unjustified
Still I enjoyed the performances from a few favourites like Scott Handy and James Garnon
|
|
1,052 posts
|
Post by David J on Jun 18, 2016 18:08:38 GMT
So, whilst Ralph Fiennes demonstrates he can deliver shakespeare, make the audience laugh with a few disparaging comments and knowing looks, show the occasional moment ofmaneavolence, and as Ryan says show the cogs turning in Richards head, this Richard didn't engage with me
Gould could have thought out the text editing more because the lines flowed awkwardly at times. And the slow pacing is just hampered by such additions like the car park scene. The dream scene can go on a bit, but it has been done better than this
Also my audience neighbours got to enjoy my big sigh as the rape went on and on. The lady next to me had the same idea for the dream scene
|
|
330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on Jun 18, 2016 23:28:52 GMT
Obviously a lot of the people find Ralph Fiennes appealing - an auditorium full of standing ovations! I liked to listen and watch him, but as David has already said, he didn't get me - as he did in Man and Superman or even in The Masterbuilder. Vanessa Redgrave is awful! Loved James Garnon. Some other solid performances. Weakest ensemble performance of a Richard III I have seen so far. Although I was partly bored when Kevin Spacey was not on stage, the ensemble was excellent. Here I was deeply. looking for the acting highlights. Even the Jamie Lloyd version had a stronger ensemble than this. Talking about it, where The Jamie Lloyd version had too much of, this had not enough of. I like it simple but then the acting and few ideas have to be brilliant. Lloyd's drowning in the fish tank was great. in this it was a bit boring. It's not a total failure like Medea but this is terribly average and so expendable.
My highlight of the evening was Franco Nero coming to see Redgrave! And except for me, no one seemed to recognise him!
|
|
516 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Jun 19, 2016 9:19:13 GMT
Saw this yesterday. An overall enjoyable production but not overwhelming. I was impressed by Fiennes' Richard - all dry wit and sophistication. But I'm not sure how it will be remembered. I haven't seen the play before but have studied it and can remember different actors' interpretations whether because they are linked with animals (Sher's spider for instance) or because they were fairly distinctive (Henry Goodman's showman Richard for instance).
A good ensemble - Buckingham was quietly impressive as Hastings. Vanessa Redgrave wasn't as wobbly as I thought from reading others' reviews but it seemed a weak interpretation of the character. I liked how she passed the doll on to Elizabeth to hint that she will turn out like Margaret perhaps.
As for the production, it was postmodern I suppose in the way that it questioned fact and fiction. Loved the framing with the excavation of his body. Unintended or not, the glass floor covering the tomb looks very similar to the glass floor currently covering the grave in Leicester.
Enjoyed the lighting and sound and thought it was an effective ending - despite the (I agree) clunky dream sequence.
|
|
43 posts
|
Post by sayers500 on Jun 21, 2016 0:12:13 GMT
This may have been discussed but in what time is this production set in? Bosworth Field clearly alludes to a period setting, which makes sense due to the flashback nature of the production, but the awful and blatant 'look how relevant Shakespeare is' approach by giving Hastings a mobile phone disrupts the whole concept of the piece.
Also, the lighting design is incredibly ill-conceived for people in the circle. The glass paneled floor reflected the light directly up to the circle in a very inconvenient way.
I've never seen Fiennes ever give a different performance but he does ruthless very well.
However, overall it was a rather pleasant evening out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 8:44:50 GMT
This may have been discussed but in what time is this production set in? Bosworth Field clearly alludes to a period setting, which makes sense due to the flashback nature of the production, but the awful and blatant 'look how relevant Shakespeare is' approach by giving Hastings a mobile phone disrupts the whole concept of the piece. Also, the lighting design is incredibly ill-conceived for people in the circle. The glass paneled floor reflected the light directly up to the circle in a very inconvenient way. I've never seen Fiennes ever give a different performance but he does ruthless very well.However, overall it was a rather pleasant evening out. I liked him in 'Maid In Manhattan' . . . |
|
516 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Jun 21, 2016 9:22:46 GMT
Also, the lighting design is incredibly ill-conceived for people in the circle. The glass paneled floor reflected the light directly up to the circle in a very inconvenient way. I was sat at the back of the stalls and it wasn't until I was making my way out at the end that I noticed the big ring above the stage. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jun 21, 2016 18:56:04 GMT
Also, the lighting design is incredibly ill-conceived for people in the circle. The glass paneled floor reflected the light directly up to the circle in a very inconvenient way. I was sat at the back of the stalls and it wasn't until I was making my way out at the end that I noticed the big ring above the stage. Note to self, look up when entering theatre as sitting near back too. Is it important? Presumably not if goes unnoticed if you sit far back. |
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 21, 2016 22:47:20 GMT
I was sat at the back of the stalls and it wasn't until I was making my way out at the end that I noticed the big ring above the stage. Note to self, look up when entering theatre as sitting near back too. Is it important? Presumably not if goes unnoticed if you sit far back. It looks more like a giant cog, than a crown, when up close. Maybe it's meant to be a cog, in the big wheel of power? It's really not important to see it though. Nothing happens to it (or on it lighting wise even). |
|
628 posts
|
Post by jek on Jun 23, 2016 7:34:59 GMT
My 16 year old son went to see this last night with his sixth form college, as part of his A Level drama studies. I was dreading him coming home thinking that he would have been bored, especially never having been to a Shakespeare performance before. Instead, while he said it was long, he was largely positive about the experience and very taken with Ralph Fiennes' performance (described by him as quite literally 'in your face'). Best of all, from my point of view, he has now agreed to watch one of my favourite films 'In Bruges' with me in order to see another Fiennes' performance!
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 23, 2016 10:04:35 GMT
If you didn't catch it yesterday, here is a link to Goold and Fiennes discussing the production on BBC Radio 4: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07gct4zQuite a funny 'What WE decided' moment at one point - or so it seemed to me - and some not surprising discover-the-evil-in-yourself stuff. For anyone who finds the production painful to sit through it may be some solace to learn that Fiennes is in pain too 'I've booked a massage for right after this interview.' Very glad to hear that jek's son wasn't turned off Shakespeare/theatre for life - that proximity really is a selling point. And 'In Bruges' - now that is a treat! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2016 23:35:13 GMT
Tweeted tonight by Baz...
Hard to know when and where this would transfer to. Isn't Finnes supposed to be taking The Master Builder to Broadway at some point as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 5:42:43 GMT
Don't know about WE transfer,but wouldn't be surprised by Broadway transfer
|
|
516 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Jun 24, 2016 17:34:31 GMT
Surprised by a West End transfer too. My first time seeing the play but I agree that it's not the best production. Also, the use of space in the Almeida is quite different to what you can do in a West End theatre surely. The Master Builder was due to open this Autumn.
|
|
