406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Mar 29, 2017 10:47:46 GMT
Is anyone seeing this soon? I am going on Saturday night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 11:39:22 GMT
I'm going on 9th May. Looks a good cast.
|
|
3,558 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 29, 2017 11:53:11 GMT
Keen to hear reports as I've given up booking the crap seats in the Dorfman but didn't want to splash out on something better without any idea whether it was worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 11:55:35 GMT
Remember the Cottesloe? Remember how the cheap crap seats in the Cottesloe were actually something of a bargain? Man I hate the Dorfman. I was happy to pay £10 to have a bar in my line of sight, and now they expect me to pay £15 to literally not be able to see anything other than a steel pillar and the person next to me.
|
|
2,052 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Mar 29, 2017 12:18:14 GMT
I'm sort of tempted to see it towards the end of its run just for Ben Chaplin in the cast(mainly for Game On, and he left that a good 25 years or so ago? and then has only turned up in bit parts in films to the best of my knowledge) but like the comments above, not sure I'd want to pay top price to see it.
|
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Mar 29, 2017 12:38:24 GMT
I will be in the Gallery with a £15 ticket so I can provide a report from the worst possible seat in the Dorfman :-)
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by bramble on Mar 29, 2017 13:43:41 GMT
very good play.very well cast.sends you away with lots to think about.very funny too.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Mar 29, 2017 14:33:27 GMT
I'm going tonight. As I'm there anyway, I thought I'd also go beforehand to a talk on 25 years of the Cottesloe/Dorfman chaired by Michael Billington.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 14:39:16 GMT
Wasn't going to, then had a sudden "oh, it might be" moment and got a £20 high seat for a couple of months time. On the subject of Monkey visiting the Dorfman, I notice that you don't have any opinions for seats for Consent but you have colour-coded opinions for seats for Barbershop Chronicles. Can I ask about that? Especially as I hate some of the seats you've marked green but don't mind some of the ones you've marked red? |
|
3,558 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 29, 2017 15:25:54 GMT
I don't recall the cheap seats in the Cottesloe being much better than their equivalent in the Dorfman, though am happy to take your word for it, Baemax. False economy now for me, anyway, as what I saved on the ticket cost I'd spend, and more, on treatment from my osteopath or physiotherapist for the resulting discomfort. Who on earth designed an arrangement which requires you to lean forward throughout and, in many cases, sideways at the same time? It's an ergonomic nightmare and distracting however good the play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 15:37:13 GMT
There used to be a row T in the balcony that directly faced the stage and only cost £10 due to a single bar. It's just gone completely now, so you're either paying a bundle for row R or you're sideways on. No thanks to either of those.
|
|
330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on Mar 29, 2017 16:42:55 GMT
All the Rush tickets I got for the Dorfman so far were great.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Mar 29, 2017 18:09:48 GMT
I'm going tonight. As I'm there anyway, I thought I'd also go beforehand to a talk on 25 years of the Cottesloe/Dorfman chaired by Michael Billington. The talk was fun - old codgers amusing tales. Of course it is 40 years, not 25 (can't remember where I got that from). Interestingly no one said the word 'Dorfman', just how great the Cottesloe is. Now for Consent. |
|
117 posts
|
Post by bramble on Mar 30, 2017 11:42:37 GMT
Could not disagree more with parsley. I think as well as being well cast it is very well written. The gaps didn't worry me at all. It seemed quite clear as to what was happening. Each to his own.
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Mar 30, 2017 11:51:43 GMT
Could not disagree more with parsley. I think as well as being well cast it is very well written. The gaps didn't worry me at all. It seemed quite clear as to what was happening. Each to his own. I'm not going to sit here and type that it was the best thing I have seen this month, never mind ever, but it was a well written, solid play augmented by a good cast. Never once did I wonder what was happening. |
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Mar 30, 2017 16:24:01 GMT
I'm not going to sit here and type that it was the best thing I have seen this month, never mind ever, but it was a well written, solid play augmented by a good cast. Never once did I wonder what was happening. Things like The couple where he was thrown out And suddenly 2 scenes later they were reconciled The scene where a victim visited the house Hardly plausible But then it was barely mentioned and there we no consequences and the character was not seen again What happened in between those scenes? What were the thought processes going on and the impact Part of the problem could be the cheap staging Which only evokes a few limited settings And this affected the sense of place and time The context of lots of the events was in a wine and weed fuelled evening Excellent behaviour for couples who are parents Parents indulging in fine wine and food whilst without a seemingly care about their children... One day someone will write a great play about the McCanns... Their behaviour, whilst far from ideal, should not prove to be unplausible or even unrealistic to anyone above a certain age. Also, the play grabs snap shots of their lives and if you think reconciliation between couples don't happen or people sleep with others to get revenge you have led a very sheltered life. Most people will know some persons similar to those depicted in the play whether they know it or not. |
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Mar 30, 2017 16:35:20 GMT
I'm not going to sit here and type that it was the best thing I have seen this month, never mind ever, but it was a well written, solid play augmented by a good cast. Never once did I wonder what was happening. More that I didn't think what was happening was plausible rather than not understanding it Due to deficits in the writing and plot and staging The characters were all idiots weak and pathetic The characters were all weak and pathetic.... Welcome to life! They're humans and we are weak and pathetic sometimes... As for unplausible, my best friend other than my current partner is my ex wife who, when we were falling apart, we both did things we both regret. We're human though and forgiving just like the characters in the play. We wouldn't stand out as being unique in 2017. |
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 30, 2017 21:50:44 GMT
Oh dear god, what WAS this tonight?
The National, I thought, had gone away from presenting plays about rich people (in this case lawyers) moaning about their lives and kids and work, with a visit from a "poor" to supposedly raise social conscience, but no. Are we genuinely still being asked to care about the wealthy?
The acting is good, but the play is rotten.
Badly structured, with a very strange device of introducing a small drama, then resolving it, leaving the audience with little pull to find out what happens next, because we know it's going to be tidied up in a few minutes.
It's not a spoiler to say the little bit of "consent" within the play comes from the subject of rape. It is handled so clumsily though, and not even a major focus. In fact the rape victims are presented so insultingly, I'd be surprised if there weren't complaints for rape survivors. In a very dangerous way, it's main point seems to be that snot only do poor people get raped, but guess what, rich people do too.
Much of the story and stories are so unbelievable though, as has been pointed out in previous posts, that you can't believe anyone or thing as having actually happened for a second.
Why should we care about these people? We don't. And thus dies any dramatic tension or effect as we all just sit there waiting for not a lot to carry on happening.
The design is very poor for a Dorfman show, even if it is in the round/square. A few sofas and boxes rising up, then dropping down.. An array of different light shades hanging in front of the audience.
You can sort of see where Raine was aiming her focus at, but unfortunately she's tried to put far too many issues and angles into her play and thus nothing gets discussed or thought about too much for too long. She also has a terrible habit of having characters very unsubtly speak their subtext. Spoon feeding time.
As Parsley said, the high calibre cast (although we thought Priyanga Burford was really quite poor and stood out like a sore thumb acting wise. But then she doesn't actually have a character or anything to really play. She does initially, but as Parsley pointed out, its quickly swept under the carpet) might win it good reviews, but surely the play should be the focus for reviewers, and in this case, it is simply not good enough.
Having said all of this, the core NT audience of white, 50+yr olds there tonight laughed all the way through it, and seemed nicely content by the end. Nothing too heavy or much demanded of them. Just some couples arguing for a bit, but everything being tied up nicely before you go home.
A big disappointment.
|
|
1,254 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Mar 30, 2017 22:04:54 GMT
Can you tell any more about the seating? From the plan it looks like there is a block of seats 'behind' the stage and so I wondered if that block would have a worse view if the actors are mainly directing towards more of the people in the rest of the theatre?
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 30, 2017 22:46:23 GMT
Can you tell any more about the seating? From the plan it looks like there is a block of seats 'behind' the stage and so I wondered if that block would have a worse view if the actors are mainly directing towards more of the people in the rest of the theatre? Seating is almost as PeoplePlaces & Things was. Clear view for all in the main Pit banks of seating. Some of the long side seats on the 1st and 2nd levels may be restricted when the action occurs nearer the edges of the rectangular stage, but that doesn't happen a lot. You won't be missing anything special in the set (or the play unfortunately...) if you are sat on the long sides. |
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 30, 2017 22:51:46 GMT
Are you involved with the show directly? No. Defended it once and all other posts have been regarding human behaviour. But human behaviour you seem to have seen portrayed in the play. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 1:29:05 GMT
Whoops. This discussion went left at the traffic lights when it should have gone straight on...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 9:28:43 GMT
Digression into personal attacks removed.
|
|
245 posts
|
Post by barelyathletic on Mar 31, 2017 9:53:14 GMT
Oh dear god, what WAS this tonight? The National, I thought, had gone away from presenting plays about rich people (in this case lawyers) moaning about their lives and kids and work, with a visit from a "poor" to supposedly raise social conscience, but no. Are we genuinely still being asked to care about the wealthy? The acting is good, but the play is rotten. Badly structured, with a very strange device of introducing a small drama, then resolving it, leaving the audience with little pull to find out what happens next, because we know it's going to be tidied up in a few minutes. It's not a spoiler to say the little bit of "consent" within the play comes from the subject of rape. It is handled so clumsily though, and not even a major focus. In fact the rape victims are presented so insultingly, I'd be surprised if there weren't complaints for rape survivors. In a very dangerous way, it's main point seems to be that snot only do poor people get raped, but guess what, rich people do too. Much of the story and stories are so unbelievable though, as has been pointed out in previous posts, that you can't believe anyone or thing as having actually happened for a second. Why should we care about these people? We don't. And thus dies any dramatic tension or effect as we all just sit there waiting for not a lot to carry on happening. The design is very poor for a Dorfman show, even if it is in the round/square. A few sofas and boxes rising up, then dropping down.. An array of different light shades hanging in front of the audience. You can sort of see where Raine was aiming her focus at, but unfortunately she's tried to put far too many issues and angles into her play and thus nothing gets discussed or thought about too much for too long. She also has a terrible habit of having characters very unsubtly speak their subtext. Spoon feeding time. As Parsley said, the high calibre cast (although we thought Priyanga Burford was really quite poor and stood out like a sore thumb acting wise. But then she doesn't actually have a character or anything to really play. She does initially, but as Parsley pointed out, its quickly swept under the carpet) might win it good reviews, but surely the play should be the focus for reviewers, and in this case, it is simply not good enough. Having said all of this, the core NT audience of white, 50+yr olds there tonight laughed all the way through it, and seemed nicely content by the end. Nothing too heavy or much demanded of them. Just some couples arguing for a bit, but everything being tied up nicely before you go home. A big disappointment. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 9:54:51 GMT
Oh.
|
|
