7,054 posts
|
Post by Jon on Mar 12, 2018 23:08:36 GMT
Sonia Friedman rarely transfers from the National. I can only think of Noises Off and Jumpers years ago and more recently, Our Ladies of Perpetual Succour. Our Ladies doesn't count as it originated from the National Theatre of Scotland, Three Days in the Country was done in association with Sonia Friedman at the National so they have worked together |
|
1,081 posts
|
Post by andrew on Mar 13, 2018 10:23:09 GMT
It’s interesting that the National are coproducing Consent with Sonia Friedman rather than solely producing, I’m guessing that it’s less risky to partner than go it alone. I'm sure I read in Hytner's book somewhere that they'd moved away from letting commercial producers get their hands on NT plays for transfer because that way the Nash got to keep all the money for themselves. Maybe when there's less confidence in the play they hedge their bets? |
|
3,533 posts
|
Post by Rory on Mar 13, 2018 14:36:31 GMT
During Hytner's tenure, only the absolute banker bet juggernauts transferred - War Horse, Curious Incident and One Man Two Guvnors. These were always going to be popular and the NT rightly wanted the spoils. The only "lowkey" transfers under Hytner were Democracy to Wyndhams and Alan Bennett's Untold Stories to the Duchess.
There is now maybe a move to letting commercial producers give a further life to those smaller Dorfman shows that are not obvious commercial blockbusters. And that's a good thing.
|
|
7,054 posts
|
Post by Jon on Mar 13, 2018 20:33:56 GMT
It’s interesting that the National are coproducing Consent with Sonia Friedman rather than solely producing, I’m guessing that it’s less risky to partner than go it alone. I'm sure I read in Hytner's book somewhere that they'd moved away from letting commercial producers get their hands on NT plays for transfer because that way the Nash got to keep all the money for themselves. Maybe when there's less confidence in the play they hedge their bets? Oslo was a NT production in association with ATG but the run at the Lyttelton was essentially a dry run for the West End production. Sonia Friedman is known for wanting to give a further life to riskier subsidised productions, The Nether is a good example so it wouldn't surprise me if she approached the NT about giving Consent a further life. Sonia Friedman is also involved with The Jungle as well. The National I do think got arrogant with the success of War Horse, One Man Two Guvnors and Curious Incident and it cost them dearly when they transferred Great Britain to the TRH, I think this is why they've been more selective transferring shows and I think Norris unlike Hytner is more open with working with the commercial producers. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Mar 14, 2018 8:36:20 GMT
It is clear in Balancing Acts that Hytner was mortified by how badly the Great Britain transfer did. It just wasn't a good enough and crucially topical play by the time it went to cavernous TRH.
I hate to hate on Norris but I think the issue is that he isn't good at recognising what has a strong NT shelf life let alone strong commercial work but then again I think Hytner got lucky with a few long term transfers.
|
|
108 posts
|
Post by bob2010 on May 18, 2018 8:34:32 GMT
£20 day seats available on Todaytix
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2018 7:25:37 GMT
It sold out at the Dorfman, and does appeal to a certain demographic, I think. Agree it may find it harder to fill the much bigger venue. I know I won't be seeing it again, as I didn't like it first time. I suppose it might sell because it sounds as though it chimes with the #metoo movement. I really didn't like it either. I'm tempted to see it again to work out why everybody else gave it a standing ovation, but it probably isn't worth forking out good money for that purpose. |
|
821 posts
|
Post by ensembleswings on May 19, 2018 16:55:08 GMT
Glad to see they're doing rush/dayseats, I missed the play last time and want to see it for myself but those prices were putting me off slightly.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on May 22, 2018 9:59:27 GMT
I was disappointed with this. I saw the first preview on Monday night at the Harold Pinter from the front row thanks to a £20 seat from Today Tix. (Perhaps a mod should add the Harold Pinter to the title of the thread?)
The stage is high but as there is no set - you don't miss anything and you get a lovely view of the lighting department from (the now defunct BHS).
I expected this to be a drama about what constitutes consent for sex, but the main legal drama played out briefly was very slightly done. If this play had been written by a man I suspect it would have been heavily criticised for being so dismissive of its main theme.
What we were left with was a bunch of unlikeable middle class people sitting around drinking, smoking weed, shouting, swearing and being unfaithful. I think performed almost entirely by a new cast (apart from Adam James) lead by Stephen Campbell Moore as Edward and Claudie Blakley as Kitty they were all "acting" for all they were worth. Lots of sinking to knees crying and jumping on furniture - to claim the high moral ground!
The black box set did not help the actors as the locations and time frames were unclear, so they seemed to be acting in a void.
Value for money from a £20 rush ticket if you have nothing better to do for an evening but you wouldn't miss anything if you gave it a miss. Mediocre play rather over acted.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on May 22, 2018 11:25:02 GMT
I was disappointed with this. I saw the first preview on Monday night at the Harold Pinter from the front row thanks to a £20 seat from Today Tix. (Perhaps a mod should add the Harold Pinter to the title of the thread?) The stage is high but as there is no set - you don't miss anything and you get a lovely view of the lighting department from (the now defunct BHS). I expected this to be a drama about what constitutes consent for sex, but the main legal drama played out briefly was very slightly done. If this play had been written by a man I suspect it would have been heavily criticised for being so dismissive of its main theme. What we were left with was a bunch of unlikeable middle class people sitting around drinking, smoking weed, shouting, swearing and being unfaithful. I think performed almost entirely by a new cast (apart from Adam James) lead by Stephen Campbell Moore as Edward and Claudie Blakley as Kitty they were all "acting" for all they were worth. Lots of sinking to knees crying and jumping on furniture - to claim the high moral ground! The black box set did not help the actors as the locations and time frames were unclear, so they seemed to be acting in a void. Value for money from a £20 rush ticket if you have nothing better to do for an evening but you wouldn't miss anything if you gave it a miss. Mediocre play rather over acted. Have to agree, and even though there was less "acting" in the Dorfman version, the whole play was still very slight. Are we really expected to care or want to spend any time with these people? I didn't give two hoots about any of the characters and the "drama" was non existent. The advertising campaign for this on the tubes is very misleading too. Playing into the #metoo but going hardly anywhere near that in the play itself. The New York Times quote on the poster is hilarious! It bears no relation to how dull the play is. When I'm bored at the theatre I count the lights in the lighting rig. The BHS ones, as you point out, aided the passing of time on this one. How it got a transfer........? (Although I reckon they're thinking they can get the 30's/40's crowd that went to see the transfer of Beginning. This is very much a lesser play though. |
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on May 22, 2018 11:26:52 GMT
Ps found the tube poster quote:
"The most blistering new play of the year"
NYTimes
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2018 12:02:36 GMT
Roger Michell and his designer Hildegard Bechtler could probably have come up with two different ideas for this and Mood Music; unless my memory has abandoned me completely in Consent there are multiple light shades suspended from the ceiling - and in Mood Music it is all manner of microphones suspended from the ceiling. A bit weak if you ask me.
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on May 22, 2018 16:13:49 GMT
This is superior in every possible way to BEGINNING - and the less said about the execrable MOOD MUSIC the better ---- the walkouts at the half said it all.
|
|
32 posts
|
Post by oldstager on May 22, 2018 23:03:48 GMT
Beautifully acted by the entire cast and direction and design are terrific too. I hope this finds its audience which may be wider than some think. Tonight there was a good mix of ages and nationalities in a fairly full house which augurs well. Strong word of mouth should ensure a very successful season. An evening of real "quality". |
|
4,977 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 25, 2018 22:36:27 GMT
Saw this tonight, for the second time after catching this at the National.
Similar play to Frozen and the Writer, by which I mean were written by ladies, a man could never write those plays.
This was acted was much better than the Dorfman, to hit the nail on the head, I could also reference Mood Music.
As pointed out earlier the roles are very unlikeable in an uncomfortable and linear play, that is very enjoyable and has some great one-liners to boot, however laugh and moments and rape shouldn’t belong together, but oddly it works well here.
4 Stars
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on May 25, 2018 23:38:30 GMT
Saw it Thurs night and liked it a lot though Claudie needs to project and enunciate better. Stephen Campbell Moore painfully intense - laceratingly so - much more than Ben C managed at the Nash. Roger Michell was there taking notes. Quite a few actors in the house including several who would be excellent in this play. Lee Ingleby the only casting misstep but you can't have everything.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on May 31, 2018 9:31:29 GMT
So I am late to Consent party so a few rambling thoughs below
Staging often felt like it should be in the round but worked well. Good ensemble piece but it has been marketed terribly.
If people think they are getting a drama about consent as a concept then they aren't. At best it touches on consent when a relationship breaks down but it really isn't the whole #metoo thinkpiece the posters say it is. I am also not entirely sure the section with a victim of rape (Heather Craney) and her trial entirely works. Craney's performance felt too much like a performance of a "messed up woman" whose lack of understanding of the legal system leads to a lack of conviction, but if she is so unreliable why did it go to trial? Raine seems to ignore the fact that if it got to trial in the first place it must have had compelling evidence?
To have the actual issue of Consent brushed over in favour of middle-class romantic entanglements seems insensitive. It is interesting and provokes moral outrage about victim representation in the court from the audience but the way it serves the story feels a bit contrived. In fact, at times the whole thing feels like a sexy new BBC drama about barristers that was rejected because Silk didn't do very well and because it is a play we just see the edited highlights that catch you up on each episode.
Adam James, Stephen Campbell-Moore and Claudie Blakeley are well cast. James plays the same character he always plays but does it well but Campbell-Moore and Blakely handle the sometimes melodramatic material as well. I thought Clare Foster's gurning Zara was miscast. Foster is a great comic actress (I loved her in Travesties) but this play isn't funny enough to play to her strengths and she is better in her serious scenes but the characters and scenarios often feel underwritten and rushed. Overall it was compelling evening but it was clearly a drama about relationships rather than consent. I think the marketing needs a rethink.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 11:13:41 GMT
Staging often felt like it should be in the round but worked well. It sort of was in the round at The Nash wasn't it? Or at least, in the square. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jun 1, 2018 11:25:01 GMT
Staging often felt like it should be in the round but worked well. It sort of was in the round at The Nash wasn't it? Or at least, in the square. I would have been happy with a square, I think the throwing of the kettle rules out on stage seating |
|
|
|
Post by catcat100 on Jun 2, 2018 19:26:18 GMT
Saw the matinee today and have to agree with some of the above posts in that I didn't really enjoy it very much.
I really couldn't feel anything for the main characters, rich middle class lawyers who indulge in a bit of adultery for reasons that didn't seem weighty enough. The first scene where they describe their working day as 'a bit of rape' or 'a bit of murder' certainly did nothing to make me feel sorry for what they went through in the rest of the play.
The only character that I felt empathy for was the victim in the court case but that story line was quite bluntly pushed under the carpet. Which is a shame really as this is what the play in being sold on, what the programme goes in to and would really have made this an important play rather than a play about what happens when the characters from 'This Life' get married and have kids.
|
|
4,779 posts
|
Post by Mark on Jun 14, 2018 15:17:06 GMT
I actually quite enjoyed this for what it was. Great acting all around, and always great to see Clare Foster on stage. I could kinda see where it was going by the end of act one, but I felt it played out well.
|
|
449 posts
|
Post by SageStageMgr on Jul 14, 2018 16:43:26 GMT
This is a very misleading play. I thought it was going to be an in-depth examination at society’s attitudes to rape and, by virtue (forgive the pun) of the title, our understanding of what is a very delicate subject, ripe for for debate in 2018.
Instead, I got that hinted at for the first quarter, before a posh episode of Hollyoaks. Everyone is thoroughly unpleasant, conceited and horribly self serving. It reminded me of Friends or This Life without the charm. A bunch of good looking and morally bankrupt career professionals acting like self-important arseholes for two hours.
The acting is good throughout. Some of the imagery, such as the Act I finale’s sofa hopping shenanigans, were effective. The black box set seems more budget than design focused. Sofas rise out of the floor like an Exorcist themed DFS advert.
It’s just not what I expected and certainly the blurb doesn’t match the play I saw.
I thought I was getting a play examining serious themes, relevant to the current #metoo malarkey. I got a play about how all lawyers are absolute tossers and their wives deeply unpleasant in different ways.
The point the play makes isn’t the one advertised, it does not really hit home on any of the themes. The first act seems extremely long and there isn’t much to look at when the entitled middle aged folk make more passive aggressive banter for the twelfth time in an hour.
2* absolutely would not recommend.
Also, the fly work was embarrassing. Guys, learn how to set a proper out dead please. If you’re using hemp hire someone who can tie a bloody knot. Those in/out cues for the Ikea lampshades are shocking. Plus the ropes are too slack, they spin and wobble distractingly for minutes after being flown in.
|
|
449 posts
|
Post by SageStageMgr on Jul 14, 2018 17:02:50 GMT
Additional;
Much like Wiseau’s “The Room”, nothing indicates the passage of time. There’s a scene in the Act I finale at Christmas (there’s a tree), but I didn’t catch any other indications if it was summer earlier, or the last year, or what. Suddenly people just kind of reconciled/cheated/committed alleged sex crimes and stuff happened with no indication why/when. Very weird play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 17:15:32 GMT
Imagine
Some
Media
Awarded this pile of sh*t 5 stars
Says a lot about our media and our country
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Jul 14, 2018 17:26:59 GMT
The idea that a play called Consent has to be about consent seems a little reductive to me.
|
|
