King Lear Old Vic Glenda Jackson

[BurlyBeaR]

Most people seemed decidedly "meh" about this when previews opened, things seem to have turned around somewhat.

Emperors new clothes?

[loureviews]

I agree it might not be a good choice for a first Lear but I did like it and I didn't have problems with who everyone was.

Thoughts from anyone in the top tier seats? Stage too far forward perhaps?

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2016 13:17:20 GMT BurlyBeaR said:

Most people seemed decidedly "meh" about this when previews opened, things seem to have turned around somewhat.

Emperors new clothes?

It seems like the critics have had a wildly different reaction to the people on this board who have seen it, certainly. Skimming the reviews (and admittedly I haven't read them all), it seemed like Quentin Letts came closest to reflecting the majority of our opinions. Maybe we're going all Daily Mail in our old age. Now there's a terrifying thought! ;-)

[Deleted]

I think you'd have to be an idiot, frankly, to not know what was going on in this production. It was not concept-heavy in spite of the set and costume design. To me, it was perfectly spare, and the ensemble of actors told the story in the clearest way possible. The staging was crisp, and the characters were clear-cut in their executions. What's the issue?

[BurlyBeaR]

Is it not the case that Glenda is one of those actors who never manage to transcend the fact of "being Glenda Jackson"? So while we can admire their talents, we never quite forget who they really are? Maggie Smith is another one, Judi D, Julie W possibly (at least she'll have a crack at an accent). Ian McKellan, Liam Neeson... Throw in the fact that Glenda has been in politics for 20 years plus the gender-blind casting with this play and you add yet another layer of unbeleivability to the proceedings. Honestly, those who have seen it, did you ever really really believe her in it?

[charlotte72]

I admit Jackson undoubtedly is a great actress and she gives a powerful performance here, but critics have to review the whole show to encourage or not the spectators to buy a ticket. Although I admit, as I said, that Jackson is a talented performer, I wouldn't recommend that show to anyone. I spent a terrible time seeing that production : theatre is about entertaining the audience, and I don't see that thing as an entertainment of any kind. I value Billington as a critic, but I cannot believe that he enjoyed it as much as he pretends. I have on my desk the harsh, violent review he wrote about one of the greatest, funniest English actress of our time who was having a triumph in the West End in the early 1990s : the house was packed for months, the audience was in stitches every night, but nevertheless Billington demolished her performance, saying it was a disappointment. But he is not disappointed with that Lear. Just like BurlyBeaR, I'd use the expression "Emperor's New clothes"

[Bickers]

I'm going on the 15th of this month. I normally only go to musicals, rarely plays, and this will be my first professional Shakespeare production and I've never seen or read King Lear before. Feeling quite nervous after all the negativity bandied around on here, so I'm hoping I come down on the side of the critics...

[BurlyBeaR]

Nov 6, 2016 14:45:57 GMT Bickers said:

I'm going on the 15th of this month. I normally only go to musicals, rarely plays, and this will be my first professional Shakespeare production and I've never seen or read King Lear before. Feeling quite nervous after all the negativity bandied around on here, so I'm hoping I come down on the side of the critics...

Welcome to the forum Bickers come back and tell us what you thought of it. 

[altamont]

Nov 6, 2016 14:45:57 GMT Bickers said:

I'm going on the 15th of this month. I normally only go to musicals, rarely plays, and this will be my first professional Shakespeare production and I've never seen or read King Lear before. Feeling quite nervous after all the negativity bandied around on here, so I'm hoping I come down on the side of the critics...

I would recommend you at least read about the play - the Spark Notes website has pretty good synopses of classic plays. Shakespeare can be hard work the first time, if you're not familiar with the play 

[Bickers]

Thanks Burly, will do - I've been lurking for so long I've shocked myself that this is my first post!

[Latecomer]

Nov 6, 2016 14:52:54 GMT Bickers said:

Thanks Burly, will do - I've been lurking for so long I've shocked myself that this is my first post!

I wouldn't read a synopsis....I love coming to Shakespeare all fresh and not knowing the story! The first time I saw Lear was brilliant.....I had no idea what was coming! 
Welcome to the board!  

[peggs]

To answer several posts. Yeees I did believe in this Lear rather than it was just Glenda Jackson doing Lear Burley Bear. To be honest sometimes any kind of entertainment, theatre/tv/film is best for me with unknowns as you completely believe they are who they play (well if they're any good) rather thank thinking 'oh it's so and so' but then when you get a good actor you can know who they are and still believe they're someone else at the same time. Perhaps I was helped by knowing who Glenda Jackson was but that was about it. A week and a bit later i'm still not convinced by some of the direction and the staging but her Lear worked and was surrounded by enough good other parts to hold it all together. And for some reason seeing it has raised my theatre going in my mother's estimations too!

Like Latecomer I wouldn't read a synopsis either, I always used to as I was convinced I wouldn't understand what was going on and subsequently missed the revelations you'd get from seeing things for the first time. Sure a lot of people are named after counties in Shakespeare and everyone seems to be cousins or unhelpfully call each other brother when they're not but the plots are generally ok to follow. If you can conquer that initial 'ahh what's everyone on about' feeling that you can get with different language after 5 minutes yours ears tend to click in and if you don't then worry about understanding every line as I certainly don't it should be fine.

And ladyfluff welcome to the board, I hope it's a good first Shakespeare experience for you.

[martin1965]

Nov 6, 2016 14:52:54 GMT Bickers said:

Thanks Burly, will do - I've been lurking for so long I've shocked myself that this is my first post!

Crikey! You are brave choosing Lear as your first Shakey. Mind you imo it is the best play of the bard. Personally i would recommend reading a synopsis or some sory of background, it will help. Enjoy!

[loureviews]

Nov 6, 2016 14:28:02 GMT BurlyBeaR said:

Is it not the case that Glenda is one of those actors who never manage to transcend the fact of "being Glenda Jackson"? So while we can admire their talents, we never quite forget who they really are? Maggie Smith is another one, Judi D, Julie W possibly (at least she'll have a crack at an accent). Ian McKellan, Liam Neeson... Throw in the fact that Glenda has been in politics for 20 years plus the gender-blind casting with this play and you add yet another layer of unbeleivability to the proceedings. Honestly, those who have seen it, did you ever really really believe her in it?

Yes, without a doubt.

[kathryn]

Nov 6, 2016 13:17:20 GMT BurlyBeaR said:

Most people seemed decidedly "meh" about this when previews opened, things seem to have turned around somewhat.

Emperors new clothes?

I doubt very much this production would get similarly enthusiastic reviews with a cast of unknown actors giving the exact same performances.

[nash16]

How did the get 4* reviews? Even reading the reviews, yes, they praise Glenda Jackson, but sort of demolish the rest of the production. Yet still 4*.

Are the bowing down to the Old Vic, Glenda, or none of the above?

[Deleted]

Maybe they just liked it. I mean, we've all liked things that maybe don't seem too great when broken down into component parts but damnit we can't help but enjoy the whole, right?

[nash16]

Nov 7, 2016 0:22:29 GMT @baemax said:

Maybe they just liked it. I mean, we've all liked things that maybe don't seem too great when broken down into component parts but damnit we can't help but enjoy the whole, right?

Maybe.  It's so mad though as so many DISliked it on here.  Audience around me on Wednesday at the interval were all in the negative.  And yet these reviews...

[martin1965]

Nov 7, 2016 0:38:59 GMT nash16 said:

Nov 7, 2016 0:22:29 GMT @baemax said:

Maybe they just liked it. I mean, we've all liked things that maybe don't seem too great when broken down into component parts but damnit we can't help but enjoy the whole, right?

Maybe.  It's so mad though as so many DISliked it on here.  Audience around me on Wednesday at the interval were all in the negative.  Ancd yet these reviews...

Happens quite a lot on this board!

[loureviews]

The audience around me on the Thursday were all in the positive.

[bellboard27]

I also liked it. So obviously some diverse views!

[foxa]

Nov 6, 2016 22:21:06 GMT nash16 said:

How did the get 4* reviews? Even reading the reviews, yes, they praise Glenda Jackson, but sort of demolish the rest of the production. Yet still 4*.

Are the bowing down to the Old Vic, Glenda, or none of the above?

This was how I felt about the 4* reviews for 'Oil' at the Almeida.  With a few notable exceptions, a lot of us from the board, including those who tend to be generous-hearted really didn't rate 'Oil'.  Meanwhile, I hear poor Hotel Cerise at Stratford EAst, which I found flawed by entertaining and relevant, got mainly 2-3*s and I hear is struggling for audiences.  If they had a weighty name in that, it probably would have made a difference, but part of what I enjoyed was seeing a lot of good actors who were new to me.

[foxa]

I liked it and my SO, who usually hates everything, really liked it too.
Positives: Very clear. If there were audibility problems in previews these seem to have been remedied with some subtle use of mics. We could hear the lines in the storm scene, for example. There was some good support (sorry didn't get a programme, so don't know all the names.) Sargon Yelda was excellent as Kent - he truly looked different for the transformation and had a real 'Oh my God I can't believe how quickly this has all gone badly' quality (which resonated with the post-Trump audience.) I liked a lot of what Rhys Ifans did - the egg bit worked for me - though I didn't entirely get his relationship with Lear in the way other fools have perhaps established. I'm usually allergic to Jane Horrocks and wasn't crazy about her in the first scene, but then thought she and Danny Webb were chilling. Even the First Lord gave a warm performance - everything he did seemed right to me.

And then, of course, there was Glenda. I do not know how, after a 23 year break from acting, she came back and gave that performance. She was mercurial, subtle, brave, absolutely on it ...There was a bit when she wakes from a sleep and sees Cordelia that was gorgeous. Her defiance, in another scene, when she says 'Every inch a king,' - just wonderful. My SO worried a bit about the carousing soldiers bit - would little Glenda really be sharing their fridge full of beer - it seemed improbable. But I have nothing but admiration for her.

Negatives: My SO wants me to complain about the slurpy phone-viewing man who sat next to him, but I'll put that in Bad Behaviour. Didn't think Cordelia and Edmund were very strong. Not sure that the hoovering of the set added much.

But from my perspective this earned its 4*.
Note: I saw 'Threepenny Opera' after Brexit which gave it a certain piquancy.
Seeing this after Trump, there were certain lines etc. that I suspect got a different reaction than they would have a week ago. You know: Evil/Power/Handing over...that stuff.

[theatremadness]

Of *all* the things The Old Vic could transfer to the West End

[Jon]

Not sure where it could go as everything is booked up until late Spring.