|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 16:06:39 GMT
I *think* this was mentioned on the AiA thread, and I'd like to employ the knowledge of @emicardiff here if I may, that Marianne Elliott requested the Lyttelton over the Olivier due to it being a deceptively awesome, massive and versatile space? And that it's also Proscenium Arch? Or did I totally just make that all up? Someone will have answers!! As for why Common was programmed in the Olivier (or even at all, so it seems) is unbeknownst to me. Hello! And yes, I have it from the horse's mouth (as it were!) she specifically asked for it, mainly for the ability to have things flying in and out and the way you can move set. Also as an aside it was a Hytner programming due to how long ago it was all agreed so also one the Rufus Norris has had to 'work around' I guess with regard to the other things on. And I've been defending Norris about all the other crap on at the NT at the moment with "at least he put Angels on though"... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 18:32:24 GMT
Hello! And yes, I have it from the horse's mouth (as it were!) she specifically asked for it, mainly for the ability to have things flying in and out and the way you can move set. Also as an aside it was a Hytner programming due to how long ago it was all agreed so also one the Rufus Norris has had to 'work around' I guess with regard to the other things on. And I've been defending Norris about all the other crap on at the NT at the moment with "at least he put Angels on though"... haha sorry! It was indeed agreed under Hytner's rule! |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jun 4, 2017 21:57:19 GMT
Ah thank you very much! I knew the board would know.
Absolutely makes sense, though I can't help but wonder what kind of impact AiA would have in a more thrust-y theatre (no innuendo intended). I always find the Lyttleton creates a bit of a barrier which can be useful in some plays but not in others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 5, 2017 8:23:23 GMT
The usual response of those concerned in the production is that it is all the fault of the audiences, they are too conservative/thick/unimaginative to appreciate the cutting-edge/bold/intellectual production on offer. With this approach walk-outs at the interval then become a badge of honour and an endorsement of the quality of the production. On a general point I wonder if there are just too many theatres in London wanting new plays and not enough playwrights with enough talent to supply them, especially with the Bridge now bagging three or four large-scale high-profile ones every year. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 8:26:28 GMT
Ah thank you very much! I knew the board would know. Absolutely makes sense, though I can't help but wonder what kind of impact AiA would have in a more thrust-y theatre (no innuendo intended). I always find the Lyttleton creates a bit of a barrier which can be useful in some plays but not in others. I know we're getting OT here now, but most of the people I know who saw it in the original Cottesloe space preferred it in there- for the intimacy that space affords. Personally I've always liked it better in smaller spaces too, and as much as it can be a 'big' play I think it's harder to do on the scale that the Olivier would want (and keep Kushner happy haha) I'm still intrigued as to how it would have played in there though. |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jun 5, 2017 9:52:10 GMT
I wish I could have seen AiA in an intimate space!
I think there is no dearth of talented new playwrights, but an unwillingness to take risks on new talent. And a lack of opportunities for new writers to get experience writing for larger theatres. There's so much pressure on new playwrights to write 2-3 person studio plays, but unless you hit it big with those plays little chance for advancement. Be bold, theatres!
The Olivier is fiendish to write for though.
I promise I will write something actually about Common after Tuesday! Presumably people do have something to say about the play.
|
|
181 posts
|
Post by caa on Jun 6, 2017 21:40:42 GMT
The usual response of those concerned in the production is that it is all the fault of the audiences, they are too conservative/thick/unimaginative to appreciate the cutting-edge/bold/intellectual production on offer. With this approach walk-outs at the interval then become a badge of honour and an endorsement of the quality of the production. On a general point I wonder if there are just too many theatres in London wanting new plays and not enough playwrights with enough talent to supply them, especially with the Bridge now bagging three or four large-scale high-profile ones every year. Have to agree has there ever been a time when so many theatres are chasing new plays? In my view its got to the stage when even classic plays are actually new plays based on a classic text eg Yerma
|
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jun 6, 2017 21:43:00 GMT
Those of you who left at the interval missed out on the wonders of the {Spoiler - click to view} talking animatronic crow. I didn't dislike this but I didn't have the slightest clue what was going on as I kept zoning out. Blagged some free wine in the interval which made things much more enjoyable. Party of drunk older women sitting next to me who kept up a running commentary i.e. "her shoe's fallen off." Normally I'd have bludgeoned them and stuffed their bodies under the seats obv but was so drunk and play so dull it actually improved things. Except until they loudly booed at the curtain call. I really liked the set. The play is a weird mishmash of styles and tones. For example I enjoyed the scene where the two women talk {Spoiler - click to view}
and Mary reveals she is pregnant and has slept with a number of men and Laura confronts her about cheating on her
but it felt like it had been copy pasted from an entirely different play altogether, a gritty contemporary relationship drama. Loved the wicker man bits. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 7, 2017 8:01:05 GMT
Those of you who left at the interval missed out on the wonders of the {Spoiler - click to view} talking animatronic crow. I didn't dislike this but I didn't have the slightest clue what was going on as I kept zoning out. Blagged some free wine in the interval which made things much more enjoyable. Party of drunk older women sitting next to me who kept up a running commentary i.e. "her shoe's fallen off." Normally I'd have bludgeoned them and stuffed their bodies under the seats obv but was so drunk and play so dull it actually improved things. Except until they loudly booed at the curtain call. I really liked the set. The play is a weird mishmash of styles and tones. For example I enjoyed the scene where the two women talk {Spoiler - click to view}
and Mary reveals she is pregnant and has slept with a number of men and Laura confronts her about cheating on her
but it felt like it had been copy pasted from an entirely different play altogether, a gritty contemporary relationship drama. Loved the wicker man bits. Re the first spoiler there, probably just recycled from the dismal Treasure Island a couple of years ago with a different costume. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 8:16:10 GMT
OK, so having seen a few reviews of this, it seems like its bonkers but interesting - would people who've seen it say that's a fair assessment? Am quite looking forward to it!
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 7, 2017 8:39:48 GMT
SamuelWhiskers has made it sound bonkers but interesting (but anyone who can blag a free glass of wine at the National knows how to have a good time ;-)) The Time Out reviews made it sound boring - I think the phrase used was 'excruciatingly boring' - even from people who seemed willing to give off-beat material a go (one kept worrying sweetly about the playwright's intentions, which were apparently impossible to discern) and who were generous about the acting and set, they seemed to be furious about the direction and, mainly, the script. I like plays that take a fresh take at historic events/different periods (like 'Gut Girls' or 'Anne Boleyn') so was up for this, but since my performance was cancelled, I think I'm happy to let this go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 8:41:55 GMT
It sounds like the new Damned By Despair. I'm very much in two minds about whether or not to rebook this at this point.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 7, 2017 8:45:39 GMT
OK, so having seen a few reviews of this, it seems like its bonkers but interesting - would people who've seen it say that's a fair assessment? Am quite looking forward to it!
It wants to be bonkers and wants to be interesting but, ultimately, is neither because it's so dramatically askew.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 7, 2017 9:30:12 GMT
The Times 1 ⭐️
Whatsonstage 1 ⭐️
The Stage 2 ⭐️
|
|
397 posts
|
Post by altamont on Jun 7, 2017 9:52:06 GMT
I've been waiting for someone to wholeheartedly love this production - but I think I'm waiting in vain. What a shame - but at least tickets can be returned for a credit
|
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jun 7, 2017 9:55:37 GMT
There were a few relatively brief moments of "bonkers but interesting" interspersed with vast chunks of tedium.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 10:02:46 GMT
It sounds like the new Damned By Despair. I'm very much in two minds about whether or not to rebook this at this point. Oh dear. I've already returned my Salome ticket for credit; I think I feel too embarrassed to do the same for this. It's so annoying as I chose to spend money on this over things I would have probably actually enjoyed at the NT, the prices now being too high for me not to have to choose between them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 10:10:31 GMT
I think I feel too embarrassed to do the same for this. Oh, go for it abby. It's possible the marketing team log such things and will note that regulars won't put up with rubbish. You could improve things for us all... Following the example of your ex-girlfriend, I just might try...! |
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jun 7, 2017 11:02:56 GMT
I wonder which production holds the record at the NT for returns and/or interval walk-outs? This one might do the double...
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Jun 7, 2017 12:11:49 GMT
I think I feel too embarrassed to do the same for this. Oh, go for it abby. It's possible the marketing team log such things and will note that regulars won't put up with rubbish. You could improve things for us all... Dream on! |
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Jun 7, 2017 12:31:41 GMT
Im going two weeks saturday, prefer to make my own mind. Norris has had a double disaster in the Olivier now with this and Salome. Lot of pressure on the autumn/winter to sort things oit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 12:47:24 GMT
Im going two weeks saturday, prefer to make my own mind. Norris has had a double disaster in the Olivier now with this and Salome. Lot of pressure on the autumn/winter to sort things oit. That's what you get For putting a non Oxbridge candidate In a job they aren't designed for |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 12:52:37 GMT
And why does he direct so few shows himself?
It's not as if he is in international demand
If by making the NT "accessible"
They meant increasing ticket prices
And having mass walkouts
Then he is doing a good job
With War Horse gone and Curious also
The pressure is really on
I doubt Norris will manage anything close to the scale Hytner did
When you meet him
He hardly comes across as worthy of the job
Whilst Hytner was not 100% perfect
Some of the biggest shows in NT history were the outcome of his tenure
Add One Man and History Boys to the above list
Even under Trevor Nunn
There were massive crowd pleasing hits
My Fair Lady
Anything Goes
What stamp or identity does Norris have?
He is like a jumble sale
Full of rubbish
He obviously has a social complex
And this affects the programming so badly
As he is offering shows he thinks people want to see
As opposed to what they actually want to watch
Although awards are not the be all and end all
The paucity of lauded shows under his time so far only serves to represent the succession of flops there now
I would rather have an NT that is more "conservative"
What ever that means
But offers the highest standards
Rather than one which is perceived to be all embracing and errs on the wrong side of mediocrity
In many ways the NT have forgotten as a theatre you are measured on your output
How people perceive you is secondary to this
The RC and Almeida don't give a sh*t how people see them
And programming takes priority
I also wonder if Norris is less "in"
With the favoured playwrights
I am sure Alan Bennett
Will write his next play for Bridge Theatre
And not for the NT
I also agree that the lack of classic revivals is playing against the NT at the moment
Lastly
There is no excuse for Salome and Common
The 2 biggest pieces of sh*t
Currently running in London
Both in rep
It's irresponsible on so many levels
And an embarrassment for the NT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:03:12 GMT
And why does he direct so few shows himself? Two a year is in fact a high rate for an artistic director of a massive arts organisation: 2015/16 Everyman & wonder.land 2016/17 The Threepenny Opera & My Country; a work in progress 2017/18 Mosquitoes & Macbeth |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:04:53 GMT
And why does he direct so few shows himself? Two a year is in fact a high rate for an artistic director of a massive arts organisation: 2015/16 Everyman & wonder.land 2016/17 The Threepenny Opera & My Country; a work in progress 2017/18 Mosquitoes & Macbeth And all of these were poorly reviewed Mediocre at best Hardly iconic works On the level of Nunn or Hytner |
|
