|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 10:23:38 GMT
Personally I think the Americans deserve Donald Trump.
What they've done to the English language over the years is quite frankly criminal.
Center indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 10:26:22 GMT
I rather feel we're at an impasse. Both @wrighty and zahidf have made their points clearly and eloquently, and clearly neither is going to convince the other to change their stance, so may we cordially agree to move on with the thread?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 10:26:25 GMT
Personally I think the Americans deserve Donald Trump. What they've done to the English language over the years is quite frankly criminal. Center indeed. ha ha!
You're mad but one of the best things on this site!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 10:28:35 GMT
You're mad but one of the best things on this site! Well. Quite. I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! Correct thread for that, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 10:34:51 GMT
Well. Quite. I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! Correct thread for that, right? Trump that, Wrighty! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 10:37:20 GMT
Well. Quite. I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! Correct thread for that, right? Trump that, Wrighty! I'm afraid I can't and I had to clean the keyboard after reading it!
|
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Feb 2, 2018 10:42:22 GMT
I rather feel we're at an impasse. Both @wrighty and zahidf have made their points clearly and eloquently, and clearly neither is going to convince the other to change their stance, so may we cordially agree to move on with the thread? Absolutely. Id rather stick to talking about theatre rather than someone like Trump |
|
943 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Feb 2, 2018 15:47:51 GMT
Given that Wrighty didn't even realise that under 50% voted for Trump he's clearly not worth the time to engage with anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 16:14:16 GMT
Given that Wrighty didn't even realise that under 50% voted for Trump he's clearly not worth the time to engage with anyway. I never said he did attract such a percentage but he did win the election - SO GET OVER IT!
And 'not worth engaging with' is the arrogance, self-satisfying, belittling attitude that brought about Trump and Brexit.
I'll let you into a little secret that might serve you well in life.... If people harbour opinions contrary to you they may change them if you engage them in discussion to understand where they are coming from and why they feel the way they do... I've seen it happen.
However, people who harbour different opinions to you won't change them if you act arrogant and pompously and tell them that they are 'thick', 'racist' or not worth engaging with... What strange creatures these humanoids are!
Anyway, I only replied to your post because of your despicable, arrogant manner and that's my last comment on the matter x
|
|
943 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Feb 2, 2018 16:35:28 GMT
You said over half did which is incorrect - I was just correcting you.
I agree as I mentioned in my review that the whole sequence wasn't needed and showed how simplistic the whole production was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 16:50:03 GMT
Id ask them why they voted for someone who is a disgusting racist.
Next youll be saying we should respect BNP voters.
snip
And yes, we should respect the right of BNP voters to vote for them. I passionately disagree with the BNP and their views but it is the right of every person to vote how they wish no matter if I agree with them or not.
Straw man, he did not say what you claim, as in denying them a vote. When you create a democracy it is on the understanding that people who have vile views will be able to express them so, yes, they should be able to vote according to their views. There is no such compulsion to have to agree with those same views being expressed anywhere that we may come into contact with them - at work, at leisure or wherever. There is no way that I would step back and allow hate speech or actions to remain unchallenged. They bleat about their rights to free speech but words have a price.
On Trump supporters actual views, there's been a fair bit of polling and while there are those who did vote for him for change, or to shake things up or because they know him from the telly, there are a worrying number of Americans (and mostly his supporters) who harbour quite shocking views on many things. Trump is merely a lightning rod, there is something much darker existing in the minds of a large percentage of those polled. He is going to be gone in a relatively short time but they number thousands, hundreds of thousands of people. Now that's a big problem. How do you have a society where reality barely impinges on such a large number?
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Feb 3, 2018 16:24:59 GMT
You said over half did which is incorrect - I was just correcting you. I agree as I mentioned in my review that the whole sequence wasn't needed and showed how simplistic the whole production was. Actually, I think the whole sequence has a rather more complex meaning than you suggest, one that reflects the idea that underpins the entire production - but the meaning gets buried beneath the audience's (perhaps understandable) knee-jerk response to the film of the Trump-thing's inauguration. That montage, like the entire show, is about what happens when you blur the line between information and entertainment: you see a long line of politicians being sworn in as President (I was no fan of Bush Jr., but he ran for governor of Texas and later for President on a policy platform that had a lot more to it that just dog-whistle racism and a crassly nationalistic slogan), followed by a reality TV star. It's not just there to give the audience the opportunity to boo a racist gasbag. |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Feb 3, 2018 16:50:51 GMT
Using U.S. politics as an easy theatrical trope in British productions gets on my nerves a bit - not because I'm not highly critical of (fill in the blank) but because it just seems lazy and pantomime-ish (sp?). There were a number of productions that would use George W. Bush to provoke a similar reaction (for example,the Complicite's Measure for Measure.) The recent 'Julius Caesar' at the Bridge uses a lot of Trump imagery (the red tie, the red hats, a poster with Caesar styled very similarly to Trump) but as someone else pointed out, perhaps comparisons with Corbyn would have been better/more relevant (a U.S. production of Julius Caesar went further with the Trump comparison and there were threats to the theatre's funding.) The night I went to see 'Network' someone loudly cheered when the image of (controversial U.S. president) was shown - - perhaps ironically, perhaps sincerely, who knows? If they want to confront the audience's beliefs - wouldn't it be more honest to present British politicians (I suppose they would say that Network was set in the U.S. but then they showed presidents far beyond the time period of the production.) I didn't think the montage added.
But overall I was really grabbed by the production. The use of videos was exciting, some terrific performances - it felt like real event theatre. Anyone who did the restaurant option - were you given any special guidance? It looked to me like everyone was wearing dark clothes, for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 17:10:46 GMT
The furore over the Central Park Julius Caesar is a perfect example of kneejerk reactionaries not actually knowing the play or the production. What that production did suggest is that even an extreme example like Trump being assassinated is a mistake as it has unforeseen consequences on the state that is trying to be protected. That didn't make such good headlines and prompt people to shout at their televisions, though.
Shockingly, as things have moved on in the last few months the matter has actually become more worrying. Now that there is mounting evidence of him trying to dismantle the state and the rule of law, maybe the Central Park production was, in fact, being too kind.
Brecht knew too well that using the politics of your own country just clouds the issues. If they'd have used Brexit, or Farage, or Corbyn then, ironically, an audience would stop relating it to themselves as the issues become too close. Tell a story about another place or time and it allows for greater self reflection (hopefully, but I'd imagine not widely enough).
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 3, 2018 17:30:53 GMT
Shockingly, as things have moved on in the last few months the matter has actually become more worrying. Now that there is mounting evidence of him trying to dismantle the state and the rule of law, maybe the Central Park production was, in fact, being too kind. In the American system the President effectively IS the law, he is head of the executive branch and so is, for example, head of the FBI and can order it to act as he sees fit. A curious outcome of this is that he can also pardon himself if he is charged or convicted of a crime. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 17:36:37 GMT
Shockingly, as things have moved on in the last few months the matter has actually become more worrying. Now that there is mounting evidence of him trying to dismantle the state and the rule of law, maybe the Central Park production was, in fact, being too kind. In the American system the President effectively IS the law, he is head of the executive branch and so is, for example, head of the FBI and can order it to act as he sees fit. A curious outcome of this is that he can also pardon himself if he is charged or convicted of a crime. So much for the separation of powers. With Nixon, he was from a party that wanted rid of him before they were tainted too much. Now? We are in uncharted territory. |
|
39 posts
|
Post by pochard on Feb 3, 2018 18:21:18 GMT
But overall I was really grabbed by the production. The use of videos was exciting, some terrific performances - it felt like real event theatre. Anyone who did the restaurant option - were you given any special guidance? It looked to me like everyone was wearing dark clothes, for example. I was wondering about this too foxa |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 19:57:35 GMT
But overall I was really grabbed by the production. The use of videos was exciting, some terrific performances - it felt like real event theatre. Anyone who did the restaurant option - were you given any special guidance? It looked to me like everyone was wearing dark clothes, for example. I was wondering about this too foxa I did Foodwork - and was sat on one of the tables for four (downstage left). The NT sent us an email ahead of time asking us to wear "smart casual clothes that are black or dark colours". When we got to the theatre we were told that if we wanted to visit the toilets during the show that we needed to get the attention of one of the waiting staff, who would then escort us out and then back to our seats. We were taken out onto the Lyttelton stage just after 6.45, and were served a cocktail and amuse bouche at about 7.00, and a starter and glass of wine at about 7.15. We were told that we were free to wander the stage before the audience were admitted at 7.15, and lots of people took all manner of selfies etc. We were also warned in advance by the head waiter that some of the action will happen around us - for instance the scene near the beginning in which Cranston and Henshall visit the bar happened directly behind me - and that there was a moment where Cranston might direct parts of a speech to the diners, and if he does so to engage him in eye contact. The quality of the food was excellent, and the experience of being on stage and part of the set was intriguing. I felt somewhat conspicuous, particularly during the filmed sections, but as a one-off experience it was rather fun. |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Feb 3, 2018 21:16:25 GMT
Thanks so much for describing that baladorn - it sounds like a lot of thought went into how to make it work for the restaurant/the show/the audience. The night I went (Tuesday) I thought the diners looked smart and were dressed so that they didn't distract. As someone in the audience, having the people on stage worked much better than I expected and there was a real frisson when the Dockery/Henshall scene moved from outside to the restaurant.
|
|
943 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Feb 3, 2018 23:34:14 GMT
You said over half did which is incorrect - I was just correcting you. I agree as I mentioned in my review that the whole sequence wasn't needed and showed how simplistic the whole production was. Actually, I think the whole sequence has a rather more complex meaning than you suggest, one that reflects the idea that underpins the entire production - but the meaning gets buried beneath the audience's (perhaps understandable) knee-jerk response to the film of the Trump-thing's inauguration. That montage, like the entire show, is about what happens when you blur the line between information and entertainment: you see a long line of politicians being sworn in as President (I was no fan of Bush Jr., but he ran for governor of Texas and later for President on a policy platform that had a lot more to it that just dog-whistle racism and a crassly nationalistic slogan), followed by a reality TV star. It's not just there to give the audience the opportunity to boo a racist gasbag. It's a perfectly legitimate reading and you're probably right but to me it still doesn't feel like a particularly new or interesting point to make. Which sums up the production as a whole. |
|
4,984 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 4, 2018 0:46:11 GMT
Its not about dealing with it, it's about having respect for the millions of people who put their X next to his name regardless of whether you or I would or wouldn't have done.
Also, the fact that you would be probably accusing anyone who booed Obama's image of racism says that you're only interesting in having your own biases confirmed - something discussed in the Network programme - when it might be for the fact that he actually wasn't a great president and his legacy of popularity is based almost entirely on his colour.
Anyway, I digress...
My original comment was about showing respect and the first response said "He does not deserve respect, and neither do the idiots - yes, idiots - who voted for him"... That is pure arrogance. People vote for a number of reasons and everyone is entitled to their voice. Do I agree with every opinion? Of course I don't but the World is a better place if we try to understand people.
Off on another tangent... The man sitting next to me last night spent the entire performance distracting everyone around him rustling sweet bags, checked his phone on a number of occasions, took of his shoes and put his feet on the back of the seat in front... He was amongst the first to boo the image of Trump..... He looks down on those who voted for Trump but has the culture manners of I don't know what.... It isn't always black and white...
Trump and his voters don't deserve respect. He is a racist misogynist and has done nothing to deserve it. If he ever came to the UK on a visit, id happily boo the Tw*t to his moronic face.
Trump isn’t really a racist nor a misogynist, well he does to serve his purpose, if to become president he had to hug Mexicans and Muslims and give homeless people lollipops, he would have just done that. So in some respects he is no different to Boris Johnson. Saw this today and a a fine play, that only the National could have staged. Bryan Cranston is mind blowing brilliant, maybe breaking excellent? |
|
397 posts
|
Post by altamont on Feb 4, 2018 19:42:15 GMT
Sensational performance from Cranston - when he was off stage I felt things flagged a little.
|
|
408 posts
|
Post by maggiem on Feb 8, 2018 12:55:03 GMT
Hi!
When this production was first announced, I thought it would be either bloody brilliant or bloody awful, and couldn't see any room for the middle ground. My verdict? The former, as any quibbles I have are minor.
I went for the Saturday matinee and was still thinking about the issues raised all day Sunday. What really struck me after the event, was the fact that the way this is staged made the point about us all being 'corrupted' by what we experience as media consumers so well. How? By making the theatre audience into the TV audience for the Howard Beale Show.
The warm-up guy had everyone shouting "I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!" (and I was shouting it too!),before Bryan Cranston walked onto the set. We were all made complicit in Beale's tragedy and the network's machinations against him, and it's only afterwards I realised how well I'd been pulled into it.
Before I went, I was worried about the whole restaurant-on-stage aspect of it, probably the most 'gimmicky' thing about the staging, but I was pleasantly surprised how little a distraction it was after only a few minutes. The glass-walled production gallery set worked well and really added to the humour of Beale's on air suicide announcement as you can clearly see they're not taking a blind bit of notice. I also loved the duality of seeing the actors on stage and camera at the same time, and didn't find it confusing at all.
Douglas Henshall and Michelle Dockery gave me a slight pause for thought during their intimate scene on the chair, as I was wondering how they keep a straight face having to do such a scene! The walk outside did take me out-of-the-moment as the story is supposed to be set in America but the obvious London/NT background was a little off-putting.
Other performances.... I thought Tunji Kasim was fine, and I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of the rant Hackett makes at Max before he fires him. to me that was very intimidating. Richard Cordery's scene from on high with Bryan was very effective as he didn't play it all fired up 'Wrath-of-God'. His quieter more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger approach worked very well and the final line "Because you're on Television, Dummy!" made much more of an impact because of it.
I loved Bryan's performance, after a lot of wondering how he was going to tackle it. One thing I was certain of, was that he'd never be able to outdo Peter Finch's histrionics in the original film, certainly not over a run of performances. I was happy to see that he wisely hasn't tried it. The scene where he almost can't speak at all and makes several attempts (under threat of being cut off from the gallery) before he does so was painful and moving to watch. The final speech's plea for simple human contact was beautifully spoken... as was all his dialogue. No mumbling here, just beautiful clear diction and lovely to listen to.
After a couple of day's discreet monitoring of the website, I have managed to bag a £15 row A stalls seat for the matinee on 21/03. Really looking forward to seeing this again before it finishes.
|
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Feb 8, 2018 23:26:21 GMT
I always feel like when the conversation is 22 pages in there's not much point in offering an opinion. I've got a few lines, then some questions. I had a whale of a time. There were scenes with Cranston which were just electric. I was really impressed with the production design with the lighting and video effects, and how the cast moved around, sometimes being both real crew and actor crew. I'd seen pictures of the set, but walking in with the countdown and the music, people milling around, the video effects everywhere, I thought it was great. A really good use of the Lyttleton. I'm glad the central role was played by someone who could fill the shoes, the Hollywood wash-in did not disappoint. I did think to myself just in the scenes centring around Max that I remembered how good the film was there, and how this wasn't comparing to the earnest performance of William Holden (or from that scene between him and Beatrice Straight, go back and watch it again on YouTube, I know I just did). But yeah, I had a lot of fun, and was sat turned around in front of Cranston when he takes a seat in the audience, and got to be acted directly to, by him. Now I have some questions for anyone with any insight into the machinations of the show. {Spoiler - click to view}
Did the shooter really sit in the audience for the entire play? I was in front so couldn't see if he sneaked in at some point or not, but that's a difficult thing to sit through night after night if so.
Do they crowd control outside the NT during the outside scenes? There seemed to be minimal people getting in the way of the action which was very impressive.
When Cranston came into the audience, he looked at the guy next to him in a Gap t-shirt and said "Is that your name or a mental condition?", and I need to know if that's excellent comic ad lib'ing or if he says something similar every night to someone in some way. |
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Feb 8, 2018 23:38:03 GMT
The answer to the first question is yes. The second time I saw it I was in the restaurant, and so glanced at him every so often. He certainly seemed to be watching the play and engaged. I doubt you’d have spotted him as a plant. |
|
