2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Feb 9, 2018 12:29:08 GMT
{Spoiler - click to view}
Yeah, can 100% confirm the assassin was sat there for the whole play. He was sat in Row B, on the left hand corner of the platform (looking at the stage), and I was sat 3 seats along on the right hand corner of the platform. 2 seats between us empty, of course, which was rather thrilling when Bryan Cranston came and sat on the edge, put he feet out and stood on them and then squeezed past me.
Anyway, I even remember the plant coming in and taking his seat as I was there before him, and he was a complete and utter nobody throughout the play. Totally inconspicuous and not one eyebrow was raised. Safe to say, his bit of action at the end left me in a rather thrilling state of shock!! I wonder if there's a rotation of different people for that 'role'? Seems to me there'd be no reason why not to. Just so one person didn't have to do that every single performance, as incredible as I found the play and Bryan Cranston in particular! Or is that more hassle than it's worth?
Also, the GAP thing was definitely ad-libbed as that didn't happen at my performance. |
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Feb 19, 2018 18:12:12 GMT
|
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Feb 19, 2018 22:44:31 GMT
I really must try and get myself onto the South Bank to watch it at some stage. |
|
378 posts
|
Post by Ade on Feb 25, 2018 18:09:18 GMT
Anyone able to explain what level of audience interaction there is and what position in row B gets interacted with. I have tickets for the end of row B (low numbers) and really not a fan of audience interaction.
|
|
12 posts
|
Post by hereforham on Feb 26, 2018 1:15:07 GMT
Anyone able to explain what level of audience interaction there is and what position in row B gets interacted with. I have tickets for the end of row B (low numbers) and really not a fan of audience interaction. {Spoiler - click to view}
Three instances of pantomine cheering, no you can do better than that, one more time.
Cranston shuffles down the row, sits somebody on lap for heartfelt speech, 4-6 people in shot are shown on big screen on stage, row or 2 behind that in focus nodding along.
Right of centre facing stage rather than the end of row in my experience. |
|
2,054 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Mar 1, 2018 13:23:30 GMT
Saw this last night from a seat at front of the slips (must make a note not to sit there again, yes it was cheap but I couldn't see what was happening on the extreme left hand of the stage without leaning right over, and it was so high up it was like being sat up in the roof of the O2) and while it wasn't quite the masterpiece I was expecting from some of the reviews I've read, I was still rather impressed.
It didn't really get off to a good start, mainly due to a large number of...well I'll be kind and call them idiots, but they were whooping with laughter throughout the first 10 minutes or so like they were watching a Ray Cooney farce (there was some drunken heckling from the circle when Cranston went and sat in the audience near the end as well), and some of the camera work reminded me of Drop The Dead Donkey rather than the film. But it slowly slipped into gear, and Cranston was indeed great, although the Henshall/Dockery scenes didn't really add that much to the story.
Not sure why some of the diners bothered, there was one gentleman in particular of an ,um, 'larger disposition' sat bang in the middle who seemed more intent on stuffing his face and chatting to his dining companion rather than watching what was going on or applauding as everyone else was, and what I could see of what they were eating didn't look like it was worth the price either.
I wouldn't mind seeing this again from a stalls seat, but I know that is unlikely unless I get lucky in the Friday Rush, and I think a lot of the novelty might wear off seeing it a second time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 14:36:04 GMT
Not sure I have much to add to discussion on this, except to echo the comment about it being a complete theatrical experience, rather than a piece of theatre. I enjoyed all of the flourishes, my friend thought that they were more like gimmicks, so YMMV.
Cranston is incendiary. The Henshall/Dockery sub-plot adds nothing.
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Mar 6, 2018 23:31:05 GMT
I ADORED tonight - one of the best things I’ve ever seen at the National. BC is a genius - he was amazing and gives a masterpiece in acting swapping from stage to screen within seconds. SURELY this has to have a second life or transfer?  ?? |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Mar 7, 2018 18:21:27 GMT
Unfortunately, at the last moment I can't make it to tonight's performance (7:30). The seats are great & cheap (£15 each, 3rd row of the stalls).
I'm on hold on the phone to return them now, so just a heads up, hoping that someone on this board can make use of them.
Edit: Returned now. Enjoy!
|
|
57 posts
|
Post by Pennywise57 on Mar 7, 2018 20:36:46 GMT
I saw this last Tuesday night. Bryan Cranston was brilliant, particularly his breakdown scene. The rest of it just didn't click with me I'm afraid. It's weird because on paper it should have been something I really enjoyed. it's themes of exploitation in the media I should have found really interesting but I just didn't for some reason. I think part of the problem for me was the staging. I know what they were trying to do but it just didn't work in my opinion. The almost consist projecting of what was being filmed on the back screen left me feeling a bit disconnected from what the actors were actually doing on stage, as was I unsure whether I was meant to be watching the screen or them perform and it sort of felt like I was watching TV instead of a play being performed live in front of me. I guess this was the point but It took away that connection to the actors you should feel from a live performance somewhat I felt. This wasn't helped when the actors went to the very side of the stage {Spoiler - click to view}or in one case completely out the building so you couldn't even see them meaning you had no choice but to watch them on the screen. The stage seemed very cluttered as well with too much going on a lot of the time. Why was there a restaurant on stage? I feel a lot the staging felt gimmicky and didn't really add anything to the piece. I now want to seek out the movie to see if that works better for me because as a play it just didn't and I wish I'd seen something else while I was in London instead. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 0:23:00 GMT
I ADORED tonight - one of the best things I’ve ever seen at the National. BC is a genius - he was amazing and gives a masterpiece in acting swapping from stage to screen within seconds. SURELY this has to have a second life or transfer? ?? I was about to ask the same, as I haven't seen it but now totally regretting not booking tickets. I'd imagine if anything it would transfer to Broadway with Cranston. If it was to go to the West End, then maybe someone else would do it, I'd be surprised if Cranston stayed in the UK for longer than the NT run. |
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Mar 8, 2018 23:26:09 GMT
I didn’t like the booing of Trump at Network. I despise the man and everything he stands for. But a bunch of metropolitan theatre goers booing a video isn’t going to change the world. It’s a knee jerk reaction. I thought the showing of the video at the end of the play was trite and undermined what had gone before. If he comes to London, I’ll protest. I have friends in the US actively working in the Democrats to chip away at the Reps. But booing at a video of him at the NT? I think he’d be rather pleased. Did you protest at the Saudi Prince visit? I will bet 1000 pounds you didn’t! Same with people loving Obama even though he invaded 7 countries was it during his time in office? The hypocrisy and double standards of people in the UK staggers me. I’m no lover of Trump but I didn’t like the childish booing at Network either. |
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Mar 9, 2018 0:18:40 GMT
I didn’t like the booing of Trump at Network. I despise the man and everything he stands for. But a bunch of metropolitan theatre goers booing a video isn’t going to change the world. It’s a knee jerk reaction. I thought the showing of the video at the end of the play was trite and undermined what had gone before. If he comes to London, I’ll protest. I have friends in the US actively working in the Democrats to chip away at the Reps. But booing at a video of him at the NT? I think he’d be rather pleased. Did you protest at the Saudi Prince visit? I will bet 1000 pounds you didn’t! Same with people loving Obama even though he invaded 7 countries was it during his time in office? The hypocrisy and double standards of people in the UK staggers me. I’m no lover of Trump but I didn’t like the childish booing at Network either. Well, first, no I didn’t because I’m in New Zealand at the moment. But I have visited Saudi Arabia and spoken to women and gay people that work there (some of whom worked for me), so I’d like to think I have a rather more nuanced view of the Kingdom than most people. But I don’t quite understand why you’re having a go at me when I said I didn’t like the booing of Trump at Network. I didn’t boo him there andas I said II didn’t think it had any particular point. I didn’t express an opinion on Obama so I don’t know how you think that you can know that I “loved” him. Perhaps you’d like to properly read what I wrote before climbing on your high horse and accusing me of double standards and hypocrisy? |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Mar 9, 2018 14:29:54 GMT
I know this thread is more or less on it's way out, but I finally got to see this yesterday, so I'll throw in my 2c, even to an empty room. (and apologies, to anyone reading, for the wall of text)
The first 15 minutes or so felt really exhilarating; the layering of actors, the movement of lights, props & cameras, the use of live & pre-recorded footage of the stage (sometimes very cleverly interwoven), screens showing vintage commercials, actors breaking the fourth wall, live musicians, and 'extras' on stage eating. Watching it felt exciting, and I honestly can't imagine how difficult it must have been to get it all working so smoothly. The movement of the cameras and actors in particular was great, feeling both 'natural' while clearly being heavily staged to achieve certain key images.
However, I'm not entirely sure that this cacophonic staging always gelled with the structure of the play. Some scenes seemed to run through at breakneck pace (the early pre-breakdown scenes in particular), but the play kept some of the quieter, slower subplots and the momentum ground to a halt at times (e.g. scenes involving an affair between two secondary characters). The result was a play that seemed to overwhelm (in a good way) in moments, and fall flat at others. This disjointed feeling was echoed in the design, which seemed both rooted to the 1970s (with the news stories and adverts), and the modern day (with the minimalist sets and use of social media).
I also felt fairly uneasy (if that's the right word?) about the audience. To me, the film/play warns about the dangers of the media, and doesn't think that the way that Howard Beale is exploited by the TV studio is a good thing. In that context, the audience laughing, clapping, and cheering along seemed odd; perhaps thematically sound, but essentially buying in, and becoming complicit to what was happening.
The opportunity to see Bryan Cranston on stage, the film, and the early images all seemed like a perfect fit to me, and perhaps part of the problem was that my expectations were too high. All-in-all, this was the most exciting, but also most disappointing show I've seen in recent memory.
I'm quite tempted to go again if possible.
|
|
1,346 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Mar 10, 2018 22:20:34 GMT
Won't offer much, it's all been said but generally enjoyed and stimulated by it but it flags when Cranston's not on stage. Incidentally when he gives his final speech at the end, sat on the edge of the stage, he was directly in front of me (about 2 feet away as I was on the front row) and it was riveting to witness such superb acting so close.
I haven't trawled through all the pages so apologies if this has previously been raised but when watching the screen was the sound out of sync with the mouth movements? It was tonight (Saturday) and I found that extremely annoying and wearing for two hours.
|
|
3,304 posts
|
Post by david on Mar 10, 2018 22:30:24 GMT
Won't offer much, it's all been said but generally enjoyed and stimulated by it but it flags when Cranston's not on stage. Incidentally when he gives his final speech at the end, sat on the edge of the stage, he was directly in front of me (about 2 feet away as I was on the front row) and it was riveting to witness such superb acting so close. I haven't trawled through all the pages so apologies if this has previously been raised but when watching the screen was the sound out of sync with the mouth movements? It was tonight (Saturday) and I found that extremely annoying and wearing for two hours. I was there too -row D13. Have to agree with your point about the big screen stuff. It did seem out of sync with BC’s mouth movements to me as well. It was a definitely weird to watch. I just ended up ignoring it. Have to say, apart from that, the whole thing for me was great and the 2hrs really flew by. Have to agree, when BC was off stage, the thing did seem to flag, but being so close to him was worth it. When he sat in the audience, I was directly behind him and I even got to see myself on the big screen- bonus! Overall, was it worth £18 I paid? Definitely. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 10, 2018 23:28:51 GMT
I also felt fairly uneasy (if that's the right word?) about the audience. To me, the film/play warns about the dangers of the media, and doesn't think that the way that Howard Beale is exploited by the TV studio is a good thing. In that context, the audience laughing, clapping, and cheering along seemed odd; perhaps thematically sound, but essentially buying in, and becoming complicit to what was happening. Isn't that the point? Surely that's why, towards the end, they literally hold up a mirror to the audience: we are complicit. That's why that montage of Presidential inaugurations is tacked on at the end: in the world of the play, Diana is driven by TV ratings. She's more or less completely soulless, but she knows what makes people watch - and in the real world, Trump's ascent to the White House was also driven by TV ratings. I thought van Hove set out to create a show that makes the audience applaud and then makes them uncomfortable for applauding, and that he succeeded brilliantly. |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Mar 11, 2018 0:28:40 GMT
I also felt fairly uneasy (if that's the right word?) about the audience. To me, the film/play warns about the dangers of the media, and doesn't think that the way that Howard Beale is exploited by the TV studio is a good thing. In that context, the audience laughing, clapping, and cheering along seemed odd; perhaps thematically sound, but essentially buying in, and becoming complicit to what was happening. Isn't that the point? Surely that's why, towards the end, they literally hold up a mirror to the audience: we are complicit. That's why that montage of Presidential inaugurations is tacked on at the end: in the world of the play, Diana is driven by TV ratings. She's more or less completely soulless, but she knows what makes people watch - and in the real world, Trump's ascent to the White House was also driven by TV ratings. I thought van Hove set out to create a show that makes the audience applaud and then makes them uncomfortable for applauding, and that he succeeded brilliantly. Absolutely. But i suppose my point is that the play doesn't present you something (that you might clap to), after which it slowly unveils the underlying hypocrisy, audience manipulation and ethical problem behind what you've seen. Instead, the play is completely upfront & explicit about all of those things right from the beginning. By the time the audience is clapping and chanting catchphrases back to the announcer, we have no doubt whats going on. And what we are complicit in. Don't get me wrong, it would have felt a little spoil-sport-y and ruined the effect if the audience had been silent. However, some of the reaction felt a little like if the audience started shouting during the two minutes of hate in 1984. |
|
1,346 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Mar 12, 2018 11:38:14 GMT
was the sound out of sync with the mouth movements It was a few times when I went in early February, but it corrected by the interval. Thanks - it was 'out' all Saturday evening. |
|
330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on Mar 12, 2018 17:34:06 GMT
Isn't that the point? Surely that's why, towards the end, they literally hold up a mirror to the audience: we are complicit. That's why that montage of Presidential inaugurations is tacked on at the end: in the world of the play, Diana is driven by TV ratings. She's more or less completely soulless, but she knows what makes people watch - and in the real world, Trump's ascent to the White House was also driven by TV ratings. I thought van Hove set out to create a show that makes the audience applaud and then makes them uncomfortable for applauding, and that he succeeded brilliantly. Absolutely. But i suppose my point is that the play doesn't present you something (that you might clap to), after which it slowly unveils the underlying hypocrisy, audience manipulation and ethical problem behind what you've seen. Instead, the play is completely upfront & explicit about all of those things right from the beginning. By the time the audience is clapping and chanting catchphrases back to the announcer, we have no doubt whats going on. And what we are complicit in. Don't get me wrong, it would have felt a little spoil-sport-y and ruined the effect if the audience had been silent. However, some of the reaction felt a little like if the audience started shouting during the two minutes of hate in 1984. I agree more with sf and I did not shout that stupid sentence and applause when shown I should. If you want to see a play that does holding up the mirror a bit cleverer and more subtle, I recommend The Quiz by James Graham |
|
2,327 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Mar 12, 2018 19:36:33 GMT
Panto season ended weeks ago, I felt the shouting was inappropriate and was one more reason that I didn't like this as much as I'd hoped. I liked the audience participation, I didn't take part in it though as I am above that as serious theatre goer |
|
|
|
Post by floorshow on Mar 14, 2018 12:44:13 GMT
|
|
kps
Auditioning
|
Post by kps on Mar 14, 2018 15:09:56 GMT
So much has already been written about this play, so I won't retread too much old ground.
What I will say, however, is the 'Foodwork' concept is the most egregious example of avarice I have experienced at the theatre. I can think of no reasonable justification for the decision to place irritating selfie-taking, self-absorbed bourgeoisie on the stage for the entirety of the play. It is a money grab, and one that completely spoiled a promising production.
|
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Mar 14, 2018 17:18:51 GMT
There were empty seats so I think you might be out of luck, unfortunately! Splendid anecdotage on display and a fine demonstration of How to Talk about Acting. Sorry if your ticket didn't get sold, but it was filmed so you'll get the chance to enjoy it from the NT website in due course. |
|
2,054 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Mar 14, 2018 17:40:12 GMT
I asked Bryan after if he was planning on coming back to the UK for a play any time soon, or if Network was transferring to Broadway, to which he just said ‘nothing is decided ‘ but I think his brief reply just might have been inspired by the almighty queue of people behind me and the thought he might still be signing books at midnight rather than any rudeness...
|
|
?? 
