|
|
Post by DebbieDoesDouglas(Hodge) on Feb 21, 2016 11:36:02 GMT
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Feb 21, 2016 13:29:25 GMT
I agree, let's keep an open mind. It might be really good!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 20:49:13 GMT
First preview tonight. Anyone there?
At first I was reluctant to see this as I've only seen two Shakespeares, one of them being The Tempest, but all the behind the scenes and Intel holographic stuff is starting to sound pretty exciting! May have to catch it before it shutters in January.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 9, 2016 6:51:35 GMT
First preview tonight. Anyone there? At first I was reluctant to see this as I've only seen two Shakespeares, one of them being The Tempest, but all the behind the scenes and Intel holographic stuff is starting to sound pretty exciting! May have to catch it before it shutters in January. I heard from a cast member it is (most likely) transferring to London. |
|
|
|
Post by theatremad on Nov 9, 2016 7:26:58 GMT
Saw this first preview (so usual first preview disclaimers please). I really love this production if you strip out the majority of the high tech stuff with Ariel. The computer graphics plus Mary Rose like set really lend it a beauty, and for me it is strongly cast, with SRB giving a quiet but wonderful Prospero (I was lucky enough to see his Ariel all those years ago).
Only serious gripes are audibility of any speech in the first scene and in Ariel's songs.
Don't get me wrong the trickery with Ariel is stunning but it detracts from the production.
Also interval feels like a long way in, where is it in other productions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 9, 2016 8:06:20 GMT
Saw this first preview (so usual first preview disclaimers please). I really love this production if you strip out the majority of the high tech stuff with Ariel. The computer graphics plus Mary Rose like set really lend it a beauty, and for me it is strongly cast, with SRB giving a quiet but wonderful Prospero (I was lucky enough to see his Ariel all those years ago). Only serious gripes are audibility of any speech in the first scene and in Ariel's songs. Don't get me wrong the trickery with Ariel is stunning but it detracts from the production. Also interval feels like a long way in, where is it in other productions? Sometimes The Tempest doesn't have an interval. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 9:56:39 GMT
The RSC says that this is their annual family show in the Royal Shakespeare Theatre.
Apart from the novelty thrill of the holographic Ariel, how does The Tempest fare as a family show?
I know there's a tradition, having seen the Little Angel puppet version for children in the Swan in 2012.
|
|
|
|
Post by theatremad on Nov 9, 2016 10:16:33 GMT
Not too badly, there are no dodgy sex scenes or outrageous moments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 15:42:56 GMT
The RSC says that this is their annual family show in the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. Apart from the novelty thrill of the holographic Ariel, how does The Tempest fare as a family show? I know there's a tradition, having seen the Little Angel puppet version for children in the Swan in 2012. I remember Doran calling it Shakespeare's "most magical play" which it kind of is to an extent (along with A Midsummer Night's Dream but that's already been done this year) and therefore probably one that allows more spectacle than most. I admit I was a bit gutted to see that the Christmas show was a Shakespeare and not another exciting adaptation like Matilda or Wendy and Peter Pan, but this sounds like it could be a great production! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 15:52:30 GMT
Doran hasn't really done the family Christmas show thing very well to be honest. His bringing back Wendy and Peter Pan was nice, but it was Michael Boyd who did it in the first place. Our family definitely misses the big non-Shakespeare family Christmas show.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Nov 9, 2016 18:23:35 GMT
I frankly dont see the need for the RSC to do a family show every year. Noble revived it in 1999 with LWW but i just dont see it as part if their remit im afraid!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 18:51:42 GMT
This is one of the most expensive and ambitious things they have staged in terms of set and complexity as well as advance planning
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Nov 9, 2016 19:39:56 GMT
will it work as a live cinema screening.....the Birmingham Royal Ballet have just done a spectacular if quite literal ballet of The Tempest which boasts some superb underwater scenes. I just wanted a bit more magic.
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Nov 9, 2016 20:22:19 GMT
It is being transmitted, 11th Jan.
I was quite disappointed when I read it was supposed to be a family show but am hopeful with Doran that it wont be dumbed down too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 23:00:16 GMT
I frankly dont see the need for the RSC to do a family show every year. Noble revived it in 1999 with LWW but i just dont see it as part if their remit im afraid! I have no idea what LWW is, or was, but it makes sense for their main house winter production to have the strongest appeal to local audiences, at the time of year when visitors are thinnest on the ground. And the winter is when most once-a-year families go to the theatre. And there's the hope and expectation that some of them will enjoy it so much that they're interested to try something else in the rest of the season. I'm suspicious that The Tempest is of limited appeal to most families, being Shakespeare, despite the special effects, and I hope that it doesn't backfire on the RSC by alienating families who may think the advertising was misleading. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 10:05:14 GMT
I'm presuming LWW is The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe. And I'm all for giving over the RST to a family show every Christmas, because it's not like there's a complete dearth of Shakespeare when they do so! Plus what HG says about luring in less frequent theatre-goers with something a little more welcoming in the hopes of converting them into more regular theatre-goers (but actually how much does it really matter anyway if they only go once a year, surely every theatre runs the big family Christmas show as a money-spinner allowing them a little more financial freedom the rest of the year?).
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 10, 2016 10:22:05 GMT
The RSC says that this is their annual family show in the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. Apart from the novelty thrill of the holographic Ariel, how does The Tempest fare as a family show? Agree. I wouldn't take my family to it. I assume they've said it simply to increase audience numbers for this expensive production. |
|
898 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by bordeaux on Nov 10, 2016 11:13:23 GMT
The RSC says that this is their annual family show in the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. Apart from the novelty thrill of the holographic Ariel, how does The Tempest fare as a family show? Agree. I wouldn't take my family to it. I assume they've said it simply to increase audience numbers for this expensive production. Oh. I am taking my 12 and 10 year olds. I assume the play's been cut to some extent... Not that I'm worried, the elder one was rather taken with The Hollow Crown. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 11:34:24 GMT
There's not really any real reason to cut The Tempest to make it palatable to families (unless you're really uneasy about kids understanding precisely why Caliban fell out of favour), it's Shakespeare's second shortest play and doesn't really have any right to drag on for three hours or more.
|
|
4,955 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Nov 10, 2016 13:28:04 GMT
There's not really any real reason to cut The Tempest to make it palatable to families (unless you're really uneasy about kids understanding precisely why Caliban fell out of favour), it's Shakespeare's second shortest play and doesn't really have any right to drag on for three hours or more. I'm sure Trev would find some additional text and extend it to a healthy 4 hours! |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 10, 2016 17:48:21 GMT
There's not really any real reason to cut The Tempest to make it palatable to families (unless you're really uneasy about kids understanding precisely why Caliban fell out of favour), it's Shakespeare's second shortest play and doesn't really have any right to drag on for three hours or more. I'm sure Trev would find some additional text and extend it to a healthy 4 hours! He did it at the Haymarket didn't he - from what I recall it was well over 3hrs. |
|
219 posts
|
Post by PalelyLaura on Nov 11, 2016 10:08:06 GMT
I'm sure Trev would find some additional text and extend it to a healthy 4 hours! He did it at the Haymarket didn't he - from what I recall it was well over 3hrs. He did and it was blooming awful. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 22:08:13 GMT
Oh it's just amazing
Wonderfully acted
So so moving
And SRB is entirely fantastic
Sadly the much trumpeted video work is a massive flop
And I wish they had not used it
Looks cheap and like something from the 1980s
Entirely at odd with the acting fireworks going on
Incongruous
Despite this MASSIVE blot
It's a must see and not a single weak link in the cast
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Nov 17, 2016 18:09:17 GMT
Press night tonight and high expectations...is it groundbreaking.....I seriously doubt that visuals will be comparable to film and that's why theatre remains the form it is......Ah well,we shall see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 10:21:23 GMT
|
|
