|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 20:44:41 GMT
A lot of eating establishments are very understanding if you let them know you're eating pre-theatre. I've even gone into a local joint announcing "I have to be out of here in twenty-five minutes with no wiggle room, do you reckon we can do it?", and we did it, and the food was tasty, and I arrived at the theatre in plenty of time.
|
|
397 posts
|
Post by altamont on Jul 20, 2018 7:55:59 GMT
Just wondering whether the posts about eating should be split off into their own topic? They’re liable to not be noticed once the Lehman Trilogy has departed
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jul 20, 2018 11:02:40 GMT
I am not a terribly picky eater and rarely return anything if I can help it - but I was served the most bizarre and stone cold tacos served with (WHY?) chips at the Kitchen. I think they are safer with stews - that sort of thing. But what I really crave pre-theatre is a platter of little dishes (dips, nuts, cured meats, olives, bread) and a very nice, very cold white wine. In terms of restaurants in the area - I was taken to a swanky business lunch (a rare occurrence) at the Brasserie Blanc (near the Pizza Express.) Good food, pleasant service, was actually quite empty - and they do various set menus including (I think) a pre-theatre set menu. brasserieblanc.com/restaurants/southbank/But I always get a bit antsy eating before the theatre - I don't want to hang around for the bill, etc. I'm a member of the Southbank so sometimes have something light in the Members area there or else go someplace that I know is quick like Wahaca. I am so impatient that I have downloaded the Pizza Express app. You ask for the bill and pay on the app then rather awkwardly shout "I've paid" whilst tapping manically on your phone before leaving. I forgot to mention Brasserie Blanc, if you sign up to their mailing list you can get 20% off and regular offers. The NT just have no clue. I would rather it was a cake and coffee place.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jul 20, 2018 11:21:30 GMT
am so impatient that I have downloaded the Pizza Express app. You ask for the bill and pay on the app then rather awkwardly shout "I've paid" whilst tapping manically on your phone before leaving. That sounds like a way for everybody to get a free meal if ever I heard one. It is tempting after bad service, I am not going to lie
|
|
|
Post by smallperson on Jul 20, 2018 11:34:00 GMT
|
|
116 posts
|
Post by harlow on Jul 22, 2018 10:00:29 GMT
Has anyone sat in the back row of the stalls for this? How is it?
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2018 11:02:03 GMT
Just wondering whether the posts about eating should be split off into their own topic? They’re liable to not be noticed once the Lehman Trilogy has departed There's already a thread on this, so if our members want to post their restaurant/eating recommendations there (again), feel free to do so: theatreboard.co.uk/thread/1566/best-show-eateries
|
|
1,081 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jul 29, 2018 11:51:26 GMT
I caught the Saturday night performance and was blown away. The quality of the writing, the direction, the design and principally the acting was superb - it's an incredibly slick production. I share the feeling of how oddly it ended, by friend defended this by pointing out that the play ends when the Lehmans end, and chooses to not focus on the company after their passing. I think that's a bit of a cop out, it seems very plain to take 15 minutes of a long play to explain and dramatise the downfall of the company. With that said there is very little else to criticise, a really fantastic bit of theatre.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 29, 2018 17:57:44 GMT
Hmm. For me, this was good, but not without its flaws.
I found that, unlike a few recent plays, the 3+ hour runtime really dragged in moments, especially towards the end. I think this was down to the fact that, while apparently about Lehman Brothers the company, the play was really interested in Lehman brothers the family.
This family-focus meant that the play only glanced on some points (e.g. What it meant to be funding the cotton plantations wasn't dealt with much outside of the mechanics). Similarly, the play reached a natural climax at the end of the 'Lehman family' portion of the story (and some audience members clapped at this point). After that, as the play moved towards the 2008 financial crash, and end of the company, it actually got less interesting, ending on a bit of a whimper, rather than the exhilaration of the surreal (if overlong) dance number marking a Lehman family member's death.
It took a while to get used to the audiobook approach to the acting, as well as just having 3 actors. Ultimately though, I thought this style generally worked well, and meshed nicely with the live piano accompaniment. A moment when the pianist became crossed the boundary into the story was inspired. The acting was largely good, but IMO there were a couple of issues; (a) a key moment near the end with Adam Godley giving a speech about the digital age in sunglasses just screamed 'Agent Smith chewing the scenery in The Matrix', especially with the scrolling numbers digital backdrop. (b) a bigger problem was that, while it was exciting to see 3 great actors taking on a variety of roles, all of the non-male roles got the audience laughing. I don't know if this was intended, but it was a shame that even 'straight' female parts had the audience chuckling.
All in all, a solid four stars. Good, and I am glad to have seen it, but given the talent I was hoping for something more.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2018 18:02:46 GMT
a bigger problem was that, while it was exciting to see 3 great actors taking on a variety of roles, all of the non-male roles got the audience laughing. I don't know if this was intended, but it was a shame that even 'straight' female parts had the audience chuckling. I enjoyed it too but this is the problem I had with it. Given it was non-naturalistic and they were all playing multiple male and female parts, why did it have to be done by three white male middle aged actors? Would have been great to see (eg) Harriet Walter or Kathryn Hunter or Sophie Okenedo as one of the brothers. Or maybe all three Wonder if anyone asked during the preparation process of this "does it have to be three blokes?" Still nice to see older male actors getting a chance for a change, not many opportunities for them.
|
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 29, 2018 18:50:25 GMT
I agree to some extent. It would have been nice to elevate one or two female characters and casting a woman would have done that I suppose. But the story is of its time when the gals were the power very much behind the throne. The idea of the three you mention, xanderl, is delicious.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 29, 2018 18:56:50 GMT
I agree to some extent. It would have been nice to elevate one or two female characters and casting a woman would have done that I suppose. But the story is of its time when the gals were the power very much behind the throne. The idea of the three you mention, xanderl, is delicious. Interestingly, this is even reflected in the programme. In the family tree page, the company members have birth and death dates listed, but the wives have their marriage/divorce dates.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 29, 2018 19:31:15 GMT
Perhaps it needs a companion piece - the Lehman Wives.
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Jul 29, 2018 20:37:29 GMT
There was certainly a huge slavery-shaped hole in the first act, pretty unforgivable IMO. I wonder whether this was dealt with in the longer version
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 13:28:36 GMT
I absolutely loved this, but now you’ve all raised the point – yes, the women are completely one dimensional caricatures, possibly due to the fact that the blokes are having great fun doing them rather than actually delving into the characters (reminds me of a one man Macbeth I once saw in which he played every female character like Les Dawson doing Cissie and Ada). And yes, if it’s three actors doing a cast of thousands regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, etc, why did all three have to be white middle aged men? Thanks for ruining it for me, people… The standard of acting is excellent though, and it’s wonderfully written and staged. Though now I think about it, it’s a totally male perspective – particularly Bobbie’s wife, who doesn’t have any presence beyond what he sees. Disagree that not showing the final crash is a problem – it would have felt like a noddy spoonfeeding thing to me to include it; the hints to it at the beginning and end were much more effective, and in between those you got the meat of the story. Loved the dancing, loved, SRB being the young Philip, loved the focus on immigrant progress and how much is remembered/forgotten from generation to generation, loved the way that the (male) characters were so distinct even though only three actors were doing it all. Hugely recommended.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 13:50:21 GMT
And yes, if it’s three actors doing a cast of thousands regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, etc, why did all three have to be white middle aged men? Thanks for ruining it for me, people… At the risk of ruining it further, it's just occurred to me that your description sounds exactly like The League of Gentlemen. "This is a local fabric shop, for local people. We'll have no banking here!"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 14:31:06 GMT
There was certainly a huge slavery-shaped hole in the first act, pretty unforgivable IMO. I wonder whether this was dealt with in the longer version Particularly since the bank (before it closed) did admit links with the slave trade: Bank admits its founders bought slave
Also from USA Today in 2002
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 16:21:52 GMT
... and also, the original Lehman Bros shop which we hear about over and over again (with it's wooden floors, and the little yellow sign, etc etc) was apparently directly opposite the local slave market, a fact which I don't think the play finds time for.
|
|
516 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Jul 31, 2018 11:16:45 GMT
I thought this was fine - enjoyable while it lasted but not much more. Didn't join in the standing ovation at the end. Good performances, especially Adam Godley. Strong direction. In lesser hands it could've been quite confusing/ not as effective. But, really, I wanted it to have more of a Headlong effect. Thought the writing was OK but the play lacked its own style/ identity. I think Michael Frayn was sat on the front row.
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Aug 6, 2018 22:01:28 GMT
Travelling back after seeing this tonight. Oh dear! I just didn't get it I'm afraid. I mean the production gave the three actors lots of showing off bits, especially that audience darling SRB. But there's no play here. At the second interval i went out for air, i saw one couple being told there was more and not to rush for their bus. Also Ruby Wax was doing some sort of jazzersize with a piece of orange elastic! Oh well that will learn me for booking solely on the casting of the lead actor.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 6, 2018 22:18:38 GMT
... and also, the original Lehman Bros shop which we hear about over and over again (with it's wooden floors, and the little yellow sign, etc etc) was apparently directly opposite the local slave market, a fact which I don't think the play finds time for.
To be fair, for all we know it might be covered in the original Italian text, which by all accounts is significantly longer than the English-language adaptation, and which was performed by more than three actors.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 5:31:34 GMT
Quite possibly, but if this is covered in the original and the National version decided to cut it, that makes it even worse
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Aug 7, 2018 7:04:17 GMT
... and also, the original Lehman Bros shop which we hear about over and over again (with it's wooden floors, and the little yellow sign, etc etc) was apparently directly opposite the local slave market, a fact which I don't think the play finds time for.
To be fair, for all we know it might be covered in the original Italian text, which by all accounts is significantly longer than the English-language adaptation, and which was performed by more than three actors.
Curious to know now! Anyone read Italian?!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 8:07:50 GMT
Does seem hard to find information on the differences between the two versions! As far as I can see from reviews in previous stagings the various generations of Lehmans were played by different actors, who would remain on stage after their character died. I presume each was still playing multiple characters though as all the production photos I've seen show all-male casts. On the slavery issue, some interesting points here - vogelwakefield.com/2018/07/the-betrayal-of-purpose-reflections-inspired-by-the-lehman-trilogy/ including quotes from journalist David Goodhart who is descended from Mayer Lehman.
|
|
1,345 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Aug 7, 2018 11:25:09 GMT
Travelling back after seeing this tonight. Oh dear! I just didn't get it I'm afraid. I mean the production gave the three actors lots of showing off bits, especially that audience darling SRB. But there's no play here. At the second interval i went out for air, i saw one couple being told there was more and not to rush for their bus. Also Ruby Wax was doing some sort of jazzersize with a piece of orange elastic! Oh well that will learn me for booking solely on the casting of the lead actor. I agree. This did little for me except induce boredom. It's been extravagantly over-praised, particularly in the press.
|
|