1,256 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Oct 19, 2017 16:25:02 GMT
Hello. I am poorly sick tonight and I have a single (partially restricted) ticket in the Stalls to Albion tonight which I can no longer use. If anybody fancies taking it just drop me a message and I can transfer the name and it can be reprinted. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2017 10:39:07 GMT
Enjoyed this although it is very long - ducked out of yesterday's matinee during the curtain call and due to a slightly late start it was 5:45. Possibly the two lengthy scene changes could be (literally) pruned.
The staging is great but I think there's no fundamental reason it has to be thrust stage so could transfer to a traditional theatre, or maybe to the set-up the Trafalgar uses sometimes with seating behind the stage.
Due to the change in layout the restricted front stalls seats are more restricted than normal. I was in a "slightly restricted" row G seat and the pillar is more in the middle of the stage rather than at the edge as it usually is. Not a major problem, and row G has unlimited leg room in this layout which is nice. They guy behind me was whinging about his restricted view in Row H, but he was an obnoxious Pr**k so never mind.
Despite enjoying this can we now have a ban on new plays about unpleasant rich people and their needy adult children having to deal with the trauma of owning a massive f*cking house please?
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Oct 22, 2017 14:02:58 GMT
I enjoyed this greatly. Not really just echoes of The Seagull, but some pretty wholesale borrowing of the material in parts. Still, it worked very well, and there's nothing wrong with recycling. The acting across the board was excellent, not just Victoria Hamilton, even though she was magnetic. I think perhaps the actress playing Anna was the least strong, but perhaps this was partially due to having the most far fetched storyline.
Perhaps there is too much here, but a play with ambition and skilled storytelling and clearly delineated characters easily filled the 3hr 5 min running time (actually 3hr 15m with a slight late start, and interval). So much here - ambition and capitalism, old vs new, nostalgia for the past and creating something "new", grief, the nature of friendship and loyalty, town vs country, love and lust, immigration, the pace of change, private landowners vs the community, land owners vs social housing , writers, agent vs creativity, youth and experience.. What is the nature of Britain today...I could go on!
Whilst I agree that the scene changes were quite long, they added to the atmosphere, and there were some typical Rupert Goold touches with poetic music and atmospheric lighting. One climatic scene reminded me of Yerma - think mud and rain. Fortunately, I was in one of the front row traverse seats, so got a bit of dirt on us during one scene change and nice close ups of the gardening, and the tears.
Almost 10/10.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 22, 2017 14:38:43 GMT
Despite enjoying this can we now have a ban on new plays about unpleasant rich people and their needy adult children having to deal with the trauma of owning a massive f*cking house please? I cancelled seeing this yesterday - family illness meant having to reschedule 'My Name is Rachel Corrie' three times, and I managed to get a return for the matinee of that instead (and it was so worth it - Erin Doherty is utterly brilliant). I might have another stab at Albion but the angsting of the incredibly well-off really tries my patience. |
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Oct 25, 2017 22:11:19 GMT
Victoria Hamilton is magnificent but in truth I was a little disappointed in this. Too many ideas/themes, a bit overlong and veered between cliche and improbability.
The major problem is that absolutely no 55 year old in 2017 is called Audrey. Sorry, just no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2017 22:18:09 GMT
Breakfast At Tiffany's came out in 1961 and seemed to be fairly popular, it really doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that at least ONE baby born the following year might have been named Audrey.
|
|
2,744 posts
|
Post by n1david on Oct 25, 2017 22:35:34 GMT
The major problem is that absolutely no 55 year old in 2017 is called Audrey. Sorry, just no. I haven't seen the play yet but I have to counter with Audrey Gillan, with whom I was at University, former Guardian journalist now freelance, and would be around 50 now. www.audreygillan.com/?page_id=2 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2017 22:41:38 GMT
There's Audrey Horne from Twin Peaks who is about 50  I think I had a couple of contemporaries at University called Audrey but I'd agree it's an unusual name for someone born in the 60s. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2017 23:21:12 GMT
I may be the lone dissenting voice but I found Victoria Hamilton to be hugely mannered and actressy in this; so much strain and effort all over her face and body it was like she was pulling the play all over the stage.
Nicholas Rowe was beautifully understated (in a part that really required him to be) and I also thought Charlotte Hope and Luke Thallon gave very good accounts of themselves and look to have bright futures.
The play should have been something I really went for - people were citing Chekhov, Turgenev, Ayckbourn - but the lack of subtlety left me rather cold. Sadly I didn't really believe that any of it was real and it was just a literary response to the world as it is rather than an accurate and moving depiction of it.
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on Oct 26, 2017 10:15:15 GMT
I may be the lone dissenting voice but I found Victoria Hamilton to be hugely mannered and actressy in this; so much strain and effort all over her face and body it was like she was pulling the play all over the stage. Nicholas Rowe was beautifully understated (in a part that really required him to be) and I also thought Charlotte Hope and Luke Thallon gave very good accounts of themselves and look to have bright futures. The play should have been something I really went for - people were citing Chekhov, Turgenev, Ayckbourn - but the lack of subtlety left me rather cold. Sadly I didn't really believe that any of it was real and it was just a literary response to the world as it is rather than an accurate and moving depiction of it. I wouldn't fault Ms Hamilton here. The problem is the play. Much of the time she's trying to pull it along where the writing asks her to behave in certain ways, but doesn't give her any substantial action to support this behaviour. Despite the long playing time, very little of significance actually happens. This is perhaps why the play feels 'literary' and unengaging? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 10:58:24 GMT
I may be the lone dissenting voice but I found Victoria Hamilton to be hugely mannered and actressy in this; so much strain and effort all over her face and body it was like she was pulling the play all over the stage. Nicholas Rowe was beautifully understated (in a part that really required him to be) and I also thought Charlotte Hope and Luke Thallon gave very good accounts of themselves and look to have bright futures. The play should have been something I really went for - people were citing Chekhov, Turgenev, Ayckbourn - but the lack of subtlety left me rather cold. Sadly I didn't really believe that any of it was real and it was just a literary response to the world as it is rather than an accurate and moving depiction of it. I wouldn't fault Ms Hamilton here. The problem is the play. Much of the time she's trying to pull it along where the writing asks her to behave in certain ways, but doesn't give her any substantial action to support this behaviour. Despite the long playing time, very little of significance actually happens. This is perhaps why the play feels 'literary' and unengaging? Not according to pretty much every review. It’s understandable that it doesn’t please everyone but praise appears to cross the political divide so it appears to clear that very difficult hurdle. There is an issue with seeing it as a play about other things than what is in the surface, however, as people at the moment bring diverse knowledge and interest to that. As such it could get a response that sees things as obvious because of those is being at the forefront of someone’s thoughts. In months or years I see it as having a continued resonance though. To me, there is a lot that happens, all significant but nearly all internal. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 26, 2017 11:06:57 GMT
"praise appears to cross the political divide so it appears to clear that very difficult hurdle." I haven't seen it yet, but I can see why the setting and social class of the characters would give it Telegraph/Standard appeal, as does the big country kitchen of The Ferryman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 12:04:54 GMT
"praise appears to cross the political divide so it appears to clear that very difficult hurdle." I haven't seen it yet, but I can see why the setting and social class of the characters would give it Telegraph/Standard appeal, as does the big country kitchen of The Ferryman. It’s more a case of ‘tackling the subject’ without Tackling The Subject, I think. Within Chekhov there is an undercurrent of politics, often generational, making him a good mirror of today; undoubtedly obvious at the time but lost unless a director foregrounds it (as has happened in societies wishing to skewer the bourgeoisie). I can see this here, it may look ‘so obvious’ but only for a very short time. Six months on and we are somewhere else. Frankly if anyone says ‘nothing happens’ about a play or film my likelihood of enjoying it multiplies so, you know, horses for courses and all that..... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 12:05:44 GMT
Repeat post deleted......
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 12:33:28 GMT
I wouldn't fault Ms Hamilton here. The problem is the play. Much of the time she's trying to pull it along where the writing asks her to behave in certain ways, but doesn't give her any substantial action to support this behaviour. Despite the long playing time, very little of significance actually happens. This is perhaps why the play feels 'literary' and unengaging? Not according to pretty much every review. It’s understandable that it doesn’t please everyone but praise appears to cross the political divide so it appears to clear that very difficult hurdle. There is an issue with seeing it as a play about other things than what is in the surface, however, as people at the moment bring diverse knowledge and interest to that. As such it could get a response that sees things as obvious because of those is being at the forefront of someone’s thoughts. In months or years I see it as having a continued resonance though. To me, there is a lot that happens, all significant but nearly all internal. I think a significant amount happens... {Spoiler} {Spoiler - click to view}even if the play has a circular shape which means that a lot of what happens ends up being reversed; the purchase then "sale" of the house then final last minute change of heart, the making and unmaking of the garden and then the final beginnings of remaking the garden at the very end, Gabriel and Zara's artistic ambitions going from nothing to something then back to nothing, Katherine and Zara being single - then together - then single again. I appreciate that the play is looking at the nature of change, and the inescapable lure of the past (both good and the bad), but my problem was that so much of these happenings were HAPPENINGS rather than happenings, but that's a personal taste thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 13:02:19 GMT
Victoria Hamilton is magnificent but in truth I was a little disappointed in this. Too many ideas/themes, a bit overlong and veered between cliche and improbability. The major problem is that absolutely no 55 year old in 2017 is called Audrey. Sorry, just no.Poppycock.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 14:12:51 GMT
Oh heavens to Betsy, how could I forget? *smacked hand* She'd certainly be over 55 now.  |
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Oct 26, 2017 15:11:27 GMT
She'd be about 80 now, sort of proving my point! However for my own peace of mind I looked on FreeBMD and it turns out there were a couple of hundred Audreys born 1962. I must have been the wrong demographic...
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 26, 2017 15:57:50 GMT
Given his TV background, I bet it was Mrs Forbes-Hamilton rather than Hepburn he had in mind.
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on Oct 26, 2017 16:06:00 GMT
Not according to pretty much every review. It’s understandable that it doesn’t please everyone but praise appears to cross the political divide so it appears to clear that very difficult hurdle. There is an issue with seeing it as a play about other things than what is in the surface, however, as people at the moment bring diverse knowledge and interest to that. As such it could get a response that sees things as obvious because of those is being at the forefront of someone’s thoughts. In months or years I see it as having a continued resonance though. To me, there is a lot that happens, all significant but nearly all internal. I think a significant amount happens... {Spoiler} {Spoiler - click to view}even if the play has a circular shape which means that a lot of what happens ends up being reversed; the purchase then "sale" of the house then final last minute change of heart, the making and unmaking of the garden and then the final beginnings of remaking the garden at the very end, Gabriel and Zara's artistic ambitions going from nothing to something then back to nothing, Katherine and Zara being single - then together - then single again. I appreciate that the play is looking at the nature of change, and the inescapable lure of the past (both good and the bad), but my problem was that so much of these happenings were HAPPENINGS rather than happenings, but that's a personal taste thing. These things happen, true, but none of them involves much visible effort or any difficult choices or high costs for the protagonists. And people do these things and then just sort of give up. So it's difficult for an audience to believe they mean very much.. And this isn't just a case of quiet things happening. More that there's an effort from the production (thunderstorms! rain! sunsets!) to give what does happen more emotional resonance than maybe it deserves. As for the politics. The play certainly Tackles the Subject. But more in a sense of waving things around than actually structuring the action to make some kind of an argument.. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 17:31:47 GMT
I think a significant amount happens... {Spoiler} {Spoiler - click to view}even if the play has a circular shape which means that a lot of what happens ends up being reversed; the purchase then "sale" of the house then final last minute change of heart, the making and unmaking of the garden and then the final beginnings of remaking the garden at the very end, Gabriel and Zara's artistic ambitions going from nothing to something then back to nothing, Katherine and Zara being single - then together - then single again. I appreciate that the play is looking at the nature of change, and the inescapable lure of the past (both good and the bad), but my problem was that so much of these happenings were HAPPENINGS rather than happenings, but that's a personal taste thing. These things happen, true, but none of them involves much visible effort or any difficult choices or high costs for the protagonists. And people do these things and then just sort of give up. So it's difficult for an audience to believe they mean very much.. And this isn't just a case of quiet things happening. More that there's an effort from the production (thunderstorms! rain! sunsets!) to give what does happen more emotional resonance than maybe it deserves. As for the politics. The play certainly Tackles the Subject. But more in a sense of waving things around than actually structuring the action to make some kind of an argument. The weather stuff is there as it reflects the national obsession. I’d also suggest that the play definitely makes an argument, it just makes a number of different, contradictory ones (and I take that as a plus, whereas others maybe wouldn’t). As for an overarching argument I took away that the actions are taken because of supposed certainties, ones that fall apart when they come into the contact with the messy reality of life. From that I take Bartlett as suggesting that the divide is the danger, the division of yes or no, of this or that. Others may, again, take different messages (and I take that as a plus, whereas others maybe wouldn’t). |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 28, 2017 19:44:54 GMT
Who'd have thought a lot of plant potting action would be so absorbing?!
Lovely set and those two changes were just delightful, I was quite cross with the people's heads in front who impeded my view and got in the way of all that compost. I think this is a play I need to ponder a bit and read some other views and let them filter through, there were so many ideas and themes that I don't think I really picked up on them all and having now read the board reviews am looking to playing spot the Chekhov character. I felt it was a bit too long and could have done with a bit of pruning, no pun intended, but great acting, surprisingly funny and whilst I thought several times 'I don't know why you would love this person' I did then immediately think 'but I often think that with real people too so actually that's probably about right. Loved Victoria Hamilton, beautifully understated Nicholas Rowe and Margot Leicester's portrayal just wonderful. Will be interested to read what more people think.
|
|
1,346 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Oct 28, 2017 22:50:00 GMT
Well -
the brexit references were a bit unsubtle
the Cherry Orchard parallels were a bit obvious
but
it was extremely enjoyable and satisfying on many levels: acting, gardening, humour, production and music.
A very strong cast and Victoria Hamilton was outstanding.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Oct 29, 2017 10:21:28 GMT
I saw it on Friday. I really wanted to love it and the first scene in the first half made me think I would. And then Bartlett oh so slowly flew the plane right into the side of the mountain. It felt like he wrote that opening scene and then thought "I have NO idea where to take this". I didn't buy a single sub-plot, either because they were anaemically underdeveloped, or because they were so ludicrous and poorly constructed that suspension of disbelief wasn't an option. Same can be said for some of the characters in it as well, and their relationships with each other.
Victoria Hamilton as Audrey was all very Celia Imrie as Miss Babs. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but was it ever really explained how she'd come to acquire the house, or why she cared so very much about it? Anna has a line where she's talking about how her boyfriend always told her that "eventually I'll get to see what's underneath her exterior, and I'll like her". Or something along those lines. Well, I didn't feel the surface Audrey was unpleasant enough to merit this kind of line and we never really got to see underneath her exterior to make that judgement for ourselves. I'm sure the last scene is going for heartbreaking, but it just made me roll my eyes, especially in the last few moments.
Yes, there is some great writing here. Yes, there are some brilliantly witty one liners here. But they're surrounded by acres and acres of stuff that is very far from brilliant. And most of the moments that were great were mostly down to Helen Schlesinger investing Katherine with far more depth than is there on the page. It failed to make me care about any of the supporting characters at all (even Katherine), so when Bartlett felt the need to parade them all back in (apart from Katherine), unconvincingly, at the end, to give them their own little bit of closure, all I could think was "oh get on with it, I've got a train to catch".
This really is not the play Britain needs right now. Britain does not need to see more privileged people being awful. And we certainly don't need thinly drawn caricatures parading around braying at each other for three hours. That said, it will likely transfer and the staging really isn't an obstacle to that. Re-staging it for a proscenium house is the easiest thing ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Oct 31, 2017 19:49:08 GMT
A QUICK POLL
I have a big fat man-cold and a £10 ticket for this tomorrow. I read it's 3hrs long and I will probably want my bed after a day sniffling at my desk. SHALL I GO?
|
|
