202 posts
|
Post by harry on Apr 20, 2018 7:11:55 GMT
I hate to say I told you so but I definitely did  But yeah transfer is definitely happening same cast too except perhaps one. Which one? Fingers crossed not one of the magnificent leads... |
|
1,281 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Apr 20, 2018 7:30:26 GMT
I have one spare ticket for Part 1 and another one for Part 2.
See noticeboard and message me if interested.
Thanks
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by Steve on Apr 20, 2018 10:20:37 GMT
Some spoilery thoughts about the play, which I saw weeks ago, but still think about. . . To me, this feels like Easy Rider, the movie. In that movie, Two Bikers try to break free of what they see as a corrupt capitalist system, except the film begins with a very capitalist cocaine deal, the proceeds of which the pair live off for the rest of the movie. Effectively, they've blown it before they've begun. This show feels just the same. Our egalitarian heroes circle the stage to tell their story, but they choose E M Forster, and his novel Howard's End, as their framing device. Since Howard's End is a story of class divide, they have blown their egalitarian status even before they begin. The rest of the show is about how badly they've blown it, and how much of their humanity is salvageable. The Howard's End of this show is SO MUCH NEATER than the real "Howard's End." Because same sex sexuality makes it easy to chain lovers one to the other in a succession of descending class status (like how John Cleese was "better" than Ronnie Barker, who was "better" than Ronnie Corbett in the classic Frost Report comedy sketch), what we get here feels even more focused on the evils of class than the original work. Andrew Burnap's Toby blows life the worst, and boy, was Andrew Burnap exciting to watch on stage. He brought so much snappy excitability, and effortless charisma, to irredeemable actions that I truly loved his character, despite myself loathing his actions. At the top of the class chain, John Benjamin's Hickey was equally disconcertingly charming and terrific as the Trump apologist, viewing freedom through his Ayn Rand selfish goggles, rather than realising what a horrendous lack of freedom was experienced at the bottom of the chain by poor old Sam Levine's Leo. What a trio of actors. But it's the middle class chap, Kyle Soller's Eric, who ached for those above him, and those below him, in the class food chain, that gave this play it's heart. Soller really has an ability to radiate compassion, to really listen on stage and pay attention to other people. I loved him. What pushes this play up the chain of plays, generally, is the meta element of Paul Hilton's E M Forster. This allowed us to contrast his class system with our class system, his experience of sexual difference with our experience of sexual difference. Hilton's ability to be stiff, to be gentle, so perfect in depicting this character. I wanted to share a pint with Hilton's Forster, so convincing was he in his depiction, and also in the depiction of Forster's own enduring humanity and value. Should there have been more female characters in the play? Maybe, but I think this play justifies including only one, as it tracks back in time through gay male experience to the origin of everyone: a mother. Having one woman in the play, having her be a mother, having her a symbol of a former prejudice now turned toward enlightenment, having her appearance be brief and concise, allows Redgrave's character to fill a huge space in the play, with a magnified and laser like focus, on what it is to fail, and to redeem, oneself. The light of of potential redemption, for the characters, and for the audience, is magnified by the lopsided gender casting, which enhances it's power. The fact that Vanessa Redgrave references the film, Howard's End, is also clever, as the play itself references the book, Howard's End, and it's author. So the whole hall of mirrors between present and past is beautifully bookended. All in all, this was a terrific play and production, and though I begrudged the final Driving Miss Daisy reminiscent (actress, tone, etc) and sentimental music padded finale it's hammering of it's final moments, I forgive that indiscretion in the light of the brilliance that came before. 4 and a half stars.  |
|
|
|
Post by aniviel on Apr 20, 2018 13:18:31 GMT
I hate to say I told you so but I definitely did But yeah transfer is definitely happening same cast too except perhaps one. Which one? Fingers crossed not one of the magnificent leads... That I actually do not know. I just know it's definitely getting a transfer to West End. Theatre hasn't been signed yet but 99% Noel Coward as you guys guessed... Also, Broadway. But no clue on cast for that yet. |
|
47 posts
|
Post by prophet on Apr 20, 2018 16:29:18 GMT
I've got a lucky dip ticket for tomorrow, what time should I arrive? Do I join a queue or head straight to the box office?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2018 16:33:43 GMT
You'll probably want to head to the box office to get your ticket, then there'll be a separate queue? I'd try arriving half an hour in advance (well, 35 minutes in advance, to beat anyone else who thinks to arrive half an hour in advance) to try increasing your odds of getting an actual seat and not one of the standing spaces.
Changing the topic a little, are they selling playtexts in the theatre yet? They hadn't been published when I went, and I'm quite keen to get my hands on one (especially if they're selling them for less than RRP).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2018 16:40:49 GMT
Thanks to Steve for some very thoughtful comments. I like your take on the VR role. Very thought-provoking.
I am really tempted to see this again. Maybe I shall wait until the transfer.
|
|
629 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Apr 20, 2018 17:19:54 GMT
I've got a lucky dip ticket for tomorrow, what time should I arrive? Do I join a queue or head straight to the box office? When I went I arrived about 40 minutes before curtain up, collected my ticket and then hung around right by the entrance doors to the auditorium. No one else was doing the same, so when they opened the doors I was the first one through. They will then direct you either right or left to meet another usher. That usher will then ask you to stand against the wall and form a queue. Then, at show start time they’ll call you forward and just point to a seat - the further forward you are in the queue, the closer to the front your seat is likely to be (they start pointing at seats from front to back). Good luck! |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Apr 20, 2018 17:59:19 GMT
What pushes this play up the chain of plays, generally, is the meta element of Paul Hilton's E M Forster. This allowed us to contrast his class system with our class system, his experience of sexual difference with our experience of sexual difference. Hilton's ability to be stiff, to be gentle, so perfect in depicting this character. I wanted to share a pint with Hilton's Forster, so convincing was he in his depiction, and also in the depiction of Forster's own enduring humanity and value. Agreed - but then one of my biggest criticisms of the writing (and overall I thought it was an extraordinary achievement, but I did have a few holes to pick, and this is one) was the scene in which {Spoiler - click to view}the young men accuse Morgan of cowardice in failing to publish 'Maurice' during his lifetime. There's a fair point here - the publication of an unabashedly homosexual love story with a happy ending by as major a figure as Forster might well have significantly altered public perception of LGBTQ rights - but Lopez doesn't allow Morgan to defend himself by pointing out what the consequences of publication (very likely a prison sentence) might have been. Since none of the characters making the accusation are portrayed as themselves having the kind of reserves of strength and bravery and self-sacrifice that would have been necessary in an English author attempting to publish that novel at the time it was written, the fact that Lopez doesn't give Morgan a rebuttal speech strikes me as being not only churlish but actually somewhat disrespectful.
|
|
5,150 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Apr 21, 2018 12:06:19 GMT
Well I’m in it for the long haul. I’m in G8 which is insanely good considering I paid £20 for a day of theatre.
I don’t really know anything about it - I’ve skimmed over what you guys have said in length so let’s see how it goes!
|
|
5,150 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Apr 21, 2018 15:52:39 GMT
You know that end of part 1 thing everyone has been going on about?
The best ending to a show I’ve ever seen. I am done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2018 16:06:34 GMT
You know that end of part 1 thing everyone has been going on about? The best ending to a show I’ve ever seen. I am done. Yes and yes. I actually wanted to walk away then, just in a 'nope that's it I'm done, the rest of it can't hit that emotional/theatrical mark it can't' But really so unexpected, in the way its done that it was just SO satisfying a theatrical moment. |
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 21, 2018 16:08:53 GMT
What pushes this play up the chain of plays, generally, is the meta element of Paul Hilton's E M Forster. This allowed us to contrast his class system with our class system, his experience of sexual difference with our experience of sexual difference. Hilton's ability to be stiff, to be gentle, so perfect in depicting this character. I wanted to share a pint with Hilton's Forster, so convincing was he in his depiction, and also in the depiction of Forster's own enduring humanity and value. Agreed - but then one of my biggest criticisms of the writing (and overall I thought it was an extraordinary achievement, but I did have a few holes to pick, and this is one) was the scene in which {Spoiler - click to view}the young men accuse Morgan of cowardice in failing to publish 'Maurice' during his lifetime. There's a fair point here - the publication of an unabashedly homosexual love story with a happy ending by as major a figure as Forster might well have significantly altered public perception of LGBTQ rights - but Lopez doesn't allow Morgan to defend himself by pointing out what the consequences of publication (very likely a prison sentence) might have been. Since none of the characters making the accusation are portrayed as themselves having the kind of reserves of strength and bravery and self-sacrifice that would have been necessary in an English author attempting to publish that novel at the time it was written, the fact that Lopez doesn't give Morgan a rebuttal speech strikes me as being not only churlish but actually somewhat disrespectful.
I think the contrast when he mentioned Stonewall was telling though: he was making the point that other gay men were willing to risk jail to further the cause. |
|
5,150 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Apr 21, 2018 16:28:59 GMT
Writing my thoughts down from Part 1 with a coffee in hand currently - that moment needs to be a surprise for everyone who sees this. I am so thrilled I didn’t know and utterly heartbroken by it.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Apr 21, 2018 16:50:17 GMT
Agreed - but then one of my biggest criticisms of the writing (and overall I thought it was an extraordinary achievement, but I did have a few holes to pick, and this is one) was the scene in which {Spoiler - click to view}the young men accuse Morgan of cowardice in failing to publish 'Maurice' during his lifetime. There's a fair point here - the publication of an unabashedly homosexual love story with a happy ending by as major a figure as Forster might well have significantly altered public perception of LGBTQ rights - but Lopez doesn't allow Morgan to defend himself by pointing out what the consequences of publication (very likely a prison sentence) might have been. Since none of the characters making the accusation are portrayed as themselves having the kind of reserves of strength and bravery and self-sacrifice that would have been necessary in an English author attempting to publish that novel at the time it was written, the fact that Lopez doesn't give Morgan a rebuttal speech strikes me as being not only churlish but actually somewhat disrespectful.
I think the contrast when he mentioned Stonewall was telling though: he was making the point that other gay men were willing to risk jail to further the cause. Yes, certainly, but I think Lopez stops just short of taking that conversation where it needs to go. The way several of the (younger) men in the play talk about politics, LGBTQ rights etc is glib, and part of Lopez's point is clearly that these characters have inherited privileges that the generations before them did not enjoy, and that some - not all - of them don't know how lucky they are. As I said, in that conversation about 'Maurice', the overwhelming impression is of men who would not have been brave enough to face those consequences themselves. |
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 21, 2018 22:52:13 GMT
Hmm, I think you may be on to something there.
To be clear, I found the whole experience emotionally shattering and had that goosebumps and tears combination that only great theatre can give you at the end of part 1.
It’s an intensely moving experience.
But sitting thinking about it here on my train home - and especially comparing it to how Angels in America made me feel - I’m struck by just how bleak it is. I think there is a sense that these characters would all have fled the epidemic if they had been alive back then - even Eric, who so quickly compromised his principles for the sake of his comfort and security.
I thought - after Forster is so dismissed by Toby in pt 1 - that they might not continue to follow Howard’s End so faithfully, and the realisation that they were going to follow its plot points did reduce the dramatic surprise as we drew towards the conclusion. But really that is a minor quibble about an incredibly powerful piece of theatre chock-full of pitch-perfect performances. Even Vanessa Redgrave - who I have not been a fan of in the past - was very good, I thought.
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Apr 21, 2018 23:24:09 GMT
I went to the two part day today.
Firstly, the big positives - the acting was excellent all round, and Kyle Soller in particular as Eric at the heart of the play.
No weak links whatsoever, and after reading the concerns about Vanessa Redgrave, I thought she was fine with her monologue, although her accent strayed into Australian I think. Having seen her in the Year of Magical Thinking years ago, she remains one of the foremost actresses of her generation (I shall overlook her performance in Richard III at the Almeida) in my eyes. I liked Samuel H Levine particularly in the difficult roles of Leon (and Adam).
The staging was very effective indeed, great, simple lighting and bare stage meant this encouraged the actors to shine even more, although the model house was a little disappointing.
My main negative though is the writing - I just felt it was overindulgent and surprisingly narrow for such a long play. In fact there weren’t that many characters or stories being told, and my knowledge of Howards End (inevitably from the film and recent TV series, neither of which I loved that much), was probably a burden in trying to spot the links, equivalent characters and divergences. Even the “in” jokes of a long play were a bit misjudged.
Some of the writing seemed lazy - the debate between the liberals and Republican Henry, and I started to play “spot the Trump” reference. I’m afraid I couldn’t empathise with Toby at all - his story just didn’t involve me that much in its extremeness, and for such a major character, that’s a shame.
It’s rather inevitable to compare this to Angels of America. I felt that even the dislikable characters had more to say there (mostly Part One). Also, compared to the York Realist, which I saw multiple times, that moved me much much more because of the chemistry between the leads, and the context of the family which was so much more personal to me. This play hardly mentions family, with one exception for one character, so for me some of the context was lost. This is surprising since Howards End is as much about family, but I suppose the modern family of gay friends replaced that here, which was narrow.
Perhaps also, the construct of characters narrating their feelings and actions is, for me, a distancing device. It works when you can see how they think and contrast that to what they say, but just added that extra layer away from naturalness.
I did wonder whether this review makes me a “bad” gay (joke), or it would be better to mull things over and write this a few days later, or I shouldn’t have had such high expectations - I expected to be in bits in Part One and disappointed in Part Two based on comments here, but conversely Part One only hit in the last few minutes and I found Part Two more varied in scenes. Or, whether watching in one day was too much...
It makes it sound like I hated it. Not at all. Very solid 8.5 out of 10.
|
|
5,150 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Apr 22, 2018 1:04:07 GMT
Well it certainly feels like a play of two halves for me - and I’ll be echoing the others thoughts - lovely to meet fellow board member kathryn today! So Part 1 took me a little while to get in to - I don’t know Howard’s End at all so was slightly confused as to what exactly was happening - but I fairly quickly grew to care about Eric, Toby, and even Adam in a way. I thought Eric was a superb actor, and by far the best performance of the day. Then we get to the final scene of Part 1 - as I posted earlier, it is without exception the greatest final scene to a piece I have ever seen. I couldn’t work out what was going on and then it just hit me - I was in floods of tears (and it felt like everyone in the audience was too). I will talk about that moment for years to come. Part 2 - I was into it straight away, I mean, it had some fantastic comedic moments straight away (specifically the wedding!) but it felt like it lulled a little in the middle, which I didn’t get from Part 1. I felt like I loved Part 1, whereas I enjoyed Part 2. I sort of could have been happy to end it at the end of Part 1 and walk away. One thing I’m not sure I liked, was the shoehorning in of Ms Redgrave in the final 30 minutes. Whilst she is a good actress, I thought she actually stumbled a few times. I wasn’t comfortable watching her, which is actually what I expected from her. But she was good nonetheless. The obvious Angels in America comparison will come: my two cents is it isn’t as good, but I also don’t think it’s trying to be. Echoing other posters though - it had its comedy, but Jesus it felt bleak. It’s actually the word I used to describe it overall. Angels is a well rounded mix, but this just did feel quite bleak. It was a lovely day in the theatre - I haven’t done a marathon theatre day for a long time, so I’m tired, but wanted to get some thoughts down before I do go to sleep. I have my problems with it, and I don’t think I’d sit through part 2 again, but part 1 is sort of miraculous and I loved it. I think it’s a solid ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (4 stars) from me - it’s a definite recommended viewing from me if you can get in. |
|
2,850 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Apr 22, 2018 6:00:57 GMT
A fun pattern is that people who saw the two parts in different days seem to have enjoyed it more than those who had the marathon experience. I did the latter and I agree, at points part two can be a real let down.
|
|
47 posts
|
Post by prophet on Apr 22, 2018 7:28:41 GMT
I also sat through both parts yesterday.
It's a mixed bag for me.
I enjoyed part one especially the ending. It was beautiful.
I felt part two was unnecessary and diluted the entire production.
Some scenes could be cut... the artist boyfriend, Trump's election scene and in the lobby of the ballet. I don't think these scenes added much.
Audience members were sobbing throughout. I think the play has something special but it's not sharp enough just yet.
Part one is a thumbs up and Part Two is a nur from me.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 22, 2018 8:30:22 GMT
The artist boyfriend was a bit of navel-gazing, I think - all of that art and truth vs beauty stuff - but I sort of think it was there to give Henry a moment to be not-awful before he descends into politics. It’s really hard to understand why Eric is with him if you don’t give him a moment - it’s easier to understand in Howard’s End because of the obvious constraints on women of the era, and because there’s a sense that Margaret is trying to ‘improve’ Henry and fully expects to expand his mind. Eric can’t really have that expectation, given what Walter has told him about Henry already, and his attempts to move Henry to some sort of charitable or philanthropic endeavour are really half-hearted.
This is why I wish they’d moved a little further away from the Howard’s End template after Forster is initially dismissed by Toby - his work does have to be understood as a product and portrait of his time, so transposing it to a modern context makes the character motivations harder to understand.
|
|
1,862 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Apr 22, 2018 8:49:38 GMT
Seeing this in May, a Wednesday all dayer on the 16th, all the positive feedback has made me wish I'd booked earlier in the run as will be very late to the party.
Have bought a copy of Howard’s End, unsure of the value of reading it prior to seeing the play, will it spoil the arc or add to the experience?, reading the post it does not appear to make a difference so will likely read it afterwards and transpose the play to the book.
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Apr 22, 2018 9:15:35 GMT
Have bought a copy of Howard’s End, unsure of the value of reading it prior to seeing the play, will it spoil the arc or add to the experience?, reading the post it does not appear to make a difference so will likely read it afterwards and transpose the play to the book. Personally, I don’t think it helps knowing too much about Howard’s End. I kept on playing spot the differences rather consciously which didn’t help. Coming to it blind would be better in my opinion - a play ought to work as a stand-alone piece, and I think it does. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 9:49:35 GMT
I know nothing about Howard's End and I think it helped? in that I wasn't trying to 'match up' the storyline with that. Whether I think it's a useful plot device is another matter, but I don't think I got less from it by not knowing that book. It's interesting- and I confess something of a relief to read the more mixed responses from friends there yesterday (you lot and a couple of others I knew). I'm FINALLY getting to writing my own review of it. But I certainly share the sentiment that it's a mixed bag. Ultimately, yes I laughed, cried (ok sobbed) but there's also something niggling at me that doesn't quite click. Well several things that I'll hopefully articulate in a longer piece. Weirdly the Trump election scene mentioned above was one that leaped out at me- I think just for a contemporary play capturing that moment feels really powerful. Also that Lopez's own 'Inheritance' is writing from that legacy of 'gay plays' and 'AIDS plays' that capture political moments- that part for me had echos of Larry Kramer. Overall as well I acknowledge I'm far too 'close' to the subject matter, and far too analytical of it in many ways. And even in my criticisms I can't fault the emotional impact- which feels raw and genuine. And the attempt to create something that encapsulates both the legacy of the AIDS crisis and a 'state of the nation' approach to gay men/the gay community today. But I still came out with a nagging feeling that something doesn't quite click...I'd love to see Lopez take a run at some re-writes and see where that gets it. Regrarve herself I loved- I thought it was a moving performance, and fair play to her at her age etc she was doing well. However it irked me for two reasons. Firstly, I don't mind it being an all male play- if you're making a statement about the gay community and want to look specifically and only at gay men that's a valid statement- if you stick to it. Shoehorning in a woman at the end, shatters that. The character herself (hidden for spoilers) {Spoiler - click to view}
I think does a disservice to the women of that era, like her character and presumably those she is based on, who cared for men dying of AIDS. We don't hear of her until this point, and she feels like a footnote, or a forgotten history without the acknowledgement she's been forgotten. And if I'm honest that made me angry. |
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 22, 2018 10:01:12 GMT
I really liked it. I think what helped it was the excellent acting: the main trio and hilton were excellent. (as were the rest!)
|
|
