3,539 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Mar 10, 2018 10:55:39 GMT
Reaction to Part 2 seems to be a bit more muted on social media?
|
|
4,985 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 10, 2018 13:41:14 GMT
I booked a while ago and am going next Saturday (hopefully). I think people may be reluctant to commit to a two-parter with uncertain running times until the reviews come out. As someone who has to travel long distance I could only afford to do it as a two-play day and in previews - and I'm hoping I can sofa surf because of the late finish. I’m there next Saturday also. Okay posters have made great comments why this has been a hard sell, but why did the Jungle sell so well. Of course if this gets great reviews, it will be a hot ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2018 10:30:03 GMT
I cannot fathom why the Jungle sold so well, yet this is struggling? Same director for both and strength of Angels in America last year, should have made this a hot ticket. Probably because a 2-part, marathon day (or two evenings) is a big commitment for an 'unknown quantity' I know if it weren't for the subject matter and the way it's being billed (the 'post AIDS gay play or whatever) I wouldn't be committing a full London day, and having to stay over for it without SOME idea that it was worth the 'investment'. When reviews come out that may change for some people. Angels sold out because it's a classic play that's only done here about once a decade. And it had Spiderman and that fella from The Lion King in it. Who between them have, to borrow Roy Cohn's phrase a bit more 'clout'. Vanessa Redgrave may be a grand old dame but she's not bringing fangirls to the YV in their droves really. Also The Jungle is a far more 'hot topic' play and had the added 'hook' of the style it was performed in. |
|
|
|
Post by firefingers on Mar 11, 2018 11:37:04 GMT
I cannot fathom why the Jungle sold so well, yet this is struggling? Same director for both and strength of Angels in America last year, should have made this a hot ticket. Probably because a 2-part, marathon day (or two evenings) is a big commitment for an 'unknown quantity' I know if it weren't for the subject matter and the way it's being billed (the 'post AIDS gay play or whatever) I wouldn't be committing a full London day, and having to stay over for it without SOME idea that it was worth the 'investment'. When reviews come out that may change for some people. Angels sold out because it's a classic play that's only done here about once a decade. And it had Spiderman and that fella from The Lion King in it. Who between them have, to borrow Roy Cohn's phrase a bit more 'clout'. Vanessa Redgrave may be a grand old dame but she's not bringing fangirls to the YV in their droves really. Also The Jungle is a far more 'hot topic' play and had the added 'hook' of the style it was performed in. I suspect the way The Jungle was staged also helped as it must have reduced the capacity of the space a fair bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2018 11:40:26 GMT
Probably because a 2-part, marathon day (or two evenings) is a big commitment for an 'unknown quantity' I know if it weren't for the subject matter and the way it's being billed (the 'post AIDS gay play or whatever) I wouldn't be committing a full London day, and having to stay over for it without SOME idea that it was worth the 'investment'. When reviews come out that may change for some people. Angels sold out because it's a classic play that's only done here about once a decade. And it had Spiderman and that fella from The Lion King in it. Who between them have, to borrow Roy Cohn's phrase a bit more 'clout'. Vanessa Redgrave may be a grand old dame but she's not bringing fangirls to the YV in their droves really. Also The Jungle is a far more 'hot topic' play and had the added 'hook' of the style it was performed in. I suspect the way The Jungle was staged also helped as it must have reduced the capacity of the space a fair bit. Indeed- I was going to comment on capacity, but having not seen it thought I might have mis-interpreted what I saw. But again, filling the main house v filling the reduced performance space = limited tickets. |
|
4 posts
|
Post by meunier on Mar 11, 2018 16:55:52 GMT
Saw Part 2 last night - without seeing Part 1.
Am I alone in feeling this is more a novel on stage rather than a play? For me it would stutter into dramatic life ... pause ... then stutter again. I wanted to be REALLY engaged ... but was never really able to make a complete connection. So much was bitten off ... and so little time/space for anyone - audience or actor - to really chew. At least that is how it was for me. Don't get me wrong. I DID laugh at some clever lines but was never - or so I felt - entirely engaged. I felt myself at a remove and I did earnestly want to be involved; to be subjective with them. So often we were told HOW other characters responded without actually seeing it - or better still - being able to feel it for ourselves. It was as if it was/we were on a perpetual narrative dry spin. Would there had been more faith in the art of meaningful dialogue. Have to say I found the Forster interventions bothersome. (Maybe this would be different if I had seen Part 1. That said - based just on this outing - I don't know that I'm particularly eager to.)
I kept feeling for the actors in the sense that this must have been VERY hard work. Some of the supporting roles - at least in Part II - are naught but voice boxes and decorative physical entities in their bathing costume struts. This run might well seem long for them I fear. Certainly I felt especially sorry for the actor playing Adam/Leo as when he went to break a bottle - or was it a glass - over Toby's head (which by that point in the LONG evening who wouldn't want to) it shattered as I assume it was meant to and as much as I'm sure it was protective material it seemed that remnants flying off from the hit appeared to have cut him in two different places on his (very fetching it is true) forehead. By the tail end of the play one small wound was still bleeding and the other - in the centre - had started to slightly swell. I do so hope he is OK. Certainly he was doing his best with what he was given in spite of this. Perhaps he was not even aware of this incident.
ANGELS IN AMERICA was MUCH more involving for me than this .... No question of that ... IT WAS, AFTER ALL, A PLAY - GOOD AND PROPER - (as opposed to a dramatic travelogue, say) - and I lived in NYC for 17.5 years during the 80's/90's so certainly I got all the local references here - which seemed to sometimes pass over the YV audience (e.g., Strand Books, The Pines, Bushwick, etc.). (There is one line clearly put in to appease the locals.) I will be interested to see what the critical response to the actual script will be ... and to see how others hereabouts feel about the production as time and the run progress.
|
|
1,218 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 11, 2018 18:59:42 GMT
Saw Part 2 last night - without seeing Part 1. Am I alone in feeling this is more a novel on stage rather than a play? For me it would stutter into dramatic life ... pause ... then stutter again. I wanted to be REALLY engaged ... but was never really able to make a complete connection. So much was bitten off ... and so little time/space for anyone - audience or actor - to really chew. At least that is how it was for me. Don't get me wrong. I DID laugh at some clever lines but was never - or so I felt - entirely engaged. I felt myself at a remove and I did earnestly want to be involved; to be subjective with them. So often we were told HOW other characters responded without actually seeing it - or better still - being able to feel it for ourselves. It was as if it was/we were on a perpetual narrative dry spin. Would there had been more faith in the art of meaningful dialogue. Have to say I found the Forster interventions bothersome. (Maybe this would be different if I had seen Part 1. That said - based just on this outing - I don't know that I'm particularly eager to.) I kept feeling for the actors in the sense that this must have been VERY hard work. Some of the supporting roles - at least in Part II - are naught but voice boxes and decorative physical entities in their bathing costume struts. This run might well seem long for them I fear. Certainly I felt especially sorry for the actor playing Adam/Leo as when he went to break a bottle - or was it a glass - over Toby's head (which by that point in the LONG evening who wouldn't want to) it shattered as I assume it was meant to and as much as I'm sure it was protective material it seemed that remnants flying off from the hit appeared to have cut him in two different places on his (very fetching it is true) forehead. By the tail end of the play one small wound was still bleeding and the other - in the centre - had started to slightly swell. I do so hope he is OK. Certainly he was doing his best with what he was given in spite of this. Perhaps he was not even aware of this incident. ANGELS IN AMERICA was MUCH more involving for me than this .... No question of that ... IT WAS, AFTER ALL, A PLAY - GOOD AND PROPER - (as opposed to a dramatic travelogue, say) - and I lived in NYC for 17.5 years during the 80's/90's so certainly I got all the local references here - which seemed to sometimes pass over the YV audience (e.g., Strand Books, The Pines, Bushwick, etc.). (There is one line clearly put in to appease the locals.) I will be interested to see what the critical response to the actual script will be ... and to see how others hereabouts feel about the production as time and the run progress. We saw Part 2 last night having seen Part 1 last week, saving brief thoughts for now. I think what meunier has noted from part 2 alone were our problems with the piece as a whole. There are great performances in this epic tale, and frequent very funny lines, which sort of fool you into thinking you're having a better time than you are. This is because the actual story of the play isn't up to much. It seems to flit between the lives and relationships of these young men, their interactions, building to something, then...pop. It's like the writer continually lets his foot off the gas. Normally to have a character lecture forth about an element of gay life past present or future. This is most notable in Part 1 with two verrrrrrry long monologues. This stop/start takes the audience out of the narrative, and makes, as Meunier said, a long night(s) even longer. But worse than this is the use of Howard's End. This just seems damn lazy. Where AiA was an original story and storytelling, The Inheritance's constant reliance on EM Forster's novel to prop up both characters and plot (in a "this is Mr Wilcox, like the Mr Wilcox in Howard's End" type way) becomes the most tiresome thing about it. And if you know Howard's End at all, then very early on in Part 1 you realise you will know exactly where the characters are headed. This is a fatal move by the playwright, as it kills any kind of dramatic tension as, lovers of that book will see the end before it's even properly started. The long running length is certainly not warranted either. This could have been a 2.5hr show easily. Having cited the negatives above, the positives may help it win through with the critics and audiences. The acting, direction, and very very simple staging are all excellent. The comedic moments especially flew high both nights with the largely gay male crowd some of whom were screaming with laughter at the recognition. I'd give it 9/10 for these elements. But as a play I'd give it 3/10. You can't just lift a classic book and use it prop up your own work, because all we see is how little of your own work you've done. A missed opportunity. |
|
2,850 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 12, 2018 0:54:20 GMT
I saw the second preview of part 1 ten day ago, and loved most of it. I really found it hilarious and moving, there were some great performances (especially from Andrew Burnap) and I didn't miss a more elaborated set, it worked just fine as it was. But I agree with nash16 , some scenes were over-written. A long speech about AIDS at the end of act one, a fight in act 2 and a confrontation in act 3 are so rhetorical and redundant that totally spoil the magic created by other - incredibly realistic - speeches (especially the bathhouse speech that someone mentioned in an early post, that was jaw-dropping). In those scenes characters stop speaking like people speak and start talking like writers write. Which is not unusual in a play, but it creates such a strident contrast with other (very well written) scenes. It could have been trimmed, the nudity was gratuitous (but appreciated), and I don't think narrators work very well in the theatre, and this was no exception. Perhaps it would work better without the frame? But it makes some good points about Forster's delay of the publication on of Maurice. For me it was 4 stars out of 5 and it could easily turn to 5 with some editing. I'm really looking forward to seeing part 2 this Saturday. btw, I want all Andrew Burnap's costumes. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 15:05:45 GMT
I have a spare ticket for tonight if anyone wants it? The show is not quite sold out and the Young Vic will not do a return for a ticket purchases via Today Tix.
Apologies if this is frowned upon on the board but I don’t want it to go to waste if someone would like it.
|
|
3,334 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Mar 16, 2018 9:38:44 GMT
One additional thought. I went for the Lucky Dip tickets for both shows (£10 for the previews, although they may be £20 now).
The website isn't very clear and I didn't know this in advance, but essentially when you arrive, you join a lucky dip cue. A minute or two before the show starts, the Lucky Dip queue goes into any spare seats (with people at the end of the queue standing - although I suspect that really happens).
On the first night, I got prime central stalls seats, which I imagine were reserved for last minute premium customers. The second night, ended up front row of the side stalls, which turned out to have a good view (higher up than front row of the central block).
The seats tend to be where people haven't shown up, including, I'm told, for the free and reduced priced tickets given to local residents. I suspect that there were people who didn't enjoy part 1, so didn't come back for part 2.
One risk I found out is that people arriving late can ask for their seats back, which happened in the interval of part 2 for the people ahead of me in the queue. They were able to just move a few seats though and I don't think this is selling out anyway.
This also may be why the theatre isn't taking returns, as they can sell the same seats again.
Doors open thirty minutes before the performance, so you want to be in the queue then if you want first choice of the untaken seats, but to be honest, I think you could arrive fiveminutes before the start and there would still be seats with a decent view available (and better than the balcony seats available through TodayTix).
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 16, 2018 10:35:52 GMT
people arriving late can ask for their seats back Glad to hear that because with the early start time, if my train's delayed I'll miss the start! |
|
1,281 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Mar 16, 2018 11:48:21 GMT
Loved Part 2 last night but I'm probably in the minority here. I found the whole thing really moving. The part when Toby Darling faces her seven year old self had me in tears. Part 2 is probably not as good as Part 1, it's about 30 minutes too long but there's so much to enjoy.
The performances are fantastic, the wedding crashing scene was hilarious, the set design and lighting are just perfect... Just my personal opinion of course. I have just booked to see both parts again next month. For me this a solid 4 star play but, with a little bit of trimming here and there, it could become a 5 star one
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on Mar 16, 2018 12:24:56 GMT
Saw P1 Wednesday and P2 Thursday and had a great time. Definitely flawed, and definitely a shade too long, but a very funny and extremely emotional play. Enjoyed the lighting and limited scenery... my favourite part, except from the truly gobsmacking P1 finale is perhaps the Republican vs Democrat discussion at the beginning of P2. All of the cast are terrific, including Vanessa Redgrave, who keeps the audience on tenterhooks just guessing whether she’ll get to the end of her line! Hickey a personal favourite of mine, but the young actor who plays Toby Darling was truly excellent... I read that he’d never left the U.S. until New Year’s Day.
Which probably begs the question why it’s starting its life in London and not New York. The four leads (Eric, Toby, Adam/Leo and Henry) are all American if I’m not mistaken. There are lots of local references and seems very much in tune with NY sensibilities but, then again, I’m not going to complain too much about seeing such a great bit of theatre. If it’s a success, a trip across the Atlantic to an off-Broadway venue is a dead cert.
If anything, it probably strays too close to Angels for my liking - discussions about AIDS, two parts, cast playing multiple characters, sparse set, and a fairly out-there and surreal final act. Especially when it is also quite liberal with its other instances of intertextuality. I would also echo the comment that all of the characters speak as if they’re in a novel - the monologues didn’t particularly click with me because they just sounded like audiobooks, even the ‘geniuses’ in this play could never talk like that. But only a minor gripe.
However I’m looking forward to hearing everyone else’s thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Mar 16, 2018 13:42:16 GMT
I'm about to return 2 tickets for the 2-show day next Saturday 24th, unless anyone want to buy them direct? £80 for the pair. Hoping to reschedule for later in the run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2018 15:13:46 GMT
Decided I CBA to sit through this so have just returned a £20 ticket for tomorrow's 2 show day - currently on sale on the website.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 16, 2018 20:27:42 GMT
I’m there next Saturday also. Well, I'm the moon faced puzzled looking old goth - hoping to make it to London tomorrow though the forecast is snow so hoping no train delays given the early kick-off. |
|
4,985 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 17, 2018 12:55:56 GMT
I’m there next Saturday also. Well, I'm the moon faced puzzled looking old goth - hoping to make it to London tomorrow though the forecast is snow so hoping no train delays given the early kick-off. Braved the snow and made it up!!! Do say hello, it is nice to meet like minded board members. I have a purple Lacoste sports shirt on and slurping Caffè Nero coffee (where sitting now) from my own tartan printed cup. |
|
2,850 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 17, 2018 14:36:57 GMT
I'm here as well, if you see me say hello I have nothing to do between part 1 and 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 16:46:20 GMT
I am there today
But have only just seen that other sisters
Are in attendance
Have already left to go for a swim beteeen plays
Will try and hurry back to see if I can spot you
Where sitting?
|
|
4,985 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 17, 2018 17:03:34 GMT
Just dashed up to the National, for their dinner in the Kitchen.
Heading back and should be in Caffè Nero opposite about 6:30, if anyone wants to say hello.
Otherwise I am upstairs on the mid level,on the right hand side, in the first row,
Where you guys are sitting?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 17:53:53 GMT
Those who have seen it-how helpful is a familiarity with Howard's End likely to be? to my shame my knowledge of it is zero...am I better off going in like that or should I read up/read it before I go?
|
|
2,850 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 17, 2018 18:05:36 GMT
Those who have seen it-how helpful is a familiarity with Howard's End likely to be? to my shame my knowledge of it is zero...am I better off going in like that or should I read up/read it before I go? Uhm I only watched part 1 so far and there are some parallels, but it's more of a "oh this reminds me of that" situation rather than "If I had read the novel I would have got that line". I'm sitting in N25 if anybody sees me come say hello! I apologize in advance for my hair |
|
4,985 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 17, 2018 18:45:46 GMT
Those who have seen it-how helpful is a familiarity with Howard's End likely to be? to my shame my knowledge of it is zero...am I better off going in like that or should I read up/read it before I go? I am enjoying the play. Without any familiarity to any of E.M. Fosters work, obviously I cannot tell you if a bit of research will be beneficial. |
|
3,334 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Mar 17, 2018 18:46:38 GMT
Those who have seen it-how helpful is a familiarity with Howard's End likely to be? to my shame my knowledge of it is zero...am I better off going in like that or should I read up/read it before I go? I wasn't familiar with it (and still haven't read it) and it didn't cause me any problems. I did see a comment earlier in the thread that it's best not to be too familiar or it will spoil the plot development and ending. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 18:53:16 GMT
Thanks all! I’m seeing it twice (unless I hate it haha) so maybe I’ll read it between the two to see how much difference it makes!
|
|
