|
|
Post by timmiechaw on Mar 31, 2018 15:40:39 GMT
Tickets are selling rather fast after the reviews came out, and I could only manage to get a ticket for Part One during my trip to London. Would it be a big issue if I only watch the part one of the play? (Hope it will transfer to New York
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 31, 2018 16:10:07 GMT
For what it's worth, I thought part one was the stronger of the two, so if it's a choice between that or nothing, see part one (and you may get lucky with returns for part 2)! |
|
3,565 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 31, 2018 16:45:26 GMT
Todaytix are doing Rush tickets, if that helps?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boob on Mar 31, 2018 16:45:34 GMT
For what it's worth, I thought part one was the stronger of the two, so if it's a choice between that or nothing, see part one (and you may get lucky with returns for part 2)! Agreed! |
|
205 posts
|
Post by argon on Mar 31, 2018 17:10:24 GMT
Part 1 justed seemed more focused, the ending in part 2 was slightly unusual the synopsis of their lives than it flips back to his birthday? |
|
205 posts
|
Post by argon on Mar 31, 2018 20:20:35 GMT
My humble apologies.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Mar 31, 2018 20:46:02 GMT
So I've bought a part one ticket and will hope for rush success......................
|
|
|
|
Post by timmiechaw on Apr 1, 2018 5:44:10 GMT
For what it's worth, I thought part one was the stronger of the two, so if it's a choice between that or nothing, see part one (and you may get lucky with returns for part 2)! Thanks for the info! May not be able to see part 2, so I was thinking if there is any chance this play will be transferred to NYC. After all, it is a play set in New York |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2018 9:57:07 GMT
Absolutely loved this yesterday and judging by the audience reaction at the end, so did everyone else. I was puzzled by one part of the plot though (which I will spoiler) {Spoiler - click to view}
We learn that Margaret's son died in 1989, when Walter was only 27, so how did Walter manage to look after over 200 men at the country house whilst simultaneously bringing up Henry's two sons in NY, as he claimed to have done? |
|
167 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Apr 1, 2018 10:13:28 GMT
I enjoyed this - whilst at times finding it a bit self-indulgent, mawkish and definitely over long. (It could and should have ended about half an hour sooner than it did.)
I thought the cast were great but I kept being pulled out of it by the fact two of the three leads seemed so obviously miscast. Andrew Burnap was charismatic and very funny but far too young and far too beautiful for Toby; and Samuel H Levine looked too old. The scenes between them were out of kilter because I never bought the idea that Toby was ten-fifteen years older than Adam and Leo.
|
|
3,334 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Apr 1, 2018 11:00:08 GMT
Absolutely loved this yesterday and judging by the audience reaction at the end, so did everyone else. I was puzzled by one part of the plot though (which I will spoiler) {Spoiler - click to view}
We learn that Margaret's son died in 1989, when Walter was only 27, so how did Walter manage to look after over 200 men at the country house whilst simultaneously bringing up Henry's two sons in NY, as he claimed to have done? {Spoiler - click to view}
Well,that's 27 years (between 1989 and 2016 - if I have the year Walter died right), so there's certainly enough time to fit in both activities. The sons would be away to college when they were 18, possibly boarding school before. And I'm sure there'd be a nanny. So Walter could easily split his time between the properties. |
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Apr 1, 2018 11:10:27 GMT
Part 1 justed seemed more focused, the ending in part 2 ... {Spoiler - click to view}
Whilst I don't doubt you can call the play unfocused, I think the ending to part 2 worked really well. It's not that unusual for a play or a film to flashback at the end to something that happened, as an emotional way of closing up the show. |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 1, 2018 14:13:49 GMT
I think a fair number of Theatre Board members were in attendance yesterday, along a few friends and colleagues that I ran into at the YV's cafe and Ian McKellan who was spotted downstairs.
I thought it was an extraordinary play and I'm very glad I saw it, but I don't have a very coherent response to it, so here are a few random thoughts:
My very favourite section was the first act of Part 2, which was so fast-paced and fascinating - I was totally engrossed. The ending of Part 1 was also very moving.
I thought Andrew Burnap was extraordinary - I take the point above that he might have been a little young for the role, but that didn't bother me. He was so quick, funny, flawed, brave and beautiful. I would imagine he would be brilliant in Restoration Comedy or anything that required a really deft, quick-witted actor - watch him at work in the book shop scene - just great.
Liked the doppelganger idea but was less certain about the Adam/Leo performance.
Jury's out on the little house. Otherwise thought the set was great.
IMO the last act of Part 2, particularly the Redgrave section, was less strong - I would have been tempted to cut it - it was awfully late in the evening to introduce not only a new character, but that character's son.
Thought the brunch/meal scenes all worked well - there was a real attempt to give a more nuanced perspective on how current politics can be discussed and gave the rest of the supporting cast a chance to shine.
Kyle Stoller did splendidly as the heart of the play.
Thought the E.M.Forster idea which could have been pretentious worked really well. You don't have to know the novel, but it's fun to spot little connections.
The cast works really hard. I also got worried about them - there isn't an ounce of fat on them - they must have all been working out and dieting like crazy. I felt a bit of maternal concern that they were driving themselves too hard.
It's worth buying the programme - a short piece by the playwright about how Forster influenced him is worth reading. I'd like to read the script.
We were upstairs in Row N on the aisle and the view was fine from there and not particularly uncomfortable. For £20 a ticket to see both parts, they were a real bargain.
I don't think it will be easy to get tickets for this, but I highly recommend it if you get the chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2018 19:51:03 GMT
I was there yesterday. And yes there were a number of us there.
There was a point at 10.30 I wondered if I was ever, ever getting out of the Young Vic.
Joking aside I have a lot of thoughts I’ve yet to articulate fully. And I’ll write more once I’m home. I love that there is a play that writes back to the Aids crisis and it’s legacy while also trying to articulate something about what it means to be a gay man today. Is it without fault? No, do I have issue with how it does all of that? Yes. Do I still never want to plough through 400 pages of E M Forster? You bet.
But I will say, that ending to Part 1: theatrical and emotional perfection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 9:21:38 GMT
I'm still mulling it over. I thought it was a simply splendid piece of theatre - though in some ways a rather narrow piece of writing - with fantastic performances and well worth giving over an entire day to.
I do think it's worth knowing that Ruth Coker Burks is a real woman who actually exists (she's not a character in the play or anything, but don't google to find out what she's known for if you don't want any Inheritance spoilers whatsoever), and I do wonder if the presence of Vanessa Redgrave's character is a nod to her. Indeed, I hope it is, otherwise we might be looking at an unfortunate piece of erasure, whether accidental or no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 9:41:37 GMT
I'm still mulling it over. I thought it was a simply splendid piece of theatre though in some ways a rather narrow piece of writing with fantastic performances and well worth giving over an entire day to. I do think it's worth knowing that Ruth Coker Burks is a real woman who actually exists (she's not a character in the play or anything, but don't google to find out what she's known for if you don't want any Inheritance spoilers whatsoever), and I do wonder if the presence of Vanessa Redgrave's character is a nod to her. Indeed, I hope it is, otherwise we might be looking at an unfortunate piece of erasure, whether accidental or no. It's interesting that I read Redgraves character as her probably because of my closeness to that 'world' (for want of a better phrase) but others have said she's a character from Howard's End (which I don't know...) But either way I'm still mulling. I share the idea that the writing is too narrow, and that in other ways it's having too much of an identity crisis- are you a play about the history of AIDS? Gay life today? a gay Howard's End? Gay History Boys? I do feel some substantial edits could be made. But Daldry has directed the living daylights out of it (I THINK in a good way but I'm still unsure). Anyway I have many thoughts I'm attempting to put into longform articles (some fool has given me a platform again) and a blog. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 4, 2018 20:39:18 GMT
There are some part 2 lucky dips available on the site now if anyone was still trying to get a ticket.
|
|
629 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Apr 4, 2018 22:19:11 GMT
Ive got a lucky dip for part 1 tomorrow and part 2 on Friday. I didn’t read the part about possibly being assigned a standing place until after I’d booked. Looking at the length of each part I REALLY don’t think I can stand that long. Has anyone noticed anyone standing when they have been? I’m aiming to get there around 6 to be near the front of the queue when they dish out the lucky dips.
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by Steve on Apr 4, 2018 23:04:03 GMT
Ive got a lucky dip for part 1 tomorrow and part 2 on Friday. I didn’t read the part about possibly being assigned a standing place until after I’d booked. Looking at the length of each part I REALLY don’t think I can stand that long. Has anyone noticed anyone standing when they have been? I’m aiming to get there around 6 to be near the front of the queue when they dish out the lucky dips. I did the Lucky Dip last Saturday. Terrific play, only slightly spoiled by overly sentimental musical cues, at the end, trying to force emotions everyone was already feeling anyway. Might say more later, but back to the Lucky Dip. There are no seats formally allocated to the Lucky Dip, so in a sellout show, you are looking to sit in sold-but-unoccupied seats. If you don't get one, you are standing. This is a formalised version of what happens informally at the Donmar, where standing punters fill all the empty seats after they close the doors. So DO queue! I got there twenty minutes before showtime, and was third in the queue. I got a seat no problem, as did the other 6 people lucky dipping. But the Usher told me that a couple of times each week, some people do find themselves standing. It's a crapshoot. Now, for this show, people are buying Show 2 just to see Vanessa Redgrave, so for the second show, I was tossed out of my seat by punters who had no interest in Part 1, and had to go back to the front to wait to see if any other seats freed up. It turned out some people did indeed not return for part 2, so I got a new seat. FYI, it was MUCH harder to spot empty seats in Part 2. For evidence about Part 2's popularity, you will see it is sold out for all dates, whereas Part 1 has plenty of availability. My advice, get there half an hour before the show, which is when they open the doors, and join the lucky dip queue, so that you get first dibs on no-show seats, and just pray that the person who owns the seat doesn't show up for part 2. Good luck. 😊 |
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Apr 4, 2018 23:17:43 GMT
I'm not saying I don't understand the urge to go to this to see Vanessa Redgrave, but I can't believe people would skip part 1 in order to do it. Madness.
|
|
3,334 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Apr 5, 2018 7:00:55 GMT
]My advice, get there half an hour before the show, which is when they open the doors, and join the lucky dip queue, so that you get first dibs on no-show seats, and just pray that the person who owns the seat doesn't show up for part 2. Good luck. 😊 I lucky dipped as well. Definitely get there early. Beware, you might be moved during the show if the seat occupiers turn up (which happened to another pair of people when I was there, although they kept the seats until the first break). With people just wanting to see Vanessa Redgrave, I wouldn’t be shocked if they only turned up after the second interval in part 2, which would be a frustrating time to be moved to a standing position. I’d also suggest booking separate part 1 and part 2 performances if you’re lucky dipping. |
|
629 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Apr 5, 2018 9:10:49 GMT
Thanks all for the advice 😀 I'll be getting there nice and early tonight and wearing my comfiest shoes, just incase!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 5, 2018 9:26:11 GMT
Oh is that how it works? I've done in once before but guess I must have been given an unsold seat as it was printed on my ticket when I collected and since it was the far end of the balcony they'd have struggled to move us. Worth knowing, will try and go with minimal coats etc.
|
|
2,744 posts
|
Post by n1david on Apr 5, 2018 9:48:58 GMT
I was at the two-play day yesterday, along with notable audience members Matt Lucas, Rikki Beadle-Blair and Mary Beard (the last of who was there doing prep for a discussion on the play in Front Row Late tomorrow night on BBC2)
I was very impressed by this, I was mostly engaged and intrigued throughout. Part 1 works as a standalone piece although I think anyone going to Part 2 only to see Vanessa would be mightily bemused by the first two acts of Part 2.
Uniformly excellent acting, and energetic direction kept things moving throughout Part 1 and the first act of Part 2. I didn't object to Morgan's long monologue in Part 1, I thought it was important as a scene-setter for people who might not have been aware of the scale of the plague. By the time we got to Act 2 of Part 2, things slow down rather considerably, and I found the second act and early part of the third act a bit tell-not-show in contrast to the activity earlier in the play.
I agree with the comments on cutting, I think there are two great 2.5 hour plays in this, I think there is actually a 'before and after' structure which is makes two separate plays meaningful, although I was disappointed in the absence of one main character in Part 2, I was less keen on how the narration was handled in Part 2, with the actors referring to their characters in the third person which I found clunky.
Minor quibbles aside though, I did think this was a real theatrical event and a brave exercise for everyone involved. Off now to read Howards End...
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 5, 2018 14:01:34 GMT
I'm not saying I don't understand the urge to go to this to see Vanessa Redgrave, but I can't believe people would skip part 1 in order to do it.7 Madness. Oh is that why part 2 has sold more, I thought it odd but yes fancy only seeing half a play. |
|
