171 posts
|
Post by moelhywel on Mar 23, 2018 23:31:17 GMT
3 hours including interval
Footlights
Singing
Saxophone quartet
Dogs
No blood
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 9:24:03 GMT
3 hours including interval Footlights Singing Saxophone quartet Dogs No blood More details please Is it good Funny Lavish Or is it another pathetic comedy |
|
171 posts
|
Post by moelhywel on Mar 25, 2018 0:12:40 GMT
There are so many characters that it took quite a time to get them all sorted out and I was thinking during the first half I can understand why this play hasn't been revived before. However it picked up in the second half when I knew who was who and became funnier. The costumes are period Restoration and the place where the action takes place is put on the scenery. Sophie Stanton as Mrs Rich is very good and sings most of the songs, which are a replacement for her talking to the audience. The "proscenium" is lit by spot bulbs and there are old fashioned footlights all around the edge of the stage giving a very theatrical look. After seeing The Duchess of Malfi and Macbeth at Stratford over the last couple of weeks it was a relief to see something so much lighter. I wouldn't recommend travelling a great distance to see it but certainly worth seeing if you're going for Macbeth or something else and you can fit it in.
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 25, 2018 12:32:18 GMT
Thanks m first comments on this I’ve seen. I will be seeing this in the summer. Sounds ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 17:23:03 GMT
Enjoyed this - a good bit of lightweight fun. Seems to be a fairly straight rendering of the play (with the exception of the songs as noted above). Felt a bit too pleased with itself with lots of (literal) winking at the audience. Got a top price seat for £10 with the Friday Rush offer after ditching my Macbeth ticket in favour of the London run but having a hotel booked  Although it did end up being a bit more expensive due to my eye being caught by these very cool Larry and Vivien espresso cups www.rsc.org.uk/shop/item/96002-angus-mcbean-espresso-set---olivier--leigh/ |
|
3,558 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 3, 2018 18:49:56 GMT
Gosh, I didn't know the RSC also did Friday Rush - they're all at it!
Anyway, I decided at the weekend that it was time to press on with my plan to see more theatre outside London and that means planning ahead, so I booked a slightly more expensive ticket for this and am looking forward to it. I couldn't really leave it until the last minute if I wanted to get a hotel at a reasonable price and possibly train tix, too, so that's my excuse for spending more. At least I will be able to take in the exhibition at Compton Verney, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 5:39:19 GMT
You did the right thing as the RSC rush scheme doesn't make tickets available for every performance (or indeed every production - nothing for Macbeth for instance) so difficult to plan ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 15:07:14 GMT
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 7, 2018 21:54:07 GMT
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 7, 2018 22:09:55 GMT
What did he say?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2018 22:12:21 GMT
He hasn’t made his point
In the most elegant of ways
But I do think
There is a honest dicussion to be had
That in society as a whole
We don’t offer the job or post or opportunity
To the best candidate in all areas
As some fields are too busy positively discriminating
I have noted
That at the RSC and NT
The diversity of the casts is very broad
And similarly the acting talent is also very broad
I am not saying there is a correlation
Not passing a comment in which actors are good and bad
But it appears to me
They aren’t always casting the best actor for the role
I am of Indian origin
Would I rather see a bad Indian actor than a white one who can do the role better
Just to tick the diversity box
NO THANKS
Acting and theatre has not been a priority for most members of the Asian community as a career
This might change slowly
But it will be very very slow
And you can’t force things where they don’t
Exist or there isn’t the demand
Also I don’t think increasing the diversity of casting necessarily increased audience diversity
More often than not it can compromise the quality of the show in many cases I have seen
All or predominately black casts have worked amazingly
Tina
Dreamgirls
Caroline or change
The updated Cat On a Hot Tin Roof
The Firm
Ma Rainey
Fences
Are a few examples of spectacular work
I think it works much better if the roles are actually written for actors of a particular ethnicity
As they will come across as more authentic
Sometimes a play is so robust
It can take all sorts of casting decisions
Hamlet being one example
But some plays are very of the period
And aren’t very good anyway
And I personally don’t think directors or casting should feel forced to be diverse for the sake of it
And there is a bias the other way round
For example
Why not a white caroline
Or white Effie
Or ma Rainey
Decisions have to be made for the right reason
And the RSC and NT often seem to go over the top
Perhaps I should write some plays
For actors of Indian Asian origin
As a starting point....
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Apr 7, 2018 22:17:50 GMT
|
|
4,974 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 7, 2018 22:21:55 GMT
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 7, 2018 22:30:47 GMT
Was he cast because he is black? What an *r*e.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2018 6:15:10 GMT
Letts crosses a line with this review. He mentions that two other actors are not very persuasive in their roles and leaves it at that, but suggests that Wringer is unconvincing because of his race - meaning that no other black actor is fit for the role either. Appalling to think that someone could write such racist rubbish in the twenty first century. I agree that there should be more roles written for actors of colour, but the suggestion that these actors should only play in such roles is to suggest a form of artistic apartheid. This is important because, although Theatre is a fairly elitist activity, it nevertheless represents and reflects the values of its society. Doran’s response is admirably restrained. The review gives the lie to the idea of a critic’s impartiality: Letts has compromised his credibility with regards to work created by black artists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 8, 2018 6:56:33 GMT
”Our approach to casting is to select the most exciting individual for each role”. What does that actually mean ? In reality they cast each role separately but they also are working to meet an overall quota - at least the NT are explicit about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2018 7:39:25 GMT
It's the assumption that white and male is the norm and anything other than that has to be scrutinised to account for its presence that's the prob. You see it in every sector; I've certainly worked with a hell of a lot of very average white men who have advanced effortlessly over much more talented and committed people who are not white men who have to work a lot harder to justify their right to be in the room.
And less this sounds like sour grapes, I am a very average white woman with absolutely no desire to work hard and get on so I don't count myself as a great talent thwarted by the patriarchy!
|
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 8, 2018 8:12:18 GMT
Disgusting review by Letts.
The RSC should rescind the press tickets he gets after that.
If race isnt written into a role, then casting SHOULD be colourblind.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 8, 2018 8:24:40 GMT
The RSC have made their position clear. To rescind press tickets would be wrong. A critic has to be free to write an unpopular review. Theatres have no right to say who can or can't write about their work.
Casting should not ALWAYS be colourblind or genderblind. It should, however, never be blind to talent.
Casting anyone in a role for which they are not properly fitted to play is always wrong.
|
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 8, 2018 8:31:01 GMT
The RSC have made their position clear. To rescind press tickets would be wrong. A critic has to be free to write an unpopular review. Theatres have no right to say who can or can't write about their work. Casting should not ALWAYS be colourblind or genderblind. It should, however, never be blind to talent. Casting anyone in a role for which they are not properly fitted to play is always wrong. I didnt say ban, but why should the RSC subsidise him when he says stuff like that which out of line? "Was Mr Wringer cast because he is black? If so, the RSC’s clunking approach to politically correct casting has again weakened its stage product." Why is letts bringing race into it? how does it inform the actors performance or play? |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 8, 2018 10:59:26 GMT
And does he say 'again'? So who else is he thinking of? What about a list Mr Letts of black actors who shouldn’t have been given their roles.
|
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 8, 2018 12:08:16 GMT
And does he say 'again'? So who else is he thinking of? What about a list Mr Letts of black actors who shouldn’t have been given their roles. I think its more the role than the actor: i read it as him thinking that a black actor couldnt play that particular role, which is ridiculous of course. It seems a role without reference to the characters race. So in that case, whats letts problem? ( well i know, but will demur) |
|
|
|
Post by mscontrary on Apr 8, 2018 13:08:16 GMT
I am sorry to make my first contribution here such a potential divisive one but I do have to speak out on this subject.
Race is always going to be an issue that provokes strong reactions and there is no doubt that Quentin Letts did not express himself in a way that is going to provoke a calm debate. But then, that is his schtick. He likes to provoke controversy.
However I think we can all think of examples where someone has been cast in a role for which they are fundamentally unsuited. Not because of their race or other defining characteristic but simply because they do not have the acting skills to carry it off. If that happens in a major production by a state-funded company, it is legitimate to ask how that casting decision came about.
Affirmative action or positive discrimination (or whatever term is being used these days) is only right where the candidate chosen for a given role (whether that is an acting role or a job in a non-theatrical context) is as qualified as the other candidates but the deciding factor over whether to appoint is because of a defining characteristic. Otherwise you risk appointing someone who may not be equipped to do the role. Yes, there are circumstances where you take a chance on someone slightly less able but who has the potential to flourish given the opportunity. But that should be the exception, not the norm.
I haven't seen this production and have never seen the actor in question in any other role. I have no idea whether he has the acting skills to carry it off. If he doesn't, that does not mean it is because of his racial heritage. It does not mean that he is necessarily a bad actor. But not everyone is suited for Restoration comedy, just as not everyone is suited for Shakespeare or Pinter or Sarah Kane. Everyone has different skill sets and some of those make you better qualified for certain genres than for others.
But in this era where not being as diverse as others believe you should be is seen as unforgivable, I can see how casting decisions might be made that don't, in the end, pay off as you would have expected or hoped.
I don't think there is anyone on this forum who would disagree that we want theatre in the UK to be as representative as possible of the different communities who make up our nations. But that does not mean every single show should demonstrate that diversity. Diversity for the sake of diversity is not necessarily a good thing in all circumstances. Talent and skill should be top of the list when it comes to criteria for any casting process.
I know people will disagree with my thinking on this - that is fine. But I felt I had to speak out to bring a different perspective to the discussion.
I shall now retreat back to lurking.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Apr 8, 2018 13:11:49 GMT
”Our approach to casting is to select the most exciting individual for each role”. What does that actually mean ? In reality they cast each role separately but they also are working to meet an overall quota - at least the NT are explicit about that. I've seen some very unexciting performers in RSC productions. Is that even a crime? If everyone in a production is extremely exciting, the production is at risk of being hyperactive, and some roles call for being stolid or unobtrusive. I wouldn't want a really exciting Rosencrantz, for instance. (None of that bears on Letts' remark in his review, which is appalling.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2018 13:14:46 GMT
Race is always going to be an issue that provokes strong reactions and there is no doubt that Quentin Letts did not express himself in a way that is going to provoke a calm debate. But then, that is his schtick. He likes to provoke controversy. Spreading racism mearly to "provoke", or for entertainment purposes, surely makes the matter worse. Not only is he happy to cause distress, he's happy to do so for money, and for the purposes of his own amusement. |
|
