3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Sept 1, 2018 4:20:26 GMT
Many people would have been glad the performance could go ahead and at such short notice. They might have travelled a long way, spent a lot of money, made complicated arrangements; it might not have been possible for them/the NT to re-book and they will not know what they missed. I'm not saying it's ideal but perhaps better than a last-minute cancellation.
On one occasion I arrived for an NT performance to find no fewer than 3 understudies appearing (this was in one of the larger spaces) and as above, I had no means of comparing what I actually saw with what I might have seen and that was fine. Not in this case, evidently, but it has been known for stand-ins to do a great, rather than merely a serviceable job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2018 6:26:59 GMT
Suprised they didn’t get a spare actor to do a script in hand performance rather than Norris. There would have been 20 or so supernumeraries for Lehman Trilogy hangjng around.
|
|
590 posts
|
Post by lou105 on Sept 1, 2018 7:22:15 GMT
The producer made it sound very much like Norris's own idea! She also said very clearly that they were offering "a version" of the play, because there was no chance of being able to reseat the attendees on other days. I saw a couple of empty seats, but really no more than you see at any sold out performance, so it seems people went with the plan.
I found it really interesting to watch the professionalism of the rest of the cast, staying in their own performances when they must have had to be very flexible!
|
|
3,325 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Sept 1, 2018 7:42:25 GMT
I'm sure they did the right thing by not cancelling. If I was at the theatre, I'd much rather have a unique performance go ahead than be sent away.
But it does always make me question why they don't have understudies for these productions. You'd only need one male and one female for this. Or were there understudies who were also indisposed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2018 7:42:39 GMT
Did they offer refunds if people didn’t want to see this “version”?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2018 9:44:03 GMT
I'm sure I've said this a million times, but when I saw Paul at the NT one of the leading actors was off and the director Howard Davies came on to explain that the Cottesloe budgets don't allow for understudies so he would be acting the part with the script in his hand. The NT also offered refunds (whether or not you stayed to watch) and I was happy that they went ahead, albeit in a non-perfect way, rather than waste my day by sending me home (it was a Sat matinee if I remember right).
He was actually perfectly good and it was easy to get caught up in the play and forget that one of the characters was holding a script. I still treasure the memory of a posh old man in the audience telling one of our most distinguished directors to speak up a bit!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2018 9:49:25 GMT
The argument about budgets was more convincing in the days before most of the decent seats in the Dorfman went up to £50!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2018 9:51:45 GMT
The argument about budgets was more convincing in the days before most of the decent seats in the Dorfman went up to £50! COULD NOT AGREE MORE. Think my ticket for Paul was about 20 quid and it was top price. I miss the days when you could just take a punt on plays at the NT. |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Sept 1, 2018 11:28:12 GMT
I was listening to the NT podcast the other day and they talked a lot about the time Rufus stepped in to play a role in Cabaret for a week. I got the impression he secretly loved it.
|
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 1, 2018 13:06:33 GMT
I’m v sorry that the lead actor was taken ill. Hope not serious. But I can’t imagine anyone taking the role with a script and not knowing the quite tricky moves and the emotional tensions etc. Must have even a very different experience to the one I had watching this. Yes, a minor role ok but if it was the husband, I'm amazed.
|
|
4,171 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Sept 1, 2018 14:12:26 GMT
So, I can only echo was lou105 has stated above.
Between 7:20-7-25 as people started gather in the foyer, trying to get in by the doors weren't opened, a producer came out and explained what had happened. the male lead had had an accident and couldn't go on as he was being rushed to A&E.
She then explained the with about 25 mins notice Rufus Norris was going to go on and that both he and Catherine Parkinson were currently on stage walking the stage and working through some things. The play would then start later at 8pm, rather than the advertised 7:30pm.
When we were all seated and before the show actually started the producer again came on stage and explained that the lead actor was okay however the RADA trained Rufus would be on stage, script in hand.
In response to Parley's comments, as The Doorman is a small theatre and there only had a limited run, which was soon coming to close, it just would not be possible to re-book everyone and this way you still get to see the play, however in a slightly different format.
Given that we were kept updated, and this knew what to expect, Rufus with a script in hand wasn't too much of a distraction.
There were one or two amusing scenes where he went to embrace Katherine Parkinson but physically couldn't because there was the script in the way. At one point he couldn't work out how to one the retro fridge or find what he was looking for inside that fridge.
However as for the play itself, it was excellent. The whole 'look' of the show was great- sets, hair make up. The attention to detail was so impressive!
I really do hope this transfers. So many issues strewn throughout the play.
Would I see it again? Definaltley, but with a better seat.
Would I consider a refund because of what happened? No. I feel satisfied that I saw and outstanding production that coped as best that it could under the circumstances.
Well done to all involved!
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Sept 2, 2018 18:05:08 GMT
I liked this, but didn’t love it. I felt the situation was rather unbelievable and the “me too” harrassement storyline crowbarred in. A case of the writer throwing things in, and hoping they would stick. The set was nice, the acting fine, but for fear of starting World War Three, I don’t really get the adoration that Dame Katherine Parkinson elicits. Her voice is quite one tone, and her acting fine, but nothing that special.  . Maybe the case that expectations from the board were unrealistically high? |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 2, 2018 18:36:40 GMT
I liked this, but didn’t love it. I felt the situation was rather unbelievable and the “me too” harrassement storyline crowbarred in. I don’t understand this criticism. It’s one of the aspects of life in the Fifties that she is willfully ignoring - and some of the nostalgia for the era is certainly rooted in the fact that men could get away with such behaviour, and women were just expected to deal with it. It wasn’t crowbarred in at all - how men and women relate to each is central to the play. It’s pretty clear that Marcus has Views about women, far more so than Johnny does, from the way he pressures Fran to give up the job she loves. If anything, the play could have done with more on the subject of Fifties social attitudes. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2018 21:17:20 GMT
A SM friend told me Rufus is prepped/briefed to step into anything in the Rep. Could be ridiculous rumour but I enjoy the thought of Olde Ruf ready to step on as SRB or Imelda at a given moment. Also the thought of Nick H doing the same is weirdly amusing to me.
Anyway no the Dorfman (and to my memory the Cottesloe) rarely have understudies as a rule. Though that said the NT do have a fair few actors kicking about at a given time, so I reckon they could have found one!
|
|
3,301 posts
|
Post by david on Sept 2, 2018 21:34:15 GMT
A SM friend told me Rufus is prepped/briefed to step into anything in the Rep. Could be ridiculous rumour but I enjoy the thought of Olde Ruf ready to step on as SRB or Imelda at a given moment. I’ve now got an imagine of him dressed as one of the ladies in Follies. This is not a good way to end the weekend! |
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 5, 2018 19:04:14 GMT
The mother's description of the 50s was wonderful, what I’ve been saying for years to my dear children and others. The 50s were dreadful, repressive and dull. I liked the play though, it wasn’t ground breaking , just another relationship play but nicely done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2018 19:22:19 GMT
Ah, that is it, I think, lynette . I kept trying to find some meaningful discussion moving on from the bald stating of the obvious. As a simple relationship play, yes, I can see it worked fairly well. Out of curiosity: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a relationship play. Do you mean like Patrick Marber's Closer? Do you have other examples? |
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 5, 2018 21:44:39 GMT
I mean a play that analyses a relationship, usually between lovers, man and wife in this case. From memory, yes Closer is a complicated variation. It isn’t about 'issues'
|
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Sept 6, 2018 6:21:54 GMT
Got in under the wire to see it this afternoon. Second half somewhat stronger than the first, but really, what was its point? I just found it clumsy and the 50s metaphor actually got in the way. Only part that really worked for me was the mother's broadside. Hovered between 2 and 3 stars for me. May work better in a studio without the elaborate two-tier set, perhaps. Missed you again Theatremonkey! I was there with husband (a rare outing for him) in the second row, B8. I don't suppose you were the nice man I chatted to a little on my right? I quite liked the play, as Lynette says, as a simple relationship play. I liked that it sort of had a happy ending and the row at the end was a bit different to the cliche norm as, instead of storming off, they actually listened to each other and admitted to feeling scared. Husband quite liked it. He likes to bring me a cup of tea in the mornings!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 6:29:47 GMT
I mean a play that analyses a relationship, usually between lovers, man and wife in this case. From memory, yes Closer is a complicated variation. It isn’t about 'issues' Do you have any examples of a simple relationship play? I am trying to understand what you're saying about this play (because I don't really). Marber's is a complex and dark play about sexual desire and relationships, and is a million miles away from "Darling". I'm not trying to compare the play with others (a fruitless task) but I am just not clear what you mean and wonder if I have ever seen a piece that is a simple relationship play. |
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Sept 6, 2018 6:43:00 GMT
Well I for one am still hoping for news of a WE transfrer for this.
|
|
3,528 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Sept 6, 2018 7:52:46 GMT
Well I for one am still hoping for news of a WE transfrer for this. Yes, so am I. |
|
|
|
Post by zephyrus on Sept 6, 2018 9:58:07 GMT
Saw this earlier this week. I thought it was mildly enjoyable, and a semi-interesting play. Having deliberately not read much about it beforehand, maybe my expectations were too high and I was hoping for something more profound. I used to be a huge fan of Katherine Parkinson but I found her voice especially grating in the play, and most lines were delivered with the same inflection - I suppose it was a character choice (maybe...) Sian Thomas was the highlight for me.
|
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Nov 1, 2018 13:12:42 GMT
Back in the West end at the duke of York's theatre from Feb t.co/Yde9aZvMv1?amp=1Tickets go on sale on Friday November 9, booking until April 13, after which the play will tour to Theatre Royal Bath and the Salford Lowry. |
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Nov 1, 2018 13:24:56 GMT
Back in the West end at the duke of York's theatre from Feb t.co/Yde9aZvMv1?amp=1Tickets go on sale on Friday November 9, booking until April 13, after which the play will tour to Theatre Royal Bath and the Salford Lowry. Triple yay !
I could kiss you.....
|
|
. Maybe the case that expectations from the board were unrealistically high? 
