529 posts
|
Post by jampot on Aug 31, 2019 23:16:03 GMT
Nice acting, loved the change in the accent from ‘Russian’ to Russian English - been trying to remember where this is done in another play. Rock 'N' Roll by Tom Stoppard What was the reason for doing this? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 1:19:01 GMT
Rock 'N' Roll by Tom Stoppard What was the reason for doing this? To differentiate when they are speaking in English (when they have an accent) or Russian (when they don’t). |
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Sept 1, 2019 10:11:23 GMT
So she is not, I don't think intending this to last, rather like Hare’s polemics on the railways and the Iraq War, or her other work for that matter. I'd rather contemporary playwrights construct things that they believe speak best to audiences right now, at the time the play is being written and produced, than trying to write something that will be revived several times through the years. Not sensible for her retirement plans, but I think better for us. |
|
5,691 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 1, 2019 13:31:37 GMT
I agree, you can’t write for posterity but funny how Ibsen still works for us...
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Sept 2, 2019 22:58:59 GMT
I saw this in previews, so have ended up with a spare £20 ticket, stalls Q35 restricted view available for this Monday (9th). There's a notice on the noticeboard. I enjoyed it, so reckon someone else will as well.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Sept 3, 2019 12:50:35 GMT
I was going to market it as 'Monkey-approved' but thought that might be pushing it! :-)
(It's still available BTW)
|
|
|
|
Post by nytheatreguy on Sept 3, 2019 16:26:23 GMT
I went to see Expensive Poison last night. Was beyond excited given Lucy Prebble’s previous success as well as the buzz / positive press surrounding the show. I found the play terribly inconsistent and much less satisfying than I was hoping for. I was expecting a show that smartly unpacked the A.L. story and conspiracy of his death, and what I saw was a show that seemed unable to know what it wanted to be - from literal to absurd - which sadly didn't work for me. The 2nd Act felt stronger than the first as it had a bit more literal storytelling, but the character in the upper tier with the microphone played by Reece S. was completely annoying and not needed. Perhaps I am way off when I see the reviews Thursday night/Friday am - but I SO wanted it to be an “edge of my seat” thriller, and that isn’t what I saw on the stage last night. Or am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 16:40:38 GMT
I went to see Expensive Poison last night. Was beyond excited given Lucy Prebble’s previous success as well as the buzz / positive press surrounding the show. I found the play terribly inconsistent and much less satisfying than I was hoping for. I was expecting a show that smartly unpacked the A.L. story and conspiracy of his death, and what I saw was a show that seemed unable to know what it wanted to be - from literal to absurd - which sadly didn't work for me. The 2nd Act felt stronger than the first as it had a bit more literal storytelling, but the character in the upper tier with the microphone played by Reece S. was completely annoying and not needed. Perhaps I am way off when I see the reviews Thursday night/Friday am - but I SO wanted it to be an “edge of my seat” thriller, and that isn’t what I saw on the stage last night. Or am I wrong? Welcome nytheatreguy. I agree in a way. It wasn’t what I was looking for, really. Too flippant at times and quite basic in its approach, not really delving into the wider context. Maybe others who don’t really know the story will like it better. I see a lot of more fringe type ensemble shows and this felt like it was striving to be that but also trying to be a west end play as well. A worthwhile experiment but with incomplete success. |
|
3,333 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr Tom on Sept 3, 2019 21:55:44 GMT
I enjoyed this piece of performance art this evening and think it has potential. The show is thought provoking and tries to interest you through lots of different layers.
But it suffers from the same problems as Sylvia last year, where it comes across very much as a work in progress and one that would have benefited from being workshopped. There were a few line stumbles towards the end, so I rather think they're still testing different things out each night. Running time was 2 hours 45 minutes.
This is very much a play of two halves. The first half is great, a mostly traditional play. The second half is a variety show, with singing, dancing and lots of audience interaction. If you do enjoy that type of thing, the best places to sit, at least from tonight, are centre front row, anything on the second row (two men in the middle got to say if they preferred having a crotch or bum in their face - I'll come back to them later) and the side Stalls for the first few rows. There is some action in the other levels as well, although I couldn't see all of it.
My second row Stalls seat, picked up during one of the sales, was great value. This seemed pretty full and I think it will sell.
The show is presented rather as if it is a work of fiction. From conversations around me, I'm really not convinced that people knew this was based on a real story. It's presented in such a way that you have to yourself differentiate fact and fiction and try and work backwards to put together the whole story. Personally, it has made me want to read the non-fiction book this whole thing was based on.
I think it could easily be trimmed. There are a few scenes that don't really add to the plot. There are two gunshots (together) at the end of a long scene that leaves you on edge. The use of gunshots adds nothing. As it happened, these were on the quieter end of the spectrum.
Reece Shearsmith is very active in coordinating the variety act, with a portrayal very similar to all his most annoying characters from The League of Gentlemen (you'll probably even recognise the voice). That was one part that didn't really work for me, as if it was all there just to lead to a poorly done magic trick towards the end (which I saw coming a mile off). There's a lot of breaking the fourth wall and talking about the terrible condition of the Old Vic right now as it's plagued with building work and entering through side doors (as someone near me mentioned, how would they get everyone out quickly if there was a fire?).
The ending snaps between acting and real life, to the extent that I was expecting the real Marina Litvinenko to appear on stage (I'm sure she will at some point). There were several other teases that didn't happen, including the theatre being taken over by gunmen, as well as showing images taken of the real Alexander Litvinenko.
Apart from that, sets are effective, with good use of small sets to suggest rooms and a fully open stage with multiple set pieces during events that may have been fact or fiction. The acting was competent, with a large cast, with many playing multiple characters (the opposite of many recent plays, which have as small a cast as possible). There is a change between Russian and English accents which has been explained earlier in the thread and really wouldn't have been obvious to me otherwise.
My impression at the end was an audience not sure if they'd watched a comedy, with respect for the actors, but ultimately puzzlement. There's enough puzzlement there that this will get decent reviews and word of mouth out there. It also got one person standing, one of the aforementioned men, although his partner did join him right at the end of the bows to make it two people. I would have stood up if a lot of the audience had done so, but although this has potential, it isn't quite there yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 3, 2019 22:44:53 GMT
I went to see Expensive Poison last night. Was beyond excited given Lucy Prebble’s previous success as well as the buzz / positive press surrounding the show. I found the play terribly inconsistent and much less satisfying than I was hoping for. I was expecting a show that smartly unpacked the A.L. story and conspiracy of his death, and what I saw was a show that seemed unable to know what it wanted to be - from literal to absurd - which sadly didn't work for me. The 2nd Act felt stronger than the first as it had a bit more literal storytelling, but the character in the upper tier with the microphone played by Reece S. was completely annoying and not needed. Perhaps I am way off when I see the reviews Thursday night/Friday am - but I SO wanted it to be an “edge of my seat” thriller, and that isn’t what I saw on the stage last night. Or am I wrong? We thought Reece Shearsmith's character was either Putin or represented the embodiment of the Russian State. Putin certainly has a sense of entitlement about Russia's role in the modern world based on its contribution to shaping it. Hollywood has educated us to see things differently.
Perhaps the idea with Shearsmith and the operative who spoke of the 25 million men was, together, to offer some sense of another experience.
I did think Prebble missed a trick by not referring to the eastern front of WW2 as Russians do ('The Great Patriotic War'). She might also have found a way to mention the UK is the only European country to not have been brutally subjugated at some point in the last 75 years; stuff that shapes national identities.
LOL. There as also a good deal of puzzlement at the first preview.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 22:51:35 GMT
They refer to Putin by his forenames, Vladimir Vladimirovich. Given his tole in outrages like this, of course it’s him. Making one of the world’s most dangerous leaders into a fun character? For me, that’s a terrible mistake in tone.
EDIT: Purely for information - other European countries not brutally subjugated in the last seventy years also include Iceland (basically the UK just rocked up and used them during WWII, so that’s borderline), Sweden, Republic of Ireland and Switzerland. Spain and Portugal were neutral in WWII but they did have to cope with Franco and Salazar’s fascist regimes during that time. Also, residents of the Channel Islands were brutally subjugated by their Nazi invaders, not being part of the UK but very much connected.
|
|
|
|
Post by NorthernAlien on Sept 4, 2019 17:59:20 GMT
Saw this for a very good price in the matinee this afternoon (£15).
There's a lot going on here. A lot. There's been an attempt to cram in every single plot point that might be relevant so that you get a good overview of the political situation in Russia when Litvinyenko (sp?) was finding himself sliding ever deeper into the KGB/FSB quagmire. It all becomes a little bewildering. It's now running at around 2 hours 30 minutes, plus interval.
I applaud the directorial and creative vision which has managed to stage all the different scenes here - technically this is a real achievement.
The production portrays him as 'just a detective', and as a bloke just trying to reveal the truth. I suspect the real story of his life and his work to be much more complex and nuanced, and also suspect given the nature of it, that we'll never know the absolute truth. He's played as an affable chap who stuff just sort of seems to happen to, which again I suspect to be a simplification of the truth for the purposes of narrative ease.
A small amount of audience participation involves those sat on what I think was row B of the stalls, and three people House Left at the front of the stalls.
Ticket wise I had K22 in the stalls - as I say, on a massive discount, and a fiver less than the website was saying as I bought it in person at the box office (I had also checked before I left the house and so knew to ask if it was still available (and it was a single seat on it's own!)). The view was great, the seat leaned back a little more than I expected but the legroom was fine.
There are of course fun and games with the bathroom facilities at the moment, but the temporary facilities are fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by katurian on Sept 4, 2019 21:28:10 GMT
That was one part that didn't really work for me, as if it was all there just to lead to a poorly done magic trick towards the end (which I saw coming a mile off). Can I ask what the Shearsmith magic trick was? I was at the performance tonight and can't work out what part this was! {Spoiler - click to view}Unless you mean that he turned out to be one of the white boiler suit crew packing up the dead body near the end? |
|
3,333 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr Tom on Sept 4, 2019 22:27:13 GMT
That was one part that didn't really work for me, as if it was all there just to lead to a poorly done magic trick towards the end (which I saw coming a mile off). Can I ask what the Shearsmith magic trick was? I was at the performance tonight and can't work out what part this was! {Spoiler - click to view}Unless you mean that he turned out to be one of the white boiler suit crew packing up the dead body near the end? Yes, that’s the one I meant. Largely misdirection, but the set up was so slow and obvious when this should be snappy. |
|
105 posts
|
Post by youngoffender on Sept 6, 2019 9:40:23 GMT
And the first reviews are in: ***** WOS ***** The Stage **** Guardian **** Times *** Evening Standard
I'm with the ES, very much a 3-star show for me - an intriguing approach, but half-cooked and deeply flawed. The notion that it deserves 5, a rating that should logically be applied only to an unimprovable masterpiece, is laughable. This kind of grade inflation does theatre no favours whatsoever. It might tempt punters into the show, but it just sets them up to be disappointed by the reality that this is, in the end, just a moderately engaging night out, and that their time would more profitably have been spent with another couple of episodes of Mindhunter. |
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Sept 6, 2019 9:46:24 GMT
Favourable to excellent reviews all round.
I enjoyed the play and the breaking of the fourth wall and the subversion of the narrative was an interesting concept, on the whole I found most of it a distraction to the central story which was not strong enough to stand on its own.
The central tenet that our Government was not willing to hamper its perceived relationship with Russia and did not apply the rule of law was drowned out by the entertainment.
|
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Sept 6, 2019 10:02:30 GMT
The notion that it deserves 5, a rating that should logically be applied only to an unimprovable masterpiece, is laughable I wouldn't have given it 5 stars either, but that is definitely not a definition of a 5 star show that I'd subscribe to. 5 stars for me is 'excellent theatre', something that I really thoroughly enjoyed, not necessarily something that is some kind of holy unimpeachable orgasm of a theatrical event. I'm not sure if I've ever seen something that was an unimprovable masterpiece, I'd be curious to know what you've put into that category. Star ratings are clearly a subjective thing, to be applied and interpreted as you will, and I don't think you can ever criticise someone for applying a higher rating than you personally would. We all have different tastes, we all care about different things and see shows in different ways, and if someone wants to give AVEP their highest rating, I don't personally find that laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 10:40:58 GMT
Different people like different things, that's all. The story wasn't new to me but others won't have followed it as closely, my political views make me less likely to warm to it being played for laughs than it would for others and my fringe theatregoing means that the style of it isn't new to me, whereas for others it will be fresher. Reviews are just a personal view and depend on differing circumstances; they aren't, taken individually, an indication of quality.
|
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Sept 6, 2019 11:59:06 GMT
24hr TodayTix £15 offer available for anyone interested in seeing this.
|
|
105 posts
|
Post by youngoffender on Sept 6, 2019 19:13:42 GMT
5 stars for me is 'excellent theatre', something that I really thoroughly enjoyed, not necessarily something that is some kind of holy unimpeachable orgasm of a theatrical event. I'm not sure if I've ever seen something that was an unimprovable masterpiece, I'd be curious to know what you've put into that category. Admittedly, any five-point scale is a blunt instrument and allows little room for nuance, but my benchmarks would broadly be: * Tripe, a total waste of my time ** Poor to mediocre; flaws substantially outweigh any redeeming elements *** Creditable to good; there may be elements of excellence balanced by significant faults **** Excellent all round, a thoroughly rewarding experience ***** Stupendous, transcendent, unforgettable By those criteria, of course there's hardly anything that I have ever given 5. This year I think Downstate came close, and that's the best thing I have seen on the stage for years. As I see it, the problem with using 5 stars as a benchmark for mere 'excellence' is that you then have nowhere to go on the very rare occasions when you see something truly exceptional. And allowing for a range of taste, I just don't see how A Very Expensive Poison - script, performances, or production - could reasonably be described in those terms. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 6, 2019 21:07:46 GMT
I'd love to see age demographics on this one. Surprised Billington gave it 4. I suspect he rounded up ..
|
|
3,333 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr Tom on Sept 6, 2019 21:29:12 GMT
I'd love to see age demographics on this one. Surprised Billington gave it 4. I suspect he rounded up .. I'd say there was a wide range of ages when I saw it. Skewed younger than a lot of Old Vic productions. |
|
1,255 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Sept 7, 2019 11:30:57 GMT
All stalls and dress Circle tickets appear to have been reduced to £20 for today’s matinee. Including premiums. So worth grabbing a bargain if you can.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 7, 2019 22:17:44 GMT
I found myself briefly in Aldershot last week and this was advertised in posters at the train station.
I did wonder how long someone at the Old Vic had poured over railway lines serving Waterloo and how far down the line/s they venture with advertising.
|
|
7,059 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Sept 10, 2019 14:43:55 GMT
I quite liked this, it's certainly a theatrical telling of a tragic story which makes you laugh one minute but punches you in the gut the next.
|
|
