1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 27, 2018 14:39:38 GMT
Curse you, Steve, even though I love Andrew Scott I was planning on giving this a miss, but now you've got me scanning for tickets.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 27, 2018 14:40:21 GMT
And I'm seeing Fun Home on Friday, so if I get tickets for Saturday, I could think of it as my Steve recommends weekend.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 27, 2018 15:12:31 GMT
And I'm seeing Fun Home on Friday, so if I get tickets for Saturday, I could think of it as my Steve recommends weekend. It is good. As some have said, the performance is probably better than the piece.
We went to see it last Saturday at 5.30, with Fun Home at 7.30 and a visit for some food in between at Cubana across from the Old Vic - which made quite a nice evening out with a relatively early finish.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Jun 27, 2018 19:55:46 GMT
I didn't know anything about this so had no expectations.
Andrew Scott's performance is impressive. He is a great raconteur and makes the Old Vic, a space "just the other side of intimacy", feel quite intimate at times as he draws the audience in. Quite a feat given the alienating effect of the lights on all the time.
The play itself though is less convincing. By making it a monologue and then having it delivered the way it is, this basically becomes an exercise in storytelling. And whilst there is definitely a climax, many of the earlier speeches ramble and give a feeling of anecdote rather than woven narrative. At times it was like those long rambling shaggy dog stories Dave Allen or Ronnie Corbett would deliver. It was entertaining but not, at that point, dramatic.
My second problem is the premise. What is the premise? The actor is at times almost engaging with the audience, is he telling (or acting out) a true story? Or is it a fiction within a fiction (unlikely). If the character is giving us a true version of events then it is difficult o understand the light tone which permeates most of the play. I cannot see how anyone involved in it would tell that story that way.
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jun 28, 2018 6:11:31 GMT
And I'm seeing Fun Home on Friday, so if I get tickets for Saturday, I could think of it as my Steve recommends weekend. Now I really really really hope you have a great weekend.
Don't forget to have a tipple, so you can't tell the difference, unless you can't, in which case don't.  |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 29, 2018 16:53:42 GMT
I loved it (last night), I'm very glad I saw it - and like many of you I thought the performance was better than the writing. Andrew Scott is superb, and it's a very difficult trick to preserve the intimacy of the piece in a space the size of the Old Vic; the play itself is engaging enough,but it's also predictable, and there's a point where you can see where it's going to go more than ten minutes before it gets there, which is an issue in a piece that's barely forty minutes long. Stephens's most interesting choice, I thought - and it's the most interesting thing about the entire script - is, well, silence (and if you've seen it you'll know exactly the moment I mean).
While I loved it, though, I am very glad I only paid £15 for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Jun 29, 2018 21:37:26 GMT
Well perhaps this play was excellent - judging by the standing ovation it was - but I'll never know because of the f***ing moronic audience. I kid you not, there was leaking headphone music in my vicinity for the first 25 minutes of this. I looked around several times trying to figure out where it was coming from but to no avail, during each silence and pause I just heard tinny beats and vocals driving me to distraction. I wondered if it was coming from outside or in the corridor and eventually gave up and tried to concentrate, only for somebody in the stall's phone to go off at a pivotal moment. Andrew Scott had the patience of a saint and actually waited for them to deal with it before continuing. Then a few dropped bottles and objects later, the tinny music reached a crescendo and I realised it was coming from the guy directly in front of me. Luckily he and several other people noticed it by then and it was switched off for me to enjoy the last few minutes in silence. By then I had completely lost the thread of the monologue and had no idea what was going on beyond the most basic narrative. Afterwards several people including me told the guy off but the damage had been done and the experience ruined.
I am so f***ing angry right now I'm actually considering giving up on going to the theatre in London until venues can get a handle on these idiots and phone obsessives who can't follow a simple instruction like turn off your phone. It actually seems to happen more often than not and I'm getting sick of wasting my time and money.
|
|
1,218 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 29, 2018 23:16:44 GMT
Well perhaps this play was excellent - judging by the standing ovation it was - but I'll never know because of the f***ing moronic audience. I kid you not, there was leaking headphone music in my vicinity for the first 25 minutes of this. I looked around several times trying to figure out where it was coming from but to no avail, during each silence and pause I just heard tinny beats and vocals driving me to distraction. I wondered if it was coming from outside or in the corridor and eventually gave up and tried to concentrate, only for somebody in the stall's phone to go off at a pivotal moment. Andrew Scott had the patience of a saint and actually waited for them to deal with it before continuing. Then a few dropped bottles and objects later, the tinny music reached a crescendo and I realised it was coming from the guy directly in front of me. Luckily he and several other people noticed it by then and it was switched off for me to enjoy the last few minutes in silence. By then I had completely lost the thread of the monologue and had no idea what was going on beyond the most basic narrative. Afterwards several people including me told the guy off but the damage had been done and the experience ruined. I am so f***ing angry right now I'm actually considering giving up on going to the theatre in London until venues can get a handle on these idiots and phone obsessives who can't follow a simple instruction like turn off your phone. It actually seems to happen more often than not and I'm getting sick of wasting my time and money. I know of 3 people who have gone to 3 separate nights of Seawall and had similar experiences. Why aren't the Old Vic doing more to control these outbreaks? They need their ushers to a) be briefing audience members on arrival, and b) in the auditorium take action. I must say Andrew being onstage when the audience arrives does negate a formal theatrical tannoy announcement about phones etc so maybe this piece invites its audience to think they can carry on conversations/calls etc? But really?? Yes, this is a delicate piece, especially with the house lights up, to intervene when people are talking throughout the play (two businessmen just chatting throughout last week) or on phones, etc etc. The ushers should be inside the auditorium and shutting down this behaviour with their presence and with words and ejections if needs be. You're right in that it's gone beyond now. |
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Jun 30, 2018 8:48:56 GMT
Well perhaps this play was excellent - judging by the standing ovation it was - but I'll never know because of the f***ing moronic audience. I kid you not, there was leaking headphone music in my vicinity for the first 25 minutes of this. I looked around several times trying to figure out where it was coming from but to no avail, during each silence and pause I just heard tinny beats and vocals driving me to distraction. I wondered if it was coming from outside or in the corridor and eventually gave up and tried to concentrate, only for somebody in the stall's phone to go off at a pivotal moment. Andrew Scott had the patience of a saint and actually waited for them to deal with it before continuing. Then a few dropped bottles and objects later, the tinny music reached a crescendo and I realised it was coming from the guy directly in front of me. Luckily he and several other people noticed it by then and it was switched off for me to enjoy the last few minutes in silence. By then I had completely lost the thread of the monologue and had no idea what was going on beyond the most basic narrative. Afterwards several people including me told the guy off but the damage had been done and the experience ruined. I am so f***ing angry right now I'm actually considering giving up on going to the theatre in London until venues can get a handle on these idiots and phone obsessives who can't follow a simple instruction like turn off your phone. It actually seems to happen more often than not and I'm getting sick of wasting my time and money. I know of 3 people who have gone to 3 separate nights of Seawall and had similar experiences. Why aren't the Old Vic doing more to control these outbreaks? They need their ushers to a) be briefing audience members on arrival, and b) in the auditorium take action. I must say Andrew being onstage when the audience arrives does negate a formal theatrical tannoy announcement about phones etc so maybe this piece invites its audience to think they can carry on conversations/calls etc? But really?? Yes, this is a delicate piece, especially with the house lights up, to intervene when people are talking throughout the play (two businessmen just chatting throughout last week) or on phones, etc etc. The ushers should be inside the auditorium and shutting down this behaviour with their presence and with words and ejections if needs be. You're right in that it's gone beyond now. Well in the cold light of day I'm now just sad that I didn't get to really experience it and you're right, the Old Vic are ultimately culpable. There is always going to be forgetful people unfortunately, but there was nothing from front of house - no quick announcement to turn off phones from the ushers when entering, no signs on the wall or projection to the sides of stage, no message or anything. And judging by what you're saying and others on this thread this is a persistent problem that they couldn't try and mitigate by the penultimate performance? I see concerts and operas in far bigger venues with far more people and very rarely have a problem. In West End theatres it seems that more often than not there is something to piss me off. Honestly, even cinemas seem preferable right now. At least they make some effort to control patrons. |
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2018 9:26:20 GMT
We should be building Faraday cages around our theatres from this point onward. The problem is in an audience of a thousand people there will always be a few dickheads who think they know better, or don't care, so leave their phones on vibrate or on the ringer. Telling audiences 20 times to turn their phones off doesn't help, you'll always get someone who'll just ignore the advice. Anyone seen with their phone out by the usher should be ejected and banned from the theatre, maybe after this is seen to happen a few times some minds will be changed...
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jun 30, 2018 10:04:46 GMT
My second problem is the premise. What is the premise? If the character is giving us a true version of events then it is difficult o understand the light tone which permeates most of the play. I cannot see how anyone involved in it would tell that story that way. I think he would tell the story that way if he were resigned to his own frailty. If he wanted to share with us, his friends, or indeed, all humanity, with whom he now feels more kinship, how not to be. I just heard tinny beats and vocals driving me to distraction. I am so f***ing angry right now In a play that goes as whisper silent in this one, there should have been signs all over the place.
It's horrible that people are having this ruined for them. Sounds like someone (recounted above) even left their ipod playing tunes, for heaven's sakes!
"Unbelievable," as Ivan Lendl used to wail on court, to no avail.  |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 30, 2018 14:47:02 GMT
I'm now just sad that I didn't get to really experience it and you're right, the Old Vic are ultimately culpable. Policing audience behaviour doesn't appear to be the Old Vic's strength, and that's putting it kindly. I had an absolutely horrendous experience there during a performance of Groundhog Day - a group of four or five (rather drunk) people sitting to my right who obviously considered themselves super-fans of the show, to the point of singing along (bearing in mind that I saw it two weeks after press night, months before a cast recording appeared, so they'd obviously seen it several times already). When a woman in the row in front tried to shush them, one of these charmers emptied his drink over her head. She complained at the start of the interval, and so did I, and the house manager reseated her, her partner, and I in the company box (the performance was otherwise sold out) - but they didn't throw the perpetrators out. Given that the incident included something that, legally, constitutes common assault, that's inexcusable. I've been a front-of-house manager, and I understand better than most people that dealing with that kind of patron is not a pleasant part of the job, because I've actually done it. It IS part of the job, though, and giving idiots like this a stern talking-to is pointless. The only way they'll learn is by losing something - that is, by getting thrown out and not being given a refund. Box office terms and conditions invariably allow for this - there is always a clause telling you something along the lines of that admission is at the management's discretion and that they reserve the right to eject patrons who are disruptive. The fact that the Old Vic couldn't be bothered to do that after an incident in which one patron emptied a drink over another - when independent witnesses confirmed that it had happened - suggests rather strongly that their house manager is either clueless or incompetent or just couldn't give a toss. Theatre is ephemeral. If the experience is spoiled by bad behaviour, that's it - you can't recapture it, and it isn't always possible to go back. The management need to take some responsibility - you are a paying customer too, and it is their job to ensure you experience the performance without disruption from other audience members. Having said all that, in a piece where there's no interval it becomes a lot more difficult, because throwing someone out under those circumstances is going to cause even more disruption. To be fair, the usher at the door where I went into the auditorium on Thursday made a point of telling every single patron to turn off their phone. I have no idea whether that happened at every door, though; given that ushers on the doors to the stalls would have had to deal with about twice as many people as the ones stationed in the dress circle where I was sitting, I suspect it didn't. Of the four shows I saw in London this week, Sea Wall was the only one where there was not some kind of blanket warning to patrons to turn off phones. (And the next step is to extend that warning to wearers of smart watches, because light from notifications on watch screens was noticeable at some point during all four performances I saw this week. I would have no argument if the warnings involved duct tape and a taser.) |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 30, 2018 15:16:55 GMT
I was impressed at The Lowry recently - they have 'older' ushers and one went over to have a quiet word with the person next to my Mum who was looking at their lit mobile during Mary Stuart.
I think they should bring in an old 'swimming pool' style code of conduct poster (similar to the Kermode code) . And after the couple next to me in Three Sisters, defo 'no petting'.
|
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jun 30, 2018 15:58:42 GMT
Now that the preferred ticketing method is an e-ticket could be seen as legitimising the use of a mobile phone.
Difficult to say please switch off your phone whilst asking for your e-ticket.
Maybe they should once scanned say now switch that bloody thing off.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 30, 2018 18:39:18 GMT
Given that the incident included something that, legally, constitutes common assault, that's inexcusable. I'm fairly surprised the victim didn't just dial 999. I would have.
She was on her feet to find an usher to complain as soon as the lights went up for the interval (so was I). I think she assumed the theatre would deal with the perpetrators. Like me, she was surprised (to say the least) when they didn't.
The thing is, if you're on the receiving end, you're probably acutely aware of the need to avoid disrupting the show, whereas the people who are actually disrupting it are so monumentally selfish that that won't be a consideration for them. If you're a polite, considerate theatregoer - as most of us are - you'll probably try to avoid making a fuss while the house lights are down.
I did write to the Old Vic afterwards to tell them why I thought their response to the incident had been inadequate. Unfortunately they couldn't be bothered to respond to the letter.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 30, 2018 19:37:11 GMT
Happy to report a very quiet and well behaved audience at the 5.30 show today.
I'm glad I saw it.
Andrew Scott is just so good.
|
|
|
|
Post by dramallama on Jun 30, 2018 20:38:59 GMT
I went to the 7pm performance today and unfortunately, two phones went off. Ushers did mention to everybody to turn phones off but, as always, people didn’t listen.
I still enjoyed the performance and I’m so glad I went along to it. Andrew Scott really is something and I do like Simon Stephens’ writing even though I can see why not everybody agrees with that.
|
|
1,218 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 30, 2018 22:22:49 GMT
Another problem this show had that seemed to invite bad behaviour, weirdly, was its performance times.
A 7pm start time for a performance of just 30mins. Smack in the middle of an evening out.
What would office workers potentially do after work/pre-show? Grab a bite to eat, sink a few drinks? The play could be seen as easy, quick entertainment before resuming their evenings out.
This certainly seemed to be the case when we went and two men (husbands of the two quit women with them) talked sotto voice, but still TAKES, all the way trough the play.
They had obviously had a few and thought nothing of narrating what Andrew was recounting.
No one got up to shush them as nobody wanted to disrupt the environment Andrew and the play were trying to create.
Also a 30min play at a prestigious venue with a "celeb" actor to people who maybe don't go to the theatre much would seem very appealing. We're in we're out.
Maybe a newer audience unfamiliar with theatre protocol was attracted by this and subsequently brought with them these disruptions.
It's so sad because you don't want to dissuade new people or create a marshal law, but at the same time you want respect for the actor(s) onstage and those around you to be upheld.
The story above about the woman having a drink thrown over over head and nothing done about it by the OV is disgusting and disgraceful. If the theatres take no action, how are the audiences meant to learn?
It's eternally exhausting, as audience members, having to do the jobs of those paid to work at the theatres and supposedly "usher" a show or manage their ushers.
Something needs to be done.
|
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jun 30, 2018 22:42:48 GMT
foxa was also there for the 5:30, sharing the Theatre with a group of people who are destined to never grace the bad behaviour thread was a pleasure. Have never felt such an intense silence, the whole theatre became Andrew’s plaything, he was able to take us wherever he wanted in a way I’ve never seen before. Having already seen it once earlier in the run, the ushers were much more active when it came to phone use this time. Seeing it for a second time also allowed me to focus on the performance, the nuances and craftsmanship Andrew brings to the role is phenomenal. From a selfish perspective I hope he follows in the footsteps of Mark Rylance and will always primarily be a stage actor who does films.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 1, 2018 7:52:32 GMT
a newer audience unfamiliar with theatre protocol I've found that chatters and fiddlers with mobile phones come from all age groups, though here, judging by the crowds in the foyer, the Sherlock factor looked like it was bringing a younger demographic in. I didn't notice any mobiles in the performance I went to last weekend, but at Hamlet (in preview) the girl sitting next to me on the front row was in a world of her own and pretty well eating a picnic, including numerous individually-wrapped sweets, a couple of feet from the actors - so close I couldn't 'shush' her - then checking her mobile for train times through the third part and dashing off before the end. |
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 1, 2018 8:11:43 GMT
foxa was also there for the 5:30, sharing the Theatre with a group of people who are destined to never grace the bad behaviour thread was a pleasure. Have never felt such an intense silence, the whole theatre became Andrew’s plaything, he was able to take us wherever he wanted in a way I’ve never seen before. . I was there at the 5:30 too and it was wonderful to experience that silence. Fortunately the chap in front of me had finished up his pot of nuts by then so it wasn’t broken by him scrabbling around in the bottom of the pot looking for the last one, as the first couple of minutes were. I will just say, re: headphones leaking music, that I don’t think anyone does that deliberately! Sometimes mp3 players accidentally get turned on by a knock and the person they belong to doesn’t realise it’s theirs and is sitting there fuming about it with everyone else. Fortunately I’ve never had it happen in the theatre but I’ve had it happen in the office before... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2018 9:44:39 GMT
I wonder if little Andy Scott's fan base has something to do with it too? They are younger and probably not used to going to the theatre and behaving in a respectful manner to others. They're more used to watching Netflix on the bus and living their lives through their phones so they're not used to sitting down quietly and concentrating on something in the dark without distractions.
Cattle prods are definitely the way to go.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 1, 2018 11:45:32 GMT
I wonder if little Andy Scott's fan base has something to do with it too? They are younger and probably not used to going to the theatre and behaving in a respectful manner to others. They're more used to watching Netflix on the bus and living their lives through their phones so they're not used to sitting down quietly and concentrating on something in the dark without distractions. Cattle prods are definitely the way to go.
And duct tape. Lots and lots and LOTS of duct tape.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 1, 2018 12:00:03 GMT
sf - I'm slightly obsessed with the drink pouring incident you witnessed. That's off the scale.
Yesterday's 5.30 performance - I was up in the Dress Circle - a pretty diverse group, but it was early enough I suppose that none of us was visibly drunk and there were probably more solo theatre-goers than usual, so possibly more hardcore theatre fans.
And to stick up for the young ones (and I'm oooollllldddd) - I think good and bad behaviour spans the generations, so cattle prods and duct tape for all! :-)
Again, thanks for the recommendations here for this, it was your enthusiasm that spurred me to go and I am really glad we did.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 1, 2018 13:07:54 GMT
I think it’s probably wrong to think that Scott’s fan base are newbie theatregoers or all that young, to be honest. He’s done a fair bit of theatre since Sherlock premiered back in 2010, and anyone who became a fan of his even as a young teenager in 2010 would be in their early twenties now.
I’m afraid audiences across the board now seem to be incapable of making sure that electronic devices are turned off,
|
|
