1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 2, 2018 0:30:32 GMT
2nd preview tonight.
A show stop, about 10mins in. During one of the (many) party/dance scenes. Only took 5mins to reset and it appeared that some music had failed to play fully.
Not really taken with this one unfortunately.
Between them, Cracknall's direction (too general) and Stenham's new version (too short and too clunky) have taken what can be a simmering, tension filled few hours of political, sexual, class war collisions into, what is essentially 1hr and a bit (if you subtract the dance scenes) of a brief fling that comes from nowhere, lasts fleetingly, and yet still ends with the dramatic consequences Strindberg's original did.
Do contemporary dance/party scenes ever work? The Macbeth rave. The Everyman party. Etc. Nearly always intended to show a decadence and hedonistic freedom, but, as tonight, often choreographed to within an inch of their lives, and signifying nothing.
They have pro dancers and lots of "supernumeries" in this one. But all this added "party" dancing feels distant and distinctly un-joyous or stimulating. (Potentially their point...?)
There are 3 very good actors on that stage, but only Thalissa as the maid really comes out well. (Her early scenes Brum with ease and lightness, her big monologue near the end particularly affecting.) This is because the heart of the play, ie the scenes between Jean and Julie are just not loaded. With anything.
Lines, important ones, go for nothing.
The BIG PROBLEM: there is a devastating lack of chemistry between Vanessa and Eric (something that would surely be ensured at the casting stage, and faked if necessary in the rehearsal stage??). They just do not have that spark. And without that, the play softens and loses all tension (and all purpose).
It's all to quick. And as a result it all looks to easy.
Did anyone see the Donmar one years back? The tension, on a sexual level and a class level, between Kelly Reilly and I think Richard Coyle was off the scale. She was unhinged. He was massively hesitant. Then bam. Fireworks.
This simply does not have that.
And yes it's a preview, an early preview, but unless they start faking it, no amount of Kirby doing Margaret in The Crown or Eric having his t shirt off for a bit (then taking a lonnnnng time to put it back on lol, we can see you've worked out) is going to convince us that their passion was ever real.
The sex on a ladder and sex on a high jump mat (from a school gym?) was the definition of unerotic or desired by either character.
The audience seemed split between being both heavily invested (Kirby's fan girls giggling a lot at almost everything) and shocked at the iconic dramatic moments (one very famous moment of which is given to Julie rather than Jean, not sure why?) to boredom and a lot of programme reading from others, admittedly this tended to be the older members of the audience.
It could be better. It could get better. But only Once/IF the relationship between Julie and Jean can be given some sort of reality and depth.
A too hurried misfire.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Jun 2, 2018 6:59:45 GMT
I went to first preview. Too much business, not enough show. When it clocks in at 80 minutes and 15 of those minutes are spent ripping off the staging of People, Places & Things with the unnecessarily massive ensemble, it will be a struggle for any playwright to get the characters from A to Z believably. This really felt like they were skipping whole pages of the script (and maybe they were), none of the big moments felt earned. It was all so surface-y that you really struggle to invest in any of the characters or their relationships with each other.
Kirby is ace, but yes, there is NO chemistry with her and Eric. Which makes for a stilted and awkward tone when it should be intense and dangerous. I REALLY wanted to love this. But I couldn't.
|
|
2,052 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jun 2, 2018 13:30:52 GMT
Going to see this on Wednesday- sounds great! 😝 But seriously, the NT is supposed to be our flagship theatre - how can something (that sounds) so shoddy be put on display and people expected to pay top price and then come back to see more productions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 15:21:09 GMT
It is still in preview so they have quite a few days to sort things out. For myself, I know you are all going to have a go at me for making judgements based on a poster, but the publicity for this really put me off. The poster looks as though it is signalling the interracial relationship as something dangerous (omg! A black man with a white woman!!!!) which I find demeaning to everyone involved. If Quentin Letts were to call this out I would stand beside him...and that’s saying something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 15:28:05 GMT
I know you are all going to have a go at me for making judgements based on a poster, but the publicity for this really put me off. The poster looks as though it is signalling the interracial relationship as something dangerous (omg! A black man with a white woman!!!!) which I find demeaning to everyone involved. If Quentin Letts were to call this out I would stand beside him...and that’s saying something. I think that is less the poster in and of itself, and more what you are bringing to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 16:07:07 GMT
I know you are all going to have a go at me for making judgements based on a poster, but the publicity for this really put me off. The poster looks as though it is signalling the interracial relationship as something dangerous (omg! A black man with a white woman!!!!) which I find demeaning to everyone involved. If Quentin Letts were to call this out I would stand beside him...and that’s saying something. I think that is less the poster in and of itself, and more what you are bringing to it. Yes, and no. Stenham is on record as saying that a black male actor brings something radical to her version. What is radical about an interracial relationship? It was only radical or dangerous in South Africa during apartheid. Interracial relationships are normal. I haven't read or seen Miss Julie for many years, but from what I remember Julie's interactions below stairs are transgressive because of 19th century class taboos, so the implication in this update is that race is the taboo. I have really been put off this production by its publicity material and that is just a personal opinion, but I take your implied point that it is probably unfair to make such statements when I haven't seen any of the performances. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 18:01:09 GMT
There's, like, a lot of places and a lot of times all over the globe where an interracial relationship would historically or even currently lead to a lot of bad things happening to the darker-skinned of the couple. It's absolutely BIZARRE to say it's literally only a South African apartheid thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 18:29:13 GMT
There's, like, a lot of places and a lot of times all over the globe where an interracial relationship would historically or even currently lead to a lot of bad things happening to the darker-skinned of the couple. It's absolutely BIZARRE to say it's literally only a South African apartheid thing. The production is set in contemporary London.. There may be people who don’t approve of interracial relationships but you aren’t going to be imprisoned for being involved in one. Why is it bizarre to say that? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 18:30:16 GMT
Interracial relationships are normal. Hmmm.... honestly, I'd love that to be true, but I'm really not sure that it is regarded that way across all sections of society? I've not seen the play either, nor made any particular connection with the poster image (beyond wondering why anyone takes a bath with their clothes on) so now it is sounding even more interesting. Very happy to create interest in the production. |
|
|
|
Post by catcat100 on Jun 2, 2018 18:56:09 GMT
I saw the first preview of this and really enjoyed it so please don't write it off to another bad National play.
I found that the main focus of the play was on Julie's mental health. The 2 parts to the set, what it did at the end, the dancers and how they left, to me were all reflective of what was going on in her head.
The chemistry between her and Jean certainly wasn't great but then I didn't think there needed to be much. She's a rich girl living off daddy, he's a chauffeur wanting to better himself. Anything more would have maybe changed what I felt about the end and why it happened and so make it a different play.
Kristina, the maid, was definitely well played from start to finish.
Also, quite glad it was a modern setting, something that Absolute Hell could probably have done with.
One of Nash's comments in the first post was about a previous version they had seen. Which has obviously had an effect on how they saw this play. This was my first time seeing the play and I'm very happy that, for the time being, this will be my version.
Although if this play can have better versions then I'll certainly be there to see them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 2, 2018 19:58:46 GMT
I know you are all going to have a go at me for making judgements based on a poster, but the publicity for this really put me off. The poster looks as though it is signalling the interracial relationship as something dangerous (omg! A black man with a white woman!!!!). The poster is just a photo of the two leading actors in the production. That’s all. It’s essentially a production shot. You’d prefer them not to use photos of the actors because one is black and one is white ? You argument really seems to be it shouldn’t have been cast in that racial way at all. However, it is a play where the difference in social class of the characters is very important. As it is in The Cherry Orchard where Michael Boyd cast similarly. Not seen this yet but this is a play with three people talking in a room, it is best in a small space. The recent production at Jermyn Street was excellent. |
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 2, 2018 20:41:00 GMT
Exactly, the social class is this play, but in this Cracknall/Stenham production it goes for nothing.
Jean is made into a Ghanaian chauffeur. His place of birth and heritage are rarely mentioned.
Kristina is turned into a South American maid, with a child back home (briefly referenced).
Jean and Julie's different views on money is as close as the production gets to a social/class investigation.
And with all the politics stomped out, we know Billington for one is going to hate it.
And he'd be right to, because as Jan has said it's essentially the heart of the play.
|
|
3,303 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 2, 2018 20:56:05 GMT
Having watched this tonight, all I can I say is that it’s 80 mins of my life that I will never get back. I’m glad I only paid £15. If there was any social commentary or message to come away with then sorry I must have missed it. Overall, I found the main characters without much depth or development over the piece. Normally I try to find something positive to say about productions, but quite frankly, I’m stumped to find anything to say of a positive nature. The only thing I could say was the scene with the blender. No spoilers here, but let’s just say it finds an interesting use for it in this production.
I don’t understand the racial casting issue. For me it didn’t really make any difference, I have much bigger issue with the quality of the script and at times the 1 dimensional characters on stage.
FYI - if you are photo sensitive, be warned, the first 10 mins using strobe lighting.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 2, 2018 21:07:09 GMT
Having watched this tonight, all I can I say is that it’s 80 mins of my life that I will never get back. I’m glad I only paid £15. If there was any social commentary or message to come away with then sorry I must have missed it. Overall, I found the main characters without much depth or development over the piece. Normally I try to find something positive to say about productions, but quite frankly, I’m stumped to find anything to say of a positive nature. The only thing I could say was the scene with the blender. No spoilers here, but let’s just say it finds an interesting use for it in this production. I don’t understand the racial casting issue. For me it didn’t really make any difference, I have much bigger issue with the quality of the script and at times the 1 dimensional characters on stage. FYI - if you are photo sensitive, be warned, the first 10 mins using strobe lighting. Yes to all of this. The blender moment (no spoilers) is in this production now given to Julie, whereas normally it's always given to Jean to do. We guessed (in attempting to justify another strange choice) that it was to show Julie taking charge of her own downfall further, but in doing that it just created another example of where the creative team have chosen to take away another moment to really connect Jean and Julie. Maybe they just did it because it's different and they know the critics will spot is as a difference? Zzzzzz. So weird. |
|
3,303 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 2, 2018 21:16:28 GMT
Having watched this tonight, all I can I say is that it’s 80 mins of my life that I will never get back. I’m glad I only paid £15. If there was any social commentary or message to come away with then sorry I must have missed it. Overall, I found the main characters without much depth or development over the piece. Normally I try to find something positive to say about productions, but quite frankly, I’m stumped to find anything to say of a positive nature. The only thing I could say was the scene with the blender. No spoilers here, but let’s just say it finds an interesting use for it in this production. I don’t understand the racial casting issue. For me it didn’t really make any difference, I have much bigger issue with the quality of the script and at times the 1 dimensional characters on stage. FYI - if you are photo sensitive, be warned, the first 10 mins using strobe lighting. Yes to all of this. The blender moment (no spoilers) is in this production now given to Julie, whereas normally it's always given to Jean to do. We guessed (in attempting to justify another strange choice) that it was to show Julie taking charge of her own downfall further, but in doing that it just created another example of where the creative team have chosen to take away another moment to really connect Jean and Julie. Maybe they just did it because it's different and they know the critics will spot is as a difference? Zzzzzz. So weird. I just think that the issue of mental health was dealt with far more effectively with People, Places and Things which was far superior and devasting. Because the main characters are so wooden, for me you completely lose the effectiveness of the ending Julie, whereas in PPT it hits you in the face and you actually care, but here, it just left me feeling nothing as I couldn’t invest anything in any of the characters. |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 2, 2018 21:37:53 GMT
Interracial relationships are normal. Hmmm.... honestly, I'd love that to be true, but I'm really not sure that it is regarded that way across all sections of society? . Maybe it’s better to say they are less unusual. My interracial marriage is just approaching the 21 year mark and my 3 siblings account for another two. They’re great! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 21:47:57 GMT
Saw it tonight and I liked it but it all felt too short. The ideas all felt a bit rushed and while they briefly talked about onething they felt they could just tick it off and go to the next idea and theme like class.I usually feel shows are too long but this felt like it needed to be quite a bit longer so nothing felt rushed and ideas felt formed and we cared for the characters more , I personally think an interval would have been good after the blender as it would have been a bit shock and cliff hanger and a good pint to show what Julie may be capable of. The performances where all good but never felt for Julie and didn’t care what happened to her in the end. Liked the set design and did enjoy it but felt underwhelmed. May post more when i have thought about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 22:03:10 GMT
Hmmm.... honestly, I'd love that to be true, but I'm really not sure that it is regarded that way across all sections of society? . Maybe it’s better to say they are less unusual. My interracial marriage is just approaching the 21 year mark and my 3 siblings account for another two. They’re great! I should probably have said that interracial relationships are normal to me and in my world. I don't move in circles where people think it's a problem, thank goodness. Congratulations, Bellboard. In this day and age any marriage that has lasted that long should be celebrated. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 22:16:42 GMT
Patrick Marber gave the blender bit to Julie as well, iirc, in After Miss Julie.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 2, 2018 22:54:13 GMT
Patrick Marber gave the blender bit to Julie as well, iirc, in After Miss Julie. That production was so brilliant. |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 3, 2018 8:16:39 GMT
Patrick Marber gave the blender bit to Julie as well, iirc, in After Miss Julie. That production was so brilliant.
Agreed. Natalie Dormer was the perfect Julie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 3, 2018 8:17:08 GMT
Maybe it’s better to say they are less unusual. My interracial marriage is just approaching the 21 year mark and my 3 siblings account for another two. They’re great! I should probably have said that interracial relationships are normal to me and in my world. I don't move in circles where people think it's a problem, thank goodness. Puzzling you read so much into a bland poster simply showing the two leading actors then. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 9:59:05 GMT
I should probably have said that interracial relationships are normal to me and in my world. I don't move in circles where people think it's a problem, thank goodness. Puzzling you read so much into a bland poster simply showing the two leading actors then. Because the poster is not simply showing two leading actors. It is posed to suggest characters and a story. Anyone who knows the play will construct a story from the images they see. From my memory of the play it focuses on the taboo of relations between the classes. It is obvious that race has been brought into this version (confirmed by Stenham herself). There isn’t the space here to discuss the more complex aspects of representation but I like this forum and it is important to me that people do not read the bias you imply into my future posts. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jun 3, 2018 11:14:20 GMT
I think the casting works for a modern Julie. It would have been far bolder to have BME Julie and white male actor though if there was a point about race to be made, showing a BME woman in a position of power would be ground breaking.
I am not seeing until August but the lack of chemistry is the biggest concern, as much I am the first to be screaming that we need to cast more BME in traditionally white roles/white casted roles but if the casting doesn't work then it undermines everyone in the production.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 3, 2018 11:40:17 GMT
That production was so brilliant.
Agreed. Natalie Dormer was the perfect Julie.
Where was that on? She would have been brilliant. We had Kelly Reilly at the Donmar After Miss Julie. Again, sensational. |
|
