1,254 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jun 5, 2018 16:36:25 GMT
A performance of Julie at the National Theatre was disrupted in its final moments after two audience members became embroiled in a fight. Another theatregoer, Samantha Andrews, wrote on Twitter that she had seen a “punch up at the end of Julie” and added that the incident had “ruined the end of the show”. Olivia Baker, who was also in the audience, said those in the circle had not applauded the performance because they were distracted by the fight. She added that two people were “shoving each other” and everyone was watching “worried they would fall” rather than “cheering the stunning cast”. Rachelle Grubb @rach__elle 3 Jun Replying to @zestofalemon @nationaltheatre Wait what? A fight? Olivia Baker @zestofalemon Yes two people shoving each other! Everyone was watching them, worried one would fall, rather than cheering the stunning cast. 2:22 PM - Jun 3, 2018 See Olivia Baker's other Tweets Twitter Ads info and privacy Helen Jerome said the fight had been between “two middle-aged blokes”. helenjerome @helenjerome As if there wasn’t enough onstage drama 🔥 in #Julie @nationaltheatre - as the play ended tonight, a fight broke out in the circle between a couple of middle-aged blokes, held back by their respective crews 🥊 #poshscrap #leaveit #heaintworthit 9:14 PM - Jun 2, 2018 7 See helenjerome's other Tweets Twitter Ads info and privacy One audience member questioned whether any theatre staff had intervened. Samantha Andrews @samantha_SJA 2 Jun Some audience members just had a punch up at the end of #Julie at #thenationaltheatre didn’t know whether to watch the stage or the other antics! Gemma Payne @pleasureinpayne The noise was unnerving in that environment and not an usher insight  3:33 PM - Jun 3, 2018 See Gemma Payne's other Tweets Twitter Ads info and privacy The incident follows a fight at the Old Vic last year, in which an audience member claimed he was punched by another theatregoer for challenging him about using a mobile phone. The National Theatre was unavailable for comment at the time of publication. |
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 5, 2018 17:30:31 GMT
Finally! Some drama, tension, and dynamic action in the Lyttleton during a performance of Julie!
They should keep it in every show.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 0:25:45 GMT
I don't think I've seen director Carrie Cracknell's work before, but on the strength of this I would rate her as slightly better than Norris.
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Jun 6, 2018 10:38:42 GMT
Re. the fight, I see some wag on Twitter said it was Baz and Shenton finally sorting out their differences! Obviously not true as Shenton would never be sitting in the circle.
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 6, 2018 16:16:00 GMT
Oh dear, so 'the look' was a bit too much this time..
|
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jun 6, 2018 21:46:42 GMT
Re. the fight, I see some wag on Twitter said it was Baz and Shenton finally sorting out their differences! Obviously not true as Shenton would never be sitting in the circle. It was actually Ryan, discussing the great ginormous central table that restricted his view of a shirtless Eric Kofi Abrefa, with the Production Designer. |
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jun 6, 2018 22:43:21 GMT
Denying Strindberg his ‘slut shaming as art’ is long overdue. . . Saw this tonight, and this is the context and purpose of this production. Spoilers follow. . . Strindberg thought women were generally useless, and uppity women, who aspired to equality with men, worse than useless. Patrick Marber sneakily sidestepped the issue of Strindberg's misogyny by turning his version of Miss Julie into a rollicking sado-masochistic romp, of endless power-games. Natalie Dormer's whole wheelhouse is power games, so her version was a triumph, even better than the Donmar's, and better too than the film before that. But this production is not a sexy sado-masochistic romp at all. It is a sad story of a mentally ill, infantilised female, dealing with the legacy of her mother's suicide, and her attempt to escape her psychological nightmares by glomming onto her father's chauffeur. It is Strindberg's sexist scenario filtered through Polly Stenham's recontextualising compassion for the idle rich and Carrie Cracknell's contempt for the patriarchy. It is Dolls House Part 2 - one hundred years later, a tale of a messed up drug-abusing Tara Palmer Tompkinson type, impulsively and desperately looking for relief from her psychological torments in all the wrong places. This is entirely the story of Vanessa Kirby's Julie, with Kofi Abrefa's Jean merely along for the ride, literally. Abreja's Jean's race is only an issue in the sense that Julie ignorantly assumes African families to be helpless and covered "in flies," when realistically, he is sophisticated and wily, and it is her own mind that is infested with flies. That the real antagonist is Strindberg himself is evident from every rewritten reinterpretation of every line in the play. As Julie tells Jean: "Don't be so Victorian!" I found myself wishing for Strindberg to be an actual character in the play, lounging at the side of the stage, telling his "truths," Inheritance-style, so that the real drama of this piece could have human embodiment. If this had been done, this production could have reached 5 star heights. As it is, Vanessa Kirby constructs a relatable, immediate, sometimes funny, often tragic, always powerful portrait of a woman infantilised by her upbringing to be unable to take care of herself. I loved the way Kirby presented Julie as a witty presentable powerful figure, only to pull the rug out of every facet of Julie's personality brick by tragic brick. I've seen much of Kirby's stage work, from The Acid House to Streetcar, and her work here is up there with the best of it. Despite her supposedly unsympathetic character here, I was moved to tears. 4 stars from me.  PS: My view of the dance floor stage at the back was restricted by the big table in the middle of the front kitchen stage. The view from the front £15 seats is therefore somewhat restricted, as well as involving cricking of the neck, due to a high stage. Go further back, if you can afford it. |
|
3,303 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 6, 2018 23:07:17 GMT
Denying Strindberg his ‘slut shaming as art’ is long overdue. . . Saw this tonight, and this is the context and purpose of this production. Spoilers follow. . . Strindberg thought women were generally useless, and uppity women, who aspired to equality with men, worse than useless. Patrick Marber sneakily sidestepped the issue of Strindberg's misogyny by turning his version of Miss Julie into a rollicking sado-masochistic romp, of endless power-games. Natalie Dormer's whole wheelhouse is power games, so her version was a triumph, even better than the Donmar's, and better too than the film before that. But this production is not a sexy sado-masochistic romp at all. It is a sad story of a mentally ill, infantilised female, dealing with the legacy of her mother's suicide, and her attempt to escape her psychological nightmares by glomming onto her father's chauffeur. It is Strindberg's sexist scenario filtered through Polly Stenham's recontextualising compassion for the idle rich and Carrie Cracknell's contempt for the patriarchy. It is Dolls House Part 2 - one hundred years later, a tale of a messed up drug-abusing Tara Palmer Tompkinson type, impulsively and desperately looking for relief from her psychological torments in all the wrong places. This is entirely the story of Vanessa Kirby's Julie, with Kofi Abrefa's Jean merely along for the ride, literally. Abreja's Jean's race is only an issue in the sense that Julie ignorantly assumes African families to be helpless and covered "in flies," when realistically, he is sophisticated and wily, and it is her own mind that is infested with flies. That the real antagonist is Strindberg himself is evident from every rewritten reinterpretation of every line in the play. As Julie tells Jean: "Don't be so Victorian!" I found myself wishing for Strindberg to be an actual character in the play, lounging at the side of the stage, telling his "truths," Inheritance-style, so that the real drama of this piece could have human embodiment. If this had been done, this production could have reached 5 star heights. As it is, Vanessa Kirby constructs a relatable, immediate, sometimes funny, often tragic, always powerful portrait of a woman infantilised by her upbringing to be unable to take care of herself. I loved the way Kirby presented Julie as a witty presentable powerful figure, only to pull the rug out of every facet of Julie's personality brick by tragic brick. I've seen much of Kirby's stage work, from The Acid House to Streetcar, and her work here is up there with the best of it. Despite her supposedly unsympathetic character here, I was moved to tears. 4 stars from me. PS: My view of the dance floor stage at the back was restricted by the big table in the middle of the front kitchen stage. The view from the front £15 seats is therefore somewhat restricted, as well as involving cricking of the neck, due to a high stage. Go further back, if you can afford it. Having watched this last Saturday, I have to agree with you about Vanessa Kirby’s performance. It was interesting to see her deconstruct the character over the 80mins, though I just thought there was something lacking for me in the script as a whole that during the final scene it didn’t have that emotional impact as say People, Places and Things did. By the end of that final scene with the mum, it left me devastated as the lights came up, but with Julie I just couldn’t get that same emotional response. Overall, I think there is a good play in there with Julie somewhere, but in the final analysis, I just didn’t warm to it. On you point with the stalls seating I definitely agree with you that for this play, because of the staging, I had trouble seeing the back of the stage from Row D because of the placement of the very long dining table. As you say, it’s probably best to go further back or get seats in the circle section for a clear view of the stage. |
|
2,052 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jun 7, 2018 6:57:34 GMT
Maybe it was some of the previous comments about this had not been leading me to expect much from this production, but I was rather impressed with this: yes the dance scenes were a bit of a shambles, there wasn't much of a real chemistry between the two leads and the sex scene was slightly embarrassing rather than anything 'erotic' (up a ladder?) but I liked the way this built to this climax, all three actors were excellent and at 80 minutes, it didn't overstay its welcome.
Not one to go and see if you're fond of pet birds though...
|
|
|
|
Post by christypoe on Jun 7, 2018 7:25:28 GMT
Maybe it was some of the previous comments about this had not been leading me to expect much from this production, but I was rather impressed with this: yes the dance scenes were a bit of a shambles, there wasn't much of a real chemistry between the two leads and the sex scene was slightly embarrassing rather than anything 'erotic' (up a ladder?) but I liked the way this built to this climax, all three actors were excellent and at 80 minutes, it didn't overstay its welcome. Not one to go and see if you're fond of pet birds though... People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 8:19:06 GMT
Maybe it was some of the previous comments about this had not been leading me to expect much from this production, but I was rather impressed with this: yes the dance scenes were a bit of a shambles, there wasn't much of a real chemistry between the two leads and the sex scene was slightly embarrassing rather than anything 'erotic' (up a ladder?) but I liked the way this built to this climax, all three actors were excellent and at 80 minutes, it didn't overstay its welcome. Not one to go and see if you're fond of pet birds though... People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. Given the cost of the seats, previews should be considerably more than a 'rehearsal'; of course they are not the finished product but they are there to assess how the piece that was finished in rehearsals works in front of an audience, and tweak accordingly. The piece itself should be audience-ready. If major changes are happening in previews it's usually a bad sign. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 8:46:30 GMT
If this works it is due to the force of Strindberg’s original play. Whether or not the playwright was racist or misogynist his original play is gutsy, raw and potent. Stenham’s script is half baked. The lack of chemistry is due to the undeveloped characters and script as a whole. If the Theatre is going to throw All it’s resources at a show like this (resources that cover up this shoddiness) at the very least they could start with a tight script. Great actors like Kirby can make a world of difference but their work is easier and more powerful of the script is good.
|
|
2,052 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jun 7, 2018 8:48:27 GMT
Places like the NT, preview prices are only £5-£10 cheaper than the main run: rehearsals of shows in front of an audience, that may or may not yet be fit for purpose, should either be free, or charge a very low price for those attending.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 8:54:32 GMT
Maybe it was some of the previous comments about this had not been leading me to expect much from this production, but I was rather impressed with this: yes the dance scenes were a bit of a shambles, there wasn't much of a real chemistry between the two leads and the sex scene was slightly embarrassing rather than anything 'erotic' (up a ladder?) but I liked the way this built to this climax, all three actors were excellent and at 80 minutes, it didn't overstay its welcome. Not one to go and see if you're fond of pet birds though... People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. A preview is a bit more than a rehearsal though isn't it? It should be pretty much ready by the preview shouldn't it? Anyhoo, lovely to have you with us though Vanessa. Loved you in 'The Crown', sorry you won't be in the new series. |
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 7, 2018 9:32:09 GMT
Maybe it was some of the previous comments about this had not been leading me to expect much from this production, but I was rather impressed with this: yes the dance scenes were a bit of a shambles, there wasn't much of a real chemistry between the two leads and the sex scene was slightly embarrassing rather than anything 'erotic' (up a ladder?) but I liked the way this built to this climax, all three actors were excellent and at 80 minutes, it didn't overstay its welcome. Not one to go and see if you're fond of pet birds though... People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. But you can't fix the lack of chemistry in the central relationship in Previews. A major contributing factor in why this production fails. |
|
|
|
Post by christypoe on Jun 7, 2018 9:38:06 GMT
People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. A preview is a bit more than a rehearsal though isn't it? It should be pretty much ready by the preview shouldn't it? Anyhoo, lovely to have you with us though Vanessa. Loved you in 'The Crown', sorry you won't be in the new series. I think Vanessa might be a bit too busy at the moment to post on here, don’t you? Anyway, of course previews are fundamentally an extension of the rehearsal process. There is no way a production can be “ready by the previews” when the audience is a fundamental dynamic of any theatre production. What works in the rehearsal room and during the dress might well fall flat on its face when the audience dynamic is added. If you want to see a finished production pay the full price and go see the shows when they open. Personally, I love to watch previews as they are a fascinating part of the creative process, but I would never post a review as if I’ve watched the actual production. |
|
|
|
Post by christypoe on Jun 7, 2018 9:43:19 GMT
People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens. But you can't fix the lack of chemistry in the central relationship in Previews. A major contributing factor in why this production fails. You don’t know if this production has failed; you have only seen an early preview. I’ve seen productions change completely from first preview to opening night. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 10:08:01 GMT
People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. I think there is something in this - even if a preview (especially a late preview) is always markedly more than a rehearsal. Having said that I know of a couple of instances where the first preview has in fact been the first time the play has been performed in the space; no full dress rehearsal, just straight out in front of an audience. The first few previews of a show can obviously encounter all sorts of difficulties - especially if the production is technical, or the play is new, or the cast/creative team have had problems, or the rehearsal period has been difficult. The level of readiness varies massively, so those first handful of previews are always a slight risk for ticket-buyers as the production could be yet to find its shape - and in extreme circumstances the preview might be so far away from being ready that it could even be cancelled. Somebody said something about changes in previews being a bad sign. Possibly - on balance - that is correct. But sometimes previews allow a production to go through a significant tonal shift, or restructuring, that ends up being its making. I believe (anecdotally) Warhorse was one such example, but there will be many. If a production is pressed and open and hasn't got there then that is a failure - but not being there in previews (in my opinion anyway) is not. |
|
1,861 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jun 7, 2018 11:02:54 GMT
As a rule when booking previews to save a few pennies always try to get the night before opening on the assumption this is the run through of the finished item, can’t imagine major changes being introduced on the afternoon of the Press Night.
The biggest fail in previews for me was in Wild at Hampstead where the stage flipped in the final scene which failed during and we were given a description of the effect. Caught the play later in the run and when it worked it was a phenomenal piece of staging.
Back to Julie saw an intimate and intense production at the Jermyn last year, seeing this in a couple of weeks so will be interesting to compare as I thought that was near perfect in a way that can only be attained in a small Theatre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 11:04:39 GMT
I don't take much note of what anyone says about an early preview. Myself, I stopped going to them a long time ago. You don't get to set the tone of the initial conversation by holding back but you invariably get a better evening. Surely the way that some people routinely badmouth early previews and who then get defensive when they get good reviews should have given them pause. I recall one particularly deadly preview of a director's first London production at the old Whitehall, one that I would have barely given any stars to (Simon Godwin - Eurydice). It turned out to be fine in the end and the rest is history.
On what tends to happen, small things add up and make a whole lot of difference. Anyone who has ever been part of that process will know that. I have a number of scripts (both published and rehearsal copies) of plays that changed markedly, the hits as much as the flops. It's fascinating seeing what has been changed and that's a whole area of study in itself. The area of cut songs from musicals is also really interesting (well, to me, maybe not something widely shared). Most Sondheim shows have a large number of changes, for example. Great songs but the audience just didn't respond to them.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 7, 2018 13:38:11 GMT
But you can't fix the lack of chemistry in the central relationship in Previews. A major contributing factor in why this production fails. You don’t know if this production has failed; you have only seen an early preview. I’ve seen productions change completely from first preview to opening night. For us. It failed for us. I wasn't saying it failed for everyone. Vanessa's new fan girls c/o The Crown were loving it, as I noted in my review on page 1. Lots of laughter and gasps. It just didn't work for us. We'll see what the reviewers say tomorrow morning. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 14:01:40 GMT
Sometimes a production doesn’t really work but the performers pull it out of the bag for the press night. Of course they can’t do this every single night or they’d have a nervous and physical breakdown. . I am guessing this is why some shows get a fantastic critical reception but audiences are more lukewarm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 14:06:51 GMT
Has Vanessa Kirby really acquired fan girls from playing Princess Margaret??
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 7, 2018 15:13:23 GMT
Has Vanessa Kirby really acquired fan girls from playing Princess Margaret?? If the squealing duo in Row G behind us were anything to go by, and the six (!!) in front of us to the left, then yes. The ones in front were showing off their gifts for her planned for stage door, one of which was, no joke, an A1 poster with various photos of her as Mags, and "Good Luck" in glitter (which was cascading onto the Lyttelton's carpet with each passing of said poster to each said fan. The poor cleaners lol). They laughed a lot, one at almost everything, although the now infamous "blender" moment seemed to bring silence, and subsequently tears. Check out Twitter too for the fan accounts: VK seems to be taking to this new found fan demographic well though. (but will she ever get the glitter off?) This age group, that night anyway, seemed to really engage with the play. But those of our age and older seemed less so. (One older gentlemen used the play to read the programme essays and biogs, rather than look up.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 16:28:10 GMT
Has Vanessa Kirby really acquired fan girls from playing Princess Margaret?? If the squealing duo in Row G behind us were anything to go by, and the six (!!) in front of us to the left, then yes. The ones in front were showing off their gifts for her planned for stage door, one of which was, no joke, an A1 poster with various photos of her as Mags, and "Good Luck" in glitter (which was cascading onto the Lyttelton's carpet with each passing of said poster to each said fan. The poor cleaners lol). They laughed a lot, one at almost everything, although the now infamous "blender" moment seemed to bring silence, and subsequently tears. Check out Twitter too for the fan accounts: VK seems to be taking to this new found fan demographic well though. (but will she ever get the glitter off?) This age group, that night anyway, seemed to really engage with the play. But those of our age and older seemed less so. (One older gentlemen used the play to read the programme essays and biogs, rather than look up.) Gosh. Well it's true what they say I suppose, "there's nowt so queer as folk". |
|
