3,303 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 7, 2018 16:45:31 GMT
I don’t normally read critic’s reviews about shows, but in this case I’m tempted to see if my own thoughts and tepid response about this production match up with theirs after seeing the production last weekend or I totally misjudged the play.
|
|
5,798 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 7, 2018 20:03:25 GMT
What a hot mess of a show.
I feel bad for Vanessa Kirby who gives it her all but what a misguided attempt this is by Cracknell. I predict some very negative reviews. Thank god it was short.
If you haven’t booked but we’re tempted- don’t bother.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 20:34:11 GMT
Oh no do we think the Littleton will be the next dud theatre as Tramslations has been very well reviewed other stuff there’s looks promising . This and Absolute Hell have not been the best received, I am quite looking forward to the Lehman Triology, that’s cant go wrong can it?
|
|
5,798 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 7, 2018 21:14:32 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. You are so wrong it’s laughable. Not a rehearsal at those prices. Plus they have 7 weeks of rehearsal at the NT. For a 80 min show. No excuses.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 7, 2018 21:51:33 GMT
A preview isn't a rehearsal.
A rehearsal is a rehearsal.
I've seen some fantastic previews - and they were made all the more exciting because you can tell the cast is enjoying the response from the audience (about which they might have been, until those first performances, unsure.) I like to be surprised by theatre and if I've read reviews/heard the hype, that sometimes takes away the enjoyment. I don't know any actors who consider previews rehearsals - they are very aware that they have a paying audience before them. But - I avoid booking early previews for technically complicated shows (having been burnt a couple of times) as they are more likely to have cancellations or stoppages. If you don't like previews, fine, but there are lots of reasons why people might choose to attend them. I'm more averse to going late in long runs when things can be very tired.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 8, 2018 12:47:48 GMT
Well, the reviews are as anticipated.
The 4* ones in The Stage and Whatsonstage seem utterly confused about whether it's good or bad, but have still ended up with 4* ratings??
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 16:14:19 GMT
Divisive reviews (a number of fours, some twos) as opposed to the heavily divisive ones for ‘The Writer’ (some fives, some ones).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 20:06:55 GMT
Well, the reviews are as anticipated. The 4* ones in The Stage and Whatsonstage seem utterly confused about whether it's good or bad, but have still ended up with 4* ratings?? I think that’s fair in a way. I assume the 4 stars are for Kirby not for the writing. At least Billington refused to have the wool pulled over his eyes in regard to the lazy writing.
|
|
1,478 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jun 9, 2018 17:00:30 GMT
Well, the reviews are as anticipated. The 4* ones in The Stage and Whatsonstage seem utterly confused about whether it's good or bad, but have still ended up with 4* ratings?? I think that’s fair in a way. I assume the 4 stars are for Kirby not for the writing. At least Billington refused to have the wool pulled over his eyes in regard to the lazy writing. Billington's problem with this is that the tragedy doesn't emanate from "an inexorable dramatic force." Well, I agree that Polly Stenham's version sidelines Julie's dramatic interplay with Jean, and instead focuses on humanising Julie, at the expense of that external dramatic force. Without that dramatic interplay, Stenham is able to reveal a hidden truth about Julie, that Strindberg was too mean to concede, that she is a mentally ill character with absolutely noone to rely on. The tragedy is milder, quieter, less dramatically diverting, but ultimately also, less programmatic, less constructed, more real, and desperately sad, in a way that's harder to dismiss than if Strindberg's "downfall of an uberbitch" dramatic motors remained in operation. This version thus reaches parts the original did not reach, which makes consideration of the original, in light of this production, richer. That said, it's bitterly funny what a bete noir the typically generous Michael Billington has become for Polly Stenham. Previously, he moaned about her focus on the wealthy, as if a person shouldn't write what they know, something she did marvellously in "No Quarter," in particular, with Tom Sturridge a Johnny Rooster Byron of the upper classes. Then, she tried to branch out, and Billington moaned about her focus on the poor, which she failed to successfully write about in her scattershot misfiring class revolution drama, "Hotel." Now Stenham is back to writing what she knows, about the miserable rich, and Billington is on Stenham's case again, this time for her audacity in not parroting Strindberg's original dramatic design. I, for one, am glad Stenham decided to do something original with the piece. And I'm grateful too that this version has wiped from my mind the glossy emptiness of the Juliette Biniche Miss Julie at the Barbican.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 9, 2018 20:50:20 GMT
I think that’s fair in a way. I assume the 4 stars are for Kirby not for the writing. At least Billington refused to have the wool pulled over his eyes in regard to the lazy writing. Billington's problem with this is that the tragedy doesn't emanate from "an inexorable dramatic force." Well, I agree that Polly Stenham's version sidelines Julie's dramatic interplay with Jean, and instead focuses on humanising Julie, at the expense of that external dramatic force. Without that dramatic interplay, Stenham is able to reveal a hidden truth about Julie, that Strindberg was too mean to concede, that she is a mentally ill character with absolutely noone to rely on. The tragedy is milder, quieter, less dramatically diverting, but ultimately also, less programmatic, less constructed, more real, and desperately sad, in a way that's harder to dismiss than if Strindberg's "downfall of an uberbitch" dramatic motors remained in operation. This version thus reaches parts the original did not reach, which makes consideration of the original, in light of this production, richer. That said, it's bitterly funny what a bete noir the typically generous Michael Billington has become for Polly Stenham. Previously, he moaned about her focus on the wealthy, as if a person shouldn't write what they know, something she did marvellously in "No Quarter," in particular, with Tom Sturridge a Johnny Rooster Byron of the upper classes. Then, she tried to branch out, and Billington moaned about her focus on the poor, which she failed to successfully write about in her scattershot misfiring class revolution drama, "Hotel." Now Stenham is back to writing what she knows, about the miserable rich, and Billington is on Stenham's case again, this time for her audacity in not parroting Strindberg's original dramatic design. I, for one, am glad Stenham decided to do something original with the piece. And I'm grateful too that this version has wiped from my mind the glossy emptiness of the Juliette Biniche Miss Julie at the Barbican. But it's sooooo boring. Give us "dramatic interplay" over "humanising" any day!
|
|
3,303 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 9, 2018 21:16:49 GMT
Billington's problem with this is that the tragedy doesn't emanate from "an inexorable dramatic force." Well, I agree that Polly Stenham's version sidelines Julie's dramatic interplay with Jean, and instead focuses on humanising Julie, at the expense of that external dramatic force. Without that dramatic interplay, Stenham is able to reveal a hidden truth about Julie, that Strindberg was too mean to concede, that she is a mentally ill character with absolutely noone to rely on. The tragedy is milder, quieter, less dramatically diverting, but ultimately also, less programmatic, less constructed, more real, and desperately sad, in a way that's harder to dismiss than if Strindberg's "downfall of an uberbitch" dramatic motors remained in operation. This version thus reaches parts the original did not reach, which makes consideration of the original, in light of this production, richer. That said, it's bitterly funny what a bete noir the typically generous Michael Billington has become for Polly Stenham. Previously, he moaned about her focus on the wealthy, as if a person shouldn't write what they know, something she did marvellously in "No Quarter," in particular, with Tom Sturridge a Johnny Rooster Byron of the upper classes. Then, she tried to branch out, and Billington moaned about her focus on the poor, which she failed to successfully write about in her scattershot misfiring class revolution drama, "Hotel." Now Stenham is back to writing what she knows, about the miserable rich, and Billington is on Stenham's case again, this time for her audacity in not parroting Strindberg's original dramatic design. I, for one, am glad Stenham decided to do something original with the piece. And I'm grateful too that this version has wiped from my mind the glossy emptiness of the Juliette Biniche Miss Julie at the Barbican. But it's sooooo boring. Give us "dramatic interplay" over "humanising" any day! How about an on stage recreation of the incident that occurred in the circle section that was reported in the press. That would definitely provide some “dramatic interplay”!
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 9, 2018 21:39:45 GMT
But it's sooooo boring. Give us "dramatic interplay" over "humanising" any day! How about an on stage recreation of the incident that occurred in the circle section that was reported in the press. That would definitely provide some “dramatic interplay”! [ Yes! Between Julie and Jean! Or Jean and Kristina! I'll take any combination. No Stenham words required. Ann Yee can continue having a crack with the movement on it.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 12, 2018 6:11:37 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. Yes I agree with this. Unfortunately I had seen an exemplary production of this play at Jermyn Street only last year and that made the flaws in this version all too obvious. This follows in a sad tradition of second-rate playwrights adapting a classic play and making it second-rate too - Anya Reiss' hatchet jobs on Chekhov are the template. There were so many subtleties and nuances in the original which were misunderstood or thrown away here - I will just mention one very small one as an example. The stolen wine - what's that about ?: Here we are presented with the fact that the chauffeur has stolen a bottle of wine worth hundreds of pounds (Chateau Latour) from his employer and offers as justification "we might as well drink well". We conclude simply that he's an untrustworthy thief (which is puzzling as it seems to go against his character and loyalty to his boss). At Jermyn Street it was just an ordinary bottle of wine which nevertheless the servants weren't allowed to drink. Jean pulls the cork and sniffs it, pours out a little, swirls it round, tastes it. He's a wine snob. It signals he has ideas above his current social station, he wants to be higher up the social scale and has adopted the mannerisms of his social betters, he is preparing himself for social advancement. As the play is driven by the difference in social class between Julie and Jean it is a telling point. As mentioned by others there is no chemistry at all between the leads - I think this is because Stenham has no gift at all for dialogue, it is hard to have chemistry when you're having to spout meaningless platitudes to each other all the time. Actually Julie's dialogue was believable but Jean and Kristina (not much different) wasn't in the slightest bit. Just due to the personal experience of the writer I suppose and no ear for different speech patterns. Carrie Cracknell really needs to stop putting bits of distracting and embarrassing choreography into plays - the "party" here was just terrible, it looked like what it was, a bunch of highly-choreographed professional actors. The blender incident got big laughs, as did several other dramatic moments - due to poor writing I think helped along by a few Kirby fans who were laughing at a lot of her lines. Nice set by Tom Scutt.
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Jun 12, 2018 6:15:52 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. Wrong! A rehearsal is erm a rehearsal. These are professional ticketed performances at the National freaking Theatre. Time to maybe fine tune before press night but thats it.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 12, 2018 11:11:22 GMT
I am quite looking forward to the Lehman Triology, that’s cant go wrong can it? The Lehman Trilogy has had really mixed reviews wherever it has been staged - it was booed by some audiences in Italy. I think there is a risk here that people’s expectations are so far adrift from reality that there may be problems. It isn’t naturalistic, it has stream-of-consciousness monologues and narration instead of dialogue, it doesn’t really cover the fall of Lehmans in our era, stagings so far have been with white-box sets, it is very long, etc.
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Jun 12, 2018 12:39:51 GMT
I am quite looking forward to the Lehman Triology, that’s cant go wrong can it? The Lehman Trilogy has had really mixed reviews wherever it has been staged - it was booed by some audiences in Italy. I think there is a risk here that people’s expectations are so far adrift from reality that there may be problems. It isn’t naturalistic, it has stream-of-consciousness monologues and narration instead of dialogue, it doesn’t really cover the fall of Lehmans in our era, stagings so far have been with white-box sets, it is very long, etc. Yes prof but are you going to it?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 12, 2018 13:19:12 GMT
The Lehman Trilogy has had really mixed reviews wherever it has been staged - it was booed by some audiences in Italy. I think there is a risk here that people’s expectations are so far adrift from reality that there may be problems. It isn’t naturalistic, it has stream-of-consciousness monologues and narration instead of dialogue, it doesn’t really cover the fall of Lehmans in our era, stagings so far have been with white-box sets, it is very long, etc. Yes prof but are you going to it? Was it written before 1970 ?
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 12, 2018 16:40:42 GMT
Well I always said I would turn up for SRB reading from the telephone directory so I guess this is the test!
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Jun 12, 2018 17:13:48 GMT
Well I always said I would turn up for SRB reading from the telephone directory so I guess this is the test! Have to say this is the reason i booked! I have a few of his over the years so i took the plunge with this. Didnt expect it to be a three hander though!!
|
|
516 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Jun 12, 2018 20:20:25 GMT
I didn't realise until afterwards, but in the Saturday matinee, there was a SM error. A trap door opened in the stage and a ladder came up. I assume that's how the illusion is done later on?
Other than that, and a rather gimmicky production, I really liked this, especially the script and performances.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jun 12, 2018 21:54:09 GMT
I am quite looking forward to the Lehman Triology, that’s cant go wrong can it? The Lehman Trilogy has had really mixed reviews wherever it has been staged - it was booed by some audiences in Italy. I think there is a risk here that people’s expectations are so far adrift from reality that there may be problems. It isn’t naturalistic, it has stream-of-consciousness monologues and narration instead of dialogue, it doesn’t really cover the fall of Lehmans in our era, stagings so far have been with white-box sets, it is very long, etc. Thanks for the heads up, will modify expectations, like lynette i booked for SRB so will similarly test my i'll watch anything he's in theory.
|
|
527 posts
|
Post by vabbian on Jun 16, 2018 12:35:59 GMT
I enjoyed this. 3/5
Simple staging, but acted well by the two mains. Vanessa Kirby was a joy to watch, especially up close, very charismatic.
Predictable play though, incredibly mundane, and forgettable.
But if you are fans of The Crown or muscley men, it's not a bad way to spend an evening.
|
|
1,081 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jun 17, 2018 19:41:51 GMT
But if you are fans of The Crown or muscley men, it's not a bad way to spend an evening. HOW ABOUT BOTH?!
|
|
3,303 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 17, 2018 19:51:32 GMT
I enjoyed this. 3/5 Simple staging, but acted well by the two mains. Vanessa Kirby was a joy to watch, especially up close, very charismatic. Predictable play though, incredibly mundane, and forgettable. But if you are fans of The Crown or muscley men, it's not a bad way to spend an evening. You also get an education in an alternative use for blenders! Though don’t expect to see that on any cookery programme anytime soon.
|
|
527 posts
|
Post by vabbian on Jun 18, 2018 10:50:30 GMT
But if you are fans of The Crown or muscley men, it's not a bad way to spend an evening. HOW ABOUT BOTH?!
|
|