|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2018 11:51:30 GMT
I don't think there is a connection so much as there is a desire to sell tickets. Precisely, and that makes the whole "to celebrate England's success" thing rather tawdry. Well it's better than saying "we're not selling many tickets so we need to shift 'em but please come and see our show anyway, it's great". It's basic marketing really, I don't think it's necessarily tawdry. Theatres can't win it seems. People aren't happy if they don't sell cheap tickets and they're sniffy when they do. It's a world gone mad.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2018 12:37:16 GMT
I doubt they'll be selling many tickets for the Saturday matinee...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2018 13:05:39 GMT
I'm flying on Saturday afternoon but would definitely be looking for a matinee if I was in London, so maybe this is not bad marketing. I went for a pizza in Soho last night - it was delightful quiet and serene.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 4, 2018 14:11:09 GMT
It won't be quiet in Soho this Saturday afternoon that is for certain
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2018 14:15:36 GMT
It won't be quiet in Soho this Saturday afternoon that is for certain Depends - in pubs showing the football, no. Places with no football (eg most of Old Compton Street) - bliss. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2018 14:22:29 GMT
Isn't it Pride this Saturday? Soho will be HEAVING.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 4, 2018 14:25:59 GMT
Isn't it Pride this Saturday? Soho will be HEAVING. It is indeed It will take you an hour to walk down Old Compton Street - if you are lucky! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2018 17:12:24 GMT
OMG good point!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2018 18:06:22 GMT
Yay for the gays! Good luck to you if you're going to see Aladdin on Saturday!
|
|
2,743 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Jul 4, 2018 18:33:02 GMT
I plan to see Aladdin, and several lads out.
|
|
4,975 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 20, 2018 23:11:50 GMT
Many times I have disagreed with critics, where they’ve trashed stuff, but I have seen redeeming features in the piece presented, this play has got a slew of 2 Stars, so again I go against the critics and say they’ve been overly generous.
Don’t know if this play has the ability to leave me infertile, but it sure did kill many many brain cells.
The worst play I have seen at the Hampstead and beats Wild by a long chalk. So with two bad plays in a row, didn’t see the last one, thankfully it won’t be a hat-rick as the next play The Humans is excellent.
1 sperm, sorry meant Star!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 12:48:40 GMT
I think they chose the wrong director for this project. Some of the directorial choices do not best serve the play. Script still needs work - a lot of extraneous characters could be cut because they bludgeon you over the head with arguments that are more subtly and cleverly suggested by the main characters’ actions. Some of the jokes are misjudged and don’t land because their targets are too important (very difficult to get laughs out of domestic abuse). BUT the exploration of the way in which fertility treatment has been marketised is very interesting and I had a fairly enjoyable experience.
|
|
1,345 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Jul 28, 2018 18:02:17 GMT
This could have been good. I'm trying to find a few positives in this. So - the ideas about fertility that were aired were very interesting, the scene changes were very seemless, Harry Enfield is a much better actor than I thought he would be and Arthur Darvill plays the piano really well. Everything else about it was bad - a formless, badly constructed mess of a play; not sure whether it's trying to be realistic or trying to be a review/sketch show. It's trying to be hilariously funny most of the time but none of the 'gags' land. The overall lack of audience response was embarrassingly tangible. Definitely the worst thing I've ever seen at Hampstead, although, unbelievably, a few mad souls gave it a standing ovation!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2018 0:09:10 GMT
This could have been good. I'm trying to find a few positives in this. So - the ideas about fertility that were aired were very interesting, the scene changes were very seemless, Harry Enfield is a much better actor than I thought he would be and Arthur Darvill plays the piano really well. Everything else about it was bad - a formless, badly constructed mess of a play; not sure whether it's trying to be realistic or trying to be a review/sketch show. It's trying to be hilariously funny most of the time but none of the 'gags' land. The overall lack of audience response was embarrassingly tangible. Definitely the worst thing I've ever seen at Hampstead, although, unbelievably, a few mad souls gave it a standing ovation! There were a few standing O's when I saw it too. I am guessing that a few people have experienced fertility issues and so have an emotional connection with the material |
|
82 posts
|
Post by missbabs on Jul 29, 2018 13:44:07 GMT
This was a truly terrible production.
One thing that I didn't like was the music. That, and the presence of Harry Enfield, made me feel like I was watching a bad 90s sitcom.
|
|
423 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Jul 30, 2018 8:36:36 GMT
I caught this on Saturday and was shocked at just how God-awful it was. it's one thing when the Hampstead dramaturgy fails a play - but the design was notably without imagination and Laurie Sansom's direction was non-existent. Hampstead is now working on a half commercial - testing the waters for the West End subsidy basis, hence Caroline ( or Change) and the upcoming The Humans ( with the original Broadway cast) - so there must be some major money behind this truly lousy play to even get it on here. I'm not familiar with Ms Kennedy's other work so please forgive this question: Is she married to someone rich? Is she Harry Enfield's niece? Or Arthur Darvill's girl friend? Who does she know that this could get a production? I'm beginning to think that Hampstead is making a return to the dark days of Anthony Clark's stewardship. Bleah!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 8:43:20 GMT
If I were a significantly more cynical person than I am, I would consider the possibility that Ed Hall is purposefully programming bad plays by female playwrights so in a few months, he can go back to programming only male playwrights, and when people pull him up on it, he can point back and say "but I TRIED programming female playwrights and they were BAD". Much like we had to wait FOREVER for a Wonder Woman movie, because Hollywood didn't want to make any female-led comic book movies after Catwoman and Elektra were so poorly received, yet they quite merrily continued to make male-led comic book movies even though not all of those were very good either.
|
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on Jul 30, 2018 9:47:08 GMT
If I were a significantly more cynical person than I am, I would consider the possibility that Ed Hall is purposefully programming bad plays by female playwrights so in a few months, he can go back to programming only male playwrights, and when people pull him up on it, he can point back and say "but I TRIED programming female playwrights and they were BAD". Much like we had to wait FOREVER for a Wonder Woman movie, because Hollywood didn't want to make any female-led comic book movies after Catwoman and Elektra were so poorly received, yet they quite merrily continued to make male-led comic book movies even though not all of those were very good either.
I don't think it's this. They had a couple of good plays by women downstairs recently. (Yous Two and Acceptance). Interestingly, the play by a woman that Hall chose to direct (and to throw resources at) downstairs wasn't good at all.
My sense is that Hall just doesn't understand how to identify what's good from a script, and he has employed a dramaturg who doesn't know that either (certainly the play of his own that the dramaturg had staged showed no sign that he understood how to structure a story on stage. and nobody involved in 'genesis' seemed to know that either).
So what they end up doing is just throwing stuff at the wall (and trying to work off reputation) and seeing what sticks. And, given that ends up as a loss-making strategy (because of the low hit rate) upstairs, they've ended up going for tried and tested plays from the US instead...
So, yeah, mostly they need a competent dramaturg. Though there are very few of those around..
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Jul 30, 2018 10:01:50 GMT
The Phlebotomist, also downstairs and also by a young woman, was good too. I agree they need a better dramaturg. I also think the US plays they've chosen to do upstairs have been a real mixed bag, ranging from the excellent (Good People) to the atrocious (Sex with Strangers).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 10:20:04 GMT
I can’t think of one theatre in London that has a great dramaturg (excuse my Londoncentricity but I don’t often venture to regional theatres). For a start many of them are too young: it takes a lifetime of analysing plays and deep empathy to be able to draw a fantastic play out of someone and, in the case of younger writers, to help inculcate in them working and analytical habits that will see them through a whole career. I enjoyed this play more than most because I kept rewriting it in my head (when this happens I know a play needs work because I am not a dramaturg). Who is the dramaturg at Hampstead?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 10:21:48 GMT
Who is the dramaturg at Hampstead? Will Mortimer isn't it? |
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Jul 30, 2018 10:39:42 GMT
It is. He has been there for eight years.
|
|
