1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 4, 2018 10:24:00 GMT
I sleepily saw the original post on twitter and at first thought it was a complaint about Ibsen.
Then because there is a lot of meta-theatricality in the Wild Duck production thought it might have been another example of that.
But now am totally mystified, but someone is obviously on it in terms of keeping it - whatever it was or wasn't - quiet. (Odd sign - hard to know how to interpret.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2018 10:25:45 GMT
@emicardiff - Whatever you linked to appears to have vanished... See post above yours. The original tweeter got contacted within an hour of it being posted and accused of libel (wasn't her sign, she was asking if anyone saw the sign at press night and if anyone walked out as the sign asked people to do. She also feels really sh*t about it now, so thanks to a certain director and his agent for making a woman feel really sh*tting for asking a innocent question) |
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Nov 4, 2018 10:35:57 GMT
Agree @emicardiff seemed like an innocent request to see if there was any validity in the statement and whether anyone acted on the request. The letter appeared amateurish, low on any corroboration and I had already moved on as we are constantly being bombarded with similar snippets and the person in question was most probably of a similar mindset and just wanted clarification.
Having it pulled so quickly now makes it seem more sinister and feeds the fire of the original accusation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2018 10:44:37 GMT
Agree @emicardiff seemed like an innocent request to see if there was any validity in the statement and whether anyone acted on the request. The letter appeared amateurish, low on any corroboration and I had already moved on as we are constantly being bombarded with similar snippets and the person in question was most probably of a similar mindset and just wanted clarification. Having it pulled so quickly now makes it seem more sinister and feeds the fire of the original accusation. Exactly that! the tweeter (who I've just been talking to and was quite upset by the whole thing) was asking a genuine 'so did anything happen at press night that I missed' not fuelling any rumours about what was being accused etc. But that atmosphere of 'take it down' does nothing to quash rumours does it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2018 12:05:26 GMT
Remember when Barbra Streisand didn't want photographers taking photos of her house (even though they were just taking pictures of the entire coastline and her house happened to be a tiny part of that) and no one had actually cared about her house before but once she took legal steps to make them stop EVERYONE wanted to see the photos of her house?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2018 12:22:05 GMT
Twitter lets pretty much anything go (see the so called president of the USA as evidence A) so it has to be really out there or subject to pre existing legal orders to get removed.
|
|
1,254 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Nov 5, 2018 22:28:28 GMT
Running time on website currently showing as 2 hours 35 plus a 20 min interval. So that’s nearly 3 hours, correct? Or 2 hrs 35 total? Confused.com
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2018 22:46:44 GMT
Running time on website currently showing as 2 hours 35 plus a 20 min interval. So that’s nearly 3 hours, correct? Or 2 hrs 35 total? Confused.com Just short of three hours. I’ve seen this ‘plus interval’ timing a few times recently at different venues and its use instead of the usual ‘including interval’ is very misleading. Looking back, the Almeida were using ‘including interval’ as recently as for Summer and Smoke so it’s a change that appears to make no sense. |
|
546 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Nov 5, 2018 22:49:41 GMT
Was done by 10:20 the night I went.
|
|
116 posts
|
Post by alexandra on Nov 6, 2018 12:03:32 GMT
Running time on website currently showing as 2 hours 35 plus a 20 min interval. So that’s nearly 3 hours, correct? Or 2 hrs 35 total? Confused.com Just short of three hours. I’ve seen this ‘plus interval’ timing a few times recently at different venues and its use instead of the usual ‘including interval’ is very misleading. Looking back, the Almeida were using ‘including interval’ as recently as for Summer and Smoke so it’s a change that appears to make no sense. Completely failing to see how this is anything other than crystal clear. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2018 12:27:39 GMT
Just short of three hours. I’ve seen this ‘plus interval’ timing a few times recently at different venues and its use instead of the usual ‘including interval’ is very misleading. Looking back, the Almeida were using ‘including interval’ as recently as for Summer and Smoke so it’s a change that appears to make no sense. Completely failing to see how this is anything other than crystal clear. It's clear on its own but the context is that they have always done the opposite. Does anyone know why they've made this change? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2018 13:35:04 GMT
They are still using "including interval" for Summer and Smoke on the website so it is an odd change to make. Maybe the "3" key has broken on their typewriter. Only other theatre I'm aware of that does this is the RSC.
|
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Nov 6, 2018 13:40:58 GMT
Maybe they just think a 3-hour show sounds inherently off-putting in a way that a 2 1/2 hour show doesn't. Doesn't help those who don't notice the change of policy though.
|
|
5,139 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Nov 6, 2018 13:45:10 GMT
All theatres should use 'Carriages At', then there's no confusion!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2018 13:47:47 GMT
The RSC do it, and the Barbican did it for Ninagawa's Cymbeline. Using those two as my baseline, I assume they get complaints from people who see a 3+ hour running time, and therefore choose to emphasise that the amount of time you'll be actively spending watching the play is less than 3 hours. Which completely misses the point that if the play is over 3 hours (including interval, or 2 hours 40 minutes plus 20 minute interval, or however they phrase it) then a 7:30pm start time means no one's leaving before 10:30pm at the earliest so a lot of people will have to seriously consider their transport options before booking and, indeed, may not even be able to book if their last train home leaves at such a time that they could make it no problem if the play finished at 10:10pm but 10:30pm would be a tight squeeze and 10:35pm means a hotel room or a late night coach or missing out all together.
Yes, we can do the maths, it's SUPER easy maths, but it's such a transparently pathetic way of saying "no, the play itself isn't *that* long, honest" that it's just insulting. We want to know the running time because we want to know when we're going to leave the theatre, not because we're concerned about the precise number of minutes that we spend sat in our seat (but hey, don't worry about the interval, 'cos we can get up and walk around then).
|
|
141 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Nov 13, 2018 11:55:30 GMT
I am always a bit wary of adaptations. Some of the comments made here about this production were not very encouraging, but, as I usually like Robert Icke's work, I decided I should go. I am glad I did. His notes worked for me, regardless of how accurate they may be. They just added to the narrative and drama. Perhaps the production should have been called An Essay on the Wild Duck, to avoid letting down people with more purist expectations. Amazing cast. I especially enjoyed Kevin Harvey, who, made me sympathetic to a character that I would normally feel a strong revulsion for. He has a stunning voice too. The little girl, Hedwig (I think I saw Grace Doherty), was also very impressive. It’s interesting that I saw this right after A Pack of Lies. The two plays seem to be about the corrosive – and sometimes venomous – effects of truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 13, 2018 15:23:34 GMT
Running time on website currently showing as 2 hours 35 plus a 20 min interval. So that’s nearly 3 hours, correct? Or 2 hrs 35 total? Confused.com Just short of three hours. I’ve seen this ‘plus interval’ timing a few times recently at different venues and its use instead of the usual ‘including interval’ is very misleading. Looking back, the Almeida were using ‘including interval’ as recently as for Summer and Smoke so it’s a change that appears to make no sense. RSC started this nonsense a few years ago. Never seen a justification for it. |
|
204 posts
|
Post by argon on Nov 13, 2018 18:21:26 GMT
Just short of three hours. I’ve seen this ‘plus interval’ timing a few times recently at different venues and its use instead of the usual ‘including interval’ is very misleading. Looking back, the Almeida were using ‘including interval’ as recently as for Summer and Smoke so it’s a change that appears to make no sense. RSC started this nonsense a few years ago. Never seen a justification for it. Noticed this yesterday on the cast sheet at the RSC McB at the Barbican. Looks like the need for more arithmetic now. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 13, 2018 20:12:59 GMT
RSC started this nonsense a few years ago. Never seen a justification for it. Noticed this yesterday on the cast sheet at the RSC McB at the Barbican. Looks like the need for more arithmetic now. The Almeida used to have a clock up in the foyer showing you what time the performance was due to end. That’s all I want to know. That requires no calculation at all. |
|
3,558 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Nov 13, 2018 20:28:59 GMT
Some of my favourite theatres still have the "foyer clock" system, including the Yvonne Arnaud in Guildford and Orange Tree in Richmond. Only issue is that I invariably attend Thursday matinees, often to find the end time has been left set for the previous evening, which at first sight looks alarming.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 24, 2018 20:20:12 GMT
Well I was glad I had read on here that it was all a bit Icke and an interpretation rather just a straight re-telling of the play, thus warned I didn't spend the first 10 minutest thinking what?! and more happily went with 'oh it's all a bit meta' (equally thanks to the board that I even know what that means).
I did find this rather long and sometimes laid things on with a shovel when it came to subtly but I did enjoy it. Enjoyed loathing Kevin Harvey's character, even whilst thinking 'yes I know he clearly isn't quite right', spent an age trying to work out what production at the Globe i'd seen Edward Hogg in and reminding self that really mustn't wear joggers as they're just not flattering. Good child acting and that can't be an easy part to play, lovely Nicholas Farrell's rather touching father and Lyndsay Marshall's Gina, my goodness she must have a lot of patience, quietly suffering Gina. I knew where we going so was happy to get their via to rather different routes, wasn't expecting that ohh moment set reveal and of course the duck scene stole.
So a nice thinky one and with the bonus that you can buy a duck poster, box office person tried rather hopefully to sell me a duck with person poster instead noting that everyone just wanted the duck one, but frankly I just thought the duck was rather cool though it didn't look like any mallard I've ever seen, perhaps it was genuinely Norwegian and therefore better on the truth than if it had been a 'translated' English mallard?
Less enamoured by audience the majority of who didn't come in until it was due to start and then seemed completely unfamiliar with the idea of designated seats or who seat numbering worked. But then they all loudly walked out in the interval apparently unaware that there was in fact something still going on, on stage.
|
|
6 posts
|
Post by culturevulture on Nov 24, 2018 22:03:41 GMT
I so can relate to the last part of your post. Every visit to the Almeida I am mesmerised by the local audience who seem completely baffled by the alphabetical and numerical sequences such as A,B,C and 1,2,3. It’s a fascinating performance.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 26, 2018 12:09:45 GMT
I saw the matinee too - owl-faced person in bright green coat in front row, sitting there thinking oh dear god not more clothing-related audience participation. I'd had a horrible experience at the Royal Exchange a few weeks ago. I wasn't that keen on it - it was like a performance of a text with someone's scribbled marginal essay notes included, or going round a gallery with one of those headsets that tells you just how you should be interpreting the work in front of you . (btw, was he meant to trip on the rug?) |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 26, 2018 13:58:58 GMT
I saw the matinee too - owl-faced person in bright green coat in front row, sitting there thinking oh dear god not more clothing-related audience participation. I'd had a horrible experience at the Royal Exchange a few weeks ago. I wasn't that keen on it - it was like a performance of a text with someone's scribbled marginal essay notes included, or going round a gallery with one of those headsets that tells you just how you should be interpreting the work in front of you . (btw, was he meant to trip on the rug?) No. You know why they only brought the rug in at the interval ? I mean what the symbolism was ? (I do, but I wonder if it is widely appreciated). Like Icke moaning that no critic had appreciated why an actor sneezed in The Oresteia. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 26, 2018 14:33:27 GMT
I mean what the symbolism was ? No - patterns? What lies beneath or gets brushed under? Btw, they had some cast carpet hoovering in the Royal Exchange's Streetcar too. |
|
