|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 10:52:43 GMT
Now that it's well and truly started it might be good to have a separate thread for it.
Well. Someone has been watching 'The Inheritance' a little too closely. Sadly you don't get a bunch of gayers taking their clothes off but you do get lots of lolling around on the sides and a doll's house. Heaven help Es Devlin if Bob Crowley ever sees this set.
I rather liked it though. It was whimsical and for those who struggled with 'Translations' at The Nash, the Irish accents here are a lot softer. David Dawson clearly gets the plum role and does it incredibly well but the standouts for me were Elaine Cassidy and particularly, Emmet Kirwan. I thought he was really rather magnetic. You get a nice voiceover at the beginning of each act which tells you who is who and what is going on which was most helpful. Many a production could benefit from the same in my opinion. James Laurenson has got to have the easiest job in London's glitzy West End at the moment though. God he must be bored sat in his dressing room night after night. And I'm not sure that Paul Higgins quite got the hang of an American accent either but he is married to the wondrous Amelia Bullmore so I forgive him.
I'm not quite sure what could have been the cause of the cancellation this week though. Did the catch on the doll's house not work? Were the grapes missing? Did Elaine Cassidy run out of hairspray?
And I spent all of the show waiting for the cast to burst into 'Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat' but alas it didn't happen. Turns out that's the "wrong show" and they don't appreciate you trying to lead the chorus while the play is going on. I did wonder why no-one made any effort with any fluffy ears or whiskers. Not even a purr.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 10, 2018 9:14:24 GMT
You get a nice voiceover at the beginning of each act Ah. You didn't in the preview I saw on Saturday so we were just left to guess, and it wasn't easy - there was little variation in accents, for example, which would have helped differentiate characters and presumably have been more historically accurate. The posh kids from the big house who had been to finishing school had much the same accents as the village kids, and I had no idea Paul Higgins' character was supposed to be an American academic until another character said so, some time in. He came across as neither. I don't think much of Higgins' acting chops in Line of Duty and he didn't impress in a key role here either. Similarly, I didn't get the 'hostility' of another male character until a line of dialogue pointed it out. I think Es Devlin's set is terrible - it actually works against the play and the actors. We get minty minimalism, rigid geometry reminiscent of the swish NY apartments of The Inheritance and the polar opposite of the decomposing, history-laden old house and garden that threatens to overwhelm the children. The actors sit around the edges on a plinth like bored husbands in a shoe shop, and when they sit near the front of the stage or lie down the Donmar's poor rake and sightlines mean they disappear behind audience's heads (I was centre row D, and 5'6" tall). David Dawson is fantastic though, and it was worth the trek from up North for him and some of the others. It's an interesting play but feels fragmented - I'm not sure how much of that is the fault of the text or of the production, though as I said, we didn't have the voice-over to hold our hand in preview. |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 10, 2018 17:06:36 GMT
Sounds dreadful.
|
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Aug 10, 2018 19:09:56 GMT
It sounds a pity as its a lovely play. I would love to see David Dawson as Casimir though.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 10, 2018 20:30:17 GMT
It's not dreadful, but it is frustrating - there are some excellent performances here but the staginess detracts from the human stories. I would love to see David Dawson as Casimir though. Do go if you can - he's fantastic. Worth the journey (including, for me, the overnight bus back up North). |
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Aug 11, 2018 18:39:35 GMT
I will try and catch it in September. In Ireland Casimir has generally been performed by much older actors and I think the National broke the mould casting Andrew Scott. I've always regretted not seeing that production.
|
|
3,533 posts
|
Post by Rory on Aug 11, 2018 20:37:01 GMT
I will try and catch it in September. In Ireland Casimir has generally been performed by much older actors and I think the National broke the mould casting Andrew Scott. I've always regretted not seeing that production. Same here. |
|
19,661 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 11, 2018 21:17:35 GMT
I do hope they kept the spaghetti and meatballs scene in? 😬
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Aug 11, 2018 21:55:12 GMT
I didn't know this play but I often have problems with Irish plays - not with the accents, but with "getting them" the atmosphere and so forth. This didn't help, although it starts to pick up towards the end of the second act, it felt like an Irish Downton or Brideshead after the rich people have gone bust. Not that this family gave the impression of ever having been especially wealthy, just living in a big old house.
What a part for James Laurenson. He didn't even stay for the curtain call and sitting in the Gods at the Donmar it's always tempting to make an early exit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2018 9:13:29 GMT
What a part for James Laurenson. He didn't even stay for the curtain call and sitting in the Gods at the Donmar it's always tempting to make an early exit. He stayed for the curtain call when I saw it. He must have known I was in. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 12, 2018 10:07:09 GMT
He didn't even stay for the curtain call I now have an image of him running in with his PJs, staggering on, then running out again like that bit in 'Toast of London'. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2018 16:37:11 GMT
He didn't even stay for the curtain call I now have an image of him running in with his PJs, staggering on, then running out again like that bit in 'Toast of London'. That's not altogether far from the truth. |
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Aug 12, 2018 21:30:02 GMT
I didn't know this play but I often have problems with Irish plays - not with the accents, but with "getting them" the atmosphere and so forth. This didn't help, although it starts to pick up towards the end of the second act, it felt like an Irish Downton or Brideshead after the rich people have gone bust. Not that this family gave the impression of ever having been especially wealthy, just living in a big old house. What a part for James Laurenson. He didn't even stay for the curtain call and sitting in the Gods at the Donmar it's always tempting to make an early exit. The Irish have a very complex relationship with "The Big House". While it is not such a mainstay in plays it is a huge theme in a lot of literature (William Trevor, Elizabeth Bowen, Molly Keane etc). While many of the landed gentry were benevolent and employed vast numbers of people they were seen as symbols of colonial oppression. Many great houses were burnt in 1921 during the War of Independence. Afterwards the gentry felt rootless, no longer British but not Irish either. The houses became untenable and fell into decay and the families became impoverised. Many more houses were demolished after the upkeep could no longer be afforded. The O'Donnells in Artistocrats are unusual as they are Catholic and we don't understand how they retained their status and land after the reformation and before Catholic Emancipation. What makes Aristocrats so interesting for me is that they have become modern and ordinary (while obviously very damaged). Many of these Friel plays seek to excavate the complexities and contradictions of being Irish so some of the works can be difficult for British audiences while being very resonant in Ireland. The best of them though - Translations, Philadelphia, Here I Come and Dancing at Lughasa - seem to speak to audiences everywhere. |
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Aug 13, 2018 11:22:34 GMT
I didn't know this play but I often have problems with Irish plays - not with the accents, but with "getting them" the atmosphere and so forth. This didn't help, although it starts to pick up towards the end of the second act, it felt like an Irish Downton or Brideshead after the rich people have gone bust. Not that this family gave the impression of ever having been especially wealthy, just living in a big old house. What a part for James Laurenson. He didn't even stay for the curtain call and sitting in the Gods at the Donmar it's always tempting to make an early exit. The Irish have a very complex relationship with "The Big House". While it is not such a mainstay in plays it is a huge theme in a lot of literature (William Trevor, Elizabeth Bowen, Molly Keane etc). While many of the landed gentry were benevolent and employed vast numbers of people they were seen as symbols of colonial oppression. Many great houses were burnt in 1921 during the War of Independence. Afterwards the gentry felt rootless, no longer British but not Irish either. The houses became untenable and fell into decay and the families became impoverised. Many more houses were demolished after the upkeep could no longer be afforded. The O'Donnells in Artistocrats are unusual as they are Catholic and we don't understand how they retained their status and land after the reformation and before Catholic Emancipation. What makes Aristocrats so interesting for me is that they have become modern and ordinary (while obviously very damaged). Many of these Friel plays seek to excavate the complexities and contradictions of being Irish so some of the works can be difficult for British audiences while being very resonant in Ireland. The best of them though - Translations, Philadelphia, Here I Come and Dancing at Lughnasa - seem to speak to audiences everywhere. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 13, 2018 17:28:36 GMT
Query - apparently in previous versions there was more differentiation in the accents, but there wasn't much here. What was it like in the Andrew Scott production? I presume the accents of the surviving Irish aristocracy/gentry of the 60s/70s would still have differed from the 'ordinary' locals - posh Scots nowadays speak RP/hyperlect English and the Irish gentry accents of the era I've heard recorded (like Francis Bacon, Anglo-Irish gentry) are a posh drawl with little in the way of an Irish accent. Does anyone know what would be more historically authentic?
|
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Aug 15, 2018 9:48:44 GMT
I didn't see the production with Andrew Scott at the National. There should be a distinction in the accents. In general the Anglo Irish speak with a posh English accent with a very slight Irish inflection. The O'Donnells in the Irish productions I've seen speak in a softened version of this as they are becoming naturalised. The local characters Willie Diver and Eamonn speak in the local Donegal accent (slightly softer and more musical than the Northern Irish accent).
|
|
628 posts
|
Post by jek on Aug 23, 2018 21:05:26 GMT
I enjoyed this. I have very few memories of the National Theatre 2005 production even though I know I saw it (my youngest was four then and while a theatre trip was a rare treat I suspect I was too tired to fully enjoy it). But watching today I could imagine what Andrew Scott, Gina McKee and Dervla Kirwan brought to the roles. I thought the performances at the Donmar were very good and I can't say that I found the set problematic. I also wonder if my enjoyment of it was just a stage of life thing - as someone in middle age looking back on family relationships it was a good fit for me (and most of the audience was my sort of age). But certainly one of those pleasant experiences when I went in not expecting much on the basis of some reviews I'd read but in fact really got a lot from it. And tonight I am listening to recordings of Count John McCormack, mentioned in the play and a great favourite of my Irish born and raised dad.
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Sept 2, 2018 17:48:29 GMT
Good acting except Paul Higgins’ “American” accent, but my, the play was dull. I wonder if it was the non-naturalistic direction. I had such good memories of the production at the Lyttelton 15? years ago with Gina McKee, Derva Kirwan and Andrew Scott (although he was being “Andrew Scott”) which made it seem so much better. Perhaps nostalgia and too much Chekhov have changed my view of the play.
|
|
32 posts
|
Post by londontheatrefan on Sept 4, 2018 13:58:42 GMT
Very strong performances - Elaine Cassidy and David Dawson in particular. Not sure I'm wild about the direction, and I think perhaps it was that rather than Devlin's actual design which was at fault - though the metaphors were way overdone between the pair of them. Still, an easy 4 stars all round, and I did write more than usual in the opinion on my site. I've got a ticket to see this on Thursday and I was starting to have second thoughts about whether I should see it or not based on reviews and some comments I've seen, but you've convinced me to go ahead. I'll let you all know my thoughts after! |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 4, 2018 14:06:36 GMT
Worth it for the performances. |
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Sept 4, 2018 14:09:31 GMT
except Paul Higgins’ “American” accent My goodness it was extraordinary wasn't it?! I assumed he was reaching for (and missing) an Irish accent for the first 15 mins, until I twigged where he was supposed to be from. What I find most extraordinary is that I've seen him do a terrible English accent in this very venue in Temple, and he seriously threatened to spoil the otherwise superlative 4th series Line of Duty with another horrendous attempt. Accents are clearly not the poor guy's forte! I've seen him be brilliant in lots of stuff but for the love of God can people stop offering him things that require him to be anything other than Scottish? |
|
32 posts
|
Post by londontheatrefan on Sept 7, 2018 7:35:21 GMT
I saw this last night and have to agree with the comments on here. It was better than I thought - I went in with low hopes, and I completely agree with the comments about the questionable accent, I couldn't work out if he was supposed to be Irish or American. I wasn't too keen on the set and felt there were moments when the play just stalled a little and the audience got fidgety, but there were a few brilliant performances. I must admit I knew nothing about David Dawson, but he was amazing and stole the show for me. It was worth the £10 just to see him.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 7, 2018 10:18:54 GMT
I knew nothing about David Dawson, but he was amazing He's brilliant! Check out The Road to Coronation Street (DVD about £3 on ebay) - first thing I noticed him in and he's just wonderful, an early role and a real tour de force. |
|
32 posts
|
Post by londontheatrefan on Sept 7, 2018 10:32:43 GMT
I knew nothing about David Dawson, but he was amazing He's brilliant! Check out The Road to Coronation Street (DVD about £3 on ebay) - first thing I noticed him in and he's just wonderful, an early role and a real tour de force. Thank you I will! He's just great, it's impossible to take your eyes off of him, and I did miss him at times when he wasn't involved in the scene. |
|
3,303 posts
|
Post by david on Sept 7, 2018 22:23:57 GMT
Having watched tonight’s performance, in all honesty it wasn’t the best night out at the theatre I’ve had. I don’t know what it was about the play but I just couldn’t really engage with it on any level. I just felt that there was nothing about any of the characters that I could invest any emotion in what so ever. Was it the writing, no real character development or the stage direction that had this impact, well I couldn’t tell you but it wasn’t as bad as the NT’s Julie so it must have had some merit
In this case it came in the form of David Dawson, who like other posts have commented on was the star of the show and for him alone, it was worth the £10 ticket. Having enjoyed his tv performances in the Corrie drama as well as the BBCs Ripper Street, so it was nice to him on stage, but the other cast members gave good performances, but for me his was definitely the standout tonight.
There are many things I just found difficult to get my head around. Firstly, what was the point of having a 75 min first part, then an interval and concluding with the final 35mins? This just seemed pointless. Personally, I would have liked it to if been a straight through play if only so I could get back earlier!
What was the point of the gradual peeling off the paper on the back of the stage wall during the first half. Was it meant to symbolise or be a metaphor for something? Though the final result which you see post interval is actually very impressive.
The dolls house is another thing I found a bit strange. It’s use as a metaphor about life at the house I got, but it just seemed a bit naff. I’m sure there are other ways of getting the same overall message across to the audience, but this approach just didn’t work for me I’m afraid.
Overall, 3 stars from me, if only for David Dawson’s performance.
|
|
