1,578 posts
|
Post by anita on Mar 26, 2016 10:32:34 GMT
Has anyone seen this yet? How long is it? I am going on Wednesday.
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Mar 26, 2016 12:12:36 GMT
I saw it on Thursday afternoon. 3pm start, was out before 5.30 - the first half is longer than the second.
Rather enjoyed on the whole, pleasant, generally clean and a lot of fun. No doubt it'll improve further when it beds itself in.
|
|
1,578 posts
|
Post by anita on Mar 26, 2016 14:19:02 GMT
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2016 16:51:45 GMT
I saw it last night
Painful and protracted
It's about as funny as Keeping Up Appearances
The acting is all over the place
The set is cheap and ugly
The running time feels so long
It has all the best Kenwright traits it seems
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2016 16:54:49 GMT
I saw it last night Painful and protracted It's about as funny as Keeping Up Appearances The acting is all over the place The set is cheap and ugly The running time feels so long It has all the best Kenwright traits it seems Also Why does anyone pay Jenny Seagrove? Thankfully she has been absent for a good while But seeing her in this bought back memories of when she seemed to star in a rash like succession of equally cheaply produced plays in the early 2000s |
|
76 posts
|
Post by bingomatic on Mar 31, 2016 21:47:41 GMT
Nicholas Le Prevost was great. Anyone who is a fan of the HR radio comedy will love his performance.
Bit dated overall but there were a few laughs to be had. Can't imagine the reviews will be very glowing...
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Mar 31, 2016 23:18:08 GMT
Saw this at press night on Thursday evening.
I simply do not understand why productions such as this clog up a prestigious West End theatre in 2016.
Ayckbourne's cleverly constructed play seemed very dated even played in period. Some really misogynist views in the script do not sit well today. I felt I was in a time warp.
The set was ugly and cheap looking.
The cast did their usual TV shtick. Jenny Seagrove gave her usual wooden mannered performance that she does in everything and could kill a stage comedy at 100 paces. Nicholas Le Prevost came out of it the best but his bumbling character/peformance (though amusing) slowed the pace. Gillian Wright played an exagerated stage persona of her Eastenders character and Tamzin Outhwaite the usual Essex loud mouth! Jason Merrells appears shirtless for a lot of Act Two for those interested in that sort of thing!!
The show ran around 2.30 but I had lost the will to live long before then.
The press night audience gave it generous (very generous) applause!
2 stars
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 1, 2016 3:52:32 GMT
5 stars from Libby Purves, who praised (amongst much else) what she called the authentic 60's look. Maybe it's just that this is for older audiences? I do still enjoy revivals of some mid-period Ayckbourn work, but what annoys me is how certain characters are always made to speak in a bizarre accent (don't know if it's mean to be working class) which resembles nothing I've ever heard in real life. It sounds so peculiar that it distracts me from the play itself.
|
|
1,578 posts
|
Post by anita on Apr 1, 2016 9:38:22 GMT
The problem I had with this was I couldn't hear anything Nicholas le Provost said.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Apr 1, 2016 11:22:51 GMT
4 stars in the stage from Mark Shenton - I despair! This is theatrical critisim?
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Apr 1, 2016 18:31:04 GMT
But Ayckbourn usually gets a free pass from the critics, no matter how dire some of his plays are. I suppose he's an institution now so to criticize is to lack respect, or something.
|
|
76 posts
|
Post by bingomatic on Apr 2, 2016 11:34:34 GMT
I thought the three stars in The Standard was about right.
|
|
1,052 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Apr 2, 2016 15:25:06 GMT
Jesus!
I won't say I'm an Ayckbourn fan but he has definetly written better than this
Neanderthals can tell that Tamsin outhwaite and Jason merrels are in a bad marriage from the get go, and yes it turns into soap opera by the interval
The acting is all over the place, especially sea groves ultra mannered performance and Gillian Wright mugging all the time
|
|
1,052 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Apr 3, 2016 10:15:34 GMT
Okay this was slightly better in the second act when it focused on the misunderstandings.
But the resolution is so sexist.
Also, whilst the concept of the two couples is nice, I was confused for the first 10-15 minutes.
The problem was the set design. So the idea is that both couples houses are melded together. Yellow and ourple-grey.
Thing is, grey can get overwhelmed by yellow. The rich couples bright house took up more space than the grey walls and the other couple's orange chair and wooden play pen didn't help
Also, I was sitting at the back and to the left. It was a while before I realised that there was another grey wall with a window to the left of the stage. So all I could see was the rich couple's house with these two odd grey strips at the back. This show is best seen centre row and towards the front
Therefore, I was sitting there thinking "why are these people phoning themselves?", "why is this couple not reacting to the other couple?", "why are these people not in a mental institute?"
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Apr 3, 2016 10:19:59 GMT
Okay this was slightly better in the second act when it focused on the misunderstandings. But the resolution is so sexist. Also, whilst the concept of the two couples is nice, I was confused for the first 10-15 minutes. The problem was the set design. So the idea is that both couples houses are melded together. Yellow and grey. Thing is, grey can get overwhelmed by yellow. The rich couples bright house took up more space than the grey walls and the other couple's orange chair and wooden play pen didn't help Also, I was sitting at the back and to the left. It was a while before I realised that there was another grey wall with a window to the left of the stage. So all I could see was the rich couple's house with these two odd grey strips at the back. This show is best seen centre row and towards the front Therefore, I was sitting there thinking "why are these people phoning themselves?", "why is this couple not reacting to the other couple?", "why are these people not in a mental institute?" That sounds like a much more interesting play! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2016 14:22:14 GMT
Goodness. This is like one of those mediocre ITV sitcoms although Nicholas Le Prevost was great. It's nothing new from what we've seen him do before but he does that slightly befuddled posh act really very well. He was the only one that managed to wring out any laughs from the script and the only likeable character in the whole piece. I didn't care for any of the others at all - they were hideous on the whole.
And was it supposed to be set in the 60s? Because the script and particularly the view/treatment of women would suggest so but the staging confused me . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Apr 6, 2016 20:03:10 GMT
maybe Ayckbourn's domestic tragedies have aged, but some of his theatrical tricks were pretty astounding. I have a fondness for The Norman Conquests, and the time travel trick in Communicating doors is clever if never explained. Taking steps had a great idea, but as so often, the play never quite lived up to the theatrical trick. But no one can call him lazy - so many plays and some are pretty innovative.
What is everyone's favourite? I will still plump for Norman Conquests.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Apr 6, 2016 21:31:39 GMT
I still think his best play was his first success, Relatively Speaking. It's genuinely funny in a way few of his other plays are.
|
|
1,578 posts
|
Post by anita on Apr 7, 2016 10:12:42 GMT
I loved "Bedroom Farce" with Richard Briars & June Whitfield.
|
|
105 posts
|
Post by youngoffender on Apr 7, 2016 12:57:44 GMT
This doesn't sound like West End material at all - much more Theatre Royal Bath or Yvonne Arnaud Guilford.
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 7, 2016 14:39:14 GMT
This doesn't sound like West End material at all - much more Theatre Royal Bath or Yvonne Arnaud Guilford. Slightly off-topic, but as a Guildford regular, I might take offence at this, though actually, if you look at the current Yvonne Arnaud schedule, you will see a much greater variety of plays than usual. The huge downside for me is that having waited so long for them to be a little more adventurous, I find that they're programming productions I've seen elsewhere in the south-east and very recently, e.g. Invincible (now touring, but originally at the Orange Tree); Toast (also touring, but revived last year at the Park Theatre and I saw it there and the original in the West End); Clybourne Park, Bad Jews, etc. It's theatre for people who don't go to any other theatre. However, to return to the play in question, I do wonder if Ayckbourn grows on people with age? I wasn't so keen when I was younger but am now quite a fan of his mid-period work, though not the really tricksy plays with umpteen potential endings or the more outre ones he wrote later. For instance, I loved last year's Menier revival of Communicating Doors, whereas the original production didn't really speak to me. And actually, I was thinking of seeing this play, despite all the adverse comments here, but now I'm wondering whether I would agree with the critics (mainly older people) or the posters! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 16:01:55 GMT
This doesn't sound like West End material at all - much more Theatre Royal Bath or Yvonne Arnaud Guilford. Slightly off-topic, but as a Guildford regular, I might take offence at this Given that regional theatres have to pitch their shows at a recurring audience while the typical West End theatregoer visits the theatre once a year or less, I tend to think of regional material as being for the discerning and West End material as being expensive glittered-up crap for people who don't get out much. There are many exceptions, obviously, but I've seen some West End shows where I've thought "Regional audiences would never stand for this, unless standing made it easier to throw things at the stage". |
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 7, 2016 16:11:31 GMT
Goodness. This is like one of those mediocre ITV sitcoms although Nicholas Le Prevost was great. It's nothing new from what we've seen him do before but he does that slightly befuddled posh act really very well. He was the only one that managed to wring out any laughs from the script and the only likeable character in the whole piece. I didn't care for any of the others at all - they were hideous on the whole. And was it supposed to be set in the 60s? Because the script and particularly the view/treatment of women would suggest so but the staging confused me . . . O dear and I bin and gonna booked it... |
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 7, 2016 18:10:04 GMT
Goodness. This is like one of those mediocre ITV sitcoms although Nicholas Le Prevost was great. It's nothing new from what we've seen him do before but he does that slightly befuddled posh act really very well. He was the only one that managed to wring out any laughs from the script and the only likeable character in the whole piece. I didn't care for any of the others at all - they were hideous on the whole. And was it supposed to be set in the 60s? Because the script and particularly the view/treatment of women would suggest so but the staging confused me . . . O dear and I bin and gonna booked it... Well done, Lynette - I applaud your courage and shall await your report with interest. I'm still considering it so may well follow suit, depending on your verdict. |
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Apr 7, 2016 21:25:42 GMT
On a positve note the second act is better than the first in that the "plot" set up of the first half pays off .....plus of course it is shorter!!LOL
|
|
