4,786 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 22, 2019 10:35:53 GMT
Does the Donmar still get unbearably hot? Sitting in circle row C tonight and debating whether or not to change into my shorts before heading into town.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontdreamit on Apr 22, 2019 10:39:32 GMT
I think that’s at least 3 of us there tonight 🙂
|
|
632 posts
|
Post by jek on Apr 22, 2019 10:58:50 GMT
Mark We were in Row B of the circle last week and wilted. It really is very hot up there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 11:15:03 GMT
So it appears my interpretation of Josie Rourke's production may have been correct ...  |
|
4,786 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 22, 2019 11:49:37 GMT
Mark We were in Row B of the circle last week and wilted. It really is very hot up there. Shorts and t-shirt it is then! Hopefully I won’t make an appearance in the bad behaviour thread for being underdressed 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by winonaforever on Apr 22, 2019 13:55:56 GMT
Actually I'm also there (again) tonight! On the opposite side of the stalls to last Friday, so a different viewing point. I'm up in the circle next week. It WAS warm in there the other day, but I didn't think it was that hot. I could see someone in the central stalls constantly fanning themselves though, which was quite distracting 😕
|
|
|
|
Post by dontdreamit on Apr 22, 2019 14:23:08 GMT
I’m up in C of the circle tonight, should be easy to spot as I’m using a stick at the moment if anyone wants to say hello
🙂
|
|
4,786 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 22, 2019 14:25:00 GMT
I’m up in C of the circle tonight, should be easy to spot as I’m using a stick at the moment if anyone wants to say hello 🙂 C3/4 for us! |
|
|
|
Post by dontdreamit on Apr 22, 2019 15:27:08 GMT
I’m up in C of the circle tonight, should be easy to spot as I’m using a stick at the moment if anyone wants to say hello 🙂 C3/4 for us! Other side I think - in the 30’s anyway. Can’t remember the seat number! |
|
19,670 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 22, 2019 17:33:37 GMT
So it appears my interpretation of Josie Rourke's production may have been correct ... I wonder if they ever would have let on. Major kudos to you @xanderl for working that out but shouldn’t it be in the programme notes? Or was it to be some sort of in-joke for the creatives? |
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Apr 22, 2019 17:37:46 GMT
It's this sort of thing that frustrates me about theatre sometimes. Why should the audience have to 'get' some niche reference for a show to make sense? Why are the creatives patting themselves on the back because one person (as far as I can see) cracked the clues to understand their concept? Shouldn't everyone who sees the play be allowed to 'get it'?
Weird.
|
|
19,670 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 22, 2019 17:55:41 GMT
^^ totally agree.
If that’s what’s going on here then it screams pretentiousness (moi?)
|
|
1,255 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Apr 22, 2019 17:59:44 GMT
Hang on! Retweeting a tweet doesn’t imply that’s what they intended. They might just like what was said as a concept and wanted to give it publicity. They might never have thought about it before. They might have. But let’s not start bitching about pretentiousness of the creatives when equally it might not have been their intention. The end
|
|
19,670 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 22, 2019 18:11:42 GMT
I did say “if that’s what’s going on here”.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 18:42:31 GMT
It's this sort of thing that frustrates me about theatre sometimes. Why should the audience have to 'get' some niche reference for a show to make sense? Why are the creatives patting themselves on the back because one person (as far as I can see) cracked the clues to understand their concept? Shouldn't everyone who sees the play be allowed to 'get it'? Weird. You don't have to 'get' it, although I think that Warhol's influence on popular culture remains pretty strong and won't be missed by many or has he really fallen out of favour? Directors deal on different layers of understanding (mostly). At face value you can see that this is a sixties pop art influenced design and that the style is deliberately rough and improvised, so not many would miss that. Beyond that then the images of dancing Warhols will be recognised by fewer and knowing Edie Sedgwick or the very specifics of the Factory and Exploding Plastic Inevitable by fewer than that. It works at face value to pretty much everyone then, yet it has further depth for those who look for it. It's no different to most art, where you aim at different levels of understanding. I certainly wouldn't want art to be aimed at the entry level all of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Apr 22, 2019 18:47:31 GMT
It's this sort of thing that frustrates me about theatre sometimes. Why should the audience have to 'get' some niche reference for a show to make sense? Why are the creatives patting themselves on the back because one person (as far as I can see) cracked the clues to understand their concept? Shouldn't everyone who sees the play be allowed to 'get it'? Weird. You don't have to 'get' it, although I think that Warhol's influence on popular culture remains pretty strong and won't be missed by many or has he really fallen out of favour? Directors deal on different layers of understanding (mostly). At face value you can see that this is a sixties pop art influenced design and that the style is deliberately rough and improvised, so not many would miss that. Beyond that then the images of dancing Warhols will be recognised by fewer and knowing Edie Sedgwick or the very specifics of the Factory and Exploding Plastic Inevitable by fewer than that. It works at face value to pretty much everyone then, yet it has further depth for those who look for it. It's no different to most art, where you aim at different levels of understanding. I certainly wouldn't want art to be aimed at the entry level all of the time. Thing is, I have a basic knowledge of Warhol and pop art but other than twigging that there were lots of dancing Warhols I didn't get any of the rest of the things you mention so the design made no sense, looked cheap and didn't seem to tie in to the rest of the story. Maybe I'm a bit thick. |
|
19,670 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 22, 2019 19:01:55 GMT
It's this sort of thing that frustrates me about theatre sometimes. Why should the audience have to 'get' some niche reference for a show to make sense? Why are the creatives patting themselves on the back because one person (as far as I can see) cracked the clues to understand their concept? Shouldn't everyone who sees the play be allowed to 'get it'? Weird. It works at face value to pretty much everyone then, yet it has further depth for those who look for it. It doesn't though, does it? Hence the very poor feedback here. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 19:33:25 GMT
It works at face value to pretty much everyone then, yet it has further depth for those who look for it. It doesn't though, does it? Hence the very poor feedback here. One issue, as far as I can see, is that Rourke has directed this as she would direct a classic play, looking for different angles, getting rid of the stuff that has covered it up over the years. It's the sort of thing you tend to get at the Donmar. The other major London revivals have been depressing pale sub-Fosse imitations; the show is as old as me (literally) so maybe it's time for something different. It's only recently we've started to see Ibsen, Chekhov and so on, saved from the 'way they are always done', so it's not surprising that it divides people. Anyhow, I thought that those who didn't like it did so because they disagreed with how it had been changed rather than that they didn't understand it. |
|
910 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Apr 22, 2019 21:35:18 GMT
Reinterpreting Ibsen, Chekhov and the like is not a new thing at all. They've always been adapted to suit the location and era of the production with new translations often by prominent writers on a regular basis. Musicals are less likely to get a radical rethink because the original staging is often as important as the book and music and sometimes holds the whole thing together. Charity without Fosse's choreography can work, but it needs something just as strong to replace it. The original Fellini film tells the story far better than Neil Simon's version. Maybe that should be the place to start.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 21:50:18 GMT
Reinterpreting Ibsen, Chekhov and the like is not a new thing at all. They've always been adapted to suit the location and era of the production with new translations often by prominent writers on a regular basis. Musicals are less likely to get a radical rethink because the original staging is often as important as the book and music and sometimes holds the whole thing together. Charity without Fosse's choreography can work, but it needs something just as strong to replace it. The original Fellini film tells the story far better than Neil Simon's version. Maybe that should be the place to start. In terms of style Ibsen and Chekhov haven't really been pushed away from realism though until quite recently, especially when you look at European productions which have just ripped apart what was once thought possible. One big problem I have with musical creators is how they (or at least the rights holders) try and push an old version on you; having to use Robbins' choreography for example. It was for commercial reasons not artistic ones if he was being honest about it, so that he got a bigger chunk of royalties but it has had the effect of preserving those shows in aspic. I'm with Peter Brook, a production is dead after five years or so (maybe less), it's an imitation of an imitation. In terms of plays it's the same with the Beckett estate. The new Broadway Oklahoma looks amazing, however, finally freed from its origins; I think and doing that with more classic musicals will keep them fresher. The King & I desperately needs someone to do something with it, for example. I don't think it needs to be 'as good', just different, once a piece is opened up then others will find better ways to do it. |
|
4,786 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 22, 2019 21:51:52 GMT
I think a lot of the criticisms have been overly harsh on this one. This is by no means a great production but it’s watchable and I think the strength of the material shines through.
Anne Marie Duff was by no means the strongest singer, but it’s by no means as poor as I had been expecting based on some of the comments. She acted the pants off that role and I believed that Charity was “real”. However I don’t think she was well cast in this.
Loved Debbie Kurup and Arthur Darvill. I somehow wonder how Debbie would be as Charity.
My main criticism of this is that having had such fond memories of the chocolate factory production at the Haymarket, the Rich Man’s Frug and other dance moments (including Rhythm of Life) fell completely flat.
|
|
3,564 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 23, 2019 16:23:19 GMT
Lots more seats now available for the rest of the run but only at £40/£55. Too many to have been returns and in some cases the same few seats at multiple performances so presumably held back hitherto.
|
|
8,103 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Apr 23, 2019 17:56:42 GMT
Lots more seats now available for the rest of the run but only at £40/£55. Too many to have been returns and in some cases the same few seats at multiple performances so presumably held back hitherto. Thanks for the heads up. When I booked on 1st day of sale could only get some end of row circle seats and so just phoned box office and managed to get 3rd row of stalls. Nearly twice the price of what I paid but as i originally wanted stalls I dont mind paying the extra. So a couple of £30 seats will be going back on sale for 1st June. |
|
3,564 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 24, 2019 8:12:47 GMT
Glad to hear someone has benefited, alece10. I'm still looking for a matinee but either £10 or stalls at £30 which I can then book for £25 (concession), but no luck so far, and today the website is undergoing reconstruction so unavailable for the duration. |
|
8,103 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Apr 24, 2019 10:21:31 GMT
Glad to hear someone has benefited, alece10. I'm still looking for a matinee but either £10 or stalls at £30 which I can then book for £25 (concession), but no luck so far, and today the website is undergoing reconstruction so unavailable for the duration. The seats I returned were matinee 1st June. £30 row B circle. So I'd they have gone back on sale might be suitable. |
|
