5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 12, 2019 22:36:24 GMT
I too wondered this evening if people who don’t know the play could work out what the hell was going on in the first ten minutes. After that you are in it or agin it anyway. The friends I took with didn’t know the play and I don’t think they knew the backstory to the challenge at the beginning. But hey ho, you roll with the punches. I actually enjoyed this more than I was expecting to. It was a challenge but in a good way. It made you listen to the words ( some of the early speeches taken too fast ) and my o my can SRB deliver on those. The gain was all his experience and understanding of the role and also I loved Gaunt and Northumberland for that. In fact they all raised their game to come close to the Master I thought. But what a play! Despite the stylisation, if that is the right word, the actors just couldn’t help acting naturistically as they play went on. The stand off between Richard and Bolly was stupendous. Bolly's lack of narural grace interesting, asking the question of what is needed to be a king. All part of the ongoing question through the Henry IVs.
Soil, blood, buckets, all drown from the text, especially soil. A bit out there but you could see what was intended.
If we are to engage the next generation in Shakespeare and his relevance to today, this kind of pared down, intense production might be the way forward.
Saw SRB on the way out, in his woolly hat, so unprepossessing, the mega star that he is. Wished him Happy Birthday. He is 58.
|
|
3,533 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 15, 2019 20:57:59 GMT
On the plus side, it's wonderful that the Almeida has embraced NT Live at last.
On the other, I thought this was appalling. Ugly to look at, shouty, incomprehensible. SRB excellent as per, but of all the productions the Almeida could have chosen to broadcast, why they chose this is a feckin' mystery.
|
|
4,154 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 15, 2019 21:49:08 GMT
Quite a baffled audience in my local audience tonight, if the post- broadcast muttering was anything to go by.
LSDSRB excellent as always, though.
|
|
3,533 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 15, 2019 22:21:03 GMT
Same where I saw it. Muted wasn't the word and a few walk-outs.
|
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jan 19, 2019 11:04:05 GMT
An excellent production, it raced along and with the doubling up without costume changes you really needed to be on top of your game and knowing the play beforehand definitely a plus.
A deluded leader making a rash decision, an upstart usurper promoted to a role, insecurity and indecision leading to a revolt of the ruling class and the descent to years of infighting and in the long term leading to a loss of influence in Europe. Amazing to think this was written 400 years ago and still so prescient.
Initially thought Bollingbroke was wet, which as the play developed it supported his progress to King, the surprise as his initial aim of getting back his land and titles leads to being a reluctant King and once there his inability to rule, the use of gloves to show the dissent of his subjects was inspired and the ridiculousness would not have been out of place if we had given gloves to our MP’s in Parliament last week.
To top it all we have the conjunctionof SRB and the language of Shakespeare, truly a match made in heaven, was sat in the front row and it was a privilege to see a master of his craft on top form, the nuances and slight gestures were a delight to observe.
Would love someone to take this text, with a larger cast or costume changes in a less austere set it would make a great introduction to the wonderful world of Shakespeare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 15:12:45 GMT
@neilvhughes this is an invaluable distillation. I was thinking of not going next week, but reading your post makes me feel prepared. I’ve even copied it and sent it to my husband!
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 19, 2019 15:41:06 GMT
Neil, a larger cast, costumes and less austere set is exactly what this needs. Same for most Shakespeare! I didn’t honestly get the 'Europe' analogy. I can’t make a comparison with today however hard I try. Agree, SRB a joy.
|
|
3,533 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 19, 2019 16:26:54 GMT
I much preferred the RSC version with David Tennant.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jan 19, 2019 19:40:48 GMT
Y'know, I think I'm just not that keen on these bloomin' history plays. I saw the Eddie Redmayne version which I rather enjoyed for his beauty and the set and lighting, but overall, I just don't get them. Perhaps because I don't really know the history very well (both history and geography were taught in my school in a haphazard, whatever caught the teacher's fancy way, no facts or dates or complex ideas for us, but lots of debating and odd videos), maybe because the themes and characters are alien to me; maybe because everyone has to do something NEW with them. There are bits I like (I remember seeing a streamed version of Mark Rylance doing some great stuff with the crown) but, in the end, I may have to accept defeat.
Mr Foxa, on the other hand, who hates most things, is a history buff and enjoys them. Rather.
I have time for Joe Hill-Gibbons who directed the best Glass Menagerie I've ever seen, but this was a very ugly production. I sort of got that people would huddle in groups and change alliances and wear grey a lot. And use buckets. I liked Saskia Reeves.
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 21, 2019 21:27:21 GMT
foxa, this production is enough to make anyone wonder what all the fuss is about. It needed a three hour seminar to explain the director's choices. And then some. I did think you would have to know the play v well to 'get' it. I’m not being patronising, I hope, as I find it annoying when I know you had to have 'majored' as they say in the US, in Eng Lit and history to enjoy a bloomin' play.
|
|
3,533 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 23, 2019 9:51:57 GMT
A week later and I'm still thinking about how much I viscerally loathed this. At least it provoked a reaction.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jan 23, 2019 10:36:39 GMT
A week later and I'm still thinking about how much I viscerally loathed this. At least it provoked a reaction. It really was terrible, wasn't it? What a waste of talent. |
|
3,533 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 23, 2019 10:39:28 GMT
A week later and I'm still thinking about how much I viscerally loathed this. At least it provoked a reaction. It really was terrible, wasn't it? What a waste of talent. Yes really bad. I hate theatre that makes you feel stupid. I'm no expert on Richard II and could have done with reading a recap of the synopsis before I went in but it was pretentious cr*p imho. Obviously others on here liked it a lot more than I did. |
|
116 posts
|
Post by alexandra on Jan 25, 2019 13:55:28 GMT
Seems to be my week for liking things other people hate, but I thought this was really interesting. Loved the prison set - no way out from this world of chaos - and the gauge/glove scene, which far from being the usual comedic bit of nonsense showed how Bolingbroke was to inherit a land of dissent and argument and mess, where no-one could agree; how very different from the homelife of our own dear queen. Excellent supporting cast. Urgent and clever.
|
|
3,533 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 26, 2019 22:23:42 GMT
I promise I am not JL Richards from Wales (who makes some pretty dodgy comments on the casting):
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 26, 2019 23:46:09 GMT
I wonder about people who actually go to the trouble of writing to the creatives about a show they don’t like. I’ve seen loads of stuff I didn’t like but never written a letter of any kind. ( save it all for the Board of course) But there I think is the point. I see loads. I take the rough with the smooth and my love of Theatre and my wish to support it, is more important than the few poor productions I see. This is one of the reasons I now never go with friends who only see a couple of shows a year ( mind you, my friends tend to see almost as much as I do) because if it is awful, it becomes a tragedy. I would just laugh of course but disappointed people would bring it up at every opportunity. 🤨
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 0:01:18 GMT
I promise I am not JL Richards from Wales (who makes some pretty dodgy comments on the casting): Well, whoever it is, they’ve managed to make themselves look both reactionary in their opinions and lacking in any ability to understand theatre. No wonder the the director feels okay with posting it, if that’s the level of his critics. |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 28, 2019 21:18:25 GMT
Yes, but SRB did say his ending speech at the beginning ( what seems to be the trend these days.) Ok, so at the end splattered with stuff and a little different delivery but if you know the speech you would be forgiven for leaving before the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 10:49:40 GMT
Agree with posting a copy of the letter as that person sounds a bit ridic but not the name and signature. That's bad form.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 16:32:05 GMT
Yes, I thought that too - seems to be inviting a pile-on by his twitter following.
|
|
5,139 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Jan 29, 2019 16:54:15 GMT
Always assuming that the name and signature are genuine.
Most of us have handwriting that is legible, to a greater or lesser extent, but an illegible signature. But the complainant has a signatures that is more legible than his handwriting.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrsCondomine on Jan 30, 2019 16:37:12 GMT
A week later and I'm still thinking about how much I viscerally loathed this. At least it provoked a reaction. It really was terrible, wasn't it? What a waste of talent. I've only just got over it. Just thought it was total GCSE-level crap. SRB on impeccable form but mired in sh*te. Edited to add that Leo Bill clearly has something on the director, as he can't act. Worst Bolingbroke ever? Nay, worst performance in a Shakespeare play, ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 17:23:55 GMT
With something like this with plenty of four star reviews and positive comments, if I didn’t like something I wouldn’t go on about how ‘terrible’ it was as, clearly, the opposite view is widely held. Do others not think about their reaction and rationalise it, and what stopped them from doing so. Or is that just me? I find it a way of learning more about your own failings and limitations and I think that sort of self interrogation is very helpful.
|
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Jan 30, 2019 17:51:36 GMT
It really was terrible, wasn't it? What a waste of talent. I've only just got over it. Just thought it was total GCSE-level crap. SRB on impeccable form but mired in sh*te. Edited to add that Leo Bill clearly has something on the director, as he can't act. Worst Bolingbroke ever? Nay, worst performance in a Shakespeare play, ever. Yikes! Im going this Saturday. |
|
3,533 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 30, 2019 18:14:37 GMT
With something like this with plenty of four star reviews and positive comments, if I didn’t like something I wouldn’t go on about how ‘terrible’ it was as, clearly, the opposite view is widely held. Do others not think about their reaction and rationalise it, and what stopped them from doing so. Or is that just me? I find it a way of learning more about your own failings and limitations and I think that sort of self interrogation is very helpful. Don't be so patronising. It's a theatre discussion forum in which people discuss, amongst other things, what they thought of things. I happened to hate this, but I'm perfectly well aware, without you having to tell me, that many, many others held a different view. That doesn't invalidate my opinion, nor does it tell me about my 'failings'. Jesus! |
|
