|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2019 8:32:30 GMT
A few front row £15 seats have popped up for Saturday's matinee if anyone wants to risk it!
Sierz' review seems to largely be talking about the play rather than the production. So not too inconsistent with what people have been saying here
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2019 8:33:48 GMT
I mean that is also a classic reviewer trick too...talk about how important the play still is to avoid saying TOO much about the current production. Amazing how many words you can kill off with that...
|
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 4, 2019 8:34:36 GMT
4 stars from whatsonstage
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2019 8:56:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by MrsCondomine on Apr 4, 2019 9:23:39 GMT
Well this is a trip!
|
|
899 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Apr 4, 2019 9:37:43 GMT
An interesting read: 'enjoyable' and 'brightly directed' seem to be the only remarks on the production aside from a couple of comments on the acting. |
|
|
|
Post by turbo25 on Apr 4, 2019 11:38:22 GMT
I had a feeling the reviews would fall as they have. It's not easy for a professional reviewer to admit they were bored during a "classic" play, and indeed they will have been looking for different things to the average theatre goer.
But I'd be really interested for Time Out to explain the large number of walk outs...there will have been none on press night of course, but how do you justify a 5* review when abut a third of the audience disappears at the interval?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2019 14:44:42 GMT
I had a feeling the reviews would fall as they have. It's not easy for a professional reviewer to admit they were bored during a "classic" play, and indeed they will have been looking for different things to the average theatre goer. But I'd be really interested for Time Out to explain the large number of walk outs...there will have been none on press night of course, but how do you justify a 5* review when abut a third of the audience disappears at the interval? Well, presumably they weren't bored. And a review is the view of the reviewer, who will have stayed for the whole thing, not a review of the audience 3* from the Guardian - www.theguardian.com/stage/2019/apr/04/top-girls-review-caryl-churchill-revival-lyttelton-national-theatre - Billington thinks it's lost a bit on the huge stage and doesn't like the absence of doubling - |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2019 15:04:30 GMT
Don't 'professional' reviewers frequently moan about being bored during 'classics'? see Billington on many a post-1952 classic play and Shents on, well anything his mates aren't in....
Jokes aside, I've read many a traditional reviewer (yes I'm going for that descriptor) moan about being bored.
|
|
1,046 posts
|
Post by jgblunners on Apr 4, 2019 22:54:28 GMT
Well I say don’t let the nay-sayers put you off because I thought it was brilliant. There were no signs of a mass exodus of audience members tonight, although the reception at the curtain call was distinctly muted compared to the usual atmosphere at the National. I went in only knowing the premise of the first scene and found the play to be very different to my expectations.
Katherine Kingsley and Lucy Black give outstanding performances, and the rest of the cast support them well. There isn’t really a weak link cast-wise in my opinion. The problem is with the piece I think - while the first scene is a nice theatrical trick, and sets up some of Marlene’s character without giving everything about her away, it jars with the rest of the play stylistically and raises too many themes that are never fully grounded. What then follows is very gripping and by the end I had almost forgotten that the dinner party had taken place. I also had an issue with the set design - scenes 1 and 3 are great, but 2 and 4 were not well conceived in terms of sight lines. They’re both box-like and pushed to the front of the stage so people at the ends of rows will struggle to see the full depth of the playing area in those scenes. I was about 1/3 of the way in on the front row and scene 2 was awkward to watch. Scene 4 is better as the playing area is bigger but it’s still got the issue for extreme ends of rows.
Anyway, don’t write this one off as it’s a well-written play that isn’t what it first seems. It’s not perfect, but then very little theatre is and we don’t get anywhere if we’re not prepared to challenge theatrical form and try new things.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsabouttogdown on Apr 5, 2019 22:39:56 GMT
So basically we've learned nobody on Theatreboard understands Caryl Churchill.
|
|
2,850 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Apr 5, 2019 22:44:59 GMT
So basically we've learned nobody on Theatreboard understands Caryl Churchill.   |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2019 0:41:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2019 16:37:18 GMT
I thought this was excellent - agree with jgblunners points including the issues with the set design - I was about 5 seats in, it was fine for scene 4 but scene 2 was significantly restricted. Ironically the exhibition upstairs explains how they use digital modelling to avoid sightline issues! On the cast doubling - most of the dinner guests in scene 1 do turn up in scene 3 as non-speaking visitors to the office. Gives them something to do I guess! There is some fabulous hair in that scene and I loved the look of the office although seemed odd there were no typewriters, fax machines, photocopier etc. Loved the way the final scene made me rethink the reasons the dinner guests were chosen Interesting watching it as a period piece. For instance the 46 year old woman being interviewed, talking about the different attitudes of younger women in the workplace would have been born in 1935 and is talking about women born in the late 1950s. Had a look at the playtext - there’s a note from Churchill that she wrote it as three acts with two intervals (act 1 the dinner, act 3 the current second act) and she thinks this structure makes things clearer but slows things down. In the original production the interval came before the office scene, also there’s a short interview scene which came after the dinner, which is now part of the office scene. She ends the note with “so do what you want!”. I think either of those would work better than the NT approach |
|
5,148 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Apr 13, 2019 16:54:15 GMT
Another vote here for having really enjoyed it! Went in cold, and had no idea what I was about to see (expecting the worst due to everyone’s comments on here!
Had a thoroughly nice afternoon. Thought it was pacy actually (to me the first half didn’t feel an hour and 35 mins - although the chap next to me was asleep in seconds so evidently it did to him!). Didn’t like the uneven acts - a 35 minute second half to me is a bit pointless, so I’d rather of had it actually run without an interval (sorry to those of you I know that hate shows with no interval!)
Thought Katherine Kingsley was fantastic as Marlene - played all the emotions really well. I’m a sucker for mental woman Amanda Lawrence, so when she came on and started talking about Angels all I could do was think about @emicardiff 🤷🏻♂️
I laughed a lot, bits of it were a little shocking, and the final scene was pretty tense, so I’d go with 3.5 stars. Maybe 4 if I was feeling generous 🙂
|
|
1,346 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Apr 13, 2019 21:50:35 GMT
My heart sank a bit at the start. The first scene didn't really engage me and felt interminable, but after that it just got better and better and the whole thing is cleverly structured and draws you in subtly. By the end you realise the point of the first bit!
|
|
519 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Apr 14, 2019 16:45:29 GMT
Great to finall see this seminal play. I read it a few years ago but I so there were things I was intrigued about: the strangeness of that first scene, the overlapping, how the play is staged.
I was not dispappointed and, by the end, came out thinking it's a great play. The clarity of thought about the 80s written so early on in the decade....
I agree with what I've read about it seeming a bit excessive. But also I suppose much of this production is about reclaiming the play from MSC's productions. Overall, very good. But it's not setting the NT alight, I felt, although it was full.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 17:41:13 GMT
But also I suppose much of this production is about reclaiming the play from MSC's productions. That's an interesting point which hadn't occurred to me. A good reason for not doing the usual doubling - this isn't specified in the text so would have been introduced in MSC's original production. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Apr 14, 2019 21:01:56 GMT
Can't reach the payment confirmation page, it's timing out .. huuuugely frustrating.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Apr 15, 2019 9:13:23 GMT
Working now. For info; 4 dates remaining with £15 and £18 seats in the front rows - two are matinees.
|
|
1,861 posts
|
Top Girls
Apr 20, 2019 21:53:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by NeilVHughes on Apr 20, 2019 21:53:21 GMT
Of its time, which is sadly mine.
Hampered by the historical dinner party scene which makes complete sense as it resolves but some around me weren’t prepared to invest the time.
|
|
213 posts
|
Post by peelee on Apr 30, 2019 10:35:50 GMT
If this is still running, go and see it. Writing from the 1980s that stands up still, as well as presenting 2020s-style audiences with both historical insight into the period it came out of and, with regard to 'nowadays' when things are supposedly more sophisticated, knowing and different, food for thought. I read this online yesterday and she makes an argument about the play that is worth thinking about: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/29/fourth-wave-feminism-play-top-girls-feminism |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on May 4, 2019 23:50:46 GMT
Really don't know what to say about this. Maybe its appeal now is it speaks to a simpler time.
What I did like was it, in places, imbued tones of punky 1982 Kings Road (the dinner party), but elsewhere had some neat, text book moves (in the end, which sister was the feminist ... ). Not sure feminism vs. individualism will ever be resolved so this work can always make for a neat Restore Point, and then we can all start again.
I wonder if she were to revisit this now, Churchill might eschew some of the dinner party - perhaps even a guest, in favour of a little more of the sisterly ding-dong on class and Thatcherism (which both seemed to be proxies for Marlene's version of feminism). A rather retro evening: 3 1/2 Siouxsie Mohicans out of 5
|
|
|
|
Post by winonaforever on Jun 4, 2019 9:21:40 GMT
I saw it on Saturday and really enjoyed it. I was in the centre of row D, so no issues with the view.
Everyone around me seemed to be loving it too, people laughing like drains during the dinner party scene (which I thought was funny too, but not quite as hilarious as some people obviously did!)
Really lovely performances from all the cast (not sure about Angie, but she's such an annoying character anyway I can't see anyone being able to make her likeable)
No walkouts that I could see, and no one seemed to expect an interval after the dinner party although it's such a long scene.
I was really expecting to be bored after some of the things I'd read here, so an even nicer surprise.
My only issue was that it was FREEZING in the theatre, it got progressively colder throughout the performance (it was a very hot day on Saturday and I thought twice about taking a jacket out with me but I'm glad I did - I'd suspected it might be too cold in there)
|
|
55 posts
|
Post by nialld on Jul 21, 2019 10:26:53 GMT
Interesting to read through all the comments on this thread and see such a sharp contrast from everyone absolutely loathing it initially, to the second half of the thread being full mostly of people thinking it was excellent! I wonder if it got a lot better over preview period, or just coincidence? I'm thinking the latter, as most of the negative comments seem to be about the play itself rather than the production. I caught this on the final matinee yesterday and am firmly in the second camp - I thought it was brilliant. Pretty much all I knew of the play was the opening dinner scene, so I was surprised as to how the rest of it played out but ultimately found it a very engaging and interesting piece that made sense as a whole. Interesting to compare it to something like Peter Gynt - I thought they were similarly tonally variant but whilst Peter Gynt ultimately felt incoherent to me and did not feel like it worked in its entirety, I could decipher the links between the scenes in Top Girls and found it satisfying as a whole. As someone who's only experience of Top Girls is this production (and has never seen a production where they doubled the roles) I'm interested by the comments about the doubling being integral and why this is? The comments from MSC at the beginning of this article does definitely suggest that it was done purely due to budget and wasn't what Churchill intended when writing: www.theguardian.com/culture/2012/jan/16/how-we-made-top-girls |
|
