5,140 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Mar 31, 2018 15:44:48 GMT
I’m only staying for Act 2 because my bus home isn’t until 5. I am so confused and cross at a lot of this - Eccleston seems so out of his depth. I’ll post more at the end, but I’m not enjoying this one bit. The NT version Is much worse than this You might be better off getting a credit note If you hated the RSC one that much I got an entry pass ticket for NT - so I’m going to go as it was £7. And I’m already in London the day I’m seeing it for something else anyway. But yes, I really did hate this, and I tried hard not to. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 16:11:59 GMT
The NT version Is much worse than this You might be better off getting a credit note If you hated the RSC one that much I got an entry pass ticket for NT - so I’m going to go as it was £7. And I’m already in London the day I’m seeing it for something else anyway. But yes, I really did hate this, and I tried hard not to. There are some confused elements to the RSC staging And some novelty decisions Which are always going to be divisive Child witches as an example But overall the RSC version Has humour and a sense of purpose Although you might not feel This When you see the NT staging You will see what I mean Personally I wouldn’t recommend the NT version Even if someone paid YOU to attend It’s that awful |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 31, 2018 16:33:01 GMT
I’m a bit surprised about E forgetting his words in Macbeth. Sure it wasn’t a dramatic pause or two? I mean, you only have to go on about blood and muttering about witches and they can pick it up,surely?
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 31, 2018 16:33:28 GMT
I’m a bit surprised about E forgetting his words in Macbeth. Sure it wasn’t a dramatic pause or two? I mean, you only have to go on about blood and muttering about witches and they can pick it up,surely?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 16:39:19 GMT
It’s interesting
RSC remains effectively sold out
Odd tickets come up
But the NT staging has evidently had returns for all dates
|
|
5,140 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Mar 31, 2018 16:44:10 GMT
I’m a bit surprised about E forgetting his words in Macbeth. Sure it wasn’t a dramatic pause or two? I mean, you only have to go on about blood and muttering about witches and they can pick it up,surely? I thought that might have been the case the first time, but he tripped himself up a few times after that, so no, I’d say he forgot his words. It was sort of the least of my problems with him though 🤷🏻♂️ And yes Parsley, was a full house. |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 31, 2018 16:48:12 GMT
So good I said it twice, sorry folks.
Well, as I did M for O level ( o the dark ages ) I will help him out on Tuesday by shouting out the line. Eh?
|
|
5,140 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Mar 31, 2018 16:51:47 GMT
It might have been a off day for him, I’m more than happy to accept that on the line front.
Will be interested to see what you think on this one!
|
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Mar 31, 2018 17:12:15 GMT
Love how we uniquely relate to productions, as most of the production specifics are now known here are my thoughts on the two main points Being Alive had issues with. ‘Wyrd’ Children To the Macbeth’s children or lack of are at the core of their relationship, being haunted by the apparition of children would seem natural and make them more likely to believe in their destiny. (Think Yerma) Hesitancy As CE mumbling/forgetting lines has been mentioned and occurred in the performance I saw, think this is intentional to show/highlight the struggle with inner demons Macbeth is fighting and that he is not wholly comfortable with his destiny. In this production he never really portrays the monster and kills off stage as if embarrassed but once the journey has begun momentum takes over. For me this is best shown in the relief as Macbeth pauses and gives Macbeth the sword to kill and release him at the end. Do agree that the countdown becomes irritating and distracting. As said in the critic thread we all have opinions and reading @sochyboyy has made me assess my thoughts and put this together. Looking forward to seeing how this discussion pans out as more people get a chance to see it and comment. One thing for sure there will never be a definitive Shakespeare production which we will all agree on which drives my fascination with his plays. Now off to see RSC’s Hamlet at Hackney Empire, a welcome change from the multiple Macbeths of which I have seen 4 productions this year, did anyone else see the dance version at Wilton’s, thought that was inspired. |
|
5,140 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Mar 31, 2018 17:14:30 GMT
Nice interpretations there that I possibly hadn’t considered, but hadn’t done anything to change my opinion I’m afraid.
Glad you liked it though, theatre would be boring if we all liked the same thing!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Mar 31, 2018 19:41:25 GMT
Well, as I did M for O level ( o the dark ages ) I will help him out on Tuesday by shouting out the line. Eh? That would only be a kindness surely lynette but better wait a moment just in case it is a pause  |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 31, 2018 21:16:40 GMT
Well, as I did M for O level ( o the dark ages ) I will help him out on Tuesday by shouting out the line. Eh? That would only be a kindness surely lynette but better wait a moment just in case it is a pause There’s that bit in Hamlet where Polonius loses the thread of what he’s saying and stops. I remember Michael Bryant in the Daniel Day-Lewis one did that so brilliantly that it was counter-productive because for a moment even I thought he’d forgotten his lines and it felt awkward. |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Mar 31, 2018 23:13:56 GMT
If it's intentional it's a poor directorial choice, because on press night it certainly felt like he was genuinely struggling (something a couple of critics noted).
I saw the NT's understudy run last week. Seeing it minus the relative star power of Kinnear and Duff really emphasises the flaws in the production, even though the acting from the understudies was perfectly good.
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 3, 2018 21:24:40 GMT
All the words were there tonight. In funny places occasionally. Since when was Macbeth funny apart from the Porter that is and we don’t understand the porter without a lecture on gunpowder plot and equivocation. So back in the day the porter brought the house down. Now not so much. So...is that why they introduced a few laughs in other places? She should have died hereafter: laugh.
I enjoyed this more than the NT one but we are not talking ecstatic. Nice touches and consistent thinking and good performances spesh Ed Bennet who got the modern concept. I liked the little girl witches and we are all over the child thing now aren’t we?
What was the point of the words being projected on back? And the clock was silly.
It all held together though. And my favourite touch at the end of bringing on Fleance. Only seen this once before I think an RSC job ( correct me if I’m wrong Jan)
One last point. ‘We fail ‘ is not a statement of resignation. It is a tough question as a jibe. Modern directors muck about with all sorts but don’t understand that the punctuation is all up for grabs.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 3, 2018 22:08:16 GMT
Since when was Macbeth funny apart from the Porter that is and we don’t understand the porter without a lecture on gunpowder plot and equivocation. Is that what the porter speech is about? I had no idea, but did watch some gunpowder/spy thing on bbc last year I guess so will try and apply that to the speech and see if something other than me wanting it to end happens. Fleance on at the end in a nod to Banquo's line kings here after lynette? mmm not seen that one before but does make sense. |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 3, 2018 22:23:00 GMT
Yeah, the Porter's speech is all references to the Roman Catholic priests they were chasing all over the country after the Gunpowder Plot. Farmer was a pseudonym used by the so called ringleader and equivocation was what they accused them of when they tried to wriggle out of accusations of Popery etc. And of course it is what the Witches do, that is they don’t tell the whole truth to Macbeth and he realises this at the end.
Both occasions I’ve seen Fleance appear at the end is was menacing as if the whole shebang is about to kick off again in the struggle for power. As King James I thought he was descended from Banquo, it makes sense.
Again, like the NT effort, no guns despite the modern context. I wonder why. You can have knives with the guns, nasty flick knives and stuff....
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 8:25:51 GMT
The Macbeth that Eve Best directed at the Globe was quite funny in parts, and I know a lot of people didn't like it particularly, but for me that humour was what made it feel like a play about people, not just classic well-known characters.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 4, 2018 9:23:50 GMT
Thanks lynette, will def have to revisit that speech now and see if that helps me, I seem to have a very let it wash over you approach to Shakespeare, I merrily go but don't appear to really listen since when people quote reference bits I seem to have missed them entirely often, I guess I don't fully concentrate. Now why on earth had I assumed Fleance as a child appearing at the end wouldn't be threatening, why on earth would Malcolm want a rival that was not even his own his blood? Thanks has given me something to chew over, which is a great distraction from the current badly made porridge I have to chew over. |
|
84 posts
|
Post by jasper on Apr 4, 2018 9:34:28 GMT
Since when was Macbeth funny apart from the Porter that is and we don’t understand the porter without a lecture on gunpowder plot and equivocation. Is that what the porter speech is about? I had no idea, but did watch some gunpowder/spy thing on bbc last year I guess so will try and apply that to the speech and see if something other than me wanting it to end happens. Fleance on at the end in a nod to Banquo's line kings here after lynette ? mmm not seen that one before but does make sense. That Gunpowder thing on the BBC was totally unhistorical, so do not use it as any historical background. Events were taken form Elizabeth 1 reign and assigned without comment to James 1. James was portrayed as an idiot when in fact recent historical revision shows him to have been a King of incredible political ability holding together the two kingdoms. Believe nothing of this drama as historical until you check the facts. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 4, 2018 10:02:32 GMT
Is that what the porter speech is about? I had no idea, but did watch some gunpowder/spy thing on bbc last year I guess so will try and apply that to the speech and see if something other than me wanting it to end happens. Fleance on at the end in a nod to Banquo's line kings here after lynette ? mmm not seen that one before but does make sense. That Gunpowder thing on the BBC was totally unhistorical, so do not use it as any historical background. Events were taken form Elizabeth 1 reign and assigned without comment to James 1. James was portrayed as an idiot when in fact recent historical revision shows him to have been a King of incredible political ability holding together the two kingdoms. Believe nothing of this drama as historical until you check the facts. I didn't mean the Kit Harrington thing if that is what you are referring to, it was a historian based more evidence laden programme which nicely explained equivocation. |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 4, 2018 10:44:45 GMT
Jasper, I didn’t know about a BBC gunpowder programme, didn’t see it. My comments are based on academic study of the text. My understanding is that Shakespeare wrote the play for James in the hope of receiving confirmation of royal support for the actors' company, which he did indeed receive. Hence the ridicule of the Roman Catholic plotters and the belief that Witches exist and are an evil force, with the suggestion therefore in the play that such evil is associated with Roman Catholicism. Personally I think Shakespeare was a genius in writing such a play that also has so much more in it for subsequent generations.
|
|
245 posts
|
Post by barelyathletic on Apr 4, 2018 14:51:18 GMT
Saw this on Saturday night (have yet to see the NT production). For what it's worth, and just to add to the discussion, I thought this was enjoyable. Done with vigour and pace but with little sense of the driving forces of the play.
Chris Ecclestone is bullishly believable as a soldier, and certainly charismatic and watchable on stage, but he appeared to be racing through the words rather than finding the essence of the man. Where was the ambition? The self-doubt? The lust for power and the growing awareness of his imminent downfall? Sadly, I saw very little of it. Niamh Cusack was more interesting, though her Lady Macbeth to me seemed more neurotic than a real force for evil. She did however work hard at making Lady M human, which is no mean feat.
While I did like the sense of a ruling class and power, and that the Macbeth's taking of it after Duncan's death was a natural step for them, Polly Findlay appears to have fallen into the trap that Macbeth is all about surface horror, and has definitely watched too many Hollywood horror films. I actually felt that many moments of genuine horror were missed, if not fudged entirely (the murders of Banquo and the Macduffs, the appearance of the ghost, the sleepwalking scene).
And Polly should surely know by now that throwing stage blood over actors for no real reason may seem visceral but, actually, it just makes them look somewhat hilarious, as it drips in their eyes and off the ends of their noses.
The creepy porter was definitely more interesting than usual, though his character made little sense; unless you go with the idea that he really is Satan in disguise? His scoring up of each death was a nice idea, though there were obviously not many deaths during the battle of Dunsinane, or perhaps he just couldn't keep up. The countdown was, I thought, interesting but distracting, as I kept watching the damn clock as the play raced to its end. The witches (straight out of The Shining etc) were an interesting misfire, pretty much summing up the style over substance ethos of the director and the production. Having said all that though I was certainly never bored, as it all flew by. Sadly though not the gripping psychological thriller I was hoping for.
Oh, and Edward Bennett, who I adored in Loves Labour's Lost and Much Ado, was just horribly miscast as a dull as ditch-water Macduff. Please, please drop the cardigan before it comes to the Barbican. It's the only real horror in this production.
|
|
108 posts
|
Post by bob2010 on Apr 11, 2018 17:01:56 GMT
Anyone planning on seeing the live cinema broadcast tonight?
|
|
1,054 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 11, 2018 21:34:32 GMT
Watching at the cinema in Stratford upon Avon.
I’ve long come to the conclusion that when given the chance Polly Findlay is full of ideas but struggles to execute them cohesively
The pre show interview implies how heavily she and the designer took cues from horror films. But this show doesn’t begin to feel tense or scary and is merely full of visual cues to the genre
We complain about the child witches here, but some of us can still remember the children in Michael Boyd’s production. It worked there because there was atmosphere and build up as those children were lowered from above with the nooses round their necks.
All Polly Findlay has to show is that she has watched the shining without beginning to make those kids creepy. And the pacing is at odds too. Macbeth’s first encounter with the witches comes so quickly (the moment the scene starts) that there’s no build up
The horror feels superficial. The few onstage deaths are taken off stage or done in a brief blackout (seriously?). I like the idea of the hundreds of murders committed under Macbeth’s rule implied by the porter but how about we see some of that, like Banquos murders or that random servant being silenced for his knowledge on Macduff
Eccleston delivers the lines without fully grasping the meaning. So easy Cusack faired better trying to humanise Lady Macbeth
What the hell happened to you Edward Bennett. Surely you haven’t been eating extra pork pies for this production. And his scene with Malcolm was overshadowed by the sound you get when a microphone is pressed against a cardigan!
Generally good acting from the supporting cast and good visuals. But this is a macbeth thats not going to linger in my mind
|
|
3,533 posts
|
Post by Rory on Apr 11, 2018 21:55:08 GMT
I saw it too and didn't care for it despite being a fan of both leads.
No sense of place or time. Duncan starts off in what looks like a grubby 70s motel room. Hated the set, water cooler and all.
Creepy children as the witches fine but the effect is ruined when they start lugging the furniture around.
Really wanted some good verse speaking but the supporting cast was uneven.
Borrowed from Icke's Oresteia staging but not a patch on his execution.
I had typed a much longer post which unfortunately disappeared for some reason and I'm too tired to retype it all!
|
|
