1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Oct 15, 2019 10:08:06 GMT
Booked for the 1st November perf ages ago, but still not received e-tickets. Wonder if I should chase? I went for two restricted view seats but not together Q35 in the stalls and one of the Row C dress circle pillar seats. Glad to hear that so far the restrictions aren't too bad.
|
|
53 posts
|
Post by amybenson on Oct 15, 2019 10:11:42 GMT
Booked for the 1st November perf ages ago, but still not received e-tickets. Wonder if I should chase? I went for two restricted view seats but not together Q35 in the stalls and one of the Row C dress circle pillar seats. Glad to hear that so far the restrictions aren't too bad. I've only just received e-ticket for 22nd October today. |
|
728 posts
|
Post by sophie92 on Oct 15, 2019 11:07:16 GMT
Booked for the 1st November perf ages ago, but still not received e-tickets. Wonder if I should chase? I went for two restricted view seats but not together Q35 in the stalls and one of the Row C dress circle pillar seats. Glad to hear that so far the restrictions aren't too bad. I didn’t receive my e-ticket for last night until Friday, so I don’t think you’ve anything to worry about yet |
|
55 posts
|
Post by nialld on Oct 15, 2019 16:35:54 GMT
I have a spare £25 ticket going tonight - won the TodayTix lottery and totally did not expect to so did not have the foresight to invite anyone to come with and now everyone I’ve asked thus far is not available! If anyone here is able to make it down tonight and wants the ticket - drop me a message!
|
|
5,149 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Oct 15, 2019 21:15:17 GMT
Started about 7 minutes late tonight and we were out by 5 past 9.
Claire Foy really is astonishing - that’s sort of the only word I can think of to use.
Matt Smith is good, but I felt he highlighted just how good Claire was.
The play, to me anyway, was very uneven. It rattled along and then just went into overdrive in the second half. Did prefer the second half of it but something just didn’t quite... gel.
Worth it for Claire though. And I liked the set up in the theatre - not see the OV in the round before.
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by Steve on Oct 16, 2019 13:00:31 GMT
I adored this last night! Duncan Macmillan's dialogue is superb, capturing the way people prevaricate, blunder and qualify their way through conversations. It's a funny, dramatic, specific yet universal, and ultimately profound show, with two wonderful and memorable performances from a neurotic Claire Foy and laid-back Matt Smith. Some spoilers follow. . . I can think of three things that might niggle people about this show: (1) These characters are so woke about the environment that some will dismiss them as cranks and fail to empathise. I mean, I can't imagine Billie Piper's Yerma questioning her biological instincts on the grounds that having a child produces 10,000 tonnes of CO2. Still, Macmillan was ahead of the game on this one, as in 2011, Greta Thunberg was an unknown tot, and now she's a global hero for worrying about exactly the sorts of concerns this couple worry about. In this respect, this play is the zeitgeist! (2) Claire Foy could be funnier. This is true, as Macmillan writes lines like rollercoasters, twisting and turning with hesitations, qualifications and sudden unsupported assertions, and Foy, rather than playing these twists and turns for laughs, sticks sternly to the slightly unhinged, vulnerable and angry truth of her character. One can imagine the hilarity that could be achieved if someone as emotionally torrential and camp as Andrew Scott were playing the part of this neurotic woman, how low and high he could swing in his efforts to fox and flirt with the audience, how long he would linger on certain flavourful words, how fast he would shoot himself down thereafter. Simply put, with the right actor, the part of Woman could be a laugh riot. It isn't, as Foy plays the part for realism, but the dividend ultimately was that I was reduced to tears. (3) Macmillan overly leans into the stereotype of the crazy emotional woman and the taciturn protective man. This potential niggle bothered me the longest, as I had Macmillan down for someone who would work to discredit character clichés, rather than use them. But of course, stereotypes can be true in individual cases, and Macmillan works hard to broaden his characters beyond cliche, particularly in the case of Matt Smith's M, who specifically addresses his supposed taciturnity in a wonderful speech that upends the very cliche. Smith himself is a truly exceptional stage actor, able to hold the stage unselfconsciously in silence, to convey so much, so many colours. I believed him utterly, and he serves the drama more than is immediately evident, for though Foy has the vast bulk of the lines, it is Smith who makes us believe in this couple, that they are a couple, that he loves her in spite, or perhaps because of her neurosis. And when he does get lines, he's natural, original and electric. The play ultimately is immensely profound, capturing not only the minutiae of how we speak, but also the enormity of the planet and our place in it, and most of all, our entrances and exits. It's terrific! 4 and a half stars.  PS: Before a show, I tend to unwrap 4 polo mints and place them in my breast pocket for quiet consumption during the play, especially during lulls in the action. This play was so gripping for me that I forgot to consume a single mint, something that has never happened before lol! |
|
5,691 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 17, 2019 20:48:52 GMT
I can’t share your enthusiasm Steve. Yes Smith acted his socks off. Foy v skilful. Tbh I thought it was sentimental, a simple love story set in troubled times, moving a little, funny nods and winks to audience.
New ending apparently, disco dancing with flashing lights
|
|
1,256 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Oct 17, 2019 21:25:33 GMT
I can’t share your enthusiasm Steve. Yes Smith acted his socks off. Foy v skilful. Tbh I thought it was sentimental, a simple love story set in troubled times, moving a little, funny nods and winks to audience. New ending apparently, disco dancing with flashing lights Spoiler? ;( |
|
1,256 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Oct 17, 2019 21:26:21 GMT
I adored this last night! Duncan Macmillan's dialogue is superb, capturing the way people prevaricate, blunder and qualify their way through conversations. It's a funny, dramatic, specific yet universal, and ultimately profound show, with two wonderful and memorable performances from a neurotic Claire Foy and laid-back Matt Smith. Some spoilers follow. . . I can think of three things that might niggle people about this show: (1) These characters are so woke about the environment that some will dismiss them as cranks and fail to empathise. I mean, I can't imagine Billie Piper's Yerma questioning her biological instincts on the grounds that having a child produces 10,000 tonnes of CO2. Still, Macmillan was ahead of the game on this one, as in 2011, Greta Thunberg was an unknown tot, and now she's a global hero for worrying about exactly the sorts of concerns this couple worry about. In this respect, this play is the zeitgeist! (2) Claire Foy could be funnier. This is true, as Macmillan writes lines like rollercoasters, twisting and turning with hesitations, qualifications and sudden unsupported assertions, and Foy, rather than playing these twists and turns for laughs, sticks sternly to the slightly unhinged, vulnerable and angry truth of her character. One can imagine the hilarity that could be achieved if someone as emotionally torrential and camp as Andrew Scott were playing the part of this neurotic woman, how low and high he could swing in his efforts to fox and flirt with the audience, how long he would linger on certain flavourful words, how fast he would shoot himself down thereafter. Simply put, with the right actor, the part of Woman could be a laugh riot. It isn't, as Foy plays the part for realism, but the dividend ultimately was that I was reduced to tears. (3) Macmillan overly leans into the stereotype of the crazy emotional woman and the taciturn protective man. This potential niggle bothered me the longest, as I had Macmillan down for someone who would work to discredit character clichés, rather than use them. But of course, stereotypes can be true in individual cases, and Macmillan works hard to broaden his characters beyond cliche, particularly in the case of Matt Smith's M, who specifically addresses his supposed taciturnity in a wonderful speech that upends the very cliche. Smith himself is a truly exceptional stage actor, able to hold the stage unselfconsciously in silence, to convey so much, so many colours. I believed him utterly, and he serves the drama more than is immediately evident, for though Foy has the vast bulk of the lines, it is Smith who makes us believe in this couple, that they are a couple, that he loves her in spite, or perhaps because of her neurosis. And when he does get lines, he's natural, original and electric. The play ultimately is immensely profound, capturing not only the minutiae of how we speak, but also the enormity of the planet and our place in it, and most of all, our entrances and exits. It's terrific! 4 and a half stars. PS: Before a show, I tend to unwrap 4 polo mints and place them in my breast pocket for quiet consumption during the play, especially during lulls in the action. This play was so gripping for me that I forgot to consume a single mint, something that has never happened before lol! Spoiler tags please?! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 21:37:41 GMT
Anyone wary of spoilers could just avoid the thread...I think it's fair for people to want to discuss once they have seen it!
|
|
5,691 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 17, 2019 21:38:48 GMT
The flashing lights are not a spoiler. We were told about them as we went in. Thought I would pass on the joy.
I had the privilege then this week of seeing two two handers by four of our best actors, different generations. Hansard IMO is the better play. Every line hits the mark and the laughs though crafted to appeal to the audience now are lodged in character. Lungs a little long and has its climactic event in the middle; I feel it doesn’t add anything after that. Hansard is taut and tense all the way through, the last five minutes earned. I did like the attempt at the way we talk now, all the hesitations and over thinking in Lungs but I prefer the heightened language in Hansard. Maybe our kids will see Smith and Foy in Hansard in the future 😂
|
|
1,281 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Oct 18, 2019 7:04:14 GMT
Really enjoyed this. It's a nice bitter sweet play with some very touching moments. In spite of its many flaws it's very entertaining thanks to the two excellent actors. They had great chemistry, charisma and stage presence. Highly recommended.
|
|
1,256 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Oct 18, 2019 7:57:00 GMT
Anyone wary of spoilers could just avoid the thread...I think it's fair for people to want to discuss once they have seen it! Nope. It's entirely fair for people to want to discuss it once they have seen it. Nobody is disputing that. It is however equally as easy to add any spoilers in spoiler tags, as per the terms of the board! Oh and disco dancing IS a spoiler too! |
|
5,691 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 18, 2019 9:23:32 GMT
Well now we know, I have to tell you that I was waiting for the bloomin’ flashing lights from the start having been told about them by FOH as we went in. So spoiler it may well have been but nothing to do with the play.
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by Steve on Oct 18, 2019 11:04:05 GMT
I adored this last night! Duncan Macmillan's dialogue is superb, capturing the way people prevaricate, blunder and qualify their way through conversations. It's a funny, dramatic, specific yet universal, and ultimately profound show, with two wonderful and memorable performances from a neurotic Claire Foy and laid-back Matt Smith. Some spoilers follow. . . I can think of three things that might niggle people about this show: (1) These characters are so woke about the environment that some will dismiss them as cranks and fail to empathise. I mean, I can't imagine Billie Piper's Yerma questioning her biological instincts on the grounds that having a child produces 10,000 tonnes of CO2. Still, Macmillan was ahead of the game on this one, as in 2011, Greta Thunberg was an unknown tot, and now she's a global hero for worrying about exactly the sorts of concerns this couple worry about. In this respect, this play is the zeitgeist! (2) Claire Foy could be funnier. This is true, as Macmillan writes lines like rollercoasters, twisting and turning with hesitations, qualifications and sudden unsupported assertions, and Foy, rather than playing these twists and turns for laughs, sticks sternly to the slightly unhinged, vulnerable and angry truth of her character. One can imagine the hilarity that could be achieved if someone as emotionally torrential and camp as Andrew Scott were playing the part of this neurotic woman, how low and high he could swing in his efforts to fox and flirt with the audience, how long he would linger on certain flavourful words, how fast he would shoot himself down thereafter. Simply put, with the right actor, the part of Woman could be a laugh riot. It isn't, as Foy plays the part for realism, but the dividend ultimately was that I was reduced to tears. (3) Macmillan overly leans into the stereotype of the crazy emotional woman and the taciturn protective man. This potential niggle bothered me the longest, as I had Macmillan down for someone who would work to discredit character clichés, rather than use them. But of course, stereotypes can be true in individual cases, and Macmillan works hard to broaden his characters beyond cliche, particularly in the case of Matt Smith's M, who specifically addresses his supposed taciturnity in a wonderful speech that upends the very cliche. Smith himself is a truly exceptional stage actor, able to hold the stage unselfconsciously in silence, to convey so much, so many colours. I believed him utterly, and he serves the drama more than is immediately evident, for though Foy has the vast bulk of the lines, it is Smith who makes us believe in this couple, that they are a couple, that he loves her in spite, or perhaps because of her neurosis. And when he does get lines, he's natural, original and electric. The play ultimately is immensely profound, capturing not only the minutiae of how we speak, but also the enormity of the planet and our place in it, and most of all, our entrances and exits. It's terrific! 4 and a half stars. PS: Before a show, I tend to unwrap 4 polo mints and place them in my breast pocket for quiet consumption during the play, especially during lulls in the action. This play was so gripping for me that I forgot to consume a single mint, something that has never happened before lol! Spoiler tags please?!
I hear you, but I think the issue of "spoilers" is difficult, because different people mean different things by the word "spoilers."
On the one hand, I accept that ANY information about the content of a show is a "spoiler." This is the definition of the word "spoiler" that is used by Star Wars fans, for instance, and this black and white definition of "spoilers" derives from the reasonable assumption that every Star Wars fan is going to see the next Star Wars movie, no matter what, so ANY info about the show is de facto a spoiler of their impending experience. That said, a huge amount of Star Wars fans are nonetheless addicted to spoilers, so the convention is to state "Spoilers follow" and then spill the info anyway. That way the two categories of Star Wars fans (the tell-me-nothing brigade and the tell-me-everything brigade) can decide if they want to read on or not. I used this convention above when I stated that "Some Spoilers follow. . ."
On the other hand, most theatregoers are NOT like Star Wars fans because they are NOT committed to see EVERY show they read about. In fact, they read about shows precisely to discover things that will help them decide which shows they wish to see and which they don't. Reviews in the papers, and blogs, and whatnot, make decisions about what information they consider to be spoilers, and what not, so that they can reveal those things that they believe will help theatregoers make decisions about whether to buy a ticket. For instance, the set-up of a show, and the themes of a show, and the performances of the actors in a show, are generally not considered to be "spoilers" following this line of thought. The ending of a show, or the revelation of significant events that twist the plot, are generally considered "spoilers" using this definition, and in this instance, I would certainly use "spoiler" tags if I ever wanted to discuss such things, as indeed I have in the past.
There is of course a problem with the latter definition of "spoiler," in that every person will have a different place they draw the line as to what can, and cannot, be revealed. Consequently, you should never read a review by a person in the newspapers, or a blog, or even here, by a person you think is generally overly liberal in what they reveal.
I don't like the idea that everything on this Theatreboard, barring the times of the shows and the prices of the tickets, should be in spoiler tags. It would make the whole site burdensome and ugly and offputting, in my opinion. I like the general consensus, which coincides with the practices of most reasonable critics, and I trust that people who don't want to read on will simply not read on, and skip the comment.
But since I try to accommodate everyone in my ramblings, I use the warning "Some spoilers follow. . ." for the Star Wars types, for regular newspaper review reading types, I will use a "spoiler" tag to hide endings and significant plot points, and for those who just want to register how much this person liked a show, I put a star rating so they can skip everything I write, and simply know where the show falls on my tastemeter.
If I'm wrong about where I'm drawing these lines, please tell me, but I don't think this is a black and white issue of "spoilers mean spoilers!" 
|
|
5,691 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 18, 2019 16:49:40 GMT
I’m not worried about spoilers really. Obviously 'The butler did it' isn’t helpful so use the tag for that kind of thing. If you think what you want to say might spoil it then use the spoiler tags. So pause and think, probably having to pause means use the tags.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forrest on Oct 18, 2019 17:26:07 GMT
I adored this last night! Duncan Macmillan's dialogue is superb, capturing the way people prevaricate, blunder and qualify their way through conversations. It's a funny, dramatic, specific yet universal, and ultimately profound show, with two wonderful and memorable performances from a neurotic Claire Foy and laid-back Matt Smith. (2) Claire Foy could be funnier. [...] It isn't, as Foy plays the part for realism, but the dividend ultimately was that I was reduced to tears. (3) Macmillan overly leans into the stereotype of the crazy emotional woman and the taciturn protective man. Smith himself is a truly exceptional stage actor, able to hold the stage unselfconsciously in silence, to convey so much, so many colours. I believed him utterly, and he serves the drama more than is immediately evident, for though Foy has the vast bulk of the lines, it is Smith who makes us believe in this couple, that they are a couple, that he loves her in spite, or perhaps because of her neurosis. And when he does get lines, he's natural, original and electric. The play ultimately is immensely profound, capturing not only the minutiae of how we speak, but also the enormity of the planet and our place in it, and most of all, our entrances and exits. It's terrific! I think I can simply stop trying: whenever we go and see the same play, it seems that you come to the computer first and type up most of what I was going to say! I agree with you on many things, most prominently on the fact that the play/production is terrific! I was laughing/giggling one second, breathless the next, in tears by the end of it. (And I have the Old Vic retweeting me saying exactly this to prove it.  ) I thought both actors' performances were superb: Foy as the intense neurotic - whose choice to go for the realistic rather than laugh-out-loud funny angle for me was much appreciated - and Smith who was so subtly gentle and wonderful and endearing one minute, and immature and maddening the next. I never thought that the play lost its momentum, and was absolutely impressed by how little they needed to make it all believable. That was some fine acting/storytelling! (I also agree that Macmillan did fall into the stereotype trap a little, but couldn't get myself to hold it against him, as I was just simply utterly enamoured with the performances.) |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Oct 23, 2019 11:08:37 GMT
Finding I have more thoughts about this than I expected. It was really a decent 'rediscovery' - suiting the actors and zeitgeist very well (iirc, Ex Reb even camped out last go around in the park opposite, though not for tickets). I do wonder if you are making something of a rod for your own back with a one-act, 85' two-hander but, like Hansard just up the road, it's accomplished writing. I didn't experience stereotypes though goodness knows how he avoided them. An interesting titbit I picked up from the workshops on Hansard was different parts of the audience laugh at different parts on different nights - sometimes the women find a chuckle, maybe the politics get a laugh, the men murmur on another night. Also delivery is everything audiences view exactly the same line completely differently depending on phrasing and tone. On Monday, there was amusement and acknowledgements from both men and women, and both together - which obv suggests he got it pretty right. I was hugely impressed with how the woman was written. Without going deep into politics, it's clear population is the key to climate control. It's equally clear governments of developed western countries have been addressing native depopulation by increasing immigration, whether from former colonies (the UK and France), or via clever mechanisms labelled 'freedom of movement'. The great issue we are currently grappling with is how to replace the absurd Ponzi scheme of population growth = financial growth with a new model. Maybe the green new deal is it,maybe not. Perhaps even the EU's determined depopulation of E and SE Europe will, as those countries increasingly re-wild, come to be seen as visionary. Anyway, with the confidence of a strong script, Prince Phil and Liz continue to bounce of each other though a lifetime of marrital turbulence. Most decent |
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Oct 23, 2019 13:07:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Oct 26, 2019 21:23:50 GMT
Pretty good earlier this afternoon but I agree with done that the play losses its way somewhat but the half/two-thirds point. Acting was stellar all round though and definitely worth the visit. I was in D24 of the Baylis which was perfectly clear if you don't mind a bit of distance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2019 21:39:14 GMT
This was a decent enough show to while away 90 mins on a rainy day, but was definitely elevated by the fantastic performances. Otherwise the story felt a bit ‘My First Play’, with an ending that didn’t seem much related to what had gone before. Couldn’t help but feel there were more interesting ways to leave these two characters. And, my word, it’s sweary.
On the building itself - far too many people congregating on the stairs leading in, making it hard for people to get in after the bag checks. The dress circle level bar space, by contrast, was almost deserted. Loos on the ground floor a touch dark and claustrophobic. Signage not great either. I arrived in good time so had time to pause and work it out, but if I had been in a rush or there weren’t so many people around I may well have strolled into the gents (yes, I’m still calling it that) by mistake.
Can’t comment on the upstairs loos as, in their continuing effort to present themselves as a warm and welcoming environment, the OV had stationed FOH like silent guard dogs on the doors at the end, so those in the dress circle were herded out the side exit rather than leaving via the bar/internal staircases. They had a good 3.5 hours before the next show, so I’m not sure what all that was about. Not entirely in keeping with the appalling, self-congratulatory framed quote on the wall along the lines of ‘It made me feel like the Old Vic is for everyone’, put it that way!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 11:56:23 GMT
Found this a bit disappointing. Couldn't help comparing it to "Constellations" which had similar staging and was far superior. All seemed a bit flat up to the last few minutes which I really liked
Would have preferred more of that really, and had the whole play covering their entire lives rather than focusing on a fairly short period up to the last few minutes
Sat on the back row of the stalls for £30, great view from there. Agree with @jeanhunt the foyer areas seemed very cramped as did the downstairs bar. Having the box office between the two stalls entrances means you have to walk through the box office queue to get across that bit. Doesn't help that (I think?) they don't let anyone sitting in the stalls into the upper levels before the show (at least, they are checking tickets before people can use the stairs). Appreciate the theatre is full for this one so won't always be that bad. |
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Oct 27, 2019 22:10:59 GMT
Could someone also share what the stage door situation is like for this production? I'm seeing a couple of selfies with Claire Foy on social media but less so with Matt Smith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 22:25:15 GMT
Could someone also share what the stage door situation is like for this production? I'm seeing a couple of selfies with Claire Foy on social media but less so with Matt Smith. I went last week and it was very civilised - security make everyone line up in single file along the wall running down from the stage door towards the main entrance and both Matt and Claire simply walked down the line. They were both very generous with their time and made sure everyone got whatever they wanted signed. Matt wasn't posing for selfies but told people they could take photos if they wanted to while he signed, then he just wandered off down the street without a car or any security in sight! Claire came out a bit later and posed for a fair few photos. She seemed genuinely shocked how many people were waiting for her, and was taking the mickey out of Matt's enormous signature not leaving her much space to sign! They both seem very genuine, lovely, down go earth people. Just realised I haven't posted what I thought of the play! I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought the 80 or so minutes zipped by. I agree it somewhat lost its way in the last third and I was rather irritated by some of the audience behaviour and laughter at inappropriate places, but it really was just a treat to see two wonderful actors at the top of their game being effortless foils for each other. Well worth the ticket price! |
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Oct 27, 2019 22:48:22 GMT
Could someone also share what the stage door situation is like for this production? I'm seeing a couple of selfies with Claire Foy on social media but less so with Matt Smith. I went last week and it was very civilised - security make everyone line up in single file along the wall running down from the stage door towards the main entrance and both Matt and Claire simply walked down the line. They were both very generous with their time and made sure everyone got whatever they wanted signed. Matt wasn't posing for selfies but told people they could take photos if they wanted to while he signed, then he just wandered off down the street without a car or any security in sight! Claire came out a bit later and posed for a fair few photos. She seemed genuinely shocked how many people were waiting for her, and was taking the mickey out of Matt's enormous signature not leaving her much space to sign! They both seem very genuine, lovely, down go earth people. Just realised I haven't posted what I thought of the play! I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought the 80 or so minutes zipped by. I agree it somewhat lost its way in the last third and I was rather irritated by some of the audience behaviour and laughter at inappropriate places, but it really was just a treat to see two wonderful actors at the top of their game being effortless foils for each other. Well worth the ticket price! Ooh interesting. Thanks for this. Good to hear it was a civilised crowd unlike at some other places. I'm looking forward to next weekend |
|
) 
