330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on Oct 28, 2019 8:37:37 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. 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 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. 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!  Totally agree with you two on those points. A great evening at the theatre. Also I like the simplicity of the staging that does not distract from the wonderful performances. It felt very real and not so much showing cliches. |
|
215 posts
|
Post by frosty on Oct 30, 2019 8:10:49 GMT
I know this goes against the general view, but I personally didn't really like it. I found the characters very dull and self-centered, and by the end, I didn't care about them enough to be concerned about what happens to them. Also, I didn't get what was going on with the accents. They are both clearly very well spoken, but Matt seemed to be slipping into Ali G at points, and sometimes Claire sounded like Tony Blair, trying to be a bit more 'common'. When I spend a lot of money to see something, it would be nice to have a bit of scenery, or at least some props (and an interval!). I just felt a bit short-changed, and if it wasn't for Claire and Matt, I don't think the play would stand up on it's own merit. Only my view, of course, and it seems like most people really enjoyed it (overheard lots of positive comments on the way out), so perhaps I am just missing something...
|
|
1,861 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Nov 2, 2019 17:32:51 GMT
A low point of my theatrical year, found the writing one dimensional and detested the entitlement of the characters, oh I need a proper job, oh look I have got one and I can set up meetings about trees.
I will now need to make sure I never see a metropolitan ‘middle class’ lets have a child play again, the only positive at least this one didn’t reference IVF.
The next playwright who states how the poor council house trash drop babies like litter and us ‘good’ people really consider the decision to have a child deserve to get their pens taken away.
The environmental angle also seemed tagged on, in the end as life itself takes over sometimes things happen.
The performances of Claire and Matt make the best of their lot and if only went for the acting I would not have been disappointed as I am.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 13:16:52 GMT
We had a long stop about five minutes before the end last night. Someone in the seats on what is usually the stage took ill and ambulance people were called. She walked out, thankfully, to a round of applause that I think was more for the medics, but she gave a little bow. I’d never been in the theatre and heard the cry ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ before. Apparently lots of doctors go to the theatre, there was a swarm to the stage. The play is nothing much new and I imagine will always be performed with a famous pair. The dialogue is very conversational, perhaps it’s working really hard, but my sense was that Clare and Matt were doing the heavy-lifting. My attention was kept for the duration and I did end up having more empathy for the really quite unlikable characters than others on here.
The speech post-miscarriage crept up on me, and I was surprised to feel so emotional given I hadn’t really felt very invested up that point. I do think there’s a truth in that section about how relationships need someone to understand things about you that you don’t understand yourself, so it was worth the price of admission for that and I have been thinking about that quite a lot.
the environmental message was shoehorned in and the ending felt like it could have been from a different play. The sudden condensing of time felt out of whack with the rest of the play. But, at 80 minutes it was enjoyable enough. |
|
943 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Nov 6, 2019 21:28:03 GMT
Thought this was ok at best. Russell T Davies made an interesting observation this week that openly gay writers are new and are able to examine unexplored territory. Well this felt like the opposite, every bit was familiar and predictable.
I just feel like I've heard these people's story again and again and this added nothing particularly new or interesting.
Some nice lines, some decent performances but very very blah.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 7, 2019 21:22:01 GMT
I booked on the basis of casting as I hadn't seen either MT or CF on stage and wished to and that might have coloured my judgement somewhat, I did like Claire Foy very much and enjoyed Matt Smith and that floppy hair of his. I was engaged but in the way that I wasn't entirely focussed to the exclusion of all else. I'm watching Seven Worlds, One Planet as I type this and the bleak information contained hits much harder than the environmental message in the play unsurprisingly.
That slightly tacked on ending didn't really sit either.
Still I left fairly happily and not just because I wasn't forced to talking the queue for the ladies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 21:30:20 GMT
At least it was short. Some bits worked - as @happysooz says, but mostly I agree with frosty . They were too up themselves. Also, frankly, the actors were too old for most of the first hour, and for me it worked noticeably better when I felt they had reached the "early mature" phase matching their own more closely. Did seem a very standard tale of a couple, with some bolted on angst about green issues (that as usual they won't change lifestyle much for). "Beginning" just did everything so much better, I felt. 3 stars from me. Hmm, I really disliked Beginning, thinking the couple were intensely annoying, but like this play very much and find the couple more tolerable. I think it was the ploddingly realistic style of Beginning that put me off, whilst the elisions of time and bare staging of Lungs are more in tune with my tastes. Horses (or primates) for courses I suppose... |
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Nov 8, 2019 8:35:10 GMT
he environmental message was shoehorned in and the ending felt like it could have been from a different play. The sudden condensing of time felt out of whack with the rest of the play. But time is being condensed the whole way through the play, with it speeding up/condensing more as it goes on, which is reflective of how we experience time in real life. Also, frankly, the actors were too old for most of the first hour, and for me it worked noticeably better when I felt they had reached the "early mature" phase matching their own more closely. First performed in 2011 with Kate O'Flynn in the W role, and so surely the argument there would be she was too young for the latter 30 minutes? Given the span of the play, suspension of disbelief over the age of the performers will be necessary for some of it, regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 9:24:35 GMT
he environmental message was shoehorned in and the ending felt like it could have been from a different play. The sudden condensing of time felt out of whack with the rest of the play. But time is being condensed the whole way through the play, with it speeding up/condensing more as it goes on, which is reflective of how we experience time in real life. I agree with what you say about how time is perceived but that is not shown by the staging of this version. I haven’t read the text or seen it before so if it is true that this is what the author was aiming to show, this production didn’t achieve that very well. Is it in the stage directions? The programme? An interview with the writer? It’s a nice idea but I don’t think it’s fully realised here. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 8, 2019 9:41:50 GMT
Not following many of these criticisms, tbh. Yes, people are self centred, esp. when it comes to children.
How many families do you know where the first two children were of the same sex and there at least three in total.
And, yes, timelines contract and expand. Most of us understand Uni passes in a flash and the first year in work is like a decade, etc.
Fwiw, I thought the writing absolutely captured a male person and a female person of a type not uncommon.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Nov 8, 2019 22:38:02 GMT
I agree with what you say about how time is perceived but that is not shown by the staging of this version. I haven’t read the text or seen it before so if it is true that this is what the author was aiming to show, this production didn’t achieve that very well. Is it in the stage directions? The programme? An interview with the writer? It’s a nice idea but I don’t think it’s fully realised here. It is entirely in how it's structured and written. I haven't read or seen it before either, and yet I absolutely understood the conceit of time condensing here. So while for you, this production didn't achieve it very well, for me, this production absolutely nailed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2019 8:00:32 GMT
I’d like to pick up a copy of the text because I’m intrigued to see if the first scene in Ikea is longer than the scene after the miscarriage. The pacing felt like it was no more than three years in 75 minutes, then sixty years in four. I’m intrigued that it’s possibly more complex than that, so that’s given me a something to explore. This idea that the language and meaning are being condensed, rather than time being skipped, is very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 9, 2019 9:28:39 GMT
Ikea is, of course, more the kind of thing living together twenty somethings do, and which changes later ..
Someone mentioned the accents changing and that was something I pondered on the night. It reminded me that my accent has changed, more than once, over decades. And probably both in terms of regionality and, to a lesser extent, 'class affiliation'. Some people seem to keep 'em come-what-may, but others pick up accents. Could it be to do with fitting in at work ..
I think you can extend that to say these two people changed over the course of life events; the way they thought and therefore spoke about issues. Couples do develop shortcuts, with a lot of the in-between assumed when, before, they would have 'talked through that'. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2019 15:26:48 GMT
|
|
837 posts
|
Post by duncan on May 27, 2020 8:32:38 GMT
Claire Foy and Matt Smith to perform a socially distanced version of Lungs in an empty Old Vic.
The production of Duncan Macmillan's play, rehearsed via webcam, will be presented live to audiences on a nightly basis. After Lungs, the venue will present socially distanced play readings from its empty auditorium, with a full line-up to be revealed.
Each performance of Lungs and each subsequent play reading will be available for up to 1000 people per night (with some matinees) replicating the usual audience capacity size. 'Tickets' will be available for between £10 and £65, and, though all audiences will have the same "view" for the live stream, the venue is asking for the financial contribution to be seen as a donation.
Lungs will be presented across a number of days in June, with performance dates and times to be confirmed. Further productions are also to be announced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 9:43:07 GMT
I know the Old Vic needs to make money to survive, but £65 is a bit cheeky for a "socially distanced" version of a play that is all about a relationship and isn't that long to begin with...
Foy and Smith are great but not sure I'd bother to watch the play again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 9:52:53 GMT
Yes. Bit unclear whether they will be performing it live on stage in the empty auditorium?
Would seem better to sell more tickets at £10 each, or sell them for "£10 minimum donation" or something.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 27, 2020 10:04:13 GMT
£65 is a bit cheeky for a "socially distanced" version Yes, especially given Matt Smith's more fannish fanbase is probably younger and less upper-middle-class/London than the typical OV theatregoer. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on May 27, 2020 10:10:40 GMT
I guess it's a fundraiser, pay what you think appropriate.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 27, 2020 10:16:17 GMT
I guess it's a fundraiser, pay what you think appropriate. Scrap my last comment - I see there are going to be £10 tickets. I don't see why they should limit them to 1000 per performance though, given the Frankenstein NT Live attracted millions of viewers and these two actors also have global recognition and in Smith's case a cult fanbase. |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on May 27, 2020 10:49:31 GMT
Aren’t they doing it live every night? Hence the reason they are limiting it to 1000 per night.
Otherwise everyone would watch online night one and they’d be playing to empty Houses every other night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 10:53:32 GMT
Aren’t they doing it live every night? Hence the reason they are limiting it to 1000 per night. Otherwise everyone would watch online night one and they’d be playing to empty Houses every other night. Seems a bit of a waste of money to pay the actors to do it every night, unless they are doing it for free? Record it once and sell tickets to the live and to encore screenings without needing all the running costs of doing it every night. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 27, 2020 11:50:10 GMT
Aren’t they doing it live every night? Hence the reason they are limiting it to 1000 per night. Seems a bit pointless to do it over and over with no audience - unless they think the act itself is like a form of installation art. |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on May 27, 2020 11:50:14 GMT
Aren’t they doing it live every night? Hence the reason they are limiting it to 1000 per night. Otherwise everyone would watch online night one and they’d be playing to empty Houses every other night. Seems a bit of a waste of money to pay the actors to do it every night, unless they are doing it for free? Record it once and sell tickets to the live and to encore screenings without needing all the running costs of doing it every night. I’m guessing it’s to distinguish it from other ‘screenings’. More likely to become an ‘event’ and get people to stump up |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on May 27, 2020 11:51:29 GMT
As they say in their first post on Twitter
Yes it’s not the perfect circumstances, but let’s go into this with open arms’
|
|
