4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 7, 2016 19:02:08 GMT
I haven't seen it yet but I am genuinely crying with laughter just at the video of their little bit at the Oliviers, so I can't imagine I won't love it. You know how sometimes there's a person who you just think literally everything they do is hilarious? That's me with Mischief Theatre. Chris Bean could breath and I'd wet myself. I was watching the Oliviers sketch again earlier & found myself wishing that they'd do a full play about the Cornley characters as themselves, as opposed to the play-within-a-play structure of the Goes Wrong shows. I'd happily watch a couple of hours of Chris Bean, Robert Grove, Dennis Tyde, etc. just trying (and probably failing!) to go about their daily lives at Cornley Polytechnic. |
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Apr 8, 2016 6:27:24 GMT
I haven't seen it yet but I am genuinely crying with laughter just at the video of their little bit at the Oliviers, so I can't imagine I won't love it. You know how sometimes there's a person who you just think literally everything they do is hilarious? That's me with Mischief Theatre. Chris Bean could breath and I'd wet myself. I was watching the Oliviers sketch again earlier & found myself wishing that they'd do a full play about the Cornley characters as themselves, as opposed to the play-within-a-play structure of the Goes Wrong shows. I'd happily watch a couple of hours of Chris Bean, Robert Grove, Dennis Tyde, etc. just trying (and probably failing!) to go about their daily lives at Cornley Polytechnic. I agree personally I'd pay to watch them reading a phone directory.... |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Apr 8, 2016 13:58:51 GMT
Their sketch at the Oliviers was one of the best parts of the evening and I'd like the Cornley Ploytechnic Society to present the Olivier Awards next year! I think it would be absolute, non-stop hilarity!!
|
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 9, 2016 14:23:39 GMT
Isn't it nice these guys are coming through live theatre as opposed to a tv prog?
|
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 9, 2016 16:34:04 GMT
The show's getting shorter, we were finished just before 5 this afternoon. I'm blowed if I could work out what had been cut though, it must be various minor bits. I did spot a couple of changes but one of those was an addition.
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Apr 9, 2016 17:46:12 GMT
Have to say I am very tempted to pop along in one of the £10 seats just before press night. View will probably be awful, however now I've seen it I'll have a good grasp for what is happening anyway!
Has anyone else noticed the possible inconsistency with the production against the advertising slogan?
"ONE ENORMOUS DIAMOND
SIX INCOMPETENT CROOKS
AND A SNOOZING SECURITY GUARD"
Who are the six crooks?
|
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 10, 2016 20:35:29 GMT
^I can't work that one out either! I would say there are 7 crooks in total. I suspect that the slogan may have been coined before the play took its current shape. Likewise I don't feel that the poster really reflects the plot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 20:45:53 GMT
Is one of the crooks competent? Or is it a surprise that one character turns out to be the 7th crook?
|
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 11, 2016 7:01:58 GMT
I'd say that there are 3 surprise crooks. Yes, I guess one of the crooks is the most competant if you think of it that way but whether that's what the slogan actually means I'm not certain.
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Apr 11, 2016 10:10:41 GMT
I'd be more inclined to suggest it was thrown together as "ooh, that sounds good" rather than as a direct take off from the plot.
However, I note the cast seems to have grown since we initially had news about the production - but maybe that was simply casting having not been completed by the time of the Peter Pan opening. I'd find it hard to believe the production has grown significantly in cast size since their workshop in September.
|
|
1,305 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Apr 11, 2016 12:32:26 GMT
Saw this Friday night.
I had seen the earlier reviews on here saying it wasn’t of The Play TGW (which I raved about and bought people tickets to go and see as presents) or Peter Pan GW (which I saw twice having loved it) ilk. Thought it started off quite slowly in building characters, but picked up pace. Fair bit of slapstick humour, daft puns, visual gags. The big visual gag was terrific, defying the laws of gravity indeed. The music throughout really gave this play a different feel to the GW stuff. What a terrific voice Nancy Wallinger has, I’m such a fan of hers. Loved the music.
Noted a few children in the audience. Hey, I took my child. (OK, he’s 26). Oh my word – during one of the “dark” moments {Spoiler - click to view}
with a gun trained on Sam by Caprice with Mitch urging her to shoot him a little voice, plaintive and concerned, cried “Nooooo….. “ which reverberated through the quiet theatre …. Dave Hearn as Sam, with a hint of his performance in Peter Pan, looked into the audience with his shy smile and nodded …. – howls of laughter, Caprice lost it – yeah, it took away from the storyline, but hey, we were there to laugh and be entertained and that added a little something.
We enjoyed it a lot, we laughed a heck of a lot, were very entertained. Don’t know I’d see it again but would certainly recommend to friends. And how lovely is the Criterion! Can’t remember when I’ve been there last.
Last comment. Damn, Henry Shields in leather jacket is handsome! Handsome!
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Apr 11, 2016 13:44:28 GMT
That visual gag certainly put a new spin on anyone saying "you're driving me up the wall"!
I maintain when I've said before - the highlights here are funnier than TPTGW and PPGW. I was also a fan of the simpler but equally entertaining phone call sequences.
|
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 11, 2016 16:58:34 GMT
Last comment. Damn, Henry Shields in leather jacket is handsome! Handsome! I agree with most of your comments but especially this one! Lucky Charlie Russell, getting bedroom scenes with (IMO) the two best-looking men in the show. Usually I hate kids interrupting but that must have been really funny. I don't blame him/her: I was mentally saying "Nooooo" the first time I saw that scene. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Wallacio on Apr 11, 2016 17:30:01 GMT
How are there 7 crooks? {Spoiler - click to view} I'm thinking, Mitch, Cooper, Freeboys, Caprice, Monaghan and his Mum, that's 6. Warren isn't a crook, and neither is Shuck. Have I lost the plot? And if anything Ruth Monaghan isn't incompetent since she wins. Unless we are including the crook played by Chris Leask at the start, but his character was mauled by dogs and ditched and never involved in the robbery of the diamond.
|
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 11, 2016 18:08:35 GMT
How are there 7 crooks? {Spoiler - click to view} I'm thinking, Mitch, Cooper, Freeboys, Caprice, Monaghan and his Mum, that's 6. Warren isn't a crook, and neither is Shuck. Have I lost the plot? And if anything Ruth Monaghan isn't incompetent since she wins. Unless we are including the crook played by Chris Leask at the start, but his character was mauled by dogs and ditched and never involved in the robbery of the diamond.
{Spoiler - click to view} I'm counting Shuck as a crook as at the end he lies to the police & is going to take the diamond, till Ruth beats him at his own game. I'm counting Ruth as the one competant crook as she's left holding the diamond. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Wallacio on Apr 11, 2016 18:56:42 GMT
How are there 7 crooks? {Spoiler - click to view} I'm thinking, Mitch, Cooper, Freeboys, Caprice, Monaghan and his Mum, that's 6. Warren isn't a crook, and neither is Shuck. Have I lost the plot? And if anything Ruth Monaghan isn't incompetent since she wins. Unless we are including the crook played by Chris Leask at the start, but his character was mauled by dogs and ditched and never involved in the robbery of the diamond.
{Spoiler - click to view} I'm counting Shuck as a crook as at the end he lies to the police & is going to take the diamond, till Ruth beats him at his own game. I'm counting Ruth as the one competant crook as she's left holding the diamond.
{Spoiler - click to view}
Ah I forgot that little bit. I suppose so. Those 6 and then Ruth isn't incompetent as she gets the goods |
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 13, 2016 19:01:59 GMT
Is anyone any good at 1950s pop music identification? I'm trying to work out which songs are used in the show. I think I've identified 3 of them but I'm not getting anywhere on the last one. It's difficult to Google lyrics when from what I remember the lyrics mostly consisted of "Ba da ba dee" and suchlike syllables.
|
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 14, 2016 22:10:00 GMT
Sorry for the double-post but I sneaked in an extra visit tonight, having heard changes were being made, I thought that those who saw it last week may be interested to know the opening scene is now completely different, as well as a number of other smaller changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2016 6:23:55 GMT
I went last night too, and I loved it. Although, as previously said, it didn't have as many laugh out loud moments as the Play, some of the gags were completely far removed from their original work, which is nice to see.
A highlight for me was the addition of the songs. It worked very well indeed. Great show, great cast as always too.
|
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 16, 2016 9:42:44 GMT
The authors were interviewed on Radio 4 yesterday evening. Sorry I can't post the link, typing this on my phone so no copy & paste function, but it was Front Row 7.15pm 15th April & it's the second feature, think it was about 8 minutes in.
|
|
1,476 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Apr 18, 2016 1:15:55 GMT
Saw the matinee this afternoon, and loved it. While this has no more laughs than the "Goes Wrong" plays, it gets the same huge amount of laughs without that easy through-line of everything going wrong. It's a terrific achievement, and tickled my funny bone more than the previous benign, nostalgic occupant of the Criterion. The "Goes Wrong" plays had the feel of having been developed in improv, where you start things going wrong, and kept riffing matters worse and worse to their ultimate conclusion. Increasingly frenetic slapstick and disasters were the order of the day. This time, Mischief Theatre have grafted a dazzling array of different comedy techniques to their hugely likeable, bumbling and silly personas:- There is still plenty of raucous slapstick to be had in this play, as well as the physical dexterity and bravery we have come to expect from Mischief Theatre, and in particular, there is that sustained endearing tone of British silliness. But there are also much of the following (without mentioning the actual plot, for fear of spoiling it):- (1) Double meanings are the source of MUCH verbal humour. I say double meanings, rather than double entendres, because Mischief Theatre rarely ever goes rude and raunchy. If a word has two meanings, count on the wrong meaning being assumed, repeated, escalated and paid off; (2) Not only is "Comedy about a Bank Robbery" much more verbal than it's predecessors, it's more musical too. Improbably, our Mischief makers have a talent for singing jaunty blues and gospel numbers, in particular in the case of cast member, Nancy Wallinger. The music propels the mood and story of the piece, particularly during scene changes, and because blues and gospel carry shades of darkness, the singing provides a welcome and necessary sense of depth to a comedy that is 2 and a half hours in running time. I generally feel a shallow comedy should end after an hour and a half, but layers of darkness and musicality help sustain a meatier running time; (3) Mistaken identity, classic trope of comedies since the dawn of time, is doubled and tripled. Knowing that mistaken identity is a typical fertile plot point of comedy, Mischief Theatre makes sure to triple down on the technique, so as to get more mileage; (4) Repetition is frequently funny, repetition with variation funnier, and super-fast repetition with variation funnier still (because it is virtuosic), and boy, do Mischief Theatre know how to repeat, repeat with variation, and repeat with ultra-fast speed; (5) Breaking the rules of physics at surprising times is a good way of grabbing some absurd Pythonesque laughs, so watch out, physics, you are going to be the subject of some knowing (and absoltely hilarious) sight gags; (6) Explosive tantrums and displays have always been funny, as epitomised by John Cleese's Basil Fawlty, and Henry Lewis (one of the most naturally gifted comedians of the troupe), who seemed intially underused, playing a worryingly buttoned down character, really gets some splendid laughs, when he finally blows a gasket lol. Having had my best laughs with Mischief Theatre at Trafalgar Studios 2 (The Play that Goes Wrong) and at Pleasance Theatre (Peter Pan Goes Wrong), and not having laughed quite as much at the revivals in the West End, I was worried that Mischief Theatre might not sustain their freshness, but this play, going straight into the West End lets me understand that the fault was with me. Repeat visits to comedies simply are never as fresh and surprising as first visits, and this new comedy constantly surprised me. Utilising so many comedy techniques in this new play, this troupe are building their skills and techniques. They can become even better, and this is exciting. Their X Factor remains, for me, themselves. I like them as performers, just as much as I like them as writers. Jonathan Sayer's wheedling and whining are better used here, than ever, as Henry Lewis' subordinate at the Bank. Henry Lewis' natural exuberance is initially hemmed in by his brave assumption of the role of a Bank President Stiff, but he gets to mine some unforgettably hilarious Basil Fawlty type veins late in the proceedings. Henry Shields also plays against type, less gradually-unwinding urbanity this time, more a testerone-fuelled bully of a bandit (I couldn't believe it either). And while I missed the Chris Bean of it all, Shields' character is the engine of the entire plot, and without his work, none of this would work. Dave Hearn wins the most loveable Mischief actor award for the third time in a row with his performance of a con artist turned romeo. And Charlie Russell's Katherine Hepburn smart line deliveries, as a sassy grifter, coupled with her all-round physical comedy excellence, mean she gets to be more likeable this time, yet still as pivotal to all the plot machinations as before. This comedy will easily play to the end of it's run. I could feel the word of mouth buzzing as I left the theatre. Anybody who likes comedy should see this one. It won't change your world, but it will make you laugh. And with these guys, there may be even better to come.  4 and a half stars |
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Apr 20, 2016 13:46:06 GMT
Sorry for the double-post but I sneaked in an extra visit tonight, having heard changes were being made, I thought that those who saw it last week may be interested to know the opening scene is now completely different, as well as a number of other smaller changes. Ooh, how does that first scene now work? I remember watching it at the first preview and thinking it didn't quite sit with what came after, so am intrigued to hear what they've done. |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Apr 20, 2016 19:46:01 GMT
Currently at the interval. Stalls are packed, not sure about other levels. Audience are *extremely* responsive, prolonged belly laughs from about 2 or 3 lines in and carried on all the way through Act 1. I am bloody LOVING IT and laughing just as much as I did when I first saw Play That Goes Wrong. Different kind of comedy but equally hilarious. Exhaustingly so! Cannot wait for Act 2. Need to see Peter Pan Goes Wrong this Xmas to complete my trio!
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Apr 21, 2016 11:09:21 GMT
My goodness, what an absolute riot this is! You have to hand it to them, Mischief Comedy are the absolute geniuses of their field. Such simple comedy, delivered expertly and hilariously. The audience completely lapped it up and roared with laughter and applause from beginning to end, and rightly so. Their special 'defying gravity' scene in Act 2 was just stunning, my mouth was open the whole way through in admiration of their skills. The music was wonderful and really added to the atmosphere and setting, and the sets were brilliant. What they've only done on that tiny Criterion stage!! Also, we finished about 9.50pm. So that's about 20 minutes shaved off from one of the first comments on the thread!
For more thoughts, see Steve's post above.....I can't put it better than that! Press Night tonight, I hope that either the critics leave it alone or they send someone who gets and enjoys this type of comedy (which I evidently do) and will give it the glowing critique they so deserve. I really hope this becomes a long-runner in the West End alongside The Play TGW and I cannot wait to see what the Mischief lot come up with next. To keep up the quality of their pieces in such a short space of time is no mean feat, and to create and perfect these shows must take more time, commitment and skill than any of us can imagine.
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Apr 21, 2016 16:26:29 GMT
I'm pleased from that last comment that it seems they've tidied it up a bit - I think the first night felt so overly long compared to schedule as we started late and had a slightly overlong interval. Guess they've had a very busy three weeks of tinkering during previews!
So - couple of things:
1. The writers were on BBC London News last night, clip here: (includes clip of what I presume is the new first scene)
2. They are either making changes to set or taking some seats off of sale (I suspect the latter). I had booked C2-3 for a performance, got an email today saying "C2 was proving too restricted in terms of the view" so we've been moved. It was a £10 seat (and we booked specifically knowing it'd be a bad view but wasn't bothered), but worth noting they are removing some seats.
One for the Monkey to do a bit of investigation, methinks.
|
|
