406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Dec 7, 2019 11:27:57 GMT
I saw the first performance last night and I found it very energetic, fresh, and enjoyable. There is a great part which is not just acting... It is definitely something I would recommend to young people who may be intimidated by Shakespeare and can instead easily relate to the high school setting. The actors looked very happy at the end. There is no interval and I was out around 9,15-9,20.
|
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Dec 7, 2019 16:44:36 GMT
Going this evening and very much looking forward to it.
|
|
4,993 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Dec 7, 2019 17:28:14 GMT
I There is a great part which is not just acting... It is definitely something I would recommend to young people who may be intimidated by Shakespeare and can instead easily relate to the high school setting An American High School of course, continuing our subsidised sector’s absolute infatuation with America and neglect of (amongst others) European drama. |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Dec 10, 2019 19:03:30 GMT
I found this very uneven. There were moments of inspiration, like Dick's Richard III-inspired monologues and the classroom scene referencing Machiavelli, and moments when it felt like a very typical teen drama, covering well-worn teenage angst tropes (popularity; student president election; social media and a few other things which would be spoilers if I mentioned them, but they won't surprise you). However, if it was setting out to put talented actors with disabilities centre stage it certainly succeeds in doing that. I also enjoyed
{Spoiler - click to view}
the big dance number |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Dec 10, 2019 19:06:24 GMT
Had a spoiler nightmare above which I can't seem to fix! Sorry. Only the second bit is a spoiler.
|
|
76 posts
|
Post by bingomatic on Dec 15, 2019 13:18:39 GMT
I really enjoyed this and it's definitely one of my highlights of the last 6 months. I went in having read nothing beyond the poster. I thought Daniel Monks (Richard) was exceptional and well deserved his applause at the end; a nomination for something beckons. One of the few times I've been at the Donmar and seen empty seats (Knives in Hens being notable) and feel the regulars really have missed out.
|
|
|
|
Post by edi on Dec 17, 2019 8:14:03 GMT
I saw this last night. I think it's a brilliant way of putting Shakespeare into modern context so thumps up for that.
There were lots of things I liked about it, such as the way the actor made Richard a truly rotten human being. I liked the dance bit and how the election debate was so relevant.
What I liked most is that it gave me reason to think about how disability (and other other-ness) is perceived and treated in society. Basically disability does not make one a nice person. Bullying a disabled person does not mean that that person is bullied as a direct result of their disability.
A point down because I felt it was a little uneven, disjointed. Sometimes 80s bubblegum teenage high school drama, other times horror. Yet another time a parody of current politics. It didn't blend well.
Another point down for the diction. Many times I could not understand what was being said due to lack of voice projection, bad diction and accent. Richard's monologues were very important yet often it was told with such a speed that I missed them.
A strong 3 from me.
|
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Dec 18, 2019 0:06:58 GMT
I saw this on Monday night and quite liked it. Donmar is a nice theatre with comfy seats.
Some decent jokes throughout.
A good attempt at doing my favourite play.
|
|
546 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Dec 19, 2019 9:26:01 GMT
One of the few times I've been at the Donmar and seen empty seats (Knives in Hens being notable) and feel the regulars really have missed out. Yes I went last night and my £10 circle seat was upgraded to centre stalls with several empty seats. Its a shame its not selling (is the title putting people off?) because I thought it was great. |
|
|
|
Post by vernongersh on Dec 21, 2019 10:24:33 GMT
I'd give this 4 1/2 Stars. This is a Must See. Enthralling, smart anchored by a star making turn by Daniel. Highly encourage folks to seek it out. Oh, also, I had never seen Richard III before it didn't hamper my strong connection to the play.
|
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Dec 21, 2019 23:03:01 GMT
It's a bit disjointed but there's plenty to enjoy in it. The central performance is very well pitched, it's suitably funny and there's some brave stuff in here with regards to some of the commentary on disability. The two standout scenes for me were the dance and the debate, which were just very effectively staged and built up. I felt like the final Anne Margaret scene wasn't quite right, neither written nor directed in a way that I think gets the point across. It's a shame it's not selling if that's true, it's definitely a play that they've pitched towards younger audiences, and one that would play well to them if they'd show up.
|
|
1,828 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dave B on Dec 22, 2019 9:33:18 GMT
Its a shame its not selling (is the title putting people off?) because I thought it was great. We saw it yesterday based on a) a ticket offer and b) posts in this thread. Otherwise, we had deliberately not booked it, despite having booked everything else in the Donmar for the past few months and through next year, because basically of the title. The way it was promo'd just felt juvenile and to be honest left us expecting toilet level humour and so it was a hard pass. Which would have been a terrible shame as it was really very good and Daniel Monks was truly fantastic. I had one problem notably the {Spoiler - click to view} bedroom scene it did feel very much that the audience were laughing at the disability and the fact that a disabled person could be in such a setting. It was a very uncomfortable moment for me and one of the very few times I felt the audience were laughing at, rather than with.
Still a strong recommendation and a reminder to myself and herself not to judge a book by it's cover! |
|
|
|
Post by edi on Dec 22, 2019 12:53:17 GMT
I had one problem notably the {Spoiler - click to view} bedroom scene it did feel very much that the audience were laughing at the disability and the fact that a disabled person could be in such a setting. It was a very uncomfortable moment for me and one of the very few times I felt the audience were laughing at, rather than with.
Still a strong recommendation and a reminder to myself and herself not to judge a book by it's cover! I'm pretty sure I laughed at that scene but more the uncomfortable type of laugh. I felt uncomfortable that such an ugly (inside not outside) person was actually in such a situation. He got there by lying and cheating and he didn't deserve being there. Any kind of reaction was nothing to do with his disability. |
|
|
|
Post by dontdreamit on Dec 27, 2019 23:22:43 GMT
This was really enjoyable- another show that had it not been for theatreboard meme era writing about it I wouldn’t have gone!
|
|
1,346 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Dec 28, 2019 17:54:01 GMT
I went to the matinee today and very much enjoyed it. When I booked some time ago I didn't realise it was a 'reinterpretation' of Richard III and probably wouldn't have bothered if I had which would have been a shame. I'm a bit 'over' this rewriting of the classics which we seem to have had a spate of recently. However, this, and the NT Three Sisters, do it so well and inventively that I'm beginning to be won over a tad.
I too was upgraded from a £10 Circle seat to a premium stalls one but then, bafflingly, the whole place, including The Circle, was 95% full.
|
|
3,334 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Dec 28, 2019 20:57:06 GMT
I too was upgraded from a £10 Circle seat to a premium stalls one but then, bafflingly, the whole place, including The Circle, was 95% full. Presumably they give priority to paying customers like yourself, even if you paid for the cheap seats? |
|
318 posts
|
Post by MrBraithwaite on Jan 6, 2020 12:26:55 GMT
Saw it the week before Christmas and quite enjoyed it. As mentioned before there were several empty seats in the stalls, which was a shame.
|
|
196 posts
|
Post by rockinrobin on Jan 6, 2020 14:17:59 GMT
I wasn't too excited about it (not a big fan of American high school culture...) but to my surprise, I really enjoyed it. Daniel Monks is oustanding; his Richard is truly an awful, awful, evil person. He's, well, a d*ck.
We tend to feel sort of automatically sorry for people with disabilities - and our compassion is not always genuine while at the same time it often blinds us. Richard in this Play easily manipulates people because he knows they'll feel sympathy for him anyway. After all, he's the crippled one, the bullied one, the victim... who doesn't care about anyone or anything except himself and his ambition.
The show is a bit uneven, I agree, but Monks' stunning, intense performance makes it a must-see.
PS And that ball scene...
|
|
|
|
Post by Forrest on Jan 6, 2020 19:42:50 GMT
I am starting to fear that Christmas and New Year have turned me into a proper Grinch, but I saw this on Saturday and enjoyed it much less than I thought I would.
The only real star of the production for me was Monks, who is admittedly very good, but everything else was just so-so. And I think the main reason that I didn't enjoy it more is the text.
I appreciate the effort to turn Richard into an American teenager, the idea sounded fun - but it felt as if the text (well, or Mike Lew) couldn't decide where it is going or what it is really trying to say. I had the feeling that Richard himself wasn't really sure if he's good, bad, what his purpose is, what he s trying to do... At moments the play seemingly took itself seriously, at moments it wanted to be funny but wasn't... There was just something missing in it for me.
Also, the characters (other than Richard) seemed kind of thin and two dimensional. It all felt messy, but not in a good way, like it was a parody not fully aware of being one.
I was very much looking to it, but Donmar just can't seem to get it fully right by my standards (which I'm not saying are right, or particularly high, but...). I always enjoy their productions to a degree, but never leave the theatre thinking: That was amazing!
|
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Jan 7, 2020 0:32:32 GMT
Didn't think it worked beyond a great central performance.
Either the concept itself is unsound or the playwright wasn't really up to delivering it. First 20 minutes were quite promising but the analogies between the Wars of the Roses and an American high school election are not sufficient or coherent enough to sustain it.
Richard's scheming makes virtually zero sense if we are supposed to believe this is actually happening in a real school somewhere. His plan is extremely convoluted and even if successful doesn't guarantee victory by any means. He got one candidate nixed from the ballot and it's down to a two horse race, just do the same to the other candidate and it's a one horse race. Please don't invoke Machiavelli and realpolitik and then have characters act nonsensically, were we supposed to take any of this seriously?
The romance angle was not believable not least due to the lack of chemistry between the pair.
Tone is all over the place, wasn't sure what point it was actually trying to make, and it goes totally off the rails in the last half an hour because the playwright doesn't know what his play is about either.
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabedirector on Jan 8, 2020 23:55:48 GMT
Saw this tonight and I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Admittedly, I’m a bit of a sucker for American high school dramas, now I think about it two of my favourite films are set, at least in part, in American schools (and the third is set at an american university so there’s clearly a common theme). I think transferring the story of the high school setting worked in some ways but not in others and it lost me a bit towards the end. It’s not perfect, but I think Daniel Monks’ performance alone makes it a worthwhile evening.
|
|
3,564 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jan 16, 2020 10:45:22 GMT
Was really looking forward to this today but I have a streaming cold so have just rung to return my £10 ticket for the matinee (C 11 circle), should anyone be interested. Tickets still available, as @theatremonkey noted, but I couldn't find any £10 seats left for later dates I could do. None for today's matinee either, apart from mine, so maybe people are playing safe, as I did, by booking yet keeping the cost down.
|
|
3,564 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jan 16, 2020 11:18:43 GMT
Sure you're right; @theatremonkey & I may idc have to bite the bullet but will keep an eye on the website in the interim while waiting to see how soon I feel safely able to rebook. Also going to lose the cost of the evening play today but it's rare that I'm unable to attend & I hope to be well enough to honour my Saturday bookings - armed with cough sweets if so!
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jan 16, 2020 12:15:19 GMT
Sure you're right; @theatremonkey & I may idc have to bite the bullet but will keep an eye on the website in the interim while waiting to see how soon I feel safely able to rebook. Also going to lose the cost of the evening play today but it's rare that I'm unable to attend & I hope to be well enough to honour my Saturday bookings - armed with cough sweets if so! Do try and see it if you like teen comedy drama type things, like "Clueless," "Ten Things I hate about you," Heathers" or "13 Reasons Why." This is at least as good as those titles, and is a rare play that teens and young people will LOVE, I think!
On the other hand, if you want a faithful rendering of Shakespeare, like the man sitting next to me who was raging about how unfaithful it was ("I wanted to leave after ten minutes" he fumed, at the end of the show), don't go.
Rather than being the story of an irredeemable sociopath using his difference to bamboozle, divide and conquer all the normal people around him, this is rather the story of an utterly redeemable character struggling with difference, and walking the borderline of amorality.
As a teen show, it's one of the absolute best, up there with the recent "Heathers."
If only this show didn't have such a terrible name that Google refuses to autocomplete the title, I suppose because it is too busy reporting you to the bizzies for your nefarious search preferences. I 's wager this is keeping people away from a terrific show lol!
Siena Kelly is spot on as the sweet and sensitive girl who appears to have it all, but is more vulnerable than she appears, and Daniel Monks as stunning as the title character who shall not be named for legal reasons.
If you can get your teens a ticket before it closes, they'll be theatre fans for life!
4 and a half stars.  |
|
330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on Jan 16, 2020 14:51:59 GMT
Sure you're right; @theatremonkey & I may idc have to bite the bullet but will keep an eye on the website in the interim while waiting to see how soon I feel safely able to rebook. Also going to lose the cost of the evening play today but it's rare that I'm unable to attend & I hope to be well enough to honour my Saturday bookings - armed with cough sweets if so! I have a spare 10 pound ticket for Saturday 25th afternoon if you don't mind sitting next to me. |
|
