1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on May 31, 2016 12:24:59 GMT
I was there last night and the point of the nudity stumped me also - including why have they now put their pants on?!
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 31, 2016 13:38:04 GMT
Perhaps it's that Lucifer arrives bringing with him shame, so they cover up. Isn't there a bible story along those lines?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 14:10:09 GMT
It's interesting the reactions that this gets. I went last night and really really really enjoyed it! I think the device of bringing it out of original "Faustus" and creating a more modern celebrity element which he gets by using the pact he made, is pretty clever if not on the nose. I don't really understand the problem with nudity that some folk have. I did get a little lost at points but the whole tone and performances kept me engaged and connected throughout. I'd definitely recommend and it's something I've never seen before, refreshingly different. Many people enjoy KFC as well daily Millions of them around the world |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 18:42:43 GMT
The point seemed to be that you can enjoy something without it necessarily being good quality.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on May 31, 2016 21:02:35 GMT
More precisely in this case: you can enjoy somethings without it being perceived by someone else to be of quality. However, whether it is of quality and what your perception of it is, may be quite different things.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 31, 2016 22:29:32 GMT
Perhaps it's that Lucifer arrives bringing with him shame, so they cover up. Isn't there a bible story along those lines? I eventually wondered if it's an allusion to The Emperor's New Clothes, Since Faustus is oblivious to their nakedness. But I felt that was a reach even as I came up with it! |
|
153 posts
|
Post by geweena on Jun 1, 2016 9:07:44 GMT
£15 tickets for 13th and 20th June have just gone on sale if anyone is interested - only avail for 24 hours
|
|
4,970 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 1, 2016 10:53:28 GMT
Www that on a push notification on my iIpad, being offered via the today tix app.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Jun 1, 2016 11:22:29 GMT
£15 tickets for 13th and 20th June have just gone on sale if anyone is interested - only avail for 24 hours Thanks for that reminder. I have booked a front stalls £15 ticket for Monday 13th June. Intrigued by the decidedly mixed reviews but at £15 it's a bargain! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 11:29:26 GMT
£15 tickets for 13th and 20th June have just gone on sale if anyone is interested - only avail for 24 hours Thanks for that reminder. I have booked a front stalls £15 ticket for Monday 13th June. Intrigued by the decidedly mixed reviews but at £15 it's a bargain! depends on what your hourly worth is if you don't like it 3 hours of your time wasted including travelling etc. possibly more then even going for free can be distressing if the show is bad enough I would not go to this even if you paid ME now (having seen only the first half) |
|
2,775 posts
|
Post by daniel on Jun 1, 2016 11:34:32 GMT
£15 tickets for 13th and 20th June have just gone on sale if anyone is interested - only avail for 24 hours Thanks for that reminder. I have booked a front stalls £15 ticket for Monday 13th June. Intrigued by the decidedly mixed reviews but at £15 it's a bargain! Me too! |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jun 1, 2016 11:40:25 GMT
Thanks for that reminder. I have booked a front stalls £15 ticket for Monday 13th June. Intrigued by the decidedly mixed reviews but at £15 it's a bargain! depends on what your hourly worth is if you don't like it 3 hours of your time wasted including travelling etc. possibly more then even going for free can be distressing if the show is bad enough I would not go to this even if you paid ME now (having seen only the first half) Well, I've seen the whole show and it is worth £15 and it's not a waste of one's time (but I am not an enthusiast for it either). However, front stalls is a bit of a look-up, as the set is built up on the existing stage. |
|
2,047 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jun 1, 2016 12:29:20 GMT
I sat front row and my main gripe was the (lack of) leg room , I thought the view was great - the only thing I had difficulty seeing was whatever it was that came out of the trap door in the first half - you'll actually be able to see what he is watching on the tiny TV (David Copperfield and Claudia Schiffer) which I'm guessing anyone further than 10 rows back will be unable to tell what is on screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 12:42:02 GMT
If you have a choice of sides, I think it's a little better to be on the left when looking at the stage, for visibility reasons, but if you're on the right, you're closer to Jenna Russell doing the only bit of the show that really matters, so it's swings and roundabouts really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 12:56:22 GMT
If you have a choice of sides, I think it's a little better to be on the left when looking at the stage, for visibility reasons, but if you're on the right, you're closer to Jenna Russell doing the only bit of the show that really matters, so it's swings and roundabouts really. I don't remember Jenna Russell pulling Kit-off's pants down?? |
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Jun 2, 2016 3:17:58 GMT
I saw this about a month ago and tried to write about it, but so angered was I that in my documents there’s a page which just reads “Bullsh*t production, bullsh*t acting, bullsh*t directing, bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t”. I think enough time has passed that I can try and be more constructive. It’s hard, because yes, this is indeed absolute bullsh*t, but I think I can control myself. I do hate this, I think it’s one of the most hateful things I’ve ever seen, and I absolutely still think it’s utter bullsh*t, but I think I’m able to finally come to terms with why.
Jamie Lloyd likes text. He doesn’t like subtext. When that works, it works: Assassins was haunting, The Hothouse was an inventive reading of that play’s comic set-up, and She Stoops was an absolute joy. When that doesn’t work, it really bloody doesn’t work: Richard III was boring, The Ruling Class was OK but one joke stretched too far, and The Homecoming became all about violent violence, not domesticated violence. Needless to say, his Faustus is all text, and all bullsh*t. It’s so surface level it’s intellectually offensive. When walking into a theatre to see a play about a devil for whom I’m meant to feel sympathy, and the director plays Sympathy for the Devil on the speakers, I can’t help but feel patronised. Another director would be ironic about this fact, but Lloyd isn’t; it either shows an absolute stupidity of vision, or an absolute lack of confidence in the audience. If the former, I expect better, if the latter, I deserve better. Plus, with these mucky white vests and clumsy unison formations, it looked like it had the budget of a student production, albeit none of the necessary inventiveness – a student production wouldn’t have been so boring as to play it so straight, used black vomit to indicate hellishness, used pathetic clichéd unison shouting to indicate demonic-ness. I have no idea why Lloyd chose to direct a show that looks so cheap – it looked cheap aesthetically, and felt cheap intellectually, so it matches, I suppose. It was hell by the numbers, which still had the gall to speak down to me.
A word on the acting – Russell, dragged down from her usual sensitive brilliance, delivered every line as if she should be twirling a moustache. Harrington made her look subtle. It was an amateurish DECLAIM FIRST, characterise later style I haven’t seen since those parody scenes in Red Velvet. At first I assumed it was intentional, a parody of traditional verse speaking, but then Jenna Russell came on and did the same herself, and then he performed Teevan’s bits like Edmund Kean. Is it a choice, or has Lloyd forgotten how to fill a big auditorium convincingly? Perhaps they’ve calmed down by now, but when I saw this there was this utter, hammy desperation to declaim even Teevan’s sh*ttest lines, and it just came across as sad, frankly.
As for the new middle section, I’ve like Teevan’s translations in the past, but what was he thinking? I suppose here I admire him for reading Marlowe’s mythical play and trying to adapt it as a sitcom for E4, but if I wanted to watch an amateur magician not sleep with his roommate, I’d stay home and watch Barney and Robin in How I Met Your Mother, for all the insight this had. Take this part in isolation, as a new play, and it’s simply a bad new play. Using all the powers of hell to become a second rate magician? That makes him a really boring character and I was bored by his boring antics. Nothing happens, the satire is obvious, the characters are flat, the dialogue isn’t creative or believable... It says nothing about temptation, sin, power and everything Marlowe’s about; it says a teeny tiny bullsh*t point about fame corrupting, except even then, even then it doesn’t say that, because Faustus is peculiarly un-corrupt-able and uses his powers so, so, so, so tediously... Marlowe’s play isn’t great, but at least it says something about temptation and sin; what did this actually say, for all its noise? I mean, they invoke political satire when they suggest Faustus has the power to take any politician to task for moral mistakes – a satiric point filled with potential – and waste it on one cheap on-the-nose gag about tax. Any politician, any target, and we have this, an easy point poorly made. This new play is worse than Anya Reiss’ bastardised Chekhovs, it’s a waste of an interesting theme on uninteresting characters, uninteresting plot and absolutely no substance whatsoever, made even worse, even more bullsh*t, by the ugly, uninspired, cheap, pathetic visuals.
That said, so attuned was I to Teevan’s terribleness that when Marlowe finally reared his head again it was a real jar to the system. Much like How I Met Your Mother, this threw a lot of inconsistent ideas in the air and squandered them on a terrible finale. Here there were two major mishandlings of major moments; the first mishandling being tasteless, the second being aesthetic. The Helen Of Troy moment was mishandled in a truly tasteless way: using Mephistopheles’ powers to execute such an act is inherent in a play which features Lust itself, and reading Faustus’ demand for and control of Helen as a rape scene could have been worth an insight worth making, but so unfocused are its earlier sh*tty sitcom scenes that this moment doesn’t end an arc about lust, and is completely out of character for the sexless Faustus of the middle scenes; coming so out of the blue as it does, it feels like a controversial afterthought to be radical, and is testament to how little control over the text this had earlier. Go back to page 7, read cainc’s far more impressive reading of the scene. And then Kit goes to hell, and a teeny weeny smoke machine goes off. A teeny weeny smoke machine. The West End. The cheapest, clumsiest, most clichéd depiction of hell. A smoke machine. Some of you found the last image haunting. I wish I could. I was distracted. By the smoke machine. By the bullsh*t bloody smoke machine.
So you know what? Sod it. This was absolute, utter, complete bullsh*t, and I hated hated hated hated this bullsh*t bullsh*t play. I hated its bullsh*t direction. I hated its bullsh*t obviousness. I hated its bullsh*t ugliness. I hated its bullsh*t performances. I hated its bullsh*t Marlowe, and I hated its bullsh*t Teevan. I hated its bullsh*t lack of ambition. I hated its bullsh*t nothingness. I hated all of its bullsh*t bullsh*ttiness. It’s the worst thing I’ve ever seen in the West End. It’s worse than wonder.land, at least there was something laughable in that. It’s bullsh*t theatre, completely and utterly, absolute bullsh*t. Bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t that demeans Marlowe, demeans Teevan, demeans Harrington, demeans Lloyd and demeans me. Bullsh*t.
And the worst thing? Kit with his kit off isn’t even that attractive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 7:43:44 GMT
"And apart from that Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?"
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 2, 2016 7:45:59 GMT
So, Nicholas, it seems like your expectations were betrayed and yet your take on Jamie Lloyd - which I generally agree with - should have led you to expect just what you got. This was never a deeply serious show, it's a fantasy on fame starring one of the currently most famous actors in the world. On its own terms it's a rollicking evening, complete with cabaret in the interval and a mob scene in the street outside. Yes, too bad about Marlowe and all that but it's an event. And, IMO, it made the points it set out to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 7:58:05 GMT
What offended me most was that by taking the early decision to rewrite great chunks they could have done so much better by the female characters, and by casting a woman as Mephistopheles there was an implication that they wanted to do better by the female actors, but to take an actor as ferociously talented as Jade Anouka and have her in the double-role of {Spoiler - click to view}love-struck mooncalf and rape victim is just about the most outrageously rude thing I can imagine. If Jade decides to only ever work with one director surnamed Lloyd for the rest of her career, she owes it to herself to pick Phyllida. |
|
943 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jun 2, 2016 8:32:41 GMT
If you have a choice of sides, I think it's a little better to be on the left when looking at the stage, for visibility reasons, but if you're on the right, you're closer to Jenna Russell doing the only bit of the show that really matters, so it's swings and roundabouts really. Yeah I was right side and you do miss quite a bit for the first half hour but it was worth it for having Jenna sing right above us and for commenting on what my friend was drinking when we came back to our seats! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 8:39:29 GMT
I agree pretty much entirely with what Nicholas wrote. My problem wasn't the setting, or the nudity, or the new sections - it was how bad the new section was! "like an E4 sitcom" is a great description.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 2, 2016 9:34:33 GMT
So you know what? Sod it. This was absolute, utter, complete bullsh*t, and I hated hated hated hated this bullsh*t bullsh*t play. I hated its bullsh*t direction. I hated its bullsh*t obviousness. I hated its bullsh*t ugliness. I hated its bullsh*t performances. I hated its bullsh*t Marlowe, and I hated its bullsh*t Teevan. I hated its bullsh*t lack of ambition. I hated its bullsh*t nothingness. I hated all of its bullsh*t bullsh*ttiness. It’s the worst thing I’ve ever seen in the West End. It’s worse than wonder.land, at least there was something laughable in that. It’s bullsh*t theatre, completely and utterly, absolute bullsh*t. Bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t that demeans Marlowe, demeans Teevan, demeans Harrington, demeans Lloyd and demeans me. Bullsh*t.
And the worst thing? Kit with his kit off isn’t even that attractive.
You know, sometimes when art provokes a reaction as angry as this, it does mean that it is doing something right, in a cock-eyed way. And you're clearly wrong about Fit Kit. But then, maybe that's the dividing factor for audience reactions to this production - it's clearly been designed to appeal to Fit Kit's audience! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 9:37:46 GMT
Kit's got a mighty set of abs and a fine bottom (and my saying this is NOT sexism, merely objectification, and I'll thank him to learn the goddamned difference), but the fact he always looks on the verge of tears no matter what he's doing means I just can't be attracted to him. How can anyone have sexy feelings about someone who looks like the mere thought of sexy times will make him cry and thus make you feel guilty?
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 2, 2016 9:44:09 GMT
Kit's got a mighty set of abs and a fine bottom (and my saying this is NOT sexism, merely objectification, and I'll thank him to learn the goddamned difference), but the fact he always looks on the verge of tears no matter what he's doing means I just can't be attracted to him. How can anyone have sexy feelings about someone who looks like the mere thought of sexy times will make him cry and thus make you feel guilty?
So if I were to say that Danielle Flett (the nude lady in the show) has beautiful breasts and a luscious curvy bottom you'd be okay with that since it's simply objectification? I'll keep that in mind for the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 10:19:51 GMT
Oh look, another man (judging by the little blue icon) who can't tell the difference between systemic oppression and inconvenience.  |
|
