1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 7, 2016 13:51:15 GMT
When I spoke to the box office yesterday they said two and a half with interval.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2016 15:40:49 GMT
To be fair, if you take out all of the bits that Amanda Drew couldn't remember and needed to refer to the script that looks about right. |
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Jul 7, 2016 16:42:13 GMT
I have no doubt 2 1/2 is correct, unless they're doing a special condensed version for press night! Like a highlights reel!
|
|
1,475 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jul 7, 2016 18:27:20 GMT
I saw the 4th preview last night too. This is a play that should never be locked.
Some spoilers follow. . .
If a play is about an obsessive artistic quest for perfection, which the title both suggests and threatens is "unreachable," then Anthony Neilson should abandon the idea of a press night, and just keep working on the show, rewriting it every day to the very last day, August 6th. Critics could come on any random day.
As others have implied, there is a specific ending already in place, which Neilson is working towards, and it makes sense that he should never quit working towards it, attempting a "perfect" play, just as Matt Smith's Maxim wants to film "perfect light."
The obvious cinematic inspiration for this show is the documentary, "Burden of Dreams," which depicts film director, Werner Herzog and actor Klaus Kinski, at war with nature and at war with each other as they try to make an insanely impossible film, "Fitzcarraldo." In the documentary, Herzog almost has a nervous breakdown as he attempts to manually push a three hundred ton ship over a hill, and deal with the maniacal egotist, Kinski, who took over from Jason Robards half way through the shoot, and who also will not compromise one inch on his own artistic vision.
The documentary is one of the best ever made about the borderline between art and madness.
Here, together with his actor collaborators, Neilson explores the burden, and meaning, of Matt Smith's Maxim's dream quest for "perfect light." Jonjo O'Neill's Ivan is a thinly veiled Klaus Kinski, while Matt Smith's Maxim is Herzog.
All the characters in the show have their own interpretation of what art means, and it is this consideration of the different meanings of art to different people, what it is, how it is created, that Neilson is exploring.
For the most part, Jonjo O'Neill's Kinski makes for such hilariously irrepressible broad comedy that he eats the subtler parts of the show, though Matt Smith does a great job at balancing comedy with a more introspective interpretation of what it means to be Maxim.
The first act is a broad comedy tour de force.
The second act is still scripts-in-hand, new scenes written overnight, edging closer to Neilson's end vision. But Neilson is still some way from bridging the gap to the end scene, with meandering story points that are pertinent, but insufficiently focused, and drastic jarring tonal changes, and it's a damn shame if he has to stop trying to get there on Friday. Maxim would not stop, he would keep reaching, as would Werner Herzog, and Neilson should obviously fall in line behind them, and fight to hone his own crazy vision to the very end of the run.
I liked every actor in this: Tamara Lawrance's depiction of the actor as sociopath, Richard Pyros' DP's opportunism, Amanda Drew's producer's machiavellian devotion to her director, Genevieve Barr's pragmatic financier, Matt Smith's self-destructive director and most of all, Jonjo O'Neill's unrestrained bonkers rendition of the artist that was Klaus Kinski!
This work is unfinished, and should not be finished, if it is true to itself. I'll be back. Fascinating.
4 stars 😊
|
|
82 posts
|
Post by mikey on Jul 7, 2016 19:51:39 GMT
I 100% agree with you, Steve, Neilson should keep going! Loved reading your review. I too was there yesterday, and you've articulated a lot of what I was feeling! Thanks
|
|
2,047 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jul 11, 2016 12:14:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 18:11:04 GMT
I saw this Saturday night, and I loved it. Also it happened to be the 'thing I didn't know I needed' until I saw it.
I was doubled with laughter at times, wondering at the state of my mind, at the world at others and also had much to think about. I found it utterly fascinating and could happily watch it multiple times just to see what changes. Steve above nails it with the idea of the unfinished art and leaving it unfinished.
Matt Smith does a brilliant job giving weight to the centre of the play, but also shows his own comic ability which can go from witty and considered delivery of a line or reaction to outright slapstick in a beat, and it's brilliant to watch, but he's also got a clear handle on the intellectual and emotional weight of what he's doing as well. Jonjo O'Neill is just...well...I still struggle for words, but I'm still laughing to myself at some of his moments. He's a larger than life character who does (as I think Billington said) dominate a bit too much at times in the second act but, I don't think to the real detriment of the play. Amanda Drew also deserves a lot of credit for her machiavellian presence in it and again drawing some of the madness together.
It's messy, it pushes boundries, it's damn funny but also quite soul searchingly fascinating.
And as those have said, the visuals of the ending are just outstanding.
So very tempted to make a return trip to London just for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 21:40:33 GMT
Amazing Amazing Loved it Loved it 5 stars |
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jul 12, 2016 11:42:00 GMT
Oh dear - I booked on the strength of the mainly favourable reviews, but maybe Parsley's approval bodes ill for me?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2016 11:50:42 GMT
Oh dear - I booked on the strength of the mainly favourable reviews, but maybe Parsley's approval bodes ill for me? Isn't the general consensus that SpiceShack likes something he/she/they put their money into it?! |
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Jul 12, 2016 12:05:53 GMT
Oh dear - I booked on the strength of the mainly favourable reviews, but maybe Parsley's approval bodes ill for me? I've just booked on the strength of raves on here! Thought reviews were a bit mixed. My agreement or otherwise with Parsley is also mixed but the play does sound interesting so hoping for the best. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2016 17:10:51 GMT
Oh dear - I booked on the strength of the mainly favourable reviews, but maybe Parsley's approval bodes ill for me? I've just booked on the strength of raves on here! Thought reviews were a bit mixed. My agreement or otherwise with Parsley is also mixed but the play does sound interesting so hoping for the best. OH MY GOD! I went expecting nothing And funniest thing I have seen in ages ENTIRE cast amazing and give wonderful performances I mean on award worthy levels- ALL of them- the delivery is impeccable LOVED Matt Smith and I am not usually a fan of his at all Jonjo O'Neill also hysterical and Amanda Drew has a lovely skirt she wears at one point- so elegantly flared The material has weaknesses and the second half is certainly less sure of itself But goodness it is a terrific evenings entertainment I cannot recommend it highly enough There is still some corpsing and the fact there is no script means you are never quite sure what is improvised and/or was added that day during rehearsals I think amongst the best plays on at the moment Audience in fits of laughter throughout and also cannot recall last time I had such fun at the theatre |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2016 17:58:16 GMT
It's rare Parsley and I have the same taste but I have to say I 100% agree with everything you've said there!
I laughed more than I've laughed at anything theatre or otherwise in a long time. So much fun, but also so interesting. And excellent performances all round.
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jul 12, 2016 18:52:21 GMT
Oo-er, how can the real thing ever live up to this hype?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2016 18:57:08 GMT
Oo-er, how can the real thing ever live up to this hype?! I mean take it with a pinch of salt, it's only a few personal opinions. Having read a few mixed comments, and knowing the writer's er eccentric nature in terms of previous plays, I was sceptical going in and it was nothing like I was expecting/anticipating which is partly why I think I loved it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 2:29:05 GMT
Yes.. the end. It was pretty. Maybe,, though, they ended up spending a lot of money on something that didn't fit so well with the play they've come up with (so far, at least) - but given how much they've spent, they feel obliged to use it? {Spoiler - click to view}
Is the epilogue an echo of the prologue? |
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Jul 13, 2016 13:10:01 GMT
Does anyone here know the Royal court principles better than me? Is there any chance for this to extend for a couple of weeks? I tried to find if they have anything scheduled after but I couldn't (or maybe I just don't know where to look?) I don't want to be the "when do you think Sheridan will return@ type of poster but I have never been o Royal Court before so I don't know if they do extensions or not. Wish me luck if they do. I really need to see the play that has Anastasia and Maxim as characters and Matt Smith as a performer. Ages ago I had a crush on a Russian MT actor I worked with, he is very much Matt Smith look alike and guess what his name is  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 13:29:51 GMT
I mean, Unreachable is scheduled to finish on 6th August and the next show in that auditorium is kicking off on 22nd September, so there's the time for an extension, but they don't appear to have sold out any performances, so it doesn't look like they'd have any particular need to extend. Also it looks like both auditoria are going dark for a month once Unreachable and Open Court shut up shop on the 6th, so I wonder if they've got some sort of maintenance or something planned during that period. Not beyond the realms of possibility, but I don't think it looks at all likely tbh.
|
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Jul 13, 2016 13:31:48 GMT
Thanks, Baemax!
|
|
2,047 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jul 13, 2016 14:20:24 GMT
Don't know how well tickets have been selling, but I would have thought it would be more likely to transfer somewhere in the West End rather than extend (a la Hangmen).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 15:03:22 GMT
Yes I think the Court tend to transfer rather than extend, but usually because they're booked up back to back so the dark month suggests some kind of maintence/renovation reason that the theatre/building isn't in use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 15:07:50 GMT
I really need to see the play that has Anastasia and Maxim as characters Well spotted! This play seems to have a huge dialogue with Chekhov's plays, and in fact there are so many rich aspects to it that I realised it was mostly passing me by, even whilst I very much enjoyed what I did notice. As the second half got underway, it hit me that this play is a perfect example of the ideal Royal Shakespeare Company new play, with its strong relationship to the classical theatre traditions, and of course Anthony Neilson was the RSC Literary Associate for many years. The RSC must be kicking themselves that they have effectively nurtured this seminal play but never got the chance to produce it themselves. The Royal Court usually shuts down its public face during August, even closing the bar and kitchen, and I agree with Baemax that it's very unlikely to spontaneously extend, although I suppose there's a very remote possibility that they have always planned a possible, very limited, extension. But I really wouldn't expect it because it would mean staffing the building when everyone's expecting an enforced holiday. |
|
204 posts
|
Post by argon on Jul 14, 2016 14:59:29 GMT
Some hilarious laughs but the numerous scenes/changes interrupts the continuity of the production on last night's outing may just be ready by the time the last performance is due.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2016 17:06:27 GMT
This was absolutely fascinating. It is, I believe, also deeper than its hilarious (at times) surface suggests. What we have is a reflection on acting and truth, overtly through the lack of empathy that the lead actress feels yet further refracted in the performance and direction whereby performers are able to switch from being in and dropping out of character. Film being the realistic medium is subverted by theatre, the medium of the imagination,. Props are labelled as such, set is minimal, scenes are announced (so far so Brechtian) but beyond this the cast are free to have a dialogue with the performance as it takes place, able to laugh, glance at the audience and appreciate each other and the audience response.
So a story about a fixed, tightly controlled medium is told to us through the incomplete, blueprint that is the theatre. Film can only fail to be perfect because it has to be finished. Theatre never is, every performance is a new attempt and, even at the end of the run, there is the spectre of the next production and its new attempt.
The actors corpse, not because they are going wrong, but because they are attempting to be better than last time, even funnier, even more truthful. Yet where does that truth come from? Not through Stanislavskian (and by extension Chekhovian, hence the use of Russian names) soul searching but because it's their job. Our job is to pay and to watch them do their job. In our doing that we, ourselves, join them as partners in the quest for unattainable perfection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2016 22:31:31 GMT
Loved this and tempted to see it again
Steve is spot on with the Kinski / Herzog comparison
Smith had a finger in a splitlnt tonight, apparently as a result of something O'Neill did last night
|
|
