|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 14:57:47 GMT
I found it genuinely scary qnd genuinely entertaining. I still cannot get somemof those visuals out of my head!
|
|
2,775 posts
|
Post by daniel on Oct 24, 2017 15:06:20 GMT
I'm also looking forward to seeing this tonight!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 15:12:32 GMT
I found it genuinely scary qnd genuinely entertaining. I still cannot get somemof those visuals out of my head! Jenny Seagrove's hideous pixie boots were the scariest part of the evening. I can't get that visual out of my head. |
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Oct 24, 2017 15:16:58 GMT
I am so undecided on seeing this. I was set on going initially, but with the mixed views I'm becoming a bit indifferent. One thing is I just can't see how this show will keep an audience. Halloween, fine, it's appropriate. But going through Christmas and into March will people really be interested then, do horror shows have mass appeal?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 15:21:48 GMT
One thing is I just can't see how this show will keep an audience. Halloween, fine, it's appropriate. But going through Christmas and into March will people really be interested then, do horror shows have mass appeal? Says someone who has clearly never been to one of my family Christmas' when my grandmother deigned to attend. |
|
7,059 posts
|
Post by Jon on Oct 24, 2017 15:22:46 GMT
I am so undecided on seeing this. I was set on going initially, but with the mixed views I'm becoming a bit indifferent. One thing is I just can't see how this show will keep an audience. Halloween, fine, it's appropriate. But going through Christmas and into March will people really be interested then, do horror shows have mass appeal? Ghost Stories and The Woman in Black have done well, the latter is still running. I suspect it'll chug along until the Phoenix's next show comes in. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 15:37:47 GMT
It has always been set as a limited run, so closing in March is the plan regardless. It will do what Evita did and chug along.
|
|
13 posts
|
Post by theatreguyny on Oct 24, 2017 17:16:24 GMT
It has always been set as a limited run, so closing in March is the plan regardless. It will do what Evita did and chug along. Or it may run along time. Woman in Black is still running. The Exorcist makes Woman in Black look like Mary Poppins. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 17:52:40 GMT
Having seen both, I prefer WiB. The acting is exquisite.
|
|
7,059 posts
|
Post by Jon on Oct 24, 2017 17:59:19 GMT
It has always been set as a limited run, so closing in March is the plan regardless. It will do what Evita did and chug along. Or it may run along time. Woman in Black is still running. The Exorcist makes Woman in Black look like Mary Poppins. WIB is in a theatre half the capacity of The Phoenix, I doubt it'll be a long runner. |
|
1,133 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Oct 24, 2017 23:15:52 GMT
Is the consensus on this that it's a genuinely good play then?
Also, how does it compare to The Woman in Black with regards to jump scares? I remember being fairly frightened by it!
|
|
13 posts
|
Post by theatreguyny on Oct 25, 2017 0:24:33 GMT
Is the consensus on this that it's a genuinely good play then? Also, how does it compare to The Woman in Black with regards to jump scares? I remember being fairly frightened by it! IMHO it is an excellent play. It is the story of Damian and his questioning of his "faith" As a Jesuit priest and a trained psychiatrist, he is wallowing in the uncertainty of the very existence of God. And, if God does not exist, the devil does not exist. His journey to that moment in time in the Play, where the craziness reached its zenith, forces him to confront his skepticism of faith and he is forced to make a choice - "Faith or Murder" Confronted by this unspeakable horror that cannot be explained by any medical or psychiatric diagnosis, in a completely earned and believable moment of clarity, he chooses "faith" and the little girl is saved. Is it scary? I think it is terrifying because every scare comes out of a believable moment in the Play. You be the judge. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2017 7:47:06 GMT
Is the consensus on this that it's a genuinely good play then? Also, how does it compare to The Woman in Black with regards to jump scares? I remember being fairly frightened by it! In my opinion, its a good play, made better by a great cast and impressive staging and visuals. Funnily enough, I saw Woman in Black for the first time a month before. I think Woman in Black is the better written material and goes for the jump scares more. With this, it goes for shock value and the visual horror but its not so much jump scares bar a few cleverly placed moments. I'd go back to both!  |
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Oct 25, 2017 15:32:04 GMT
Has anyone seen it from the first row? Too close? I'm a total horror genre junkie and love the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2017 15:47:47 GMT
Has anyone seen it from the first row? Too close? I'm a total horror genre junkie and love the film. I sat central 2nd row. I would sit a few rows back, but for a cheaper price, the front ain't bad. In the attic set up, which is at the top of the stage (the whole design is the house), you can't see the legs of the performers, and there is a scene up there where something happens on the floor which is kinda pivatol to the plot. You know whats going on though, but if you care to see it, its an issue. Another sightline issue is there is a very short scene with Adam in a boxing cage, but again, no dialogue, you know what he is doing. But the cage is high so even from further back, you'd only see his chest upward, from the front you see his neck upward. Other than that, a couple of stagehands are able to be seen once or twice at the end of the corridor, and I noticed someone in a different place I won't say where or when. But bar that, I'd say go for it. It really doesn't effective your enjoyment of the piece. At least for me, it didn't! EDIT: If you are going to sit near the front, book for the right hand side of the theatre, so the lower numbers or the centre. As I have known a couple of people who have gone and said that sitting on the other side a certain, iconic moment was blocked by one of the actors. |
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Oct 25, 2017 15:49:59 GMT
Thanks so much. I've already booked my ticket ages ago, which is why I'm in the front row. I'll try to get and exchange to another seat further back on the day of, should there be an opening.
|
|
629 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Oct 25, 2017 18:01:29 GMT
I booked row A for £15 when they first went on sale and presumed that was the front row, as AA was not available. It now looks like AA are being sold as day seats? Is that right?
|
|
3,536 posts
|
Post by Rory on Oct 27, 2017 8:55:33 GMT
I saw this last night and thought that it was a very assured production. To me it didn't feel like a coarse send-up of the movie and the tension was ratcheted up throughout. As you would expect the set by Anna Fleischle was excellent and the illusions, effects and projections were top notch. Really clever.
Jenny Seagrove was well cast as the increasingly frantic mother (she suits these angsty roles) and I liked Tristram Wymark's fruity turn as Burke Dennings.
McKellen has such fun with the voiceover which is supremely well lip synched by Clare Louise Connolly as Regan (she was excellent throughout) but I agree with Ryan that his voice was just too well known - I imagined once or twice that it was his character from Vicious!
The theatre was packed to the rafters. One of the hippest, youngest crowds I've seen in a while (I include myself, natch - interesting to contrast it with the earlier matinee crowd at Ink!). They were screaming and rapt in equal measure. Bill Kenwright there too keeping a watchful eye on previews.
|
|
629 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Oct 27, 2017 12:06:16 GMT
I was there last night too and wasn't quite so impressed. I was in the middle of row A so I might have been exposed to the flaws a bit more than the rest of the audience, but some of the things that bugged me: The backstage guys were making so much noise during the scene changes - there could be a tense conversation happening on one side of the stage, but I was completely distracted by the banging and clanking coming from the other side of the stage. They had also tried really hard to be able to do all the scene changes in the dark or behind a screen, but then at one point towards the end 2 guys just walk on with a bench and plonk it on the stage - not sure if this was intentional? Ian McKellen overall I thought was great, but some of it was SO camp I was really giggling when at parts that were supposed to be scary One of the iconic scenes in the bed was fairly well done, but I had to laugh when her wig was suddenly 3 times as big as it was previously just for a couple of scenes, then went back to normal size again Im not sure I would have said the theatre was packed to the rafters - in my row there were at least 5 empty seats, and row AA had some empty too. I know it's still technically in previews so still time to smooth things out, but some of the effects/magic were just a little too obvious for my liking: {Spoiler - click to view}
Before biting off the guys ear she obviously put something in her mouth then spoke the next few lines with a mouthful.
Having to fumble around under the duvet to put her feet in the mechanism which would then raise her up etc.
I could barely see the vomit at all - Im not sure if there is a way this could have been done better, but it didn't really get any reaction at all and it's one of the most iconic moments from the movie. None of the 'illusions' were really as jaw dropping as I would have hoped. There was also one character at the curtain call that I think I only saw for a few seconds standing at the top of the stairs? Who was she supposed to be? I'm glad I only paid £15 and thought it was OK for that price - I would have been very disappointed if I'd paid more. |
|
3,536 posts
|
Post by Rory on Oct 27, 2017 12:12:30 GMT
There were some noisy scene changes and one or two were clunky. I was stalls row C. I expect these will be ironed out.
I may have gotten a little carried away saying it was packed to the rafters but I honestly didn't see that many empty seats and all 3 levels looked very busy to me.
The projectile vomit was there - just done to the side, not out front.
|
|
629 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Oct 27, 2017 12:17:52 GMT
The projectile vomit was there - just done to the side, not out front. The only thing I could see was a slightly damp wall after it had actually happened - one of the priests was standing in the way (considering I was right in the middle of the stalls I would have thought I would have been able to see the iconic scenes) I guess I was expecting a bit more from it rather than just a quick squirt onto a wall - I wanted to see the priests get drenched!  |
|
5,142 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 27, 2017 12:26:17 GMT
The theatre was packed to the rafters. One of the hippest, youngest crowds I've seen in a while (I include myself, natch - interesting to contrast it with the earlier matinee crowd at Ink!). They were screaming and rapt in equal measure. Bill Kenwright there too keeping a watchful eye on previews. You know you're no longer down with the kids when you have to Google what 'natch' means. |
|
16 posts
|
Post by adambloodworth on Oct 27, 2017 16:18:24 GMT
|
|
3,536 posts
|
Post by Rory on Oct 27, 2017 21:55:38 GMT
Thanks for posting this, Adam. I enjoyed reading your article and would be interested to hear your thoughts about the play once you've seen it.
|
|
2,054 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Oct 27, 2017 23:31:18 GMT
Hmmm, I thought the whole thing was a bit of a dogs dinner, to be honest - things didn't get off to a good start: in trying to emulate the films opening scene with Father Merrin in the Middle East, obviously any production would have problems trying to copy that, but I'm afraid Peter Bowles wearing a turban while picking at a kebab just brought on a fit of giggles for me, which took a long time to cease.
I haven't seen the film for the best part of 20 years, so my memories of it are a bit hazy, but the general quality of the acting just seemed generally subpar: while this level of production was never going to get someone of Max Von Sydow or Ellen Burstyns stature, I'm afraid Peter Bowles and Jenny Seagrove are very poor substitutes (just looking at their credits in the programme is proof enough: Only When I Laugh and Peak Practice are more their level)
I'm not that big a fan of the film (from what I remember, things just get interesting and it ends) but this just didn't seem scary - I'd like to see what Mark Kermode thinks of this if/when he sees it (for someone who has continually said The Exorcist is the best film ever made, surely he will go at some point) but I wouldn't be in a rush to see this again, I'm just glad I only paid £15 (I heard quite a few people moaning on the way out about 'nothing much' happening, but I got the impression they were the sort of Friday night crowd whooping and hollering when it started who were desperate for the chance of another drink)'\ after half an hour or so)
|
|
