|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2017 19:20:11 GMT
Wonder what it was that put people off this. For me, for a while, it was Harwood's anti-women rants that got my back up. (He's totally entitled to his opinion but he did rather go overboard on criticising absolutely anything that had - to him - unexpected female input.) Plus I watched the Beeb production and was bored stiff. (Harwood was right about that.)
But eventually the pull of the Stott/Shearsmith combo got me in for a day seat and I'm so glad I saw it. Much more effective than the BBC attempt where the two leads just felt too old (that's a personal thing, not an ageist thing, by the way. I've enjoyed both actors in other things, but in this they just felt so tired that the prospect of death seemed more of a welcome release than a tragedy).
|
|
781 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Feb 7, 2017 8:49:16 GMT
jean, agree about the age big time! It's not us being mean, it's being sensible. Norman should be 40ty something, not twice as old.. For me apart from the obvious - losing everything Norman ever knew, loved and cared for, one of the most devastating outcomes it that out-of-work Norman probably had to join the forces.. and it's a bloody frightful thing to face in WWII. Can you make me believe Ian McKellen's character is even considered for such a prospect? Nah.. Together with the many-many things like him spending 16 years in the service of Sir.. Well, okay, where are other 50ty years gone for then? It just doesn't work in the play's framework.
Maybe BBC production is the key aspect of people not wanting to come back to this story so soon? Especially that Eyre's attempts to tell it was so dull.. Thank god I hadn't seen the film before I went to see the stage version. Otherwise I just wouldn't be convinced to step in to the theatre...
|
|