5,794 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jan 29, 2016 23:21:31 GMT
saw this tonight.. Kinda liked it but not wowed.
Loved Ralph Fiennes and Linda Emond, but the character of Hilda was too bloody annoying. I don't blame the actress though.
Quality production, decent set.. But it left me cold.
Can't believe Dreyfus gets work in theatre anymore considering his DREADFUL attendance record,
Also agree re: the audience. With ticket prices this ridiculous- it's not surprising the theatre was full of posh idiots lording around. Depressing,
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jan 30, 2016 0:06:24 GMT
saw this tonight.. Kinda liked it but not wowed. Loved Ralph Fiennes and Linda Emond, but the character of Hilda was too bloody annoying. I don't blame the actress though. Quality production, decent set.. But it left me cold. Can't believe Dreyfus gets work in theatre anymore considering his DREADFUL attendance record, Also agree re: the audience. With ticket prices this ridiculous- it's not surprising the theatre was full of posh idiots lording around. Depressing, Hilda doesn't have to be annoying. Gemma Arterton played her wonderfully in the Almeida production - full of life, a life force. |
|
330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on Jan 30, 2016 11:14:43 GMT
Also agree re: the audience. With ticket prices this ridiculous- it's not surprising the theatre was full of posh idiots lording around. Depressing, Old Vic has had the most horribly pretentious posh audience. Noticed that already on my first visit there 6 years ago. Less of them in the 10 £ previews, but a lot of them even occupied the cheap seats  My friends and me have seen the first preview and we were not irritated at all by Sarah Snook - we actually liked her performance and were very impressed by Ralph Fiennes and Linda Emont and the set. One of my friends is an architect and she was especially interested in the creation topic. And we all like David Hare. I find it very interesting, that Ibsen has again created totally different interesting types of women. And especially Linda Emont manages to make that woman very likeable. I usually don't like two intervals and I would have preferred a simpler set that allowed a quicker change but I still enjoyed the whole thing and I am looking forward to my second visit in a slightly restricted view seat in the circle for the penultimate performance. |
|
15 posts
|
Post by loopyjohn on Jan 30, 2016 12:23:15 GMT
Old Vic has had the most horribly pretentious posh audience. So, not just me who was irritated by the audience then. As I left the theatre I was roughly pushed aside by a posh couple eager to make their way back to Waterloo. Sadly class doesn't always come with manners. Matthew Marchus may be keen to attract a new audience to this theatre, but it's going to take a while. This is the first (only?) play to pack 'em in under his new reign and - surprise, surprise - it's exactly the kind of production - classic play with a starry name in the cast - which the "old" Old Vic audience loves. I think my issues were more with the play (or David Hare's adaptation?) than the cast. But I haven't seen The Master Builder before so I've nothing to compare it to. Ralph Fiennes has a strong stage presence, and no problem hearing his every word. I hate the cramped FoH areas of this theatre. And it is a downright awful theatre to go for a wee, especially if you are a lady. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 14:58:04 GMT
Ladies should always pee on the top floor of this theatre, never in the basement. More cubicles, and more space to queue. Sure, it's a lot of stairs, but it's worth it.
|
|
2,740 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jan 30, 2016 15:45:04 GMT
Ladies should always pee on the top floor of this theatre, never in the basement. I'd rather they used the facilities instead. |
|
1,475 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jan 30, 2016 19:21:55 GMT
Loved Ralph Fiennes and Linda Emond, but the character of Hilda was too bloody annoying. I don't blame the actress though. Hilda doesn't have to be annoying. Gemma Arterton played her wonderfully in the Almeida production - full of life, a life force. I loved Gemma Arterton too, and this is very different, but like Mr Barnaby says, it's not the Sarah Snook's fault. The overall vision here is completely different to what the Almeida did. At the Almeida, Arterton's Hilde Wangel was the devil herself, temptation made incarnate, dancing and pirouetting like a whirling dervish, batting her eyelashes and speaking seductively, in such a way that Helen of Troy would have felt a frump in her presence. Here, Sarah Snook's Hilde Wangel is an uptight head girl from a British Public School (and by public, I mean private), speaking deliberately enunciated received pronunciation, in a manner that suggests sexual sublimation and Freudian repression, confirmed by her awkward physical jerkiness. Stephen Dillane's reactionary Halvard Solness grimly set about making everyone's life miserable, until he fell under the spell of pied-piper Arterton's Miss Mephistopheles. By comparison, Ralph Fiennes' Solness is an understandable and sympathetic chap, suffering from a shared depression with his wife, making doomy gloomy jokes, based on a tragic history. When Fiennes' sad sensitive Solness encounter's Snook's wound-up Wangel, he does not encounter a supernatural siren luring him to his doom, but someone who mirrors his mental state, who catalyses his mental illness by giving it credence. Everything that happens to Solness in this play springs not from circumstances but from his own state of mind. This version of the play is only really about one thing: Halvard Solness' state of mind. This is Hare's grubby realistic version of Ibsen, an hour longer than the Almeida's fantastical version, with the extra hour very much devoted to lengthy speeches wherein Fiennes' Solness expounds on his inner demons, burdens, history until the mystery of Ibsen is almost explained away. And it's that mysteriousness that Ibsen brings to his characters that I love the most, so I was a little disappointed, especially by the mundaneness of this prim disturbed Hilde Wangel. Luckily, Ralph Fiennes conquers all with his towering sensitive performance. He is at the top of his game, his speeches and emotions having the ebb and flow of tides, and he managed to deeply move me, despite my resentment of this all too earthy take on the material. Martin Hutson is very good too, with the minimal stage time his Ragnar is given. Seen as an opportunity to witness Fiennes at his best, this is well worth going to. But I don't think this is Ibsen seen at his best, though Ibsen is still good even seen through refracted glass. 4 stars (for Fiennes)  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 21:13:36 GMT
Plenty of twats at Ma Rainey tonight as well
"You have too see The Master Builder- RaLph (said to rhyme with Elf) is in it and David Hare has rewitten it"
"Oh I LOVE Ralph and David"
This overheard conversation explains the frigid state of impotent London theatre in a moment
|
|
|
|
Post by DebbieDoesDouglas(Hodge) on Jan 30, 2016 23:13:33 GMT
God, old vic AWFUL audience. it's literally filled with rich people whom think they can act anyway they want. I always make a note to sneeze on them
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jan 30, 2016 23:30:13 GMT
Typical grim Ibsen. Sarah Snook has put her arms down, James Dreyfuss is back (no wonder he took a sickie, who woulda missed him) and Ralph is still an awkwardly sexy man but I enjoyed it.
In the light of the Doug Richard verdict yesterday I felt very uncomfortable with the kissing a 12/13 year old girl flashback BUT I think we are meant to realise The Master Builder is in a bad place and has been for a long time.
My companions were all confused about the milk. I didn't understand why it wasn't her duty to get a wet nurse!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 23:40:13 GMT
Yes, the night I was there you could feel the whole audience react to the age gap revelation.
Would it have been that big of a deal when Ibsen was writing, though, I wonder?
It also crossed my mind that Hilda might have been making it up. She appeared to be just about as nutty as Solness. It seemed like he only admitted it to shut her up.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 31, 2016 13:14:35 GMT
When she said 'you kissed me', in my head I was asking where?! A hurrah peck on the top of the head for a man who has just triumphed in his building. For those who have seen/read this before how much are we trust to what we're told about what went on, or is that the wrong type of question, i suspect it might be. I reflected this morning that my dissatisfaction with the Hilda character was as she seemed to be leading him to trouble but what had I been expecting as that is quite an Ibsen type role. I rather wanted everything to be somehow okay which clearly would have been something of a turn around and let down as a piece of drama.
|
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Feb 5, 2016 21:54:41 GMT
I've just looked on the website and have to say I'm pretty disgusted at the prices the Old Vic are charging for this. £140 for most of the stalls and dress circle, £90 for any other non-restricted view, £60 behind a pillar or miles back under the overhang so the top of the stage is cut off, £50 for side-view seats. I would have paid £60 for a decent enough seat but to charge what they say on the show page you click through before buying tickets is top non-premium price to have a "slim pillar in view" is just criminal. I realise Warchus has lost the organisation a LOT of money on his first three flops but this sort of money grabbing actually puts me off the Old Vic as an institution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 22:52:30 GMT
Which pillar seats are you looking at? I've booked one of the best "behind a slim pillar" seats in the house, and it only cost the standard £16.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 23:51:07 GMT
Out of interest, Baemax, when did you buy? Looks like this could be a nasty case of our old friend 'dynamic pricing'...I'm reasonably certain prices weren't this high when I looked at the site when public booking first opened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 0:41:41 GMT
The front row stalls has a seat for £140 on a random Monday in Feb
I am sorry but anyone who pays that is a Tw*t
Fiennes is the dullest actor dull in tone, demeanour and appearance and he seems like a dullard
All 3 of his stage roles I have seen were underwhelming and uninspiring
I paid £21 for The Master Builder and have never been so glad to leave as I did at the first interval
Old Vic is a sh*t bag venue
I hate it
|
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Feb 6, 2016 9:02:02 GMT
I think they hiked all their prices at some point either when it was selling well or maybe even just this week after the reviews. Just because idiots with money to burn or as Parsley so delicately phrases it "twats" will pay £140 to see it doesn't mean it is worth that or that you should charge that much. The website lists ticket prices as.
TICKETS: £12, £16, £21, £30, £50, £60
For information regarding Premium Seats and VIP Packages please call the box office.
The ever reliable Theatremonkey has a price plan as it was originally which fairly corresponds to the above description. However now most of the stalls forward of M are £140, back of that £90 until you are under the overhang. Originally the front row of the dress circle was premium £90 then the rows behind £60, now everything is £140. The upper circle was £30, back rows £21, now £60 and £50. So they are now selling the upper circle at their top quoted price.
It's just so disingenuous to say you are anti-touting and will refuse entry to people buying tickets at inflated prices but then your own policy is to inflate your prices to over double if something is popular.
|
|
2,740 posts
|
Post by n1david on Feb 6, 2016 9:11:04 GMT
Wow. My £60 seat in row J Stalls (bought in Sep) seems a complete bargain now. Much as I'm looking forward to this, if I could flog both of our seats for £140 I might take the £160 margin...
|
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Feb 6, 2016 9:12:22 GMT
Fair enough but this is dynamism on acid. £60 for those horrible old hard-backed seats in row E of the upper circle, miles from the stage with a top down view? No thanks.
The real shame is that regular theatregoers who know the Old Vic just won't pay these joke prices but people who aren't in the theatregoing habit and simply desperate to see Raph Feinnes onstage will be conned into thinking that is what these tickets are worth, get there and feel totally ripped off. It is perpetuating the myth that all theatre is elitist and prohibitatively expensive.
|
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Feb 6, 2016 9:15:34 GMT
Wow. My £60 seat in row J Stalls (bought in Sep) seems a complete bargain now. Much as I'm looking forward to this, if I could flog both of our seats for £140 I might take the £160 margin... Except if they found out they would say those tickets were invalidated. It's only allowed when they do it themselves... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 9:16:15 GMT
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Feb 6, 2016 14:56:35 GMT
That's horrific. I paid £30 for Row B of Lillian Bayliss, nice view but I would be reluctant to pay more.
The problem is Old Vic should be offering £10 seats for all performances and then they could at least justify inflated prices to subsidise those but to offer cheap seats across 5 performances and then inflate the run is outrageous.
|
|
367 posts
|
Post by Jonnyboy on Feb 7, 2016 9:46:19 GMT
What is going on with theatre prices?! I've brought my family to London several times a year for 15 years and the pricing has just gone crazy in recent times. I used to cringe at paying £60 a seat front stalls but this is just ridiculous. I fear regular theatregoers are being priced out of 'starry' shows.
When I was under 26 I got a front row seat for £12. And now it's £140... I'll have to pass. Not paying £60 for a crappy seat.
|
|
516 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Feb 7, 2016 10:32:52 GMT
Saw this yesterday and have to say I'm starting to enjoy Ibsen more recently. Only having seen Hedda Gabler (at the Old Vic too) I thought I'd read more of his work and The Master Builder seems to have ideas about art also explored in When We Dead Wake. But here, like in An Enemy of the People, the protagonist takes a bit of jump in his thinking. In An Enemy of the People, Stockmann goes from wanting to persuade the town about the town's water supply to soon decrying them all as mongrels or some such. Here, although I found it believable, I thought that Solness' thoughts later in the play about why he's building the spire seem to come out of nowhere.
I thought the music really added to this, and Fiennes' and Snook's chemistry worked well; I did get the idea that they were in some sort of dream, perhaps, and she was his muse as suggested in the programme.
Fine performances from the whole cast, and the set is great. The set, cast, lighting and sound all came to together at the end to produce an effective tragic end.
The Old Vic have apparently filmed the first 3 productions in the season and they might put them on their website apparently. So even more people can dislike the first two! I jest. However, I don't like the £10 preview deal when it's not really accessible to those outside London and dynamic pricing is surely going to put people off (especially the young, but I managed to buy my ticket ages ago for this).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 17:03:09 GMT
The Old Vic this year has such a varied programme that each individual production appeals to a different sector of casual theatregoers. So, the premiumification of The Master Builder for the poshos who want to see Ralphy in a classic won't be noticed by the general audiences for Tim Spall in Pinter or for the Drew Maconie narrative dance show or for the USAn movie musical. The only overlap audience is the theatre junkies like you lot. But you've already bought discount tickets at the optimum time, being in the know. So I don't think the present Ibsenite inflation will do much damage to future box office, and I expect that the unfunded Old Vic is desperate for this extra income at the moment so good luck to them!
|
|
