1,736 posts
|
Post by fiyero on Apr 13, 2022 0:46:55 GMT
I see from Instagram Tarons name has been removed from the theatre marquee and Jonathan Bailey is now the main headliner. Weirdly though tarons picture is still outside the theatre I saw his name and went back and checked my photo, they have updated the main marquee but not the other signs. Not sure what to make of the play. It’s not overly my thing, I was using a friend’s ticket as he could no longer make it. I agree it was a bit shouty and I haven’t seen the originals to compare but thought the covers were great. Although the ambassadors is far from large I can see this working better on a smaller scale. |
|
3,541 posts
|
Post by Rory on Apr 13, 2022 17:26:31 GMT
All signage now updated.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 16, 2022 17:32:17 GMT
We had almost all understudies this afternoon - only main cast on was Phil Daniels. Is that a record?
The understudies were all good, but sitting in the rear stalls especially the lack of star firepower was noticeable. Maybe this play is more convincing with the likes of Ben Whishaw and Andrew Scott, but apart from a few laughs it felt dated and uninspiring.
The lead character is totally unappealing and I was left at a loss as to why either of them would want to be with him.
*shrug*
It’s COVID-times and we all have to go with the flow, but I certainly wouldn’t have booked to see this play with the cast I ended up seeing.
|
|
19,677 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 16, 2022 18:00:18 GMT
We had almost all understudies this afternoon - only main cast on was Phil Daniels. Is that a record? The understudies were all good, but sitting in the rear stalls especially the lack of star firepower was noticeable. Maybe this play is more convincing with the likes of Ben Whishaw and Andrew Scott, but apart from a few laughs it felt dated and uninspiring. The lead character is totally unappealing and I was left at a loss as to why either of them would want to be with him. *shrug* It’s COVID-times and we all have to go with the flow, but I certainly wouldn’t have booked to see this play with the cast I ended up seeing. Did you pay the star cast price for it? |
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 16, 2022 20:57:56 GMT
£55 per ticket for Stalls row O. Booked in September last year as soon as they went on sale.
So, yes, I rather think we did.
|
|
|
|
Post by craig on Apr 16, 2022 22:08:23 GMT
My opinion is probably coloured a little by my disappointment at not seeing Jonathan Bailey tonight, but I thought this was a dud.
Joel Harper Jackson was fantastic and it was quite amusing early on, but I can’t for the life of me work out what Marianne Elliot was thinking in reviving this. The central theme of labels and how we define ourselves felt dated and just not that interesting. It lacked drama and the wheels fell of as the comedy dissipated for me. The stakes were so low.
Jessica Whitehurst was excellent. Sad to say, I thought Dominic Holmes was really not great and woefully miscast. John is an unlikeable character and really needed significantly more charisma for his relationships to make any sense. I also thought Phil Daniels was passable at best in a thankless role.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2022 3:23:09 GMT
£55 per ticket for Stalls row O. Booked in September last year as soon as they went on sale. So, yes, I rather think we did. That is in no way star cast pricing for anywhere in the stalls nowadays. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2022 6:21:09 GMT
I'm surprised people say this play is outdated based on labels. I'd say more than ever people are expected to define themselves by labels these days.
Most of my life I've tried to avoid being defined by my sexuality, but now I'm expected to label and define myself as xyz.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 17, 2022 8:12:31 GMT
£55 per ticket for Stalls row O. Booked in September last year as soon as they went on sale. So, yes, I rather think we did. That is in no way star cast pricing for anywhere in the stalls nowadays. *We* all know that getting in the minute they go on sale is the thing to do if there’s star cast. Right now a seat in that row on a mid-week matinee is £70. You saying I’m not allowed to complain because I’m a savvy theatregoer? If the cast I actually saw had been advertised I’d have expected to pay closer to £30 for back of stalls - but you know it probably wouldn’t have ever made it to the West End in the first place. It would have been in a small theatre off-West End somewhere. And I wouldn’t have bothered booking it, is the point. It’s just not a good enough play on its own merits - it needs some heft in the casting to help it along. |
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 17, 2022 8:22:07 GMT
I'm surprised people say this play is outdated based on labels. I'd say more than ever people are expected to define themselves by labels these days. Most of my life I've tried to avoid being defined by my sexuality, but now I'm expected to label and define myself as xyz. Honestly I think it was dated at the time it was written. Even then the concept of ‘queer’ as an umbrella term for not-straight was widespread, now it’s practically mainstream. There’s no mention of it in the play. And bisexuality and pansexulity only get passing mentions. There’s a whole ‘but maybe I just want to have biological children and a family’ theme that’s particularly weird now that every other gay couple is using IVF and surrogacy to have a family. It’s the idea that the character is paralysed because he feels he *should* be one or the other - gay or straight - that is so weird. I just don’t know anyone who has that sort of angst about the label applied to them. Or that M or W would actually want to be with him after he, frankly, messes them around so badly. |
|
1,828 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dave B on Apr 17, 2022 8:32:41 GMT
Or that M or W would actually want to be with him after he, frankly, messes them around so badly.
Yes, this is my biggest problem with it. I mean not even halfway through they should have both slung him out with a clip over the ear.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 17, 2022 9:21:57 GMT
Or that M or W would actually want to be with him after he, frankly, messes them around so badly.
Yes, this is my biggest problem with it. I mean not even halfway through they should have both slung him out with a clip over the ear.
See, if you have someone with proper star power as John you can let that go a bit more. Charisma and pure sex appeal can make people very irrational! But the John I saw was - sorry - not particularly nice, or funny, or sexy, or clever. And the choreographed-movement ‘sex scenes’ didn’t make him out to be anything particularly special in bed or anything… Both M and W could do a lot better, frankly. |
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Apr 17, 2022 10:58:43 GMT
There’s a whole ‘but maybe I just want to have biological children and a family’ theme that’s particularly weird now that every other gay couple is using IVF and surrogacy to have a family. I think there is explorable stuff within a desire to live a heteronormative life, in that whilst it certainly happens that gay men have children, it's still nowhere near the norm and is several hundred times more complicated than the average * straight persons experience of having a child. There's historical tension between bisexual people and purely homosexual people about the perceived ability of the former group to just live a normal life if they please, that they be gay for fun and straight when they want to settle down. Obviously that's largely nonsense, but a contemporary re-write of the play could have gone down those avenues rather than, as you describe, getting caught up in problems that now seem a bit silly. * I know it can sometimes be very complicated for straight people as well |
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Apr 17, 2022 11:06:51 GMT
Certainly Cock seems a troubled production just now....
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2022 21:01:19 GMT
That is in no way star cast pricing for anywhere in the stalls nowadays. *We* all know that getting in the minute they go on sale is the thing to do if there’s star cast. Right now a seat in that row on a mid-week matinee is £70. You saying I’m not allowed to complain because I’m a savvy theatregoer? If the cast I actually saw had been advertised I’d have expected to pay closer to £30 for back of stalls - but you know it probably wouldn’t have ever made it to the West End in the first place. It would have been in a small theatre off-West End somewhere. And I wouldn’t have bothered booking it, is the point. It’s just not a good enough play on its own merits - it needs some heft in the casting to help it along. I'm not saying anything about whether you can or can't complain, that is your prerogative. All I am doing is stating a fact about West End pricing - £50 wouldn't get you the back of the stalls for pretty much any West End show these days, star casting or not. £30 for a stalls seat is simply an unrealistic expectation in the current market. |
|
4,789 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 17, 2022 21:03:17 GMT
I only paid £20! Second to back row and had a clear view (despite being sold as obstructed view)
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 17, 2022 21:51:12 GMT
*We* all know that getting in the minute they go on sale is the thing to do if there’s star cast. Right now a seat in that row on a mid-week matinee is £70. You saying I’m not allowed to complain because I’m a savvy theatregoer? If the cast I actually saw had been advertised I’d have expected to pay closer to £30 for back of stalls - but you know it probably wouldn’t have ever made it to the West End in the first place. It would have been in a small theatre off-West End somewhere. And I wouldn’t have bothered booking it, is the point. It’s just not a good enough play on its own merits - it needs some heft in the casting to help it along. I'm not saying anything about whether you can or can't complain, that is your prerogative. All I am doing is stating a fact about West End pricing - £50 wouldn't get you the back of the stalls for pretty much any West End show these days, star casting or not. £30 for a stalls seat is simply an unrealistic expectation in the current market. Hence my point that it would never have been playing in the West End with the cast I saw. 🙄 The expensive West End prices go with the star casting. It’s sad that you can no longer expect to get a rear stalls seat for £20 or so in a star-led show if you are quick on the day-of-sale, though. I did that plenty of times, pre-pandemic. Even if the dynamic pricing jumped up to £125 post-reviews (I remember when Elephant Man shocked everyone with those prices) you could find a bargain on day-of-sale. I feel old. |
|
141 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Apr 20, 2022 9:25:59 GMT
I saw Cock last Saturday and enjoyed it quite a lot. Johnathan Baily wasn't in and for the second time this year I was treated to an extraordinary replacement performance. The actor how played John, Dominic Holmes, was excellent. In fact, it felt almost as if the role had been written specially for him. He reminded me a lot of Stephen Mangan in Norman Conquests or James McArdle in Platonov, those two impossibly immature but irresistibly endearing naughty fellows that will never grow up. They basically exist to be self-centred and inadvertently cause trouble or create mischief. Except that unlike Norman, John is not manipulative, but quite the contrary. He is easily manipulated. It felt to me that Cock is a play about power, rather than anything else. The Cock in the title could perhaps refer to the dominating rooster, the cock of the walk, rather than anything else. I don’t think the play is outdated at all, but quite the contrary. We seem to live in a time when the struggle for power is more intense than ever. John, who was obviously controlled by M, and his father, is empowered by W and briefly experiences a liberating feeling of being the Cock, only to be sent back to his former role, when he is disputed as some sort of trophy, by the other characters. I thought the cast was uniformly excellent and I had the feeling that the audience was quite effusive at the curtain call. Four out of five stars for me.
As a note, I was at the TKTS booth on Monday and Cock tickets were available for 136 pounds. I expect them to be premium tickets... but still :-|
|
|
|
|
Post by craig on Apr 20, 2022 10:03:12 GMT
It felt to me that Cock is a play about power, rather than anything else. The Cock in the title could perhaps refer to the dominating rooster, the cock of the walk, rather than anything else. I don’t think the play is outdated at all, but quite the contrary. We seem to live in a time when the struggle for power is more intense than ever. John, who was obviously controlled by M, and his father, is empowered by W and briefly experiences a liberating feeling of being the Cock, only to be sent back to his former role, when he is disputed as some sort of trophy, by the other characters. I definitely think your take has hit the nail on the head as to what it's all about. We will just have to agree to disagree on Dominic Holmes as John! |
|
141 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Apr 20, 2022 11:25:30 GMT
It felt to me that Cock is a play about power, rather than anything else. The Cock in the title could perhaps refer to the dominating rooster, the cock of the walk, rather than anything else. I don’t think the play is outdated at all, but quite the contrary. We seem to live in a time when the struggle for power is more intense than ever. John, who was obviously controlled by M, and his father, is empowered by W and briefly experiences a liberating feeling of being the Cock, only to be sent back to his former role, when he is disputed as some sort of trophy, by the other characters. I definitely think your take has hit the nail on the head as to what it's all about. We will just have to agree to disagree on Dominic Holmes as John! I understand your disappointment, though. My heart sank when I saw that ominous slip protruding from the play's programme. But it only took me five minutes to readjust. Apart from the play itself and Marianne Elliott, Jonathan Bailey and Taron Egerton did help in my decision to buy the ticket. I think only Phil Daniels was there from the original cast. Considering that the play opened barely a month ago, this was certainly bad luck. |
|
184 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Apr 23, 2022 0:10:11 GMT
I definitely think your take has hit the nail on the head as to what it's all about. We will just have to agree to disagree on Dominic Holmes as John! I understand your disappointment, though. My heart sank when I saw that ominous slip protruding from the play's programme. But it only took me five minutes to readjust. Apart from the play itself and Marianne Elliott, Jonathan Bailey and Taron Egerton did help in my decision to buy the ticket. I think only Phil Daniels was there from the original cast. Considering that the play opened barely a month ago, this was certainly bad luck. I would imagine being Easter weekend it was arranged holidays for him. |
|
|
|
Post by musicalcritical on Apr 26, 2022 2:39:47 GMT
I missed the chance to say 'Cock got extended', I thought it had already shut
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Apr 26, 2022 15:56:24 GMT
Are Johnny and Jade both back in it by now?
|
|
943 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Apr 26, 2022 21:52:35 GMT
Apart from the odd funny line I thought this was terrible.
Dated, unsubtle, shouty and pointless. No characters, just walking points of view. Anyone with an ounce of self respect would have dumped John well before the end.
I didn't see the original production and appreciate it is well remembered but I couldn't see any reason why anyone thought this was worth reviving.
|
|
19,677 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 27, 2022 9:22:26 GMT
Short run. World class creative team. Big name actors. Small theatre. Commercial production. Surely they are within their rights to charge whatever they want for the tickets. Basic supply and demand. 7 out of every 10 shows dont recoup. Why not make some money if you can. Sometimes it’s exasperating reading this forum. Especially as a professional. Please-we all really appreciate the passion and indeed the great knowledge of the members and your insights but please remember theatre producing is unbelievably risky. It can take 12 months of work to pull off rights/creative team/casting/investment/venue etc and of course most producers are looking to try and get 4 or 5 shows ‘off the ground’ whilst being thrilled if one out of every 5 actually comes together. This is a really good play. World class creative team. Top notch cast. Maybe let the investors and producers actually make money for a change. Apart from the odd funny line I thought this was terrible. Dated, unsubtle, shouty and pointless. No characters, just walking points of view. Anyone with an ounce of self respect would have dumped John well before the end. I didn't see the original production and appreciate it is well remembered but I couldn't see any reason why anyone thought this was worth reviving. Answer is in the first quote. Producers saw £££ signs and did a cash grab. Now people who paid over the odds for it have been cheated. |
|
