5,139 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on May 2, 2023 12:46:05 GMT
It did, but that was before NT At Home and before the model on NT Live entirely changed (it's so expensive to do it live that everything is pre-recorded now, and they're taking less risks on the NT Live titles and playing it a lot safer than they used to)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 2, 2023 16:01:44 GMT
They've marked down both performances on the 5th July as filmed performances so I'm guessing it'll be for NT Live or NT at Home at a later date. Doesn't necessarily mean this - the NT record everything for archive purposes. It feels like a possible NT at Home future release but i'd be shocked to see it go out on NT Live I think Jon is correct. As far as I am aware they have never pre-advertised the fact particular performances were being filmed for archival purposes (even though every production has been) and those archival films are really very basic compared with their “commercial” filming and would not impact the audience. |
|
|
|
Post by teamyali on May 3, 2023 0:03:24 GMT
First review up!
Four stars from The Telegraph, The Times, Evening Standard, The Independent, The Stage, 3 stars from the graun though.
The press and social media seem a bit quiet for press night. It’s getting overshadowed by the news of the Met Gala, the Tony Awards nominations, and the Coronation. The show’s selling out fast and they have two more months so they have a lot to offer.
|
|
423 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 3, 2023 6:07:58 GMT
I saw this last night and thought it was sensational. A beautiful script, compellingly acted and inventively directed and designed. Between this Lughansa and Phaedra the National is enjoying a welcome and much needed resurgence.
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 3, 2023 11:49:41 GMT
The Guardian was the only non 4 or 5 star review but I get the impression they don't like much theatre.
|
|
546 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on May 3, 2023 11:58:25 GMT
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 3, 2023 11:59:45 GMT
Must have missed that one! |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 3, 2023 12:13:10 GMT
I have no doubt this will be a huge hit and get 5* reviews but it left me cold. Maybe I'm the only one since it got a rapturous standing ovation last night.
I love Hamlet very much, have performed in Hamlet (but not as Hamlet), and I've watched the Burton Hamlet recording. I was excited for this. But there's just no there, there. It just felt incredibly artificial and the writing is superficial and shallow. Apart from one scene where Gielgud is alone, there was not one moment that felt like genuine emotion. Didn't see the point of having Elizabeth Taylor pop up every now and then to be sexy and to editorialise on celebrity and acting but have zero character development or even anything to do. Tuppence Middleton is a good actor but you could have replaced her with the Madame Tussauds waxwork of Elizabeth Taylor and not noticed any difference, and for God's sake is there not a single American actress in London who could have played that role?
It's entertaining and has some funny sitcom-style lines. But basically a gossipy Lifetime movie. 3* from me.
Trivia: John Heffernan was in an early workshop of this play. Now there's an actor who brings real emotional truth to every role he plays.
|
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on May 3, 2023 12:21:26 GMT
Why would you want an American actress to play Elizabeth Taylor?
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 3, 2023 12:24:37 GMT
I have no doubt this will be a huge hit and get 5* reviews but it left me cold. Maybe I'm the only one since it got a rapturous standing ovation last night. I love Hamlet very much, have performed in Hamlet (but not as Hamlet), and I've watched the Burton Hamlet recording. I was excited for this. But there's just no there, there. It just felt incredibly artificial and the writing is superficial and shallow. Apart from one scene where Gielgud is alone, there was not one moment that felt like genuine emotion. Didn't see the point of having Elizabeth Taylor pop up every now and then to be sexy and to editorialise on celebrity and acting but have zero character development or even anything to do. Tuppence Middleton is a good actor but you could have replaced her with the Madame Tussauds waxwork of Elizabeth Taylor and not noticed any difference, and for God's sake is there not a single American actress in London who could have played that role? It's entertaining and has some funny sitcom-style lines. But basically a gossipy Lifetime movie. 3* from me. Trivia: John Heffernan was in an early workshop of this play. Now there's an actor who brings real emotional truth to every role he plays. Who was Heffernan playing in the workshop, I assume he was playing Gielgud rather than Burton. |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 3, 2023 12:38:12 GMT
Why would you want an American actress to play Elizabeth Taylor? Elizabeth Taylor was British-American. She was born in London but her parents were both American (both her parents were from Kansas originally, and only came to Britain a couple of years before she was born). The family moved back to the US when she was 7, so she lived in the US for most of her life. She's certainly played here with an American accent, and to my ears one that is serviceable but not great. |
|
668 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by alessia on May 3, 2023 12:39:29 GMT
Oh I really like John Heffernan! There was a time last year when I kept spotting him in the audience at all the things I was seeing :-D And I loved him in Much Ado at the National - probably the best actor in that.
|
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on May 3, 2023 12:46:27 GMT
Why would you want an American actress to play Elizabeth Taylor? Elizabeth Taylor was British-American. She was born in London but her parents were both American (both her parents were from Kansas originally, and only came to Britain a couple of years before she was born). The family moved back to the US when she was 7, so she lived in the US for most of her life. She's certainly played here with an American accent, and to my ears one that is serviceable but not great. Yes, I think most of us know that. But her early career was based on her having a British accent (which she had). I think the whole point of the accent in the play was that it was an acquired one, not her native one. |
|
141 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on May 3, 2023 13:45:49 GMT
The Guardian was the only non 4 or 5 star review but I get the impression they don't like much theatre. I'm not saying anything about this particular review, but I do have a feeling that some critics don't really care about theatre, or even know much of it either.
It would be great to have a place where we could read reviews on reviewers (and their reviews), with stars and everything.
.
|
|
668 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by alessia on May 3, 2023 14:01:42 GMT
The Guardian was the only non 4 or 5 star review but I get the impression they don't like much theatre. I'm not saying anything about this particular review, but I do have a feeling that some critics don't really care about theatre, or even know much of it either.
It would be great to have a place where we could read reviews on reviewers (and their reviews), with stars and everything.
.
Mark Shenton the blogger did this once, I remember it was discussed on here a while back. He actually gave stars to the critics, it was quite entertaining to read (and then the people concerned had a laugh about this on twitter). |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on May 3, 2023 14:56:12 GMT
The Guardian was the only non 4 or 5 star review but I get the impression they don't like much theatre. I'm not saying anything about this particular review, but I do have a feeling that some critics don't really care about theatre, or even know much of it either.
It would be great to have a place where we could read reviews on reviewers (and their reviews), with stars and everything.
To say the fairly obvious, the key criteria for many legacy media outlets is the extent to which the production fits with the publication's agenda. Thus, what gets 4 to 5 stars in The Telegraph is often 2 to 3 in The Guardian, and vice versa: agenda before art. Not all publications - or reviewers - are quite so prescriptive, though the inclination is noticeable and tiresome.
Fwiw, reviews of reviewers seems - to me - both a little bonkers and entirely appropriate for the times we live in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on May 3, 2023 15:07:10 GMT
The Guardian was the only non 4 or 5 star review but I get the impression they don't like much theatre. wants obvious in-your-face contemporary relevance, as if today's audiences aren't competent to absorb meaningful content, more subtly presented. When Arifa Akbar reviewed the National's recent production of The Crucible, her three-star review was headed: "Director Lyndsey Turner misses the opportunity to give Arthur Miller’s allegory modern resonance with a too-faithful interpretation." She followed up by saying the National's production "might have borne more resonances to the group-think and scapegoating that recent populist narratives have peddled." Ms. Akbar went on to admire the design aspects of the production, as she does in her review of The Motive and the Cue.
When The Crucible originally opened on Broadway in 1953, it was clearly staged as a period piece set in 1692. Nevertheless, in his review in The New York Times, critic Brooks Atkinson wrote: "Neither Mr. Miller nor his audience are unaware of certain similarities between the perversions of justice then and today." You don't have to hit audience members over the head in order to make the relevance point, but Guardian critics don't seem to get that. They need to appreciate that audiences can understand the subtle aspects of the text without dumbing it down. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on May 3, 2023 16:06:04 GMT
The Guardian was the only non 4 or 5 star review but I get the impression they don't like much theatre. She followed up by saying the National's production "might have borne more resonances to the group-think and scapegoating that recent populist narratives have peddled." Oh boy, that is quite the position to.. peddle.
RE the recent NT The Crucible: the moment when Mary Warren finally forswears John Proctor for the herd absolutely screamed 'twittermob' (at least to me). That staging - with Abigail's group of teen girls front of stage, left, baying - was visually compelling, and the allegory with youthful (social media orientated) group-think unavoidable. To instead, in scenes such as that, see a populist leaning is perverse (iirc, entire narratives - in The Guardian and elsewhere - were built around populists being old and ruining the future for the young). |
|
1,052 posts
|
Post by David J on May 3, 2023 18:42:13 GMT
The Guardian was the only non 4 or 5 star review but I get the impression they don't like much theatre. I'm not saying anything about this particular review, but I do have a feeling that some critics don't really care about theatre, or even know much of it either.
It would be great to have a place where we could read reviews on reviewers (and their reviews), with stars and everything.
.
I can say the same a lot of the media these days. Not just in theatre but in newspapers, journals, magazines, and down to supposed 'fan' blogs there is an increasing number of journalists reviewing or writing about something they have no interest in or even have a disdain for the subject matter, and all they want to do is shove in their political views. This Kotaku review of the Playstation 5 back in 2020 for example was heavily mocked for the way the writer went from giving a okay review of the console to just moaning about the state of the world at the end - kotaku.com/playstation-5-the-kotaku-review-1845588904. That and the things the Guardian theatre reviewer says are just a drop in the myriad of terrible pieces you can read out there. It's funny you were suggesting about reviewing other people's reviews because on youtube there are an increasing number of channels who critique video reviews and essays to a minute detail. More geared towards film, video games and TV series. Admittedly they can go on for hours like EFAP (or Every Frame a Pause) www.youtube.com/@everyframeapause. As the title suggests they have live streams where they discuss every infinite detail about the latest media, video reviews and essays. And believe me its very popular. Even I tune into some of these long livestreams. There's a hunger for objective and lengthy discussion about media that mainstream journalists are increasingly incapable of doing. A trend that's been going on since particularly 2016 when Star Wars The Last Jedi came out, a film that is famously polarised between critics and fans. |
|
|
|
Post by bram on May 3, 2023 22:49:13 GMT
Takes a while to get going but when it does this is excellent. Exciting and moving.
|
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on May 3, 2023 22:59:58 GMT
Yes the Guardian review is nonsense and Arifa Akbar has long seemed completely unsuited to the job.
But let that not distract from how superlatively wonderful this play is in every respect. It is instantly engaging and just gets better and better. It’s also given a really tip top production and full of fabulous performances.
I was reminded of seeing The History Boys (in the very same theatre) and the scene in which Richard Griffiths’ teacher character talks about reading something in a book by someone else that you yourself had previously thought was an original thought of your own it being like a hand reaching out to you (I’m paraphrasing badly!). That scene just had a magical effect on the audience as they thought about that idea and perhaps even felt that very thing about the statement itself.
Well for me, Gielgud’s speech about the theatre in the second half rivals that in its meta beauty and true theatre magic. The audience were so unbelievably intently listening - you could genuinely have heard the proverbial pin.
But it’s all just so, so, so good. Honestly if you have even the remotest passion for theatre as an art form, actors, Shakespeare, and/or just backstage gossip just get yourself a ticket.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on May 4, 2023 11:19:19 GMT
Having had a good click through the run last night, if you can afford £50 - £90 I suggest you get on this now as it will sell out completely in the next few days. With this and the Brian Friel, Friday Rush will also be quite a challenge for the foreseeable.
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 4, 2023 11:25:05 GMT
Having had a good click through the run last night, if you can afford £50 - £90 I suggest you get on this now as it will sell out completely in the next few days. With this and the Brian Friel, Friday Rush will also be quite a challenge for the foreseeable. I was able to get Friday Rush for Motive but that was before the reviews came out. |
|
703 posts
|
Post by theatremiss on May 4, 2023 18:35:40 GMT
I have no doubt this will be a huge hit and get 5* reviews but it left me cold. Maybe I'm the only one since it got a rapturous standing ovation last night. I love Hamlet very much, have performed in Hamlet (but not as Hamlet), and I've watched the Burton Hamlet recording. I was excited for this. But there's just no there, there. It just felt incredibly artificial and the writing is superficial and shallow. Apart from one scene where Gielgud is alone, there was not one moment that felt like genuine emotion. Didn't see the point of having Elizabeth Taylor pop up every now and then to be sexy and to editorialise on celebrity and acting but have zero character development or even anything to do. Tuppence Middleton is a good actor but you could have replaced her with the Madame Tussauds waxwork of Elizabeth Taylor and not noticed any difference, and for God's sake is there not a single American actress in London who could have played that role? It's entertaining and has some funny sitcom-style lines. But basically a gossipy Lifetime movie. 3* from me. Trivia: John Heffernan was in an early workshop of this play. Now there's an actor who brings real emotional truth to every role he plays. Oh Heffernan is one of those actors I just book anything he is in. He’s superb and totally committed to the roles I’ve seen him in. It’s about time he returned to the stage |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 5, 2023 9:34:41 GMT
Oh Heffernan is one of those actors I just book anything he is in. He’s superb and totally committed to the roles I’ve seen him in. It’s about time he returned to the stage Also frequently to be seen in theatre audiences too - had a brief chat with him in the coat queue at a Ferryman preview and he was lovely (I'd mostly seen him play baddies at that point!). I think he was going to be in the Game of Thrones alternative prequel that was scrapped, which is a shame. |
|
