|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 22, 2016 4:48:34 GMT
He has a cold stage presence, in R-III all his audience interaction - that weird pointing at people for example- came across as just acting - R-III played by a warmer actor like SimonR-B or Jacobi is better. Coriolanus is the part for Fiennes (I assume, I've never seen him in a film) Because played by a 'warmer actor' it's more threatening, sinister, scary? Am seeing this on saturday so can't yet comment but was curious if that was what you meant. Partly it is because if the audience has some sympathy with the actor then they get drawn in to Richard's villainy, they chuckle at it and so become complicit in it. There are some parts that are entirely unsympathetic, Coriolanus, Macbeth, actors like Fiennes and Greg Hicks who simply don't project any "likeability" are good for those. That also explains the utter failure of Simon Russell-Beale's Macbeth. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 22, 2016 21:26:33 GMT
Because played by a 'warmer actor' it's more threatening, sinister, scary? Am seeing this on saturday so can't yet comment but was curious if that was what you meant. Partly it is because if the audience has some sympathy with the actor then they get drawn in to Richard's villainy, they chuckle at it and so become complicit in it. There are some parts that are entirely unsympathetic, Coriolanus, Macbeth, actors like Fiennes and Greg Hicks who simply don't project any "likeability" are good for those. That also explains the utter failure of Simon Russell-Beale's Macbeth. Yep get what you mean, there's more there if you get drawn into a character and then find their behaviour and your involvement (metaphorically speaking) challenging. I did read somewhere that SRB's Macbeth was not a good one, was that part of the problem, he made/wanted to make Macbeth sympathetic? |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 23, 2016 6:36:17 GMT
Partly it is because if the audience has some sympathy with the actor then they get drawn in to Richard's villainy, they chuckle at it and so become complicit in it. There are some parts that are entirely unsympathetic, Coriolanus, Macbeth, actors like Fiennes and Greg Hicks who simply don't project any "likeability" are good for those. That also explains the utter failure of Simon Russell-Beale's Macbeth. Yep get what you mean, there's more there if you get drawn into a character and then find their behaviour and your involvement (metaphorically speaking) challenging. I did read somewhere that SRB's Macbeth was not a good one, was that part of the problem, he made/wanted to make Macbeth sympathetic? I don't think he intended it but as we'd seen him in so many sympathetic roles we were predisposed to like him which for Macbeth didn't really work. He got a few laughs too. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 13:38:35 GMT
Saw this last night, I thought Fiennes sounded like Patrick Allen (see above), which didn't help matters. Goold is normally inventive and interesting with Shakespeare but this just lies flat onstage. Very little directorial invention at all. Unlike others I liked Redgrave, she had subtlety and a way of pointing the verse that evaded most of the others. The women, overall, I found to be the most interesting, although Vanderham was flat (though plausibly traumatised).
More than anything it's a big disappointment when placed against the magnificent Van Hove 'Kings of War'. I see Osterneier's version in Edinburgh next month, so that's three Dicky three's in six months!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 24, 2016 17:41:00 GMT
Well found this a bit middling, nothing really bad but nothing really good either, the man next to me slept through most of it which while I wasn't tempted to do that I wasn't enthralled, I've yet to see a great Richard III but from the posts on here have to believe it's possible. Ralph Fiennes didn't really work for me here was which was obviously a bit of a deal breaker but then didn't wildly care about anyone else enough to particularly feel for what he did to them. Found Vanderham a bit shouty and would have preferred a quieter repulsion though I do struggle with the wooing scene generally, it's such a turn around but then maybe in a great production it works? Didn't feel a lot for these bereft women and surely I should have. Quite liked Scott Handy's dream speech and James Garnons' Hastings who spectacularly fails to see which way the wind is blowing. Found the mix of modern combat gear and bits of armour rather jarring and didn't see the point of such unspectacular rain. On the upside chattered to two other theatre goers which was nice and the behind the pillar seat again proved it's worth and money saving.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 24, 2016 17:58:43 GMT
I don't think he intended it but as we'd seen him in so many sympathetic roles we were predisposed to like him which for Macbeth didn't really work. He got a few laughs too. A funny Macbeth? I can see your point, if i'd seen it i probably would have been predisposed to like him. |
|
898 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Jul 24, 2016 20:24:59 GMT
Well, this was a pleasant surprise after the large number of negative reviews on here. I thought it and Fiennes were excellent. It made a fascinating contrast to the Spacey version, and on balance I preferred it. For me Spacey was trying too hard to be winning and used some rather cheap tricks to gain easy laughter. Downplaying the comedy here worked very well: Fiennes' Richard was thoroughly vile with no redeeming features. It was almost as if he were comic on occasion despite himself, someone who had no idea someone might find his evil attractive. Very good supporting cast with no weak links. I'm not a fan of Redgrave but she was very good and suitably pathetic in her madness.
|
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Aug 8, 2016 13:36:19 GMT
Caught the final matinee on Saturday. I'm no fan of the play, but this was a very clear rendering, I thought. While it held my attention throughout (unlike that acclaimed NT "WW1" version that had me snoozing), the trouble was, it lacked edge. Richard was quietly murdering his way to the top (I think the brilliant "skull scoreboard" was arranged as an astrological chart - the Boar, perhaps?) but there was no tangible sense of drama about it, for me. He just got on with meeting nice people and whacking them. I didn't get the rape near the end, that was confusing as we knew his power, maybe someone on here can explain? Oh, and I rather liked sitting in the back corner of the stalls as I could watch the cast make their entrances and exits (Fiennes held his walk until he thought he was out of eye-line, he wasn't to me) and hear them whisper. I can (as can everyone else on that aisle) attest that Ms Joanna Vanderham's choice of toiletries is sublime, too - the most sweetly fragrant actor in London as she wafted past in a haze of lovely flowery scents LOL. Me and another forum member were there too! In K8 and K9 behind pillars for £10 (bargain!) What a shame we didn't get to meet you! We thoroughly enjoyed the play - I enjoyed the fighting in particular! We had very low expectations, which is always good, so just enjoyed him wandering about being evil!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 19:22:20 GMT
'Wandering about frequently out of sight of people in dress circle, row A sides', unfortunately...
|
|
141 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Aug 10, 2016 10:39:41 GMT
Caught the final matinee on Saturday. I'm no fan of the play, but this was a very clear rendering, I thought. I think that’s what summarises this production for me: clarity. With so many characters and allusion to past events, it’s easy to find yourself lost in this play. I felt there was no such problem this time. I think they even made a point of using actors with very different physical features to make sure you wouldn’t mix, for instance, Lord Stanley with Lord Hastings… It was a pleasant surprise for me after the generally negative reviews here. |
|
