47 replies to this topic

[armadillo]

If I know a dull show (and this may not be) is only two hours, I can usually stave off sleep. But if I know there's another hour to go, why bother to make the effort? Yes, I'll join your club of the perverse, Annie.

[Reich]

AnnieInTheStalls, on 29 March 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

But unless it's Jerusalem or Lear, I never want to spend 3 hours in a theatre. Even Hamlet would be better if it was 2 1/2 hours. I know that's a ridiculous and probably ignorant thing to say, but that's how I feel.

I quite agree. Despite Hamlet’s great themes I can’t helping thinking that most of the narrative happens in the first half of the play. During the second half I’m normally just kicking my heels, waiting for the grave scene to be trucked on!

[Lynette]

Depends where they put the interval - seen it in several different places in my time.

[armadillo]

I suspect WOSers are the only people on earth who write letters to directors complaining because Fortinbras has been cut!

[xanderl]

Thought this was great - glad I saw the 2 hours 40 minutes version, seemed to rattle along at a good pace but with the text and structure of the play coming through clearly

Interesting to see a fairly "trad" production after the recent Changeling and Tis Pity ... I liked all three but I think this one was the best

[Lynette]

armadillo, on 30 March 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

I suspect WOSers are the only people on earth who write letters to directors complaining because Fortinbras has been cut!

hope not - it should be done by everyone!

[Pharaoh's number 2]

This is what The Changeling should've been. Firstly, it looks stunning- seriously stunning. Soutra Gilmour's set is a marvellous labyrinth of walkways, using the full height of the Old Vic's stage, lit really beautifully.The production is tight now (2hrs 40), and is on the whole very well acted. Eve Best excellent I thought, and I really liked Mark Bonnar, complete with sling. Lovely masked ball interludes too.

Oh, and the deaths are horribly realistic.

[Beth]

Was anyone else off-put by the poster for this?  It seemed decidedly anachronistic: the Duchess was 16th century below the neck, and 21st century (or, maybe late 20th century, I sensed a bit of the 80's in her hairdo) above the neck.  (I'm reserving judgement on what century her neck belonged to.)  And she's so expressionless, which is such a terrible shame, because I thought one of the strengths of Eve Best's performance was that she was so full of life, vivacious and sexy and brave and moving.

I ended up going despite being put off by the advertising, but I wonder if it actually appealed to anyone?

[Honoured Guest]

Beth's post made me go The Old Vic website, where the image seems to have been changed from what she describes. Now, it looks like The Merry Widow.

[Weez]

I love the poster, but it could just be because I am somewhat in love with Eve Best. Shame they overdid it a little on the soft focus, but I still love it. Old Vic posters are rarely representative of the characters or the productions; it's only fairly recently they've started making them look vaguely production-appropriate as opposed to just a stunningly close-up and detailed photograph of a leading cast member.