- Whatsonstage.com Discussion Board
- → Viewing Profile: Likes: exuberantlyblue
exuberantlyblueMember Since 10 Mar 2012
Offline Last Active Apr 21 2013 08:23 PM
- Group Full Members
- Active Posts 84
- Profile Views 754
- Member Title Advanced Member
- Age 25 years old
- Birthday July 11, 1987
exuberantlyblue hasn't added any friends yet.
Posted mallardo on 23 March 2013 - 10:52 PM
I'm guessing the length is his reason for blithe unconcern.
Posted mallardo on 23 March 2013 - 02:57 PM
Posted Nicholas on 23 March 2013 - 12:50 AM
That character was actually quite interesting, but the nudity got most of the attention - as you say, he's got to be a foil to those two despite his lines being (at least for me) un-understandable. It's a shame that people think there was no more to his part than just his part, as his role had more meat to it than just his meat. I couldn't help but wonder quite what he had to do when he auditioned for it, though.
Posted Kathryn2 on 20 March 2013 - 09:58 AM
And I disagree about the actors playing the fictional 'Peter' and 'Alice' - in fact I suspect you rather missed the point if you thought they were 'dreadful' - they were clearly not being played naturalistically because they are meant to be fictional characters.
Posted xy_whitefaerie on 19 March 2013 - 12:51 AM
theatrically, thanks for posting the promo code!
P/S: I do have a little complaint regarding the seats though. Thought they were uncomfortable... Nonetheless, it was negligible considering how much I enjoyed the musical. Highly recommend everyone to watch it!
Posted Jame C on 14 February 2013 - 10:48 PM
If you check the Arts website and the story sounds a bit odd for a musical, don't be put off....this is a show that deserves to be a hit. Can't wait to see it again! And no - I have no connection with the production other than being a very happy punter, who wanted to share my excitement at finding an original show that entertained me more than any show has in the recent past.
Posted hotshot on 17 March 2013 - 01:15 AM
You missed some chinese lanterns to set the scene as Judi went back to her childhood.
I managed to grab some returns and sat 5 rows from the stage..amazing..loved it..but thought that it ended on a downer when i had expected something more light hearted and playful! However, am glad i managed to get to see it!
Posted BringMeSunshine on 02 March 2013 - 11:53 PM
Posted Lynette on 02 March 2013 - 04:23 PM
Then if all this fails I cough.
Posted Stevemar on 01 March 2013 - 10:50 AM
Yes, that was me that said he was a bit shouty. In fact, I thought he was terrible until he was told about his family when there was a slight improvement, but just my personal opinion. He also got a round of applause mid show. I can't recall which speech it was but it was a patriotic one, so that might have something to do with it.
I posted a full week after I saw the play, and (possibly like Nicholas) on the day I was mostly "I'm not sure about this" in that it was quite unsubtle in places and I predicted (wrongly) that the critics would be divided with the direction choices rather than 4* mostly raves.
Also, as I have not seen the (£5!) programme, is there a particular reason for setting it in a dystopian Scotland (as opposed Scotland generally). I don't think they were trying to make a political point despite the obvious paralllels. What I mean, is did this ADD to the play and its understanding. Personally, I think the new context lost some of the original nobility of the play, so it seemed more like a lot of tribal warfare fighting over some scraps rather than the future of the country and power to unite it.
On the fire drill point, our matinee performance started 15 minutes late as the audience was held in the crowded foyer beforehand (not a fire drill though). I wonder also at the end of the play, some theatres let you exit through fire exits etc (usually you end up in some side street), but here the way out via one exit and one staircase was pretty slow and cramped also.
Posted Nicholas on 01 March 2013 - 02:40 PM
Posted Nicholas on 01 March 2013 - 02:32 PM
As for the setting, yes... I remember someone criticising King Lear (I think, it might have been Macbeth) because most productions have a kingdom that's not worth fighting for, and that's what I thought here. I first read your comment of ADD as Attention Deficit Disorder and with those flashing light and big boom scene changes would have agreed - I found it hard to settle into and not in a good way. I mostly feel the setting was a gimmick as opposed to a conceit - it wasn't Macbeth-y and didn't add anything.
And the witches, I disliked twofold - I wasn't keen on those three and the idea behind it (everyone's said it better than I could have, but just gas masks - why? Everyone else could breathe), and then when McAvoy came on with the potion in the second half I just knew he'd be gulping up the prophecies and whadayaknow... But I did feel mostly positive mainly because I really enjoyed McAvoy's performance and Ballard's performance and his strengths mostly outweighed the weaknesses.
Oh, and the stage seats - I'm sure they're great to sit in, but they're quite conspicuous and sort of ruined the fourth wall for me. At times it just looked a little, well, silly to see people flicking at a programme or talking to each other or just to see faces respond. At the end of yesterday in the final fight they almost ran into a person, whose response was quite amusing, so people laughed (I think I did), which set a comic tone for the finale. When a bloody Mr Tumnus head is funny...
Oh, and watch Ralph Fiennes' Coriolanus. It's like this but a bit more coherent and a bit better.
Posted Nicholas on 01 March 2013 - 01:40 AM
It was a fire drill - someone forgot to say "We're on with The Scottish Play in five..." and the stage erupted in flames. That's not actually what happened (probably). I assume, since it took us an extra ten minutes to get into the building, it was a fire drill, but I was a bit late and have never been gladder for a fire alarm.
Actually, on the note of coughing, given how tempremental most people's throats are at the best of times, let alone in a particularly virus-y February, I thought opening with smoke and incense was perhaps a bad idea.
Anywho, I think I'll post more tomorrow as my thoughts are more with my throat than with the theatre, but I felt a little more hohum about bits of this than most people. There was a lot of very good stuff (McAvoy was ace, Ballard, some nice touches) but a lot that to me didn't work and overall I rather enjoyed it but bits - Lady Macbeth and a couple of what I thought were gimmicks (for example the witches and, actually, the overall setting) - didn't work. Mostly positive though, but some fairly big quantifiers which left me thinking this was ever so slightly more tepid than most people think it. I also had perhaps unfair problems, in row M, with the onstage seats.
Theatrical highlight of the year though - I go to my friends in the back row and say "Not too keen on Lady Macbeth, she felt a bit shouty to me, though that might just be me." As I finish to draw breath, someone down the row said "She was a bit shouty."
Posted Nicholas on 03 February 2013 - 12:51 AM
Afterwards, I couldn't help but compare it to the Rickson Hamlet I absolutely hated. With that, I felt the points that he and Sheen were trying to make and the points Shakespeare were trying to make were at odds with each other, which meant Rickson said nothing about institutionalisation and mental illness and Shakespeare said nothing about the Dane and three hours of my life were down the drain (if memory serves, wasn't it even longer?). With this, it was a perfect marriage, and both explorations of violence, influence and power spoke clearer than ever, and for the next week I know I'll keep picking up on more. The highest praise I can offer this is that I completely forgive Lloyd for inflicting Pierce Brosnan's singing on us. Haunting and remarkable, five stars.
Posted popcultureboy on 20 December 2012 - 08:29 AM
Really very much enjoyed it. The opening few minutes, with Cush Jumbo singing "When You Walk In The Room" and Frances Barber reading her horoscope out of a trash mag filled me with absolute dread, particularly after seeing and loathing The Changeling earlier in the week. But then it was fine, the concept informed the production from there on in, rather than overwhelmed it. Performances were uniformly excellent, though special mention has to go to Jenny Jules, Harriet Walter and Cush Jumbo, all of whom were exemplary. This was leaps and bounds better than the all black RSC version from earlier in the year, not least because Harriet Walter's intelligent and impassioned Brutus was in a completely different league to Patterson Joseph's bellowing monstrosity.
May well take advantage of the Front Row scheme and go again.