Reader Reviews
Master and Margarita (Lyric Theatre Hammersmith, Outer London)
Back to Show Details| Score | Comment | Date |
 | Only 2 stars as I felt what was on show was rubbish - sort of university drama department effort but, and it's a big but, it does have potential. There was too much of a Andy Nyman's irritating professor Goodman to start with and too few scary bits. However, it did make me think why someone else hasn't tried this idea before, The Woman In Black excepted. With a major rewrite, lots more scary bits, then I would not be surprised if a run in the West End would not be out of the question. Oh, and why the Jewish thing? That should be dropped for starters. But apart from that I wish them all good luck their original piece of theatre. - rds | 08 Apr 10 |
| Not all shows have good reviews but it does depend on how you percieve the action on the stage. Master and Margarita is a play of many levels, many of which you do not see on the first visit. The acting and the technical aspects work well together and i thought that it was an overall decent production. I can see why some people dont like it but at least it was challangeing and interesting for the audience to watch, shame that the person sitting next to me did not stick it out. It was nice just to be able to support the youth theatre in what they were doing. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.133.80.240) | 27 Sep 04 |
| Understandably, this show has been given mixed reviews as it is unlike any other production I have seen. This may mean that it is not everyones cup of tea. However, I personally would have to disagree with all 1 star reviews. The acting was nothing less than incredibly impressive, especially Ben Garlick's (not wooden acting in the slightest) and Shane Zaza's moving interpretation of the final meeting of Pontious Pilate and Jesus. John Hoggarths direction was at times spectacular and the transitions between scenes were graceful and intelligent. I do agree that David Rudkins adaptation was not to my taste but believe that the structure is as Mikhail Bulgakov would have arranged it. The characturisations are at times weak, especially that of Margarita. This may, however have something to do with Shakira Brookings handling of the role. All in all though, a thouroughly enjoyable and thought provoking production. Well done NYT. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.153.247.38) | 14 Sep 04 |
| Here's the deal, I am an NYT member, so you may think me biased...but I agree with both sides in different respects. I don't think that it is fair to criticise the acting in any way. There were some hugely formidable performances, and the ensemble force was, as usual with NYT pieces, superb. However, I do believe that the show overall suffered from a lack of imagination throughout. The magic within the piece lost its magic, because it tried to pull off tricks that were obvious. The loss of the head at the beginning was so simple that we didn't question how it was done, but others made you wonder and then the illusion was shattered, the disbeleif returned. The images were all impressive, but not nearly as impressive as they could have been given the nature of the tale being told. At times the piece looked a bit cluttered and at others a little lost, but generally its was an enjoyable piece of theatre. Overall, I would lay blame with the adaptation, which was dire. Clunky and disorientating, it makes the plot hard enough to follow, its points are obvious (or invisible) and the intertwining subplots (particular Master and the Margarita) are underdeveloped. The writing seemed like a staged synopsis rather than an adaptation. Given the tools available to them, the actors (and to a lesser extent production team) must be given credit. The writer however, should suffer a fate far worse than eternal damnation. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.42.249.135) | 08 Sep 04 |
| Hrmm... having seen this show I have to disagree with 5/9's comment - I think walking out of the show says more about the production than any review ever could! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.113.57.165) | 06 Sep 04 |
| I've got to agree with the previous review. Read the book - and if you have and, like me, were curious enough to fork out to see this travesty, you have my sympathy. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.113.57.165) | 06 Sep 04 |
| Saw this at the weekend. What a mistake. Save your pennies, folks. Read the book instead. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.113.57.165) | 06 Sep 04 |
| from one extreme to the other. although one does question the validity of a review based upon half of a show.....Personally i do not think that that qualifies as a 'review' of the SHOW. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.76.9.1) | 05 Sep 04 |
| Why this play is getting so many 5-star reviews beggars belief. I was a show where two people walked out and spent the rest of the evening envious that they'd had aisle-seats and so managed to do it with ease. One can only call this show a failure. Clearly the group took on more than they could chew considering the versatility of tone and emotion the book demands. All attempt at humour fell flat on its face with the actors sometimes waiting for a laugh from the audience, then continuing the scene visibly dishevelled having not gotten the chuckle their director had promised them. An embarrassing 3 hours all round. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.113.57.165) | 01 Sep 04 |
| A clunky, unintelligent adaptation of a classic. A few weeks ago I saw a production of Master.. in greenwich using puppetry and bizarre music to incredible effect. The Lyric production though somehow managed to sap the magic from the tale, leaving the spectator unmoved and certainly unimpressed. Admirable only for its attempt to tackle a great book. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.113.57.165) | 01 Sep 04 |
| A great disappointment. If you love this book, I warn you: stay away! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.113.57.165) | 01 Sep 04 |
| I am not a regular theatre goer, although my family are enthusiasts and i'm sure this has influenced me in some respects. So, the question for me is, did i enjoy the Master and Margarita? Absolutely and without doubt. It was fun and entertaining, deep and thought provoking and yet occasionally hilarious; a dark comedy very well performed by the future talent of this country. The Director really had his work cut out but did a very good job; there were just one or two aspects of the play that i think could have been handled differently and these were mainly to do with how the young actors were directed within their roles. Some of the individual performances were just superb; the manager, the devil, his side kick, the secretary and of course the truly beautiful Margarita, described in one of the broadsheets as adding a "statuesque grace" and she can act! The NYT should be congratulated on their perfomance and this production. I for one will see it again before its run ends!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.79.61.174) | 26 Aug 04 |
| Wow, what a spectrum of opinion! Well, sorry, but I'm with 24/08 on this one. Perhaps I'm not entirely qualified to review the show since I WALKED OUT halfway through, but I'll give it a go. The production was, well, okay. Nothing special, nothing awful. What they did to the story, however, was a travesty. What exactly was the point being made by setting it in the present except to elicit a few knowing laughs? I couldn't help cringing in embarrassment at every reference to 'terrorists' as though the point were being made that the modern western world is comperable to Stalinist Russia! Add in wooden acting (particularly Pilate), murmured dialogue and a thoroughly uneven tone, and I'd be very surprised if you didn't walk out halfway though to. A great disappointment, if only because it had so much potential. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.113.57.165) | 26 Aug 04 |
| I don't believe I saw the same show as the 24/08 reviewer. It does drag a bit in places, but the central story is well paced and very entertaining. 24/08 must have been to a very arty school if their plays were able to field the acting talent & technical facilities of the NYT. In fact, an even bigger cynic might suspect that 24/08 had been barbed by an NYT rejection to pour such bile on any production, especially when it is still in preview! I was going to give the show a 3-4 rating, but prompted by 24/08's challenge of conscience I have added a 1.5 bonus. I advise you all to go see the show & make your own judgement. With a WoS 2-for-1 offer, what have you got to lose? - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.144.251.46) | 26 Aug 04 |
| Although a little hard to follow at times this was an excellent production of a very ambtious piece. The technical elements were highly impressive and complimented the excellent acting very well. Go see it NOW!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.65.96) | 26 Aug 04 |
| I saw this play 3 days ago and still haven't recovered from my disappointment. I honestly have no idea how the other reviewer could in good conscience give such a shoddy production 5 stars. I can only think he is in some way related to the players. Sorry for the cynicism, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would deem it worthy of full marks. The first thing I should say is that I adore the book, but that said, I went along with a friend who never read it and was as utterly bewildered by what she saw as I was. Essentially, it felt like a school play, complete with mumbled lines, poor productions values and mistimed music and lighting cues. The book's dark humour was stripped from the story in favour of cheap gags - the most irritating being the transformation of the wicked and mischievous Behemoth into a bumbling lout apparently modelled on Harry Potter's Hagrid. Judging by what I've heard, the Chichester production is superior in every way. Save your money and wait for it to come to London. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.113.57.165) | 24 Aug 04 |
| Thanks to WoS competition tickets, I caught this production at its opening preview on Friday, so expected it to be a bit rough at the edges as it is a very complex book to stage. The cast motto must surely be "keep your head whilst all around you are losing theirs" (literally). Scene changes were a bit frenetic, with a huge 3 part stair/walkway having to be waltzed into position between most, but that will presumably settle down as the run goes on. The acting, however, was spot on and the large cast worked together pretty seamlessly to deliver scenes ranging from academic discussions, through office farce and the crucifixion (not together you understand), to culminate in the macabre ball. The devil & his gang are all terrific: Himaka Jayawardena's Fang is actually fangless, but manages to contort his wiry body to suggest he is semi-human. Bassoon/Fagotti is played with a slick showmanship which is a real contrast to Mat Smith's role as Beckett last year. Dean Noland's Cat shows remarkable agility for someone of his size. Together these 3 fawn around the Devil, played by Tom Allen as a cross between Joel Grey in Cabaret & Noel Coward in his dressing gown period, or skip off to be truely beastly to everyone else. No one in Moscow is safe from their ridicule, threatening or occasional beheading! In the middle of the mahem generated by the Devil's troup, Shakira Brooking manages to portray an almost regal Margarita as she tries to find and save the depressed Master. Although telegrams have been updated to e-mails, and the theatre director's exile is transposed from Yalta to Santiago de Cuba (iconic orange jumpsuit and all), this production stays pretty faithful to to the book, and in some cases clarifies it - eg by showing up front that the Pilate scenes are derived from the Master's lost opus. I haven't seen the Chichester production yet, but I am intrigued to see how it compares with this winning version from the NYT. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.166.96.132) | 23 Aug 04 |
