We really don't care about theatre do we?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (742 of them)
There are two productions in NY right now that i want to see, The Blacks from the Harlem Theater Company and Fucking A on Broadway, you know the reworking of

edmonton theater is really vivid and i try to see one a month, but it is prohibtivley expensive.

anthony easton (anthony), Sunday, 6 April 2003 17:22 (11 years ago) Permalink

(Yeah, Nabisco, what happened to Nory? I liked her. Can you lure her back, please?)

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 6 April 2003 17:43 (11 years ago) Permalink

(Seconded.)

Cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 6 April 2003 19:04 (11 years ago) Permalink

Nory is megafanfab! And a grand person. :-)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 6 April 2003 19:38 (11 years ago) Permalink

The whole "realism" thing is still being worked out. I think film overtook theater in this dept sometime around the New Wave and theater's still going through spasms trying to deal with it. I don't really go that much. We don't talk about theater here because we'd it's not mass-distributed so we don't have common events or artifacts to anchor a discussion. We'd all have to be like total theater-hounds to even talk abstractly about stuff, and one thing theater's not served by is abstraction.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 6 April 2003 19:55 (11 years ago) Permalink

The whole "what eyes are seeing this" thing is SO much smaller w/theater, its circulation is so curt-tailed. So it seems less "important", in a "must have opinion on this" kind of way?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 6 April 2003 20:29 (11 years ago) Permalink

(Nory's currently doing the jobs of about two and a half people, so she doesn't really have the time.)

nabisco (nabisco), Sunday, 6 April 2003 20:58 (11 years ago) Permalink

We don't talk about theater here because we'd it's not mass-distributed

Quite so. This is the strength and the weakness of theater.

Skottie, Sunday, 6 April 2003 21:05 (11 years ago) Permalink

Can you get her fired from one of them, Nabisco?

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 6 April 2003 21:11 (11 years ago) Permalink

Hey, that's mean! But if it would give her a little more time with no salary decrease...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:22 (11 years ago) Permalink

If someone could explain to me why theatre/er still has a point, I might get interested in it. I don't think it's the same as the paintings/drawings/etchings/whatever vs. Photos thing at all (because you can DO so much more with the former set than the latter whereas it seems like you can do less with plays than with film but I still feel really small-minded saying that but i think it's only because High Culture is still into plays and we've still got that thing where we think that They Know What They're Talking About despite the fact that every play review I read reads like it's completely made up of really weak excuses for a pathetic, unentertaining experience).

Dan I., Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:28 (11 years ago) Permalink

In NYC, Richard Foreman and the Wooster Group. They (forgive me) rock. And they've both been essentially doing the same thing for decades. But not only does that thing (those things) give unending returns (I think), it also seems as though nobody else has managed to do anything weirder or more interesting or dizzying or disorienting. Your standard theater just guarantees me ninety minutes of sound sleep. But things are different in Lodon, I think. Yes?

Methuselah (Methuselah), Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:29 (11 years ago) Permalink

Er, that would be "London."

Methuselah (Methuselah), Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:30 (11 years ago) Permalink

I just saw the Wooster Group's "Brace Up!," their adaptation of Chekhov's "Three Sisters," and it was absolutely fantastic. Only running for another week--GO SEE IT!

Douglas (Douglas), Monday, 7 April 2003 00:44 (11 years ago) Permalink

The only good theater I've ever seen has been plays directed by Tadashi Suzuki. I'm sure there's more stuff out there just as good, but I haven't seen any yet.

A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 7 April 2003 00:55 (11 years ago) Permalink

" it seems like you can do less with plays than with film"

What about the differences between watching a concert video or being at a concert. The is more excitment and energy live, it is happening 'now', and there is no setbacks of use of media when seeing it live.

I think potentially theater could be one of the most amazing artforms, but I've never seen anyone do much good with it.

A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 7 April 2003 00:59 (11 years ago) Permalink

Somebody needs to invent mass-distributable theater so we can talk about it!

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 7 April 2003 05:17 (11 years ago) Permalink

i work at the Guthrie Theater here in Minneapolice (ush-urr-ing), but i don't see much theatre outside the place.
just the same play over and over for a month---which is fine when i like the play---and i'm learning a lot about this mysterious art...but:
Six Degrees of Separation was shrill and the jokes were all flat. it WAS kind of amusing to watch our stodgy patrons reel back in shock and horror when the naked hustler showed up, and see them fidgeting nervously during the long silent boy-boy kissing scene, but christ i'm glad its not 1991 or whenever this was considered 'edgy' and deep.

tonight was closing night thoughYAY.
and next up is -Chekhovs's Three Sisters-. i am very excited.

and Top Girls at the Guthrie Lab- no idea.

anyway the Guthrie is nice and usually lush and well-produced an stuff, and i get starry thinking about upcoming Shakespeare but it is warping my young mind by relentlessly beating on about the CLASSICS. etc. i really need to find myself a wealthy sugar-momma to take out to other theaters.

ok i got my tightpants on- i'm off to lurk 'mysteriously' outside high-priced Edina hairsalons.

gabriel (gabe), Monday, 7 April 2003 08:37 (11 years ago) Permalink

We recently TRIED very hard to sit through the first part of "A La Recherche du temps perdu.' Sadly the heating was on FOOL BLAST, the seats were too 'ard to sit comfortably watching the show and... the show itself was a-trocious. Trying not falling asleep when the main character puts his head between curtains and his face is screened on those curtains while he is reading off an auto-cue. On top of that the book/play itself is loooooooooooooong.

nathalie (nathalie), Monday, 7 April 2003 12:22 (11 years ago) Permalink

Aha, you've been there too. Marcel Proust on Tour.

Erik, Monday, 7 April 2003 12:30 (11 years ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...
'theater-hounds': Hand is such a card.

the pinefox, Thursday, 24 April 2003 23:18 (11 years ago) Permalink

I haven't been to the theatre in ages, mainly because the companies and writers I've been following have done dick all lately.

good theatre is great. people who think theatre is obsolete know nothing.

DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 25 April 2003 11:01 (11 years ago) Permalink

however, theatre only really works in venues seating less than a few hundred people.

DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 25 April 2003 11:02 (11 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...
I haven't been to the theatre in ages mainly because the sort of theatre i like no longer comes to Glasgow. Ten years or so ago Mainly because of the Tramway) it was possible to come to Glasgow to see The Wooster group perfmoring almost their entire ouvre (the only place in Europe you could see it) of which i have seen Brace Up!, LSD (just the highlights) and House/Lights. Their new one "Poor Theatre" is just about to kick of in New York - i'd love to see it and am extremely jealous of you new yorkers.

In addition Lepage/ Ex Machina were frequent visitors to Glasgow and i think i have seen most oof his plays here. Theatre de Complicite don't come here anymore either. I miss stuff like this.

jed_ (jed), Sunday, 24 October 2004 17:56 (10 years ago) Permalink

what about DANCE?

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 17:59 (10 years ago) Permalink

I meant to go to the tramway, this weekend, but forgot.

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 17:59 (10 years ago) Permalink

are you dancing tonight?

jed_ (jed), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:01 (10 years ago) Permalink

I would like to but I have stupid things, to be up for.

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

Dan sums up my own feelings well upthread. Theatre is irrelvant and invariably dull. Upper class and upper middle class goons go to it to feel special and sophisticated. I've met these people and they are assholess so why should I want to be in their company anyway?

Mad.Mike, Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:37 (10 years ago) Permalink

well you're just in a theatre so you're not really in their company. The theatre i love most is not likt that at all in any case.

jed_ (jed), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:40 (10 years ago) Permalink

The 'theater' is so far from being dead that it has become the dominant art form.

Of course, this is only true if you disregard the technical differences between onstage performance, film and television. As far as I am concerned the differences really are minor technicalities.

In all three media you have scripted dialogue telling a story with actors, costumes, scenery, lighting, incidental music, and so on.

The fact that a camera lens imposes a control over the audience's point-of-view that cannot be utilized in stage performances does not make much difference in my view. Stage direction tries to filter the audience's attention, too, except it uses lighting effects, blocking of actor's movements, and other technical means that are somewhat less effective than a camera. The goal is quite similar.

Theater people are just blinded by their nostalgic love of certain techniques that must be modified or discarded in a filmed setting as opposed to a stage setting. They identify these technicalities with 'theater', abhor the new technicalities of movies and tv, and overlook the overwhelming similarities between all the various forms of the modern theater.

Aimless (Aimless), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:49 (10 years ago) Permalink

i completely disagree, movies and theatre are MILES apart (pictures telling stories vs. actors telling stories), or at least they are when they're good

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:52 (10 years ago) Permalink

tv and theatre, however, are definitely a bit closer.

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:52 (10 years ago) Permalink

The fact that a camera lens imposes a control over the audience's point-of-view that cannot be utilized in stage performances does not make much difference in my view. Stage direction tries to filter the audience's attention, too, except it uses lighting effects, blocking of actor's movements, and other technical means that are somewhat less effective than a camera. The goal is quite similar.

you're making like montage is just another nifty gadget in the film director's toolbox; really it is ESSENTIAL to film, much more so than lighting and blocking is to theatre

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:54 (10 years ago) Permalink

i don't theater and film need be, um, dichotomized so aggressively. they can fruitfully feed off each other. by its very nature film and theater pose different artistic challenges. many qualities grouped under the epithet "theatrical" don't really seem very essentially theatrical to me--just a legacy of the conventional wisdom that film only became film after it tossed off its debt to the theater (and "griffith invented cinema" etc.).

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:57 (10 years ago) Permalink

well maybe i'm being reactionary. but i do think tv and theatre have a lot more in common than movies & theatre.

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

bla bla proscenium arch bla bla.

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

as an art form practiced in the real world, though, theater really has become marginalized.... any by film, i think, more than anything else. (film basically economically/otherwise supplanted entire theatrical traditions in a period of 10-20 years.) there's an argument that film is more appropriate for certain modes of drama--melodrama for instance. because its indexical quality makes it a better vehicle for spectacle and "illusion"--i think this is by and large true.

xpost

the spatial quality of film and theater are to a large extent opposed.... the camera's "field of vision" is like an upside-down triangle, whereas a conventional stage is a bit the opposite (why it's rare for a theater director to stage a signification action in the back of the stage--harder to ensure that the audience's attention is directed to it). so they pose very different staging problems. i don't quite buy aimless's argument that this means they are different only in the method by which an audience's attention is directed. i think there is a place for ontological speculation....

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:03 (10 years ago) Permalink

um, i mean, ROFFLE etc.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:04 (10 years ago) Permalink

i think with staging it's a completely completely different ballgame, unless we're talking rotating stages or something here

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

anyway i think it's obvious that there are possibilities to filmic narration that simply aren't available in the theater--and this has implications for what films can do, how they can engage an audience. what isn't often brought up is what possibilities are inherent in theater and unavailable in film, aside from the "immediacy" thing--and i have to admit i haven't considered that and other possible advantages of theater too much, simply because theater has never had much place in my life. i have really enjoyed some plays, though, of course.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

I LOVE CATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

phil-two (phil-two), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

as well theatre is like 90% WHAT THE PEOPLE DO, whereas with film this is not neccessarily so

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:07 (10 years ago) Permalink

xpost

slocki, it seems to me a hell of a lot of great films were made in the 1930s, and many of them were only a few baby steps away from being filmed stage productions with over-the-shoulder reaction shots and the occassional montage (thank you Sergei) to spice them up.

If montage is as ESSENTIAL as you say it is, then these films would have failed at birth, rather than becoming successful films - which, not coincidentally are still watched, enjoyed and studied today. Montage is just another nifty tool in a director's toolbox. It just happens to be such a useful tool that it gets used a lot.

Aimless (Aimless), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:07 (10 years ago) Permalink

i think there is a nebulous actor-audience interaction in theatre that is cool and unique (xp)

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:07 (10 years ago) Permalink

ok aimless i agree that there quite often CAN be a significant overlap, but that it is not a neccessary one

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:08 (10 years ago) Permalink

and aimless even these "great 30s films" had cuts, closeups etc, they weren't just one-shot setups

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:09 (10 years ago) Permalink

I used to act - for years - I really enjoyed acting on stage. But the people were such pretentious, posho tossers that I'd personally say that if all theatre grants were destroyed and the whole industry put in the rubbish bin it would not be a great loss to humanity.

Mad.Mike, Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

a few baby steps away from being filmed stage productions with over-the-shoulder reaction shots and the occassional montage (thank you Sergei) to spice them up.

30s films are usually edited pretty briskly, so it's not simply a matter of using up a reel of film shooting an integral theatrical performance. "montage" doesn't mean soviet montage necessarily--just, y'know, editing bits of film together. all hollywood films are edited together from master shots, medium shots (plan american etc.), and occasionally inserts/close ups at a rate of i dunno one shot every 10-12 seconds. (nowadays it's more like every 5 seconds but we're talking about the 1930s)

i think this is pretty important: "filmed theater" isn't really as simple as that, the fact of it being filmed and edited together in the conventional way transforms the way the story is being told. perhaps the "meaning" is ultimately the same, but i'm not sure that's true or if it even matters so much.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:11 (10 years ago) Permalink

that was a big ol' xpost

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:11 (10 years ago) Permalink

I'm going to see Frank Langella in King Lear this Saturday. Don't think that one has anal sex in it, iirc.

signed, J.P. Morgan CEO (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 15 January 2014 04:44 (11 months ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

Excited to see this Peter Brook doc at some point:

http://www.filmlinc.com/films/on-sale/the-tightrope

That's So (Eazy), Monday, 10 February 2014 04:30 (10 months ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

Medea at the Riverside (run has just ended) was v good, in parts. Medea itself was played as a vampiric sort which didn't scan with the later, powerful scenes where the logic for her actions is more fully laid out with an emotional core to them. The messenger's speech and re-telling of death was poetically and psychologically convincing and my favourite bit of acting. The score was excellent as well.

I should re-watch the Pasolini film, the play made it seem worse in my faint recollection of it.

xyzzzz__, Sunday, 23 March 2014 12:13 (8 months ago) Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/theater/in-broadway-seats-few-guys-among-the-dolls.html?hpw&rref=arts&_r=0

why does dudes never want to watch rocky musicallllls

j., Sunday, 30 March 2014 14:48 (8 months ago) Permalink

everyone really owes it to themselves to see an episode of john jesurun's "chang in a void moon." these don't happen very often anymore...

http://www.incubatorarts.org/chang.html

Thus Sang Freud, Sunday, 30 March 2014 16:00 (8 months ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

Wanted to see this during its brief run last year... I guess it took a Pulitzer to get it reopened.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/pulitzer-winning-play-the-flick-to-reopen-in-new-york

images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Monday, 14 April 2014 23:56 (8 months ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

King Lear at the National last night (Dir: Sam Mendes, Lear: Simon Russell Beale). Not very good, really. Heavy handed modern military dictatorship setting; hard to feel anything for this Lear; didn't pull off the long scenes that you need for the narrative (eg reduction of the retinue); some quite poor verse-speaking (Regan basically incomprehensible by act V). So it hit that problem where it really drags during 4 & 5 because it's lost you during 1-3 (Bad sign: during final scene – Lear's death, Cordelia's corpse – I was mostly thinking about how Edgar is going to sort out this political mess). There were good things - Beale hit it sometimes, I liked Kent, the Fool and Goneril – but generally disappointed.

I do want some metaphysical horror at abject, obtuse & cruel existence in my lear, and there wasn't a bit of that.

woof, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 09:07 (7 months ago) Permalink

oh, & I'd seen this in one or two reviews & thought it was facetious or captious criticism… but it's quite hard to get Uncle Albert from Only Fools and Horses out of your head while watching Beale. I don't think it's just the beard – it's the movement & posture.

woof, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 09:26 (7 months ago) Permalink

yes I too detected a merryfieldian influence in his characterisation

conrad, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 09:41 (7 months ago) Permalink

well we don't know that here. I think I've only seen him onstage in Spamalot.

SRB is Falstaff in a new TV Henry IV

images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 April 2014 10:57 (7 months ago) Permalink

from two years ago

conrad, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 11:24 (7 months ago) Permalink

btw morbs the flick totally slays, make sure you get to it

schlump, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 18:03 (7 months ago) Permalink

i'm playin G.W. in a production of S0rdid Lives. kinda fun, but def a weird turn for me

getting strange ass all around the globe (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 29 April 2014 19:27 (7 months ago) Permalink

Bush?

I just saw the DC production of Henry IV Part I with Stacy Keach as Falstaff... good, tis a pity the king is like the 5th most interesting character... But the actor who plays Hotspur is very distracting when shirtless bcz he has the most chiseled abs ever seen in the theater. During his "letter" scene I was just thinking "NO ONE is listening to you right now."

images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 April 2014 19:32 (7 months ago) Permalink

I saw Stacy Keach as King Lear a few years ago (Robert Falls directing).

Set in post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Opening scene in a hotel bathroom, then ballroom:

That's So (Eazy), Tuesday, 29 April 2014 20:00 (7 months ago) Permalink

welp S0rdid opens tonight. even tho I've done this about 50 times now I'm a ball of nerves, fortunately I get to drink beer on stage tho.

getting strange ass all around the globe (Neanderthal), Friday, 9 May 2014 16:07 (7 months ago) Permalink

break a leg n!

difficult listening hour, Friday, 9 May 2014 18:30 (7 months ago) Permalink

sanks!

getting strange ass all around the globe (Neanderthal), Friday, 9 May 2014 18:31 (7 months ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

@MarkHarrisNYC
When I was a kid, they showed actual scenes from plays on the Tonys. Sometimes they made me want to see plays. Thank God they stopped that.

images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 June 2014 16:12 (6 months ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

any theatre homies know anything that's playing the San Diego Fringe? First one I see with a pedigree is an Edinburgh standup alum, Jon Bennett.

http://www.sdfringe.org/2014/shows.php

son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 June 2014 16:14 (5 months ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

TAVI thread has me thinking again about the Steppenwolf production of This Is Our Youth. As a script, I thought it was great and confirmed the favorable opinion I have of Lonergan from his film work. Staging by Anna D. Shapiro generally good and interesting, in part because it was performed in a small space with the audience facing each other on two sides of the stage. (Is there a name for that? I thought black box was audience on all four sides, but what I'm talking about is like bleachers at a high-school football game. And the production of RENT that I saw a year or two ago was like this, too.) Performances are where I'm the most uncertain: Like I thought, coming out of the theatre, that Kieran Culkin was by far the best in the bunch, but am I only thinking that because his character is the showiest, all insults and mock-heroic language? I mean, I thought Cera was kind of milquetoast, but again, thinking about it: Is that because his character himself is a willowy, passive dude? Like, was he actually well-cast for the part? (Don't know exactly, because I'd never seen/read the play before.) I dunno, there were particular readings that seemed a little wooden, though. Maybe he's gotten better. Oh, but I read two separate reviews that praised him! Like, the Chicago Reader review singled him out specifically. Tavi, I thought, totally acquitted herself well. Struck me as kind of a Michelle Williams role? Like, Tavi doesn't have M-Will's range, but it's that kind of character. Huh, Kenneth Lonergan and Sarah Polley seem kind of simpatico, in a weird way.

jaymc, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 05:35 (4 months ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

This Is Our Youth is only doing 'modest' Broadway biz. NYC millenials can't figger out how to download theatre.

Staging of Bergman's Scenes from a Marriage downtown getting raves, $75 too rich for my blood tho.

son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 October 2014 11:36 (2 months ago) Permalink

was it toneehuis directed by Ivo Van Hove?

it's expensive but i'd pay to see anything IVH did.

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Saturday, 11 October 2014 00:58 (2 months ago) Permalink

Van Hove, yeah -- he also has an Angels in America production that's about to play here.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2014/17/ivo-van-hove-on-directing-scenes-from-a-marriage-and-angels-in-america

this horrible, rotten slog to rigor mortis (Dr Morbius), Monday, 20 October 2014 17:37 (2 months ago) Permalink

Thanks for that link, excellent interview.

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Tuesday, 21 October 2014 20:52 (1 month ago) Permalink

although the AIA looks a bit unconvincing. i love the idea of an empty stage too but having people sit on the edge of the proscenium when they need to sit down is a bit bizarre.

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Tuesday, 21 October 2014 20:55 (1 month ago) Permalink

not unconvincing just... trying a bit too hard or something.

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Tuesday, 21 October 2014 20:56 (1 month ago) Permalink

Any interesting fringe stuff in London? have an urge to see something

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 22 October 2014 11:53 (1 month ago) Permalink

will let you know.

i know it's far ahead, expensive and not fringe but i'd be booking to see Van Hove's Antigone with J Binoche if i were you.

http://www.barbican.org.uk/theatre/event-detail.asp?ID=16573

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Wednesday, 22 October 2014 15:12 (1 month ago) Permalink

booked for antigone in may !

conrad, Wednesday, 22 October 2014 16:02 (1 month ago) Permalink

fantastic!

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Wednesday, 22 October 2014 16:32 (1 month ago) Permalink

you saw his "a view from the bridge", right?

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Wednesday, 22 October 2014 16:39 (1 month ago) Permalink

yes it was pretty immense

conrad, Thursday, 23 October 2014 10:54 (1 month ago) Permalink

Thanks for the heads-up, not-carers – booked for Antigone in London. Never seen an Anne Carson translation performed.

(Missed View from the Bridge – I heard some noise, but I've got an Arthur Miller block & didn't realise that it was a great production.)

Also booked for the new Tom Stoppard at the National in May. The description makes it sound like some rotten Radio 4 shit – "Hilary, a young psychology researcher at a brain-science institute, is nursing a private sorrow and a troubling question at work, where psychology and biology meet. If there is nothing but matter, what is consciousness?" – but I'll probably enjoy it.

woof, Thursday, 23 October 2014 11:04 (1 month ago) Permalink

will let you know.

i know it's far ahead, expensive and not fringe but i'd be booking to see Van Hove's Antigone with J Binoche if i were you.

http://www.barbican.org.uk/theatre/event-detail.asp?ID=16573

― Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Wednesday, 22 October 2014 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So want to but really don't know what I'm up to in March.

xyzzzz__, Thursday, 23 October 2014 15:23 (1 month ago) Permalink

same old shit is what i'll be up to.

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Thursday, 23 October 2014 23:31 (1 month ago) Permalink

I am usually doing the same old shit, but things/life might get in the way just then.

But I do know what I'll be doing in Nov - watching "The Cherry Orchard" at the young vic, is what.

xyzzzz__, Friday, 24 October 2014 10:23 (1 month ago) Permalink

going to cheery orchard next week i understand it's one of his more upbeat plays

conrad, Friday, 24 October 2014 10:36 (1 month ago) Permalink

saw that a long while ago so it's checked off

this horrible, rotten slog to rigor mortis (Dr Morbius), Friday, 24 October 2014 11:34 (1 month ago) Permalink

haha

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Friday, 24 October 2014 15:16 (1 month ago) Permalink

Suzan-Lori Parks' Father Comes Home from the Wars -- or rather, the first third of it -- just opened at the Public Theatre to raves, I managed to get a ticket this morning. Saw Topdog/Underdog when it ran, nothing of hers since.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/theater/father-comes-home-from-the-wars-by-suzan-lori-parks-at-the-public-theater.html

http://www.vulture.com/2014/10/theater-review-father-comes-home-from-the-wars.html

this horrible, rotten slog to rigor mortis (Dr Morbius), Friday, 31 October 2014 14:26 (1 month ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.