We really don't care about theatre do we?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (807 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

(Seconded.)

Cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 6 April 2003 19:04 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 6 April 2003 19:38 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 6 April 2003 21:11 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

Er, that would be "London."

Methuselah (Methuselah), Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:30 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

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

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

the pinefox, Thursday, 24 April 2003 23:18 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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

(directed by Ivo van Hove)

surm, Wednesday, 20 May 2015 15:17 (2 months ago) Permalink

it was ok

conrad, Wednesday, 20 May 2015 15:21 (2 months ago) Permalink

thought Binoche was terrible tbh. the rest of the cast mostly good & great translation.

woof, Wednesday, 20 May 2015 15:44 (2 months ago) Permalink

really. ugh. hate when that happens.

surm, Wednesday, 20 May 2015 16:14 (2 months ago) Permalink

The Flick is well acted, funny, cleverly structured; I liked it. Really though, Pulitzer? What was in the pool that year? (Don't feel compelled to research.)

the increasing costive borborygmi (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 26 May 2015 18:36 (2 months ago) Permalink

morbs u go out a lot, i feel like

surm, Wednesday, 27 May 2015 02:12 (2 months ago) Permalink

yep! in NYC i feel like staying home alone is... why? unless someone else is there or baseball is on.

the increasing costive borborygmi (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 27 May 2015 02:27 (2 months ago) Permalink

THANK YOU

surm, Wednesday, 27 May 2015 02:28 (2 months ago) Permalink

heading to a flick discovered through morbius later - the royal road - & belatedly remembered i'd played a part in inflicting the flick, was potentially liable for a part-refund, &c. really glad you liked it. you know more about pulitzer credentials than i do but i feel like the sharpness and focus and at least noteworthy freshness of form make it pretty eligible. i just thought it was so strong, though. mapping the various heartbreaking dynamics of the three of them, & hanging this on generally sparse or ostensibly benign dialogue, it just felt like such a masterful balancing act to me.

tender is the late-night daypart (schlump), Sunday, 31 May 2015 18:45 (2 months ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

Anyone in NYC want to check out a one-woman play written by and starring one of my college classmates and then tell me if it's any good?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/theater/review-in-this-is-mary-brown-mom-has-troubles-but-is-quite-a-character.html?_r=0

I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, 16 June 2015 20:12 (1 month ago) Permalink

looks cool. been curious to check out La MaMa.

surm, Sunday, 21 June 2015 22:37 (1 month ago) Permalink

Earlier this year, in May, I saw three theater productions in three days. But I guess I didn't care enough to mention it on this thread.

Aimless, Monday, 22 June 2015 00:09 (1 month ago) Permalink

what'd you see?

surm, Monday, 22 June 2015 00:11 (1 month ago) Permalink

These three productions were part of the repertory season of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, OR, which has a pretty good rep as regional theater goes. My wife and I saw:

Fingersmith, an adaptation of the novel of the same name, very much a plot-twist driven play. We saw it the first night and it was a middling production and a somewhat flawed play. It was performed in bad cockney accents and never wholly committed to being either melodrama or naturalistic drama, and wound up neither fish nor fowl. It had its moments, and the audience lapped it up, but I never got into it.

Pericles, a seldom performed Shakespeare play that we read aloud to one another just prior to seeing it. The first three acts of the text were probably not written by WS, or if they were, he wrote them when he was still a cack-handed apprentice. The fourth act improved to a level of fair competence and the final act was fully mature Shakespeare. This production made a lot of judicious cuts to original, abridged it to two acts, added several songs not in the original, and astonishingly made a pretty good play out of it. Quite enjoyable work. Would recommend.

Secret Love in Peach Blossom Time, a play first produced in Taiwan a couple of decades ago, that became a hit. The playwright directed this production in Ashland. It's a mashup of a tear-jerking drama and farce, on balance favoring the farce over the drama by about two-to-one. This one was delightful. The pacing was a thing of beauty.

Aimless, Monday, 22 June 2015 00:34 (1 month ago) Permalink

wow that sounds good

surm, Monday, 22 June 2015 00:55 (1 month ago) Permalink

Did anyone see the stage version of let the right one in in nyc? I was the assistant designer on that. I just want to know if I got a credit hah

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Monday, 22 June 2015 01:24 (1 month ago) Permalink

ha no but that sounds amazing!

surm, Monday, 22 June 2015 01:26 (1 month ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

lol, this fucken moran
http://www.playbill.com/news/article/exclusive-meet-the-guy-who-tried-to-charge-his-phone-on-stage-at-hand-to-god-353020

Silvestri returned to his seat with his smart phone, but the drama wasn't over yet. "The head guy came down and started yelling at me in front of my family and the whole place. My mother kept saying, 'I'm sorry, I'm sorry,' and they finally let us us stay and watch the play."

And what did he think of Hand to God? "We enjoyed the show. I'm not much of a play guy, but it wasn't bad."

Did he ever get to charge his phone?
"No."

In retrospect, what would he say to the cast? "Hey, I'm sorry if I delayed your show five minutes. But you got a lot of attention from this, so maybe I made your show a little better [better known]."

like a giraffe of nah (forksclovetofu), Friday, 10 July 2015 15:08 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

i was in the middle of a monologue on stage on monday and someone's phone rang - it actually took them ages to find it and end it too. it's a v small space and it felt too intimate for me to just ignore it, so i kind of just held character and stared at her until it stopped.

doing my Objectives, handling some intense stuff (LocalGarda), Friday, 10 July 2015 15:28 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

phone charger old news, eclipsed by LuPone

"I am so defeated by this issue that I seriously question whether I want to work on stage anymore. Now I'm putting battle gear on over my costume to marshall the audience as well as perform."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/entertainment/feat-patti-lupone-cell-phone/index.html

skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 July 2015 15:31 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

The Flick is well acted, funny, cleverly structured; I liked it. Really though, Pulitzer? What was in the pool that year? (Don't feel compelled to research.)

Fun Home lost out to The Flick in 2014 (haven't seen either).

... (Eazy), Friday, 10 July 2015 15:38 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

at the monthly gay club i run with my friend we don't allow anyone to use their phones on the dancefloor. you get asked to leave the dancefloor and permanently barred if you refuse.

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Friday, 10 July 2015 15:46 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

i find it astonishing that someone would actually look at their phone during a show, rather than say forgetting to turn it off.

doing my Objectives, handling some intense stuff (LocalGarda), Friday, 10 July 2015 15:48 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

it's routine at movies in NYC. doing it on Broadway takes balls esp at those prices.

skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 July 2015 15:51 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

yeah, but tourists
concerts are now officially the worst; people arrive with their fucking arms extended and phones on

like a giraffe of nah (forksclovetofu), Friday, 10 July 2015 16:18 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

^lifelong idiot NYers fully capable of this behavior.

My pal's son Will is in this, alas sold out already, w/ other recent LaGuardia grads:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-rendell/theater-on-their-own-terms_b_7785570.html

skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 16 July 2015 15:40 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

my aunt wants to take me to something called JOHN at Signature NYC on Aug 8 but it's about young struggling love blegh

trying to figure out something else

surm, Tuesday, 21 July 2015 15:26 (1 week ago) Permalink

it's by the playwright/dir of The Flick, surm, big dual profile in the Sunday Times

she can take me! j/k

skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 July 2015 16:02 (1 week ago) Permalink

in addition to Christopher Abbott, the legendary Lois Smith is in it i think. the reg tix are just $25 anyhoo.

skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 July 2015 16:04 (1 week ago) Permalink

oh u hafta subscribe for the discount, that figgers

http://www.signaturetheatre.org/tickets/production.aspx?pid=4241

skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 July 2015 16:07 (1 week ago) Permalink

yeah she's insisting on it Morbs. she's like do you want to bring your bf? i'm like ... no

surm, Tuesday, 21 July 2015 16:11 (1 week ago) Permalink

btw The Flick just extended here thru January 10.

skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 July 2015 17:20 (1 week ago) Permalink

iiinteresting

surm, Thursday, 23 July 2015 19:10 (1 week ago) Permalink

Finally got on the Jerusalem bandwagon, fantastic. Amazing character and performance. Let down a little by my crappy restricted view seat. Wonder what A Farrell of this parish thought...

Hah, I don't think I was much of this parish at that point.

I thought it was fantastic, one of the best things I've seen, and it gave me a lot of Thoughts about England, particularly as contrasted with Britain. It strikes me as secretly being partially about the Criminal Justice Act, and I really wish I could discuss it with the dude I know who I am pretty certain has strong firsthand views on such things (and may have joked about being the kid on the gatefold of Songs For the Jilted Generation), but I'm pretty certain he didn't see it. I mean, the dude is doing okay, he has a canal boat now, but he doesn't see a lot of £50 plays.

Andrew Farrell, Friday, 24 July 2015 17:51 (1 week ago) Permalink

Has anyone seen The Trial as a play? What was it like?

The answer is now yes, Rory Kinnear in the Young Vic production. It was pretty good. Wasn't convinced at first, it started out like a lurid bedroom farce interspersed with brief monologues in a strange kind of joycean proto-language. But it got increasingly nightmarish, though no less lurid - the hints and elided scenes of sex in the novel were dragged into the full glare of our hypermediated and hypersexualised environment - and it had a real sense of bewilderment and persecution. It did pull a punch with the death scene though.

Benedict Cumberbatch thought it (or Kinnear) was worth a standing ovation.

ledge, Wednesday, 29 July 2015 09:03 (2 days ago) Permalink

Well if Cumberbatch likes it then who are we to disagree?

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 29 July 2015 09:12 (2 days ago) Permalink

Well they're probably bezzie mates so it would have been rude of him not to. Kinnear was very good though, as was Kate O’Flynn playing multiple roles.

ledge, Wednesday, 29 July 2015 09:41 (2 days ago) Permalink

i thought the trial was very good - i liked kinnear, don't normally like him, and kate o'flynn was amazing. the set was great. one drawback was that the music was poor and very clichéd, i felt.

doing my Objectives, handling some intense stuff (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 29 July 2015 09:52 (2 days ago) Permalink

i didn't like the clockwork orange style proto-language - i thought that was pretty stupid and didn't add to it

doing my Objectives, handling some intense stuff (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 29 July 2015 09:52 (2 days ago) Permalink

Can't say I'm a fan of Clockwork Orange-speak either :-( Hopefully that didn't elbow Kafka's phrasing too much.

I'll find out in a couple of weeks.

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 29 July 2015 09:58 (2 days ago) Permalink

Stage director Peter Brook is revisiting The Mahabharata, his nine-hour epic stage production from 1985, as part of the Young Vic's new season.

The new play Battlefield, will focus on one section of the epic, dealing with the aftermath of a military conflict.

It will premiere in Paris on 15 September before coming to the Young Vic in February.

I'm in.

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 29 July 2015 15:30 (2 days ago) Permalink


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