We really don't care about theatre do we?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (722 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

what about DANCE?

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 17:59 (9 years ago) Permalink

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

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 17:59 (9 years ago) Permalink

are you dancing tonight?

jed_ (jed), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

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

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:05 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

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

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:52 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

bla bla proscenium arch bla bla.

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:58 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

um, i mean, ROFFLE etc.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:04 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

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

phil-two (phil-two), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:06 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

that was a big ol' xpost

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:11 (9 years ago) Permalink

actually that one sucks tbh

subaltern 8 (Michael B), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 13:22 (10 months ago) Permalink

inspirational.

Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 13:23 (10 months ago) Permalink

Alright then, I really love the monologues (its almost all monologue) in Alan Clarke's TV film "Road" (its on youtube, great acting in it). It was originally a play by Jim Cartwright.

subaltern 8 (Michael B), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 13:26 (10 months ago) Permalink

ah this sounds good, i'll check it out.

Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 13:26 (10 months ago) Permalink

subaltern 8 (Michael B), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 13:29 (10 months ago) Permalink

speaking of friel, theres some good 'uns in "philadelphia here i come". at least from what i remember when i read it for the leaving cert.

subaltern 8 (Michael B), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 13:46 (10 months ago) Permalink

yeah i love that play. also did it for the leaving.

i was thinking of entire plays that consist of monologues when i asked about this - seems to be something irish writers favour.

Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 15:35 (10 months ago) Permalink

Saw a great monologue (one-man play) a way back in the 80s called Judgement by George Dillon. Very powerful and haunting, the memory of it has never left me.

my father will guide me up the stairs to bed (anagram), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 15:41 (10 months ago) Permalink

that does sound good, hard to find though!

Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Tuesday, 29 October 2013 21:46 (10 months ago) Permalink

do ppl like Rattigan? My exposure is limited, but The Winslow Boy is getting p damn good reception on B'way

eclectic husbandry (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 October 2013 21:51 (10 months ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

So...if you're a fledgling theatre group doing Sondheim's Assassins, and charging $20 a ticket, perhaps don't use MIDI FILES as your fucking accompaniment tracks? Also perhaps when you have a four part barbershop harmony in "Gun Song", that at least two of you are on the correct notes?

Feel so ripped off, if a friend of mine hadn't have been in it, I'd have left midway through.

Lesbian has fucking riffs for days (Neanderthal), Saturday, 16 November 2013 06:53 (9 months ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

What do you all think of Punchdrunk in general? I see Ledge was at The Drowned Man in London, upthread.

I saw this last night and I thought it was amazing, incredible sets, totally immersive, brilliant physical theatre. I saw Sleep No More i New York a few weeks ago and I loved that too.

My friend left early and I suspect she hated it. I just found the entire thing incredibly absorbing, it reminded me of the weirdest elements of acting class, and the same feeling of freedom that you get from that sort of deep dive into theatricality.;

Some of the David Lynch influence went from nod to rip-off, in The Drowned Man, like actually using music written by him felt a bit much, even if it was amazing seeing their incredibly costumed dancers shuffling along to The Pink Room from Fire Walk With Me... always felt this should be some alternative form of techno.

I also feel there's a slight hint of money spinning from what they do, but still love the worlds they create.

Last night I had this really odd one-on-one with one of the actresses where she led me into this room, shone a red light in my eyes and examined my face, then made me sign a form making my image "the property of Temple Studios" (the whole thing is set in a 60s film studio.)

She then put a trenchcoat and scarf on me and walked me into this pitch black corner of the room and left me for a minute or so, then these strobes started flickering and a director's voice came through directing me in this love scene whereby the actress re-entered from the darkness further away and this sort of face-off happened, it was all amazingly scripted, and the "scene" went on for a few minutes, then the lights came back on and she led me out and was like "that was wonderful - the studio will be in touch."

It's just been extended to March, I really recommend going.

Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Friday, 13 December 2013 12:34 (8 months ago) Permalink

I really liked it and I was a bit cynical at the outset and would actually really like to go again and have a different experience (I imagine) but it's expensive got my brother and his girlfriend tickets for his birthday and saw him a few days later and all he said was "your cowboy play was weird". I went in july (cheaper preview) and have occasionally thought since then "that's still going on night after night that's pretty cool" and now they've extended it!

conrad, Friday, 13 December 2013 13:14 (8 months ago) Permalink

Yeah I am tempted to go again, it was absolutely huge, I was on each floor but I am sure I missed bits. There were some incredibly creepy nooks and crannies around the place.

Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Friday, 13 December 2013 13:15 (8 months ago) Permalink

Their NY show has been going for two years.

Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Friday, 13 December 2013 13:16 (8 months ago) Permalink

I'd love to see this. Is there much of a narrative running through it LG?

sktsh, Saturday, 14 December 2013 14:11 (8 months ago) Permalink

^ pofaced way of saying tell us more about this love scene, tbh

sktsh, Saturday, 14 December 2013 14:11 (8 months ago) Permalink

It's all based on Woyzeck and Day Of The Locust, there is a narrative but it's quite abstract and the experience will be different wherever you decide to go, or whomever you follow. Personally after seeing the NY show, which was Macbeth meets Hitchcock, I didn't feel the need to follow all the main characters or to see the main scenes. Though it probably would be enjoyable to do that. It can be a collection of lots of little experiences.

It's mostly silent scenes expressed by physical theatrics or dance, though there is some speech. It's all quite muscular and wringy.

The love scene thing was like a one to one, which can happen you at Punchdrunk shows, but not always, is kind of luck of the draw, there are tons of different ones in each show they do, I think. (In NYC I waltzed with a witch.)

I basically walked after a sort of PA character after she'd done one of the main characters make-up and after she put me in the dark the director's voice came on and was talking about darkness and the city, and as the strobes came on it was like "in the shimmering lights a figure approaches you" and the actress kind of walked into this tiny enclosure of red curtains I was in.

There was a sort of confetti effect to the strobes and the director's voice was all this stuff about like "you never thought you'd see her again, yet here you are, you touch her face, you take her hand, you know this moment is fleeting, but it is the greatest moment of your life" and she was about to kiss me and then he's like CUT and it all ended.

It was sort of cheesy and dark in a Lynchian kind of way, but also really intense, the actress was v striking, again it reminded me of some of the more full-on things I've done in acting class, like total immersion in another person.

Obv lots of titillation involved, but that's kind of what Punchdrunk do, the shows are brimming with sex and sexual jealousy.

Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Sunday, 15 December 2013 09:47 (8 months ago) Permalink

It's funny, the completist in me gets a bit paralysed by choice at the thought of open-ended participatory stuff in case I end up somehow missing what's 'important'. Obv I know that's not the point at all and is a stupid way to think, but it's a feeling I can never shake. Innocuous things that make you irrationally unconfident etc.

(Sounds great though!)

sktsh, Sunday, 15 December 2013 16:11 (8 months ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

Speaking of caring about theatre, the four-hour Einstein on the Beach is streaming online this month, somewhere out there.

Meanwhile:
http://observer.com/2014/01/an-a-ffair-to-remember-toni-bentley-brings-her-anal-sex-memoir-to-the-stage/

tbd (Eazy), Wednesday, 15 January 2014 04:40 (7 months 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 (7 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 (6 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (4 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 (4 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 (4 months ago) Permalink

yes I too detected a merryfieldian influence in his characterisation

conrad, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 09:41 (4 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 (4 months ago) Permalink

from two years ago

conrad, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 11:24 (4 months ago) Permalink

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

schlump, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 18:03 (4 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 (4 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 (4 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 (4 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 (3 months ago) Permalink

break a leg n!

difficult listening hour, Friday, 9 May 2014 18:30 (3 months ago) Permalink

sanks!

getting strange ass all around the globe (Neanderthal), Friday, 9 May 2014 18:31 (3 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 (2 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 (2 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 (3 weeks ago) Permalink


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