Jump to content


Old Vic Question


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
28 replies to this topic

#11 Jan Brock

Jan Brock

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2756 posts

Posted 24 July 2007 - 07:26 AM

QUOTE(JWC @ Jul 23 2007, 04:10 PM) View Post
Strictly speaking they are interlocking with no specific order to them but glad you enjoyed them


I recall two of them being funny and one of them not - how was it at Birmingham ? Which was the best of the three ?

#12 JWC

JWC

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 July 2007 - 09:49 AM

QUOTE(Jan Brock @ Jul 24 2007, 08:26 AM) View Post
I recall two of them being funny and one of them not - how was it at Birmingham ? Which was the best of the three ?


The most overtly "funny" is generally considered to be Table Manners. Rather more static and with fewer comic set pieces is Living Together while Round And Round The Garden probably falls somewhere beteen the two. However the real pleasure comes from seeing the interlocking of all three, especially when apparently insignificant offstage action in one becomes a major focus in another. I didn't see the version in Birmingham but saw the 1970s London run (with a cast to die for) and the revival in Scarborough in the early Nineties (all on one day). Do hope that the Old Vic's plans- if they still exist- come to fruition.

#13 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1779 posts

Posted 24 July 2007 - 12:01 PM

"when apparently insignificant offstage action in one becomes a major focus in another"

You don't have to try to remember every little detail then to get the most out of the others, do you? Reminds me of Harry Potter - all too exhausting to try to remember all the little clues.

#14 Jan Brock

Jan Brock

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2756 posts

Posted 24 July 2007 - 12:46 PM

QUOTE(Alexandra @ Jul 24 2007, 01:01 PM) View Post
"when apparently insignificant offstage action in one becomes a major focus in another"

You don't have to try to remember every little detail then to get the most out of the others, do you? Reminds me of Harry Potter - all too exhausting to try to remember all the little clues.


No, they work fairly well as stand-alone plays, but seeing all three adds something extra.

(I find it strange to see adults reading Harry Potter on the tube apparently without shame, I feel inclined to pull out a copy of "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" or "Dear Zoo" and start reading that).



#15 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1779 posts

Posted 24 July 2007 - 01:17 PM

smile.gif I have to agree. Great for kids but that's it (I did read the first three to see what the fuss was about but gave up - excellent plotting but not very well written and too white male middle class). I charitably assume that people are still reading them avidly to keep up with their kids.

#16 peggs

peggs

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts

Posted 24 July 2007 - 02:11 PM

Nope we're just reading them for ourselves and do so without shame, but then I bought a copy of the hungry caterpillar yesterday as well so I'd clearly one of those most strange people.

#17 Matthew Winn

Matthew Winn

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bletchley

Posted 24 July 2007 - 02:21 PM

I've been reading the Harry Potter books, mainly because several years ago the first three were left where I work for people to buy at a reduced price. I tried them, and then kept going to find out what happened next. I dare say I'll buy the last book sooner or later. Probably later. I don't understand those people who rushed out to buy it as soon as it was available. It's a book, not an organ for transplant. There's no need to rush.

I think they're very badly written. Take note of my current signature (taken from here).
I have always hated eggs. I remember back when I was a sperm I tried to head-butt one. It did not end well.

#18 Jenny_tyr

Jenny_tyr

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 1067 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Stockholm, Sweden
  • Interests:Shakespeare

Posted 24 July 2007 - 03:13 PM

Getting further and further off-topic, but why not  tongue.gif Since everyone was talking about the Harry Potter books, saying they weren't just for children and a fantastic read, I did eventually read the first one a few years ago. And I was just puzzled; I simply couldn't understand what was supposed to be so wonderful about the series. It's not that I don't like fantasy, quite the contrary, but it was just, well, uninteresting as far as I was concerned. Little in the way of characterization, even if the story was alright but certainly nothing special. I've never felt the need to read the other books in the series, but they're quite nice as movies. Give me good old CS Lewis anyday, that's all I kept thinking after reading JK Rowling's first book, and I think it's a little sad if the great children's classics are being passed over in favour of Harry Potter.
******************************************************************************
http://groups.yahoo....re_and_Company/
http://blogs.whatson.../rsc-histories/

#19 Matthew Winn

Matthew Winn

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bletchley

Posted 24 July 2007 - 04:10 PM

I've always had a problem with Harry Potter because the characters behave in ways that I find unrealistic.

One of the most important aspects of any fiction is that no matter how fantastic the world in which the story is set, the characters within that world must act in ways that are sensible. I have a fondness for science fiction and fantasy, and I find that when I look at the work of people like C J Cherryh and Terry Pratchett (to use an example from each) the characters in their novels act in ways that are believable and natural. J K Rowling's characters don't act in ways that are natural. They act in ways that are necessary to permit the plot to advance in the direction the author wants. Thus the Ministry refuses to believe that Voldemort is on the way back. It makes them look like a bunch of drooling idiots, but that's how they have to be because if they had half a clue between the lot of them they'd derail the story and Harry wouldn't be able to step in and save the world. A better writer could have written characters who behave like real people while still allowing the story to head towards the desired outcome. Rowling offers us cardboard cutouts whose only function is to channel the plot.

Because of that I didn't have any problem at all with the death of Obi-wan Dumbledore at the end of book six. I didn't care. How could I? He was never a real character.
I have always hated eggs. I remember back when I was a sperm I tried to head-butt one. It did not end well.

#20 Lynette

Lynette

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5142 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 25 July 2007 - 09:58 PM

I've read this last of the HPs; I enjoyed it. But please someone else read it because I didn't get the denouement, just didn't understand the logic. You need a PhD in theology. This last book has too many moments of revelation on Harry's part and too long a flash back and 'explanation' near the end. But let's hand it to her, she's helped kids to get reading again. Let's just pray they don't ever think of making a stage musical out of them..or am I too late?

As for Macbeths...I've never seen one that really did it for me so can't wait for the Patrick Steward version.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users