Jump to content


Julius Caesar - Another Bladder Buster?


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#1 LittleSally

LittleSally

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 26 November 2012 - 05:31 PM

Just received an email from the Donmar.  Seriously? No interval? Surely there will need to be some serious editing?  Is this another method of driving away the older audience members, after the Front Row scheme?  How long have recent productions been - over 2 hours would be my guess.

#2 xanderl

xanderl

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2077 posts

Posted 26 November 2012 - 05:36 PM

The recent RSC one was 2 hours with no interval in Stratford - interval added for the touring and London runs
"witty ... both made me laugh but also gave me pause" - Mark Shenton, The Stage

#3 Poly

Poly

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 377 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 26 November 2012 - 05:37 PM

The recent Julius Caesar by the RSC was also without interval (at least in Stratford), with a running time of 2hrs 15mins. It's doable. It's not longer than doing Hamlet with only one interval.
Edit: we posted at the same time.

#4 fringefan

fringefan

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 775 posts

Posted 26 November 2012 - 05:54 PM

It's too long for me, so I'm glad I wasn't aiming for Barclays tix for this.  The sheer physical discomfort of being trapped in one position for so long would distract me, however riveting the production.  90-minute no-interval plays are about my limit, as I've found recently with NFSW and Medea.

#5 dude-1981

dude-1981

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond

Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:07 PM

What is the difference between a film and a play which means there must be an interval in the play and never (these days) at a film?

Is it because modern cinemas are more comfy that theatres or is it because people are more able to nip to the loo during a film?

(I was busting to use the loo pretty much the whole way through The Master a few weeks back, but I hate to miss a second of anything.)
If, for some strange reason you care what I've seen, it's all here:

http://pcchan1981.livejournal.com/

#6 Lynette

Lynette

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5136 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:09 PM

It makes a difference with JC in a way that it doesn't with the other plays. The RSC prod showed this v well. It worked a treat avoiding the usual anticlimax effect after the assassination. But the Donmar loos are frankly a pain and so we will have to limit the tea intake and arrive nice and early gals.

#7 Beth

Beth

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 162 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:31 PM

View Postdude-1981, on 26 November 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Is it because modern cinemas are more comfy that theatres or is it because people are more able to nip to the loo during a film?

I'd say yes to both of those.  Some theatres are so uncomfortable that, no matter how good the production, I get to the point where I just need to get up and and stretch.  And while a loo break isn't ideal at the cinema, at least it's an option.  But it's mostly the comfort factor - theatres, if you're not going to give us an interval, give us padded seats and leg room!

#8 Pharaoh's number 2

Pharaoh's number 2

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 26 November 2012 - 08:48 PM

Looking forward to this- sounds like it'll be pacy and different (judging my some the rehearsal pics, anyway- all speaking into microphones). And it's always a treat to see Cush Jumbo and Clare Dunne on stage. Great young actresses.



#9 Nicholas

Nicholas

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:31 AM

View Postdude-1981, on 26 November 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

What is the difference between a film and a play which means there must be an interval in the play and never (these days) at a film?

Is it because modern cinemas are more comfy that theatres or is it because people are more able to nip to the loo during a film?

(I was busting to use the loo pretty much the whole way through The Master a few weeks back, but I hate to miss a second of anything.)

I saw Lawrence of Arabia in a new print at the BFI where, thank goodness, there was an interval, which to my mind enhanced the experience (perhaps by not making it an endurance test but two halves of a perfect whole, able to be enjoyed without uncomfortable bladders).  And an interval wouldn't have had much of an effect on The Master - a decent editor and an actual ending would have.  Philip Seymour Hoffman was absolutely astonishing and deserves every award going, but Joaquin Phoenix as John Merrick as Richard III wasn't and doesn't, comfortable bladder or uncomfortable bladder.

I missed the RSC in Stratford, in London and on TV, so would like to catch this.  What with it being all female and set in a prison and influenced by recent elections and Pussy Riot and goodness knows what else, I'll be fascinated to see how coherent a vision this is.  Too good a cast to be anything less than watchable though.

#10 fringefan

fringefan

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 775 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:09 AM

I am absolutely with Beth on all she says about seat comfort (or lack of it) and the need to stretch.  So many theatres have seats which are not only too narrow but have insufficient depth, if that's the right word, to support anyone with average or longer leg length, which becomes very tiring.  And yes, some films still have intervals:  Bollywood films always do, even though some of the more modern ones are now of a similar length or even slightly shorter (thinking of The Master) than standard Hollywood fare.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users