Jump to content


Passion Play


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#31 Honoured Guest

Honoured Guest

    Dis Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2531 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 08 May 2013 - 03:02 PM

This conversation puts me in mind of someone going to the cinema and coming out saying, "Moving pictures, projected on to a screen. I've seen that device before."

#32 popcultureboy

popcultureboy

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 677 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 03:08 PM

Quote

This conversation puts me in mind of someone going to the cinema and coming out saying, "Moving pictures, projected on to a screen. I've seen that device before."

Huh? It wasn't that I'd seen the device before that bothered me, it's that it was so artlessly shoehorned in and unnecessary that had me heading for the exit. That, and the previously mentione less than stellar performances.

#33 peggs

peggs

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:48 PM

Oh dear, have to admit from what i've heard doesn't sound good so will go with low expectations and hope to be pleasantly surprised. Don't really see the point of this double role thing but as noted on the peter and alice thread i can't complain about something that i could have found out about if i had read up on the author before hand.

Maybe it will improve.......?

#34 Nicholas

Nicholas

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 331 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:58 PM

View Postpopcultureboy, on 07 May 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

...nor could I handle the awful device of other actors delivering the stream of consciousness of the two leads. Both Teale and Wanamaker are perfectly capable of communicating everything being relentlessly narrated ALL ON THEIR OWN. I'm sure, in 1982, this looked groundbreaking. Now it looks and feels horribly dated.

My problem was this would have been a great device had Nichols used it to bulk up their characters.  When two actresses are playing one part I don't think we should be getting such minimal characterisation.  As you say, it was artlessly shoehorned in.

On the note of being shoehorned in, what was with the weird near-threesome that starts act two?

View Postpopcultureboy, on 08 May 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

I found Scholey's performance in the first half to be painfully stilted and wooden. The prospect of further pointless disrobing really wasn't enough to make me want to stay.

View Postmallardo, on 08 May 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

It's certainly when Annabel Scholey comes into her own - or comes out of it.


I'd also say she comes into her own in act two.  If she was wooden in the first half, she wasn't in the second half.  And there's more disrobing, and thus a joke about being wooden, but not one I'm going to make.

#35 Cat6

Cat6

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:US

Posted 09 May 2013 - 08:19 AM

Hi! Saw it last night. So, some of us must have shared the same air.

Keeping it short: the trouble with this play is that there is no insight into passion, fidelity or infidelity. It's pretty much a yawn-y story that you might overhear on a bus stuck in traffic.

Later, guys!

#36 theatreliker

theatreliker

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 09 May 2013 - 10:14 AM

The reviews seem to be rewarding of this though. Anyone enjoyed it here?
2014 theatre: Blithe Spirit (Gielgud)  Booked: Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (Savoy)  Waterbabies (Curve)  View from the Bridge (Young Vic)  Birdland (Royal Court).

#37 wickedgrin

wickedgrin

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1225 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 10:14 AM

It's not the first time (or last?) I have seen a play that has generally got 4 star reviews and I have thought "meh". I think it is a case of the Emperors New Clothes and sometimes I get the impression that theatre critics are in the business of encouraging folk to go to a show regardless. Perhaps too much hob knobbing (sp?) goes on with the theatre folk at the press nights, or too much alcohol is imbibed? Perhaps my standards are too high or the critics set the bar too low? Perhaps when you actually pay for a ticket (even at a discount) it makes you more critical than if you are given one for free plus a programme and a drink?

I remember coming out of a theatre on Shaftsbury Av after seeing a very dull play with a shockingly poor performance from an actress ( I will not say who ) to see the 4 and 5 star on the marquee outside saying things like "mesmerising performance" "spellbinding" etc. My quote would have been "wooden and stilted".

But it is fascinating to me that 2 people can see the same performance and see it completely differently. Art is so subjective at the end of the day.

#38 Honoured Guest

Honoured Guest

    Dis Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2531 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:44 PM

View Postwickedgrin, on 09 May 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

But it is fascinating to me that 2 people can see the same performance and see it completely differently. Art is so subjective at the end of the day.

If you came out of a theatre and read a quotation from a review on a marquee, then you obviously didn't attend the same performance as the reviewer, did you? Unless, of course, the reviewer scurried out of the theatre ahead of you and scrawled it on to the marquee.

#39 wickedgrin

wickedgrin

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1225 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:58 PM

I didn't make myself clear it wasn't the same performance in a 12 week run, I went after the play had opened but the actress was the same in the same part. Am I making any sense or should I just pour myself another G&T?

#40 peggs

peggs

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 07:43 PM

View Postwickedgrin, on 09 May 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

I didn't make myself clear it wasn't the same performance in a 12 week run, I went after the play had opened but the actress was the same in the same part. Am I making any sense or should I just pour myself another G&T?
You made yourself clear, HG is presumably pointing out that as it was different performances perhaps said actress did much better one night than another - but i know what you mean, i find the board generally more reliable than reviews at giving you a good cross section of what people think.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users