Jump to content


Member Since 11 Apr 2010
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 12:18 PM

#292991 Skylight

Posted dude-1981 on 14 February 2014 - 10:10 PM

I went a bit crazy and booked a couple of seats in the front row.  The way I see it is that when these shows come along which are unlikely to be discounted, you either go the whole hog and pay top whack or you go for a cheapy.  I don't get paying £45 for the upper circle when another £20 gets you top notch seats.  I was debating which £17 seats to go for and then my friend said he was happy either way so I went all out.  Now I don't go quite so much, I am more intolerant of being way up.

(I note there is zero discount for the early shows before press night, so feel free to join me in my boycott of the word preview for any show that does that.  If they are charging full price, it cannot be a preview.)

#292675 National Theatre New Season

Posted dude-1981 on 12 February 2014 - 07:34 PM

I miss when booking periods used to go on sale and you'd have 4 or even more shows to book.  Now with seemingly endless extensions and no Dorfman, you get just a couple (and I think there was one period with just one I think.)

I view the £65 membeship as a contribution as well, so I wouldn't complain about not getting value for money, but it is hard not to think the NT is on a slight downswing with so much going on admin wise that the eye has gone off the ball just a touch in terms of actual productions.

#267072 Passion Play

Posted dude-1981 on 30 May 2013 - 08:59 PM

View PostNicholas, on 12 May 2013 - 12:34 AM, said:

Can I just take a moment to criticise Quentin Letts' review of this?  Given what I've written about Ms Scholey it might seem hypocritical but a.) it was in jest and goodness knows I was overemphasising and b.) I'm not paid to encourage people whether to see a work of theatre or not based on its artistic merit.  I remember, when Mr Letts reviewed Richard II, thinking his comment of (and I quote) "Maybe Mr Redmayne is simply too good looking to play a character this problematic" showed a slightly troubled outlook on theatre, especially next to Billington's measured treatment of Redmayne's (in my opinion haunting and tender despite being good-looking) performance.  What in God's name does that even mean?  All problematic people are ugly?  Redmayne can only play unproblematic characters?  Whishaw's BAFTA-nominated Richard II works because (not true) Whishaw's ugly?

But that's by the bye now.  Mr Letts' treatment of Passion Play is fine.  It's his treatment of Scholey that's troubling.  Characters' attractiveness can be important in plays - Uncle Vanya needs a more attractive Yelena than Sasha, and here the character ought to be attractive for her siren-esque allure to work - but I think how an attractive actor/actress plays the part is more important than what their curves are like in complementing a production.  PHWOAR stars?  I bet Mr Letts was chuffed when he thought of that one.   His closing line - "Miss Scholey may provoke reactions from a lower part of the anatomy" - seems, to say the least, a reductionist approach to Nichols' writing, Leveaux's direction, the cast's performances and Ms Scholey's performance which includes things such as learning lines, reciting lines, imbuing personality to a fictitious person and interacting with others doing the same thing.   I think the reason I find it troubling is I said it on an internet message board with tongue firmly in cheek and knowing that no-one was going to read what I said as an authority.  Mr Letts...

Well, a theatre critic's job is surely to say more than "And she was attractive and when she dropped her clothes OH MAMA!"  In dealing with a character of more depth that would be completely silly - imagine saying "Meryl Streep was fine as Thatcher but in that scene with a low cut top blimey Charlie!" - and it seems a tad offensive to Ms Scholey the actress to say the best thing about her was Ms Scholey the possessor of attractive anatomy.  The reason it’s bad is really that from Mr Letts I have no idea whether Ms Scholey’s a good actress or not, just that she’s attractive, and I want more in an artistic critique.

To return to the Vanya comparison I made earlier, last year Yelena was played by Laura Pulver, who proved in Sherlock how she could turn heads, who struck me as a woman liable to crack under her justified sadness, and by Anna Friel, who is attractive but seemed more stilted (an opinion on which others differed, I know).  Yelena's very difficult because she can seem (well, she is) self-pitying and when her problem is "I'm too attractive, three men have fallen for me and I married the old one" whilst Sonya's is "I'm in hopeless love and will work until I die" being sympathetic can be hard, but Pulver made me understand her more where Friel didn't.  The reason Scholey is attractive in this is partly the body and partly the disrobing but she also has a smoulder and makes you believe she would instigate this unbelievable affair and brings charisma.  Disrobing maketh not the actress, and to base the entire criticism of the performance on whether he gave seated mid-performance standing ovations or not seems crude, reductionist and bad writing.

That was more than a moment.  Rant over.  I know Letts quoted this board once, so who knows, perhaps I'll be in an article of his.

You had me at "Can I just take a moment to criticise Quentin Letts"

#262779 Trelawny Of The Wells - Donmar

Posted dude-1981 on 22 April 2013 - 12:03 PM

View Postlivetheatreco, on 22 April 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

= lowest form of wit.

I never understand why there is always such hostility in forums. :mellow:

Really?  It's because you clearly have no interest in contributing or adding to the debate, it's just one more place you do the rounds of, attempting to improve your hit count.

#262686 Trelawny Of The Wells - Donmar

Posted dude-1981 on 21 April 2013 - 06:36 PM

View PostPharaoh, on 21 April 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Well done, you've passed Lynette's WOS Immigration.

Good stuff.  I look forward to more line line review link posts.  Ideally to shows that have already closed.

#246825 55 Days

Posted dude-1981 on 27 November 2012 - 01:18 PM

View Postarmadillo, on 27 November 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Did it in the past?

Before 1642, it was never taught in schools.

#246344 The Magistrate - Nt

Posted dude-1981 on 22 November 2012 - 11:16 PM

The constant banging on about the arts subsidy is probably one of the things I most dislike about this board.  Discuss.

#245627 Famous People You've Seen In The Audience

Posted dude-1981 on 16 November 2012 - 12:54 PM

View PostLatecomer, on 11 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

I hope they queued....or perhaps they were like us, feverishly clicking buttons on the internet at 9am? No? What about their "fair for all" policy...one rule for celebrities another for us plebs?

It's interesting isn't it.  Is there someone at the Royal Court who decides if a certain person is famous enough to get a ticket?  I don't know who Richard Jones is.  Or maybe they do have a PA who is in charge of securing tickets.

The Observer food used to (and still may) do a section where they rang up fancy restaurants and tried to book a table for different famous types.  It varied by celeb and restaurant as you might expect.

Anyway, Tamsin Grieg at Constellations last night.  Possibly forgot that Jumpy had finished and turned up the theatre so they gave her a ticket. :lol: