Posted: 10/11/15 at 12:06am
^ I am in my 20s and knew nothing about British politics before seeing this play, but I still absolutely loved this play.
Posted: 10/11/15 at 12:07am
How *high* is this raised platform? I'm only judging off of knowing the stage itself usually isn't all that high... Any insight appreciated. SO HAPPY for these glowing reviews of the first preview!
Posted: 10/11/15 at 1:24am
For those interested, I got a rush ticket around 2 PM and was seated at row E seat 17. (Last seat at the left) I did miss some of the action (including a rather important scene) and felt like I didn't get to enjoy the staging to the fullest because of how close I was. The performance itself was a mixed bag for me. I absolutely loved the premise, the textual style and some of the acting, but the overall play didn't feel extremely special to me. The biggest problem for me was that a lot of the dramatical tense was frequently interrupted because of the humor. Therefore, it was quite hard to fully empathize with the characters during the more rough and darker parts. Margot Leicester, Tafline Steen and Tim Pigott-Smith were terrific, though.
Posted: 10/11/15 at 6:10am
This play sounds amazing. Still wondering if I should see this or American Psycho/ Shuffle Along ?
Posted: 10/11/15 at 7:12am
^ Well, King Charles III is only running through January 31, 2016z
Posted: 10/11/15 at 4:29pm
I noticed its not running past Jan (King Charles) so thats why I said or.
Posted: 10/11/15 at 4:37pm
That makes no sense - King Charles closes in January, American Psycho and Shuffle Along don't even start previews until March, and the first show has literally nothing in common with the other two, so why is it an either/or? (Unless you're budgeted for only one Broadway show in calendar year 2016?)
Posted: 10/11/15 at 4:40pm
Maybe the above poster can only get to New York during one time frame and is torn between coming in January or coming in March. No need to jump down their throat. Take the time to read and comprehend the post before responding.
Posted: 10/11/15 at 4:56pm
Didn't think I was jumping down anyone's throat (maybe that was someone else?). Was just trying to understand and help clarify if possible.
(To your point, if you're right I'd assume the original poster would've said something like "Can only make it to New York once in the next year, trying to decide if my trip should be geared around this British import play about the monarchy or these two other very different shows, one a rock musical based on a violent novel and movie and the other a new adaptation about the behind-the-scenes making of a seminal African-American cultural landmark."
Even then, I don't know how we on this board can help make that decision for him, but I was willing to try.
Posted: 10/11/15 at 5:29pm
GreasedLightning said: "Maybe the above poster can only get to New York during one time frame and is torn between coming in January or coming in March. No need to jump down their throat. Take the time to read and comprehend the post before responding."
I don't know if you are referring to me or not, but I was not "jumping down" anyone's throat. But to answer your question Jabere, if you are indeed here when King Charles III is running, I would DEFINITELY recommend seeing it.
Posted: 10/11/15 at 6:38pm
I am a big Audra fan so I really want to see Shuffle Along. My brother wants me to come in Summer (he has kids) which will not work for me. I love Duncan Sheik so American Psycho is right my alley. I want to see this play (King Charles III) because it looks and sounds amazing. I am not lucky enough to live in the big apple.
Updated On: 10/11/15 at 06:38 PM
Posted: 10/11/15 at 9:35pm
Does the Music Box offer standing room? Feel like I'd rather stand in the back then be off to the side and miss things.
Posted: 10/11/15 at 10:24pm
Yes, they do. However, the last production that played the Music Box to standing room crowds was Pippin, and the box office personnel were sticklers when it came to waiting for the entire house to be sold before releasing standing room tickets. I don't see this production reaching those same heights.
Updated On: 10/11/15 at 10:24 PM
Posted: 10/12/15 at 11:44am
I saw this Saturday Evening, and is my favorite play in quite awhile. It's very Shakespearean in the very best way.
Now if only the Oregon Shakespeare Festival could do as well putting Shakespeare in a modern vernacular as Mike Bartlett does with this original play....
The set (you can see very well but there are 3 steps to that dais:
Posted: 10/12/15 at 12:45pm
Hmm, I loved the Rylance Shakespeares but couldn't seem to drum up any energy to see the Wolf Halls (especially after seeing Rylance do the BBC version), even when they were papering in the final week, so it seems like this may skew more toward the former than the latter?
Updated On: 10/12/15 at 12:45 PM
Posted: 10/12/15 at 12:47pm
Oh dear. Why is it when I see that picture posted above all I can think is "Five hundred twenty five thousand six hundred minutes"?
Posted: 10/12/15 at 1:08pm
Patash said: "Oh dear. Why is it when I see that picture posted above all I can think is "Five hundred twenty five thousand six hundred minutes"?
HA! I believe that photo is from the opening dirge for the death of the Queen - so make of that what you will. Also, the set looks nearly identical to the one I saw at Wyndham's in London.
Posted: 10/12/15 at 1:37pm
That picture I posted is from the London production. However, the set on Broadway looks identical to that.
Posted: 10/12/15 at 4:30pm
Has anyone who has seen it sat in Row AA of the orchestra? Wondering what the perspective is like for this piece. It looks STUNNING!
Posted: 10/12/15 at 4:37pm
I was really iffy about seeing this, but reading these posts I'm now really wanting to go.
Posted: 10/13/15 at 11:33am
Sigh. This will be my second bad theater experience this month that wasn’t related to the show. Last night it was unseasonably warm, and the AC at the theater seemed to be malfunctioning so it went from hot to almost unbearable by Intermission. Many were complaining, but it didn’t really get fixed until the middle of Act 2, but even then it was still quite hot. It did have an impact on my enjoyment of the show (especially act 1), definitely in Act 1, but by I Act 2, I was totally on board with it.
I loved that in this alternate reality, the royal family essentially becomes a mashup of Shakespearean characters. King Charles has strong shades of King Lear and the Duchess Kate a manipulative, Lady Macbeth. Put it simply, even if you are only remotely familiar with the British monarchy it is a great deal of fun, watching these characters.
The cast is first rate, and I am now a huge fan of Lydia Wilson. Her Kate was thrilling to watch. I also loved Margo Leicester as Camilla and Tim Pigot-Smith as Charles. On another note, I really loved the use of live music which was a nice treat! I thought the scoring was excellent.
My only real criticism deal with SPOILER the use of Diana. I didn’t mind her in the shadows, but when she was brought center stage it felt to me like a C grade horror movie. It was tacky and didn’t work for me. END SPOILER
Overall, I think this is definitely one of the better things I’ve seen this fall. Beautifully staged and written, I hope that this does well. I could also easily see it was a BBC Miniseries. It seems a perfect candidate for that.
Posted: 10/13/15 at 12:38pm
dave1606 - I thought the "Kate" character - as played by Ms. Wilson - was the most interesting development - playing well off of Shakespearean characters and what little we know of the actual Kate Middleton. Her scenes were electric - when I saw this in London.
Posted: 10/13/15 at 5:52pm
"I could also easily see it was a BBC Miniseries."
Already done:
Posted: 10/13/15 at 7:26pm
I saw this in London and loved it, I kind of want Mike Bartlett to do a follow up either about William or Prince George.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
