KING CHARLES III Previews- Page 4

[phan24]

Posted: 10/20/15 at 12:02am

Caught the show tonight after stopping by the box office 2 hours before curtain and they seemed to have some $37 rush tickets left, I was sat on the second row house right of the orchestra and although it seemed like an unconfomortable view at first, it was not the worst and made the action happen closer.

I think this play really soars in Act 2. While Act 1 does set up the second one, it felt a little too slow and I thought it could've moved faster. Act 2 is where I saw Tim Piggott-Smith and the rest of the cast give award winning performances, they were truly great. The last scene is truly chilling and the direction serves it justice. I agree with a previous poster, that the humor sometimes distracts from the dramatic and it makes for an unfocused narrative, but overall the actors are taking their work incredibly seriously and it shows, perhaps those scenes are more humorous for an American audience? I would recommend this play to anyone who likes to see great performers on stage, regardless of the piece.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 10/20/15 at 12:10am

phan24 said: "I think this play really soars in Act 2. While Act 1 does set up the second one, it felt a little too slow and I thought it could've moved faster. Act 2 is where I saw Tim Piggott-Smith and the rest of the cast give award winning performances, they were truly great. The last scene is truly chilling and the direction serves it justice."

 

Interesting. I thought both acts were excellent, but I actually found the 2nd act to be a tad less focused than the first (with the exception of the last 2 scenes of the play which were very focused and chilling indeed). Different strokes I suppose. 

 

The more I think about this show, the more remarkable I think it is. I think I'll try to see it again before it closes, if i can get around to it with all the other openings. 

 

[little_sally]

Posted: 10/20/15 at 11:14am

I saw this last night and agree that act one did drag a bit but act two more than made up for it. The last two scenes were just fantastic. I agree that the writing is very strong, both in dialogue and structure, and direction is brilliant (as is the whole design of the production.) I also loved the score and the use of the live musicians. The acting is from top to bottom flawless. My only real complaint was the way POSSIBLE SPOILER Harry's plotline ended (it seemed odd to have him change his mind) POSSIBLE SPOILER OVER but it didn't deter from my enjoyment of the play. I hope this one is remembered come Tony time, especially for its actors.

If anyone is wondering, my TDF seats were in row D of the mezz, seats 3-7. They were fantastic.

[Patty3]

Posted: 10/20/15 at 12:48pm

I think someone else asked this but I couldn't find an answer. If anyone sat in the $97 front row seats how was the view? Why are these tickets less expensive?

[little_sally]

Posted: 10/20/15 at 1:04pm

I didn't sit in the front row but from above, it seems like the stage is very high and so they're partial view.

[ggersten]

Posted: 10/20/15 at 7:40pm

While knowledge of English history is not required - it does help to understand some of what is happening in Act One - especially how the act ends:  

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The King is not allowed into Parliament except upon invitation.  This goes back to King Charles I - at least - who came in and had members arrested.  So now, the "rule" and custom is for The King (or Queen) (or his aide) to knock on the door loudly as is done in this show.  If you visit Parliament, you can see the marks on the door from the annual knocking before the Queen "opens" Parliament each year.  So, when the knocks happen, it is even more dramatic if you know what those knocks are portending.  Don't know if this is really spoiler - but I also wanted to test the spoiler tag function!

 

[sorano916]

Posted: 10/20/15 at 7:48pm

Thanks for that, ggersten!

Now with the spoiler tag, can someone say what the last image was? I also had partial view seats and (B12) so I definitely missed whatever was in the back of the stage.

[Jabere]

Posted: 10/20/15 at 8:15pm

any news of extension

[ggersten]

Posted: 10/20/15 at 10:07pm

Jabere said: "any news of extension

Since the theatre is booked by Shuffle Along - any extension seems unlikely.  There may also be Visa and Equity issues for the UK cast.  Not to mention nearly this entire cast has been performing this play for, I think, almost a year and a half already.  

"

 

[undercoveractor]

Posted: 10/20/15 at 10:27pm

I have long suspected that After Eight was either Stadler or Waldorf ( minus the good nature) OR a genius piece of performance art.

My new theory is that he is Michael Reidel.

 

[thebeautyis3]

Posted: 10/21/15 at 6:00pm

Darn. I was hoping for a week's extension. I am arriving down there on February 1, and I was really hoping to see this. When does Shuffle Along start?

[ggersten]

Posted: 10/21/15 at 7:16pm

thebeautyis3 said: "Darn. I was hoping for a week's extension. I am arriving down there on February 1, and I was really hoping to see this. When does Shuffle Along start?

Previews start March 14.  Don't know when they will move into the theatre.  So, if ticket sales warrant, I guess - depending on contracts - maybe could squeeze one week more.  

"

 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 11:24pm

Wow- saw the show tonight and was completely blown away. I'll proabably write more later, but it is stunning. Everyone should see this while it's here. 

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 10/25/15 at 8:07pm

Sorry to be in the minority, but was mostly unimpressed. Act One nearly had me dozing; Act Two was better and livelier, but this still struck me as another king-and-country, do your best for England soap opera. Perhaps you needed to care more about British politics. Never quite decided if it was a comedy or a drama, so never seemed to be much of either. Piggott-Smith was good, but can see why he lost the Olivier to a better, more interesting actor. As for the play,  it all felt like sub-Lear stuff. And the ad campaign, with Charles appearing with a taped-over mouth, made me expect a sort of wild-and-woolly comedy. No such thing.

And (SPOILER ALERT) what was that Diana apparition? Was it meant to be funny, or was it just as silly as it looked? I wasn't the only audience member that snickered at that.

Major disappointment, imo.

[Wee Thomas2]

Posted: 10/26/15 at 2:14pm

We saw this on Saturday and were well entertained. Did not expect it to go in the direction it went.

 

I wonder if this will be stage-able once the Queen passes.

[LimelightMike]

Posted: 11/4/15 at 10:25pm

Hate to bump this -- but, could anybody please PM me with the final visual of the show? I hear it's simply spectacular, and I would love to know what it is... Thank you!

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/4/15 at 10:53pm

OR ... just use the new spoiler prevention function so that all of us who want to know can read it!!!

[macnyc]

Posted: 11/4/15 at 11:08pm

I missed the final tableaux too and would like to know!

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 11/4/15 at 11:09pm

Someone use the spoiler function please.

[billyelliotfan123]

Posted: 11/5/15 at 2:27am

PLEASE

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 11/5/15 at 8:29am

Okay... here is the spoiler for the ending...

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The play ends with the coronation of William and Kate. Both of them come down the center aisles wearing regal attire and the huge classic capes while some intense and amazing music plays. They end up onstage kneeling where they are then crowned King and Queen. It is very powerful.

 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 11/5/15 at 9:27am

That's basically it, but there's a critical component you left out:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Charles comes forward to place the crown on William's head, and as he walks to the back of the raised platform and William is being pronounced King, Charles collapses to the ground in a heap, having been essentially made even more irrelevant and useless. It sounds underwhelming here, but I found it powerful and well-staged in the theatre. 

 

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/5/15 at 4:55pm

So the ending of KING CHARLES III is rather similar to the BBC series TO PLAY THE KING, it seems.

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 11/5/15 at 6:00pm

jayinchelsea said: "Sorry to be in the minority, but was mostly unimpressed. Act One nearly had me dozing; Act Two was better and livelier, but this still struck me as another king-and-country, do your best for England soap opera. Perhaps you needed to care more about British politics. Never quite decided if it was a comedy or a drama, so never seemed to be much of either. Piggott-Smith was good, but can see why he lost the Olivier to a better, more interesting actor. As for the play,  it all felt like sub-Lear stuff. And the ad campaign, with Charles appearing with a taped-over mouth, made me expect a sort of wild-and-woolly comedy. No such thing.

 

And (SPOILER ALERT) what was that Diana apparition? Was it meant to be funny, or was it just as silly as it looked? I wasn't the only audience member that snickered at that.

 

Major disappointment, imo.

 

"

I agree here, saw this Tuesday night and was completely bored by it. 

The cheap seats in the mezzanine are a great view and it was only half full so plenty of seats to move down if you wanted to. 

 

 

[Scripps2]

Posted: 11/6/15 at 2:13pm

Roscoe said: "So the ending of KING CHARLES III is rather similar to the BBC series TO PLAY THE KING, it seems."

 

Which the playwright would have seen as an impressionable teenager.

 

Don't hold back Roscoe, take this derivative, over-rated and pretentious work apart; my attempts to expose the similarities with the vastly-superior-and-much-more-fun To Play the King have largely been ignored.

 

King Charles III is nothing more than The Emperor's New Clothes.

Updated On: 11/6/15 at 02:13 PM