KING CHARLES III Previews- Page 5

[JBroadway]

Posted: 11/6/15 at 2:25pm

Emperor's new clothes? Really? Scripps, you're fully entitled to your opinion, but there's really no need de-validate other people's opinions just to validate your own. Just because you have the minority opinion doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you is a mindless sheep, lying to themselves to try to fit in.

 

I went into the play knowing very little about it - in fact, I was expecting something very different. But I still thought it was one of the best plays I've seen in years. I had heard a few that it was well-received in London, but it far exceeded my expectations. 

 

Your criticisms of the show are valid, even if I disagree with them, but I'm tired of hearing the "emperor's new clothes" argument (or similar remarks) on this board. It's tiresome and honestly pretty sad. 

[ggersten]

Posted: 11/6/15 at 5:55pm

I have not seen To Play The King - but saying something is derivative or not as good as the original does not really inform whether this production is worth seeing.  Even if you've seen To Play the King.  And of course Shakespeare is reputed to have ripped off contemporaries and predecessors - so, as this is in the manner of a Shakespeare "history play", it would be totally appropriate.  

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

That said, the wikipedia summary of the plot is different in many many ways from King Charles III - other than the forced abdication.  I guess Bartlett forgot to include all of the violence, death, murder,s,   explosions, gay sex, and blackmail from To Play The King.  Plus, I doubt To Play The King was in verse.  

But, if King Charles III were such a rip-off, then were are the comments (and lawsuits) from Andrew Davies and Michael Dobbs?  

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 11/7/15 at 5:16pm

I saw the matinee this afternoon and absolutely loved it. I'm a huge fan of Shakespeare and it was really exciting to see something so contemporary that borrowed structural elements from something many consider archaic. I didn't find it as funny as many others seem to have, though...there are definitely moments of humor (as in Shakespeare), but on the whole I thought it was a fairly serious play. The cast was uniformly excellent, with Tim Pigott-Smith and Lydia Wilson as my personal favorites. 

For those interested, I bought my ticket on TDF a couple of days ago and it was row L of the orchestra to the far right even though I believe the listing says the seats are in the mezzanine. I was very happy with the view overall for what I spent. 

[Scripps2]

Posted: 11/8/15 at 1:06pm

Maybe I was being over-generous when I said that King Charles III is derivative. Its basic construct is not derivative of To Play The King nor is it similar; it is identical, namely that Prince Charles, when he becomes king, will not in good conscience be able to remain apolitical but will intervene in the affairs of government forcing the then Prime Minister to insist on his abdication and see the crown pass to William. Everything else is peripheral.

 

My comments are not designed to say whether this production is worth seeing but to counterbalance the over-praise lauded on the playwright who, had he been so clever, would have been able to think of an original contrivance. This play, like Enron and That Face, is severely over-rated and seems to be lauded by West End critics for want of something better to praise. One of the other disappointments of this play is that the playwright didn't even attempt to explore the issues relating to freedom of the press that exacerbate the constitutional crisis; a more skilled hand could have done so. 

 

So it most definitely is a case of The Emperor's New Clothes, a comparison particularly valid not only in reference to its substance but to its subject as well. Wherever else that analogy has been used on this board I know not and do not care as I wasn't one of those using it.

 

"If King Charles III were such a rip-off, then were are the comments (and lawsuits) from Andrew Davies and Michael Dobbs?"

 

This is an irrelevant comment for a number of reasons not least of which is that the litigious cultures in the US and the UK are considerably different. But to answer to your question, they are probably in the same place as the lawsuits between Dobbs/Davies and the BBC, when the television adaption of Dobb's third novel tampered with its source, much to Dobbs dislike.

 

And as for the spoiler, ggersten, Google is not your friend - quoting Wikipedia just exposes the weakness of your defence. There is rather more I could say but I can't be bothered.

Updated On: 11/8/15 at 01:06 PM

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 9/8/22 at 3:11pm

Time for revival?

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 9/8/22 at 3:41pm

Really? Our Queen just died. 

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 9/8/22 at 3:50pm

songanddanceman2 said: "Really? Our Queen just died."

1) Sorry for your loss but for us here it presents an interesting opportunity to examine the premises and assumptions this play presents in a very thought-provoking way.

2) I know twitter is a cesspool of junk info, but people have been discussing this play and potentially remounting it locally in the U.K. in the last few hours or so.

[JasonC3]

Posted: 9/8/22 at 6:48pm

Dancingthrulife2 said: "songanddanceman2 said: "Really? Our Queen just died."

1) Sorry for your loss but for us here it presents an interesting opportunity to examine the premises and assumptions this play presents in a very thought-provoking way.
 

Maybe for some of you, but not all of us here.  I find it crass and ill-timed.

[lilpunkin]

Posted: 9/8/22 at 8:14pm

I saw a tweet this evening about Mike Bartlett working on a Harry and Meghan play.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 9/8/22 at 11:06pm

This play was always extremely morbid and probably not in the best of taste, considering everyone involved was alive and well. I still loved it and saw it twice. It immediately came to mind today and I will be watching the film tonight. I don’t consider it in poor taste to discuss this play today. She had a very long and incredible life and I don’t consider her death a tragedy.

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 9/8/22 at 11:32pm

The show is literally about the reign of King Charles and we are in…the reign of King Charles. The brain worms on this board grow stronger every day. 

[KevinKlawitter]

Posted: 9/8/22 at 11:42pm

BroadwayNYC2 said: "The show is literally about the reign of King Charles and we are in…the reign of King Charles. The brain worms on this board grow stronger every day."

Not only that, but the subjects of the play are - intense partisanship dividing Britain, civil unrest over Government actions, ambivalence about the role Royalty plays in the modern era, Harry stepping away from the family over love... all things that have been in the discourse receni. Sure it's heightened and played over a condensed timeline, but that is very much in the spirit of the Shakespeare histories that inspired it.

If someone wanted to put the iron to the fire and get a revival going with, say, Ian McKellen in the title role, I think it'd do good business. Mike Bartlett's work has been very popular in general lately, if nothing else.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/9/22 at 12:39am

It's a good play and a fun thought experiment. Yes it's provocative, but I don't view it in bad taste. These are among the most high-profile and wealthy public figures in the world, they can survive a little smacking around by a satirical playwright. "Laugh at the Kings or they'll make you cry" as some genius once said.

But perhaps Brits feel about this the way Americans felt about trying to shoehorn Trump into Julius Caesar.

Updated On: 9/9/22 at 12:39 AM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/9/22 at 6:34am

I never knew they made a film of this (or maybe just forgot) so I’ll be checking this out today!