#26
Posted: 10/31/13 at 12:45am
I loved the two together. I don't know anything about No Man's Land. Is it more straight forward than Waiting for Godot?
No Man's Land/Godot — Page 2
#27
Posted: 11/1/13 at 2:56am
Question for anyone who's bought the poster. What's the design? Is it just the logo with the arrows or do they have the photos of the cast on there as well?
How's the stage door been?
How's the stage door been?
#28
Posted: 11/1/13 at 8:51am
The stage door after last Sunday matinee was a madhouse.
The poster is the same one all over the city. It has arrows, and images of them dancing.
The poster is the same one all over the city. It has arrows, and images of them dancing.
"I know now that theatre saved my life." - Susan Stroman
#29
Posted: 11/1/13 at 9:56am
I went to No Man's Land last night and thought it was unbearably dull. I struggled to stay awake and engaged with what they were saying and found so little involving the characters to care about.
The play seems more like an acting exercise, and I understand the appeal the actors would find in playing these roles, but that didn't make it interesting for me to watch.
I guess I'm realizing that I'm just not a Pinter fan at all; if you do like his work, ignore my thoughts and enjoy.
The play seems more like an acting exercise, and I understand the appeal the actors would find in playing these roles, but that didn't make it interesting for me to watch.
I guess I'm realizing that I'm just not a Pinter fan at all; if you do like his work, ignore my thoughts and enjoy.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#30
Posted: 11/1/13 at 10:35am
Thanks for the review, Whizzer, that is particularly interesting to me! When I was in college, I spent a semester in London in 1975...man, did I get to see some amazing theater...Henry Fonda as Clarence Darrow, Jimmy Stewart and Helen Hayes in Harvey, Diana Rigg in Phaedra Brittanica. One of the shows I saw was No Man's Land with Sir Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud. I've been trying to recall how I felt about it, as I'm thinking about catching this version. The memory I'm left with is not that the play was a riveting piece of theater, but that I was enraptured by watching these guys, who I knew even when I was 20, were acting geniuses, and only because of that, was I glad I went! Now, coming off seeing Pinter's Betrayal and feeling disappointed, I'm thinking that if I catch one of the two, it should be Godot...because I do really like the play, and enjoyed the last Roundabout version quite a bit. Guess I'm not the biggest Pinter fan either!
#31
Posted: 11/1/13 at 11:30am
April, If you only want to see one of these two plays I would strongly suggest making it Godot which felt like Noises Off compared to No Man's Land.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#32
Posted: 11/1/13 at 12:45pm
I hear you, and that's my current plan 
Along similar lines, I just caught Twelfth Night, figuring if I had to miss one, I'd rather it be Richard...and loved every minute of it.
Along similar lines, I just caught Twelfth Night, figuring if I had to miss one, I'd rather it be Richard...and loved every minute of it.
#33
Posted: 11/1/13 at 12:56pm
Both Richard III and Twelfth Night should be must sees this fall. I would make the effort to see both of those if you can!
What was Gielgud like live? Whenever I hear his name I start sing "Bobby and Jackie and Jack!"
What was Gielgud like live? Whenever I hear his name I start sing "Bobby and Jackie and Jack!"
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#35
Posted: 11/2/13 at 5:55pm
Saw "No Man's Land" matinee. Loved it and may consider seeing these 4 men in Godot. The door was quite a scene after the show.
#36
Posted: 11/2/13 at 6:47pm
Whizzer,
RE: John Gielgud. I saw him in The School for Scandal, Tiny Alice and Ages of Man. At the time, NOONE, included Gielgud, had the foggiest idea of what Tiny Alice was about (and I spoke with Gielgud after the show, and he sort of shrugged); Scandal was great, although Gielgud was way too old for the role of Joseph Surface by then, but still did a masterful job; and Ages was fine, for what it was. The quality of his voice was unlike any I've ever heard, including Olivier. My thoughts. Best. Ed.
RE: John Gielgud. I saw him in The School for Scandal, Tiny Alice and Ages of Man. At the time, NOONE, included Gielgud, had the foggiest idea of what Tiny Alice was about (and I spoke with Gielgud after the show, and he sort of shrugged); Scandal was great, although Gielgud was way too old for the role of Joseph Surface by then, but still did a masterful job; and Ages was fine, for what it was. The quality of his voice was unlike any I've ever heard, including Olivier. My thoughts. Best. Ed.
BroadwayEd
#38
Posted: 11/6/13 at 7:06pm
I saw GODOT this afternoon. To be fair, I strongly dislike the play. But I wasn't going to pass up the opportunity to see this cast live. And ultimately, I'm glad I saw it. It didn't change my mind about the show, but I'd venture to say this production is probably about as close as I'll come to liking the play. I'm pretty much entirely with Whizzer on this one.
The best moments are when only McKellen and Stewart are onstage together. Mainly because their chemistry is incredible, and they're both undeniably fantastic performers. Crudup and Hensley are both very talented as well, but I've never been of a fan of either of their roles, and their performances did nothing to change that. Not to say they're not good, because they are fine. Stewart and McKellen are just in another league entirely. I also liked the design elements; more than the Roundabout production (which I openly despised all around). The sepia-hued costumes are particularly noteworthy.
Like I said, I don't think I'll ever truly like the play, which is a problem in me judging this production, but I'm certainly glad I saw it for Stewart and McKellen. They both lived up to the hype and it's a true thrill to see them live onstage together. It got out at nearly exactly 4:30, by the way.
Not sure if I want to check out NO MAN'S LAND yet, as I'm not exactly a Pinter fan, but we shall see.
*SPOILER??* My favorite part of the entire show was the little soft-shoe number at the curtain call! Surprised no one's mentioned this. I could've watched McKellen and Stewart do that for 2.5 hours and would've been more than pleased!
The best moments are when only McKellen and Stewart are onstage together. Mainly because their chemistry is incredible, and they're both undeniably fantastic performers. Crudup and Hensley are both very talented as well, but I've never been of a fan of either of their roles, and their performances did nothing to change that. Not to say they're not good, because they are fine. Stewart and McKellen are just in another league entirely. I also liked the design elements; more than the Roundabout production (which I openly despised all around). The sepia-hued costumes are particularly noteworthy.
Like I said, I don't think I'll ever truly like the play, which is a problem in me judging this production, but I'm certainly glad I saw it for Stewart and McKellen. They both lived up to the hype and it's a true thrill to see them live onstage together. It got out at nearly exactly 4:30, by the way.
Not sure if I want to check out NO MAN'S LAND yet, as I'm not exactly a Pinter fan, but we shall see.
*SPOILER??* My favorite part of the entire show was the little soft-shoe number at the curtain call! Surprised no one's mentioned this. I could've watched McKellen and Stewart do that for 2.5 hours and would've been more than pleased!
Updated On: 11/6/13 at 07:06 PM
#39
Posted: 11/6/13 at 7:26pm
Can't decide if No Man's Land is worth going to. I've never seen a Pinter play so I can't decide if it's something I'd like. I'd rather see "Betrayal," but we all know that's not going to happen.
#40
Posted: 11/7/13 at 2:36pm
Rushed NO MAN'S LAND last night after a rapturous TWELFTH NIGHT matinee. Maybe not fair to compare apples to oranges, but I was underwhelmed by NO MAN'S LAND. For me it pretty much boiled down to enigma for enigma's sake. My attention drifted even though I was making a conscious effort to remain engaged. No fault of the performers, though. McKellen delivers some marvelous speeches felicitously, even if they don't really add up to much. Stewart has most of his better moments in Act II. Toward the end of Act I, however, I was impressed to see someone his age so ably perform some relatively demanding physical bits. Shuler Hensley and Billy Crudup have less to do but stand out in their own ways. Still, this is not a play I'd ever care to revisit.
Updated On: 11/7/13 at 02:36 PM
#43
Posted: 11/7/13 at 11:02pm
I'm not seeing these until January, but wondering if they are doing any signed stuff for BC/EFA now? As a fan of both actors, seems like that would be worth a swing by after some other show...
Now t/d/b/a haterobics on here.
#44
Posted: 11/7/13 at 11:21pm
WickedRocks, it is about 2:15 including intermission
No BC/EFA stuff as they haven't officially opened yet
No BC/EFA stuff as they haven't officially opened yet
Updated On: 11/7/13 at 11:21 PM
#45
Posted: 11/11/13 at 2:31pm
What was Gielgud like live? Whenever I hear his name I start sing "Bobby and Jackie and Jack!"
When I was 14, I saw Gielgud and Ralph Richardson together on Broadway in David Storey's Home. Gielgud really WAS, as Sondheim's lyric says, "real good."
I was taking acting classes at the Lee Strasberg Theater Institute on Saturday mornings, and I would go to a matinee after my classes ended. That was how I saw things like Company and Follies multiple times.
One day I decided to go see Sir John Gielgud and Sir Ralph Richardson in a four-character play by David Storey called Home, which took place in a sedate mental institution.
The other two characters were played by the equally good British actresses Mona Washbourne and Dandy Nichols.
They were both paragons of understatement, but in entirely different ways. Sir Ralph was clipped and frosty and almost impenetrable. His eyes might blaze, his shoulders mught stiffen, but he never betrayed anger or any extreme emotion. Yet you understood everything his character was thinking and feeling.
Sir John, on the other hand, was restrained but vulnerable, if you can imagine the two things coexisting. He was far from a Method actor, and his voices was honeyed and lyrical, in what might have been the nineteenth-century style, almost as if he were singing the dialogue. Yet he could break your heart.
I rarely waited at the stage door, and when I did, there were never more than a handful of people. That day, I decided to wait and have them sign my Playbill--and see if they would talk to me.
The only other autographs I had ever asked for were Ann Miller, after Mame, and Shelley Winters, after Minnie's Boys. (Instead of signing my program, Miss Winters kissed me--full, on the lips. But that's another story...)
I waited at the stage door and Sir Ralph came out first, bustling past me and the few others very abruptly. Then Sir John come out, stopped and spoke to a few people, and noticed I was waiting. He signed my Playbill and asked if I was interested in theater. I replied that I was, and that I was studying to be an actor. And then I said, very proudly, "At the Lee Strasberg Theater Institute!"
Sir John looked at me with what I realized later was pity and said, "Ah, yes. The Method. Well, I'm sure you will learn a great deal...from your Mr. Strasberg."
Years later, I realized that was probably the worst thing I could have said to him, but he was nothing if not gracious.
Here they are in a bit of No Man's Land.
http://youtu.be/_h20gPwTJq8
When I was 14, I saw Gielgud and Ralph Richardson together on Broadway in David Storey's Home. Gielgud really WAS, as Sondheim's lyric says, "real good."
I was taking acting classes at the Lee Strasberg Theater Institute on Saturday mornings, and I would go to a matinee after my classes ended. That was how I saw things like Company and Follies multiple times.
One day I decided to go see Sir John Gielgud and Sir Ralph Richardson in a four-character play by David Storey called Home, which took place in a sedate mental institution.
The other two characters were played by the equally good British actresses Mona Washbourne and Dandy Nichols.
They were both paragons of understatement, but in entirely different ways. Sir Ralph was clipped and frosty and almost impenetrable. His eyes might blaze, his shoulders mught stiffen, but he never betrayed anger or any extreme emotion. Yet you understood everything his character was thinking and feeling.
Sir John, on the other hand, was restrained but vulnerable, if you can imagine the two things coexisting. He was far from a Method actor, and his voices was honeyed and lyrical, in what might have been the nineteenth-century style, almost as if he were singing the dialogue. Yet he could break your heart.
I rarely waited at the stage door, and when I did, there were never more than a handful of people. That day, I decided to wait and have them sign my Playbill--and see if they would talk to me.
The only other autographs I had ever asked for were Ann Miller, after Mame, and Shelley Winters, after Minnie's Boys. (Instead of signing my program, Miss Winters kissed me--full, on the lips. But that's another story...)
I waited at the stage door and Sir Ralph came out first, bustling past me and the few others very abruptly. Then Sir John come out, stopped and spoke to a few people, and noticed I was waiting. He signed my Playbill and asked if I was interested in theater. I replied that I was, and that I was studying to be an actor. And then I said, very proudly, "At the Lee Strasberg Theater Institute!"
Sir John looked at me with what I realized later was pity and said, "Ah, yes. The Method. Well, I'm sure you will learn a great deal...from your Mr. Strasberg."
Years later, I realized that was probably the worst thing I could have said to him, but he was nothing if not gracious.
Here they are in a bit of No Man's Land.
http://youtu.be/_h20gPwTJq8
Updated On: 11/19/13 at 02:31 PM
#46
Posted: 11/11/13 at 2:37pm
Joey, thanks for answering that question of Whizzer's! I was 20 when I saw Gielgud and Richardson in No Man's Land, and remember being very impressed, though it would have been hard to remember exactly what it was that kept me in thrall...sadly, I knew nothing about stage-dooring that semester, because I could've gotten Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda's autographs as well. But reading your post, I was able to picture them as they were on that stage a bit better...
#47
Posted: 11/15/13 at 9:32pm
I've seen them both and really enjoyed Godot. No Man's Land on the other hand was unbearable to sit through. I wanted to leave during intermission but my companion disagreed. She later said it was the worst play she's ever seen.
A little swash, a bit of buckle - you'll love it more than bread.
#48
Posted: 11/16/13 at 1:05am
Over the years, I've watched the Gielgud-Richardson TV version of No Man's Land several times. (The entire thing is on YouTube right now.) So, I was really looking forward to seeing the show performed live this evening.
I find now that it's hard to comment in any detail without giving too much away. Most of the show was excellent, but there's a very long speech toward the end -- from McKellen -- that is not too interesting in itself and that needs to be directed and played incredibly well to work. However, tonight, McKellen engaged in way too much stage business for my taste -- he flicked a glass to make it ring, waved the glass ostentatiously, wiped his nose, genuflected, made a motion almost as if he was going to kiss someones's hand, thought better of it, etc. But he didn't -- in my view -- turn this inherently boring several minutes into something that at least has a desperate nervous energy, the way Gielgud managed to do.
Also, it seemed to me that Crudup, in Act I, overdid his character's manic nature. I found his relatively reserved approach in Act II more effective.
I'm definitely glad I saw No Man's Land, and I may even see it again. But at least tonight, I thought there was one pretty significant problem -- the show started to get a bit dull toward the end, just when it should become increasingly sad, creepy, and haunting.
And the audience reaction seemed mixed -- many people clearly loved the performance, but it didn't get anywhere near a full standing ovation.
I find now that it's hard to comment in any detail without giving too much away. Most of the show was excellent, but there's a very long speech toward the end -- from McKellen -- that is not too interesting in itself and that needs to be directed and played incredibly well to work. However, tonight, McKellen engaged in way too much stage business for my taste -- he flicked a glass to make it ring, waved the glass ostentatiously, wiped his nose, genuflected, made a motion almost as if he was going to kiss someones's hand, thought better of it, etc. But he didn't -- in my view -- turn this inherently boring several minutes into something that at least has a desperate nervous energy, the way Gielgud managed to do.
Also, it seemed to me that Crudup, in Act I, overdid his character's manic nature. I found his relatively reserved approach in Act II more effective.
I'm definitely glad I saw No Man's Land, and I may even see it again. But at least tonight, I thought there was one pretty significant problem -- the show started to get a bit dull toward the end, just when it should become increasingly sad, creepy, and haunting.
And the audience reaction seemed mixed -- many people clearly loved the performance, but it didn't get anywhere near a full standing ovation.
#49
Posted: 11/16/13 at 5:38am
PJ, Wow. I'm just catching up with this thread and love your story. Thank you, thank you, thank you for sharing!!
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#50
Posted: 11/19/13 at 10:33am
we did the double header this past Saturday. Rush was available for No Man's Land around 11:30 when we were picking up our tix for the two shows.
Really enjoyed No Man's Land more than I expected. The language and the repartee between the two leads was totally enjoyable.
All four actors came out and signed after the Matinee. All by Stewart posed for pictures for those who asked.
We had seen Godot with Lane and Irwin, et al, a few years ago, and were really looking forward to this version (it is a totally different set than NML, for the person who asked), but it just didn't work for me and I don't quite know why.
That show was SRO.
Really enjoyed No Man's Land more than I expected. The language and the repartee between the two leads was totally enjoyable.
All four actors came out and signed after the Matinee. All by Stewart posed for pictures for those who asked.
We had seen Godot with Lane and Irwin, et al, a few years ago, and were really looking forward to this version (it is a totally different set than NML, for the person who asked), but it just didn't work for me and I don't quite know why.
That show was SRO.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95