Sam Mendes & Jack Thorne's THE MOTIVE & THE CUE (about the Gielgud/Burton Hamlet) moving to West End- Page 2

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 6/22/24 at 11:45pm

two ladies tickets said: "They want The Music Box, they're waiting for Suffs to close."

If one believes in theatre ghosts, they might find luck at the Jacobs, where Gielgud and Burton each worked a number of times. (The Lunt, where Burton's Hamlet actually played, is obviously out of the question for a play without major stars + is not a Shubert house.)

As always, it doesn't really matter what they want . . . if it can play the Music Box, it can just as easily play the Jacobs, Schoenfeld, Barrymore, Lyceum, Jones, etc. It always just comes down to timing and Shubert avail.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 6/23/24 at 6:00am

Do Americans know or care enough about the Burton-Gielgud production to go see this? As a Shakespeare person I’m in the target demographic, but am not sure how interested I would be… 

[inception]

Posted: 6/23/24 at 10:34am

Who exactly is this for? The generation who cared about Taylor/Burton are all in rest homes. 

I used to have a clipping if a great photo of Taylor screaming at a camera, stuck in a crowd outside the theatre during the run, but I can't find it online.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 6/23/24 at 5:58pm

I assume stateside it will be sold more on Burton & Taylor. Plus, of course, the good reviews out of London, as with some other British transfers. On paper this has more commercial potential than PATRIOTS or HILLS OF CALIFORNIA.

I doubt most Americans care about John Gielgud even if his name is familiar...ARTHUR hasn't exactly had a legacy like THE GODFATHER.

[theaterdarling]

Posted: 6/23/24 at 6:20pm

inception said: "Who exactly is this for? The generation who cared about Taylor/Burton are all in rest homes.

I used to have a clipping if a great photo of Taylor screaming at a camera, stuck in a crowd outside the theatre during the run, but I can't find it online."

Wow. Perhaps, I missed this in this thread, but have you even seen "Motive"? Doesn't sound like you have. To infer the play is only for people who would care about/know about Taylor/Burton and, therefore, for no one, because those people are only in nursing homes, is, respectfully, completely absurd and, to be kind, sophomoric.

For context, I'm 65 and not in a nursing home. I caught this through NT Live and was in a movie theater in Brookline, MA with a lot of other people also not in a nursing homes.

Does any play about a real person(s) only appeal to an audience that remembers that person/those people? That eliminates a whole lot of theater that proves the contrary.

"Motive" is, at its heart, a love letter to the theater which I surmised well before I heard Sam Mendes describe it as same. He has succeeded wildly with his missive. Jack Thorne's play is smart and brilliant. So are the performances, direction, production, staging, everything - many scene transitions are a clever, visual delight. Motive works on so many levels and yet so accessible. It is very funny, sometimes very sad and incredibly moving. I was left stunned and shocked this was the play to stun me.

What is going on between Taylor and Burton is a distant second to what is going on between Burton and Gielgud. The T/B scenes are bubbly sideshows providing some relief to the denser themes. If anything, "Motive" is actually also a love (and hate) letter between Burton and John Gielgud.

Since Motive is not "about" Taylor and Burton and the wild tabloid swirl surrounding their first marriage, please instead know that in addition to it being about Burton being directed in Hamlet by Gielgud on Broadway in '64, it IS also about: theater, the essence of Hamlet, how to play Hamlet, who is Hamlet, Shakespeare, art, actors, the art of acting, the art of directing, the art of creating art, fathers/sons, youth vs. age, classicism vs modernism, artistic community, how dysfunction impacts art, artists declining vs. artists ascending, and about a dozen other things I haven't unpacked yet or have forgotten because there was so much. Something for everyone. But, okay, even without seeing "Motive" you are free to reduce it to being a play about a celebrity couple you THINK nobody remembers and hence of limited commercial appeal.

Also, despite this play not really being about T & B, the inference that they are a dead and obsolete celebrity couple no one really cares insults their considerable talent -- admittedly sometimes eclipsed by them being the "Bennifer" of their day. However, their acting achievements are forever etched in some incredible classic films. Kill two birds with one stone: "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf." Both of them brilliant.

Gatiss alone could be reason any serious theater goer OF ANY AGE would want to see this. Perfect performance. Not only do you not necessarily have to know who Taylor and Burton are to enjoy this play, it is questionable whether you need to know who Gielgud is, but of course it enhances the enjoyment exponentially. He could be any aging artist who thinks he is becoming obsolete absent a career reversal. The play lets you know all you need to know about all three. Johnny Flynn has a much more very difficult job and mostly succeeds.

The fly on the wall conceit here (backstage at rehearsals) puts to total shame anything the "Stereophonic" drivel hoped to accomplish with that same structural device. I've was very disappointed in not only "Sterophonic", but also "Dear England", "Appropriate", "Prayer For The French Republic" - going back to last year "Leopoldstadt" - all critical darlings. Recently, except for "Motive" only "Patriots" has had an impact on me, but even "Patriots" did not strike my heart as "Motive" did. "Motive" is the real thing. I admit I am giddy, precisely because I found all the aforesaid plays so grossly overhyped and lacking, and "Motive," wonderfully, caught me by surprise. I have not witnessed a more perfect dramatic production in a long time--and this was just the capture.

So, hope I have provided another perspective on what this play is about and who it might be for. Okay if not for you, but it is surely for a lot of other people who are not in nursing homes. If you are on these boards, and are, assumedly, a theater lover, I urge you to rethink this reductive assessment and instead look forward to and cheer its arrival on Broadway.

[MysteriousLady]

Posted: 6/23/24 at 6:34pm

inception said: "Who exactly is this for? The generation who cared about Taylor/Burton are all in rest homes.

I used to have a clipping if a great photo of Taylor screaming at a camera, stuck in a crowd outside the theatre during the run, but I can't find it online."

I'm pretty sure it's for people who like good plays. I'm sure many people who are attending Stereophonic aren't fans of/don't know Fleetwood Mac. Gypsy isn't being aimed at people who remember Gypsy Rose Lee. 

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 6/24/24 at 1:28pm

It sounds like leading actor in a play is just as stacked as leading actress in a musical

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/24/24 at 2:02pm

I think that the performances of Johnny Flynn and (especially) Mark Gatiss are essential to this play. Middleton made far less of an impression (on me) and I think this was an opportunity to cast an American name. Maybe's it's cause her wigs looked like they were made of petroleum products. I couldn't get over how bad her wigs were. Which...is not what one should be taking away from the role of Elizabeth Taylor. 

Although I enjoyed the play very much, I did have some dramaturgical issues with it. I (somewhat) agree with the commenter who noted the low stakes. After sitting through the show, all I could think was, 'This is a play about a man whose career was ruined by homophobia and this is his chance to do anything to save his reputation.' The story of John Gielgud is really inspiring and this plays touches on it delicately rather than make it the focus. Especially when queer icon and ally Elizabeth Taylor is one of your main characters. There wasn't enough in the 'let's put on a show' plot to make it crackle. But every time the show delved into the Gielgud's predicament, it came alive and became very moving. Sort of in the way the film The Queen used the real life events to explore the tension between tradition and modernity and stiff-upper-lip vs. emotional freedom, this show really should be about the crushing madness of the closet and a rumination on what was lost because of it and what was gained when queer liberation began. 

 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 6/24/24 at 2:21pm

SonofRobbieJ said: "I think that the performances of Johnny Flynn and (especially) Mark Gatiss are essential to this play. Middleton made far less of an impression (on me) and I think this was an opportunity to cast an American name."

If we are to believe Baz's Deadline piece that broke this news, Mark Gatis, Johnny Flynn and Tuppence Middleton will all transfer to Broadway with it.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/24/24 at 2:36pm

Right! I just think she's expendable. :) 

In a blue sky world, an Anne Hathaway or Emily Blunt would work and move some tix. They're a decade too old but 1964 32 is close to 2024 42, if you know what I mean. 

[Owen22]

Posted: 6/24/24 at 3:30pm

I was disappointed to see Middleton's name still attached. Where Flynn and Gatniss are doing marvelous impressions of their real life characters (and acting their boots off while doing so) she goes for generic 50's movie star accent, where Taylor had a speaking voice as distinctive as the men in the play.

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 6/24/24 at 4:51pm

Who exactly is this for?

I'd say it would be easy to market it to the sort of theater folk who enjoyed the show Slings and Arrows. I'm guessing there's too much inside baseball to appeal to a broad commercial audience for long. Johnny Flynn may be a snack but he's not a marquee star in the states.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/24/24 at 5:09pm

Owen22 said: "Ishe goes for generic 50's movie star accent, where Taylor had a speaking voice as distinctive as the men in the play."

I strongly agree with you. She's not enough of a name nor was it such an essential performance to justify her coming over with the show. If you're not going to get someone who can do a vocal impression, then get a real star with star wattage to help sell the Elizabeth Taylor of it all.

I don't know how she would be on stage, but Alexandra Daddario has the beauty, the eyes and the age to pull it off. 

[yyys]

Posted: 6/24/24 at 5:30pm

Johnny Flynn was robbed of an Olivier nomination.

 

[Dan6]

Posted: 10/7/24 at 5:19pm

I caught an encore NT Live screening of this yesterday, and wow.  Gatiss and Flynn do breathtaking work that goes far beyond impersonation (as spot-on as those impersonations are), and I have to think Gatiss is a lock for this year's Best Actor in a Play Tony if it transfers as expected.  Like others, I was less impressed with Middleton, and thought the entire Taylor character could probably have been cut without hurting the play.  But the scenes with Gatiss and Flynn together were just magnificent.  Kudos to them, as well as Sam Mendes and Jack Thorne, for creating a true love letter to theater (really to making any kind of art). NT Live does such a good job with its captures that often I don't feel the need to see the play if it later transfers, but this is one I would definitely pay a premium for to see again live.  

Updated On: 10/7/24 at 05:19 PM

[ChairinMain]

Posted: 10/7/24 at 5:57pm

Gattis and Flynn were mesmerizing in this. I agree that the smart move would to be to get a name in for Liz Taylor (my unrealistic dream casting would be Scarlet Johansson, but someone of, shall we say Emma D'Arcy's stature might be more doable.) Middleton did very well, but didn't have the presence. But the show was terrific and I'd love to see it onstage in the spring. Haven't heard any transfer discussion in a while, though, so maybe that's died off.

 

[DramaTeach]

Posted: 10/7/24 at 6:31pm

ChairinMain said: "Gattis and Flynn were mesmerizing in this. I agree that the smart move would to be to get a name in for Liz Taylor(my unrealistic dream casting would be Scarlet Johansson, but someone of, shall we say Emma D'Arcy's stature might be more doable.) Middleton did very well, but didn't have the presence. But the show was terrific and I'd love to see it onstage in the spring. Haven't heard any transfer discussion in a while, though, so maybe that's died off.

"

I agree with everything the above poster said. I’d love to see a name as Taylor to get butts in seats and then the great performances by the gentlemen. Also haven’t heard any transfer talk in a while and this did feel very British in that the British value proper theater more than Americans do. Don’t know that Americans would “get it.”

[yyys]

Posted: 10/7/24 at 6:51pm

I was surprised that Johnny Flynn didn't get an Olivier nomination for this. I hope this really goes to Broadway!

[Jarethan]

Posted: 10/8/24 at 12:24pm

DramaTeach said: "ChairinMain said: "Gattis and Flynn were mesmerizing in this. I agree that the smart move would to be to get a name in for Liz Taylor(my unrealistic dream casting would be Scarlet Johansson, but someone of, shall we say Emma D'Arcy's stature might be more doable.) Middleton did very well, but didn't have the presence. But the show was terrific and I'd love to see it onstage in the spring. Haven't heard any transfer discussion in a while, though, so maybe that's died off.

I agree with everything the above poster said. I’d love to see a name as Taylor to get butts in seats and then the great performances by the gentlemen. Also haven’t heard any transfer talk in a while and this did feel very British in that the British value proper theater more than Americans do. Don’t know that Americans would “get it.”"

I thoroughly enjoyed this play,but can't see why a female (ticket selling) star would want to take on the role of ET.  The meaty roles are Gielgud and Burton, not Taylor.  She runs risk of being compared unfavorably to Taylor, e.g., not as attractive, doesn't have the girlish voice right, etc.  The relationship is not explored enough in the play...her big moment is telling Gielgud why Burton is not playing Hamlet correctly.  

I have always liked Tuppense Middleton, who is clearly not a star.  As I watched the performance, I wondered why she signed on for the (IMO) thankless role.

[ggersten]

Posted: 10/8/24 at 3:36pm

I think the Taylor character is an essential piece of the play. She is the quiet sounding board for Burton and Gielgud. She informs them and the audience. And she is key to getting Gielgud a way to relate to Burton.

It also seemed a fun role for an actor. Why not do it for a few months? Especially if you are an actor with children and don't want to be away for months on a film set from dawn to midnight.  For example, Anne Hathaway could be a terrific Taylor (if she weren't doing Princess Diaries 3)  

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 10/8/24 at 4:13pm

Paging Lindsay Lohan.

[theatergoer3]

Posted: 12/1/24 at 12:01pm

According to TheaterBoard, Mark Gatiss was on Sunday Brunch and reiterated the plans to transfer to Broadway.
 

It was also implied on the board that it may be a delayed transfer due to the shows already coming in this Spring. 

Updated On: 12/1/24 at 12:01 PM

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 12/1/24 at 12:26pm

To be fair, they could easily sneak into the Longacre for the spring. 

[two ladies tickets]

Posted: 12/1/24 at 12:30pm

The poor ticket sales of Hills of California, even though it has a different set of producers, but is also a Mendes show, combined with the already discussed fact that Motive has no bankable Broadway stars, and they weren't able to get the theatre they wanted will probably put this transfer off until next spring if it ever happens at all. 
 

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 12/1/24 at 1:48pm

This will probably end up at Belasco or Longacre.  Glengarry is most likely taking the Belasco, so Longacre?

Updated On: 12/1/24 at 01:48 PM