#51
Posted: 12/19/10 at 1:52am
I'm seeing it next Wednesday. Looking forward to it hearing so much positive postings! Sounds like its improved since Stratford.
The Importance of Being Earnest -- first preview — Page 3
#52
Posted: 12/19/10 at 2:01am
whyoh - the expansion on your comments make more of an impression than the simple dismissive original statement. Even if I don't agree with the reaction, at least I can put it in some context - and that was really all I was looking for.
And it wasn't necessarily that I thought you were using 'code', I just wasn't sure exactly what you were saying.
I'd be curious to read what you think of this particular incarnation, even if you've already stated you don't like the casting.
And it wasn't necessarily that I thought you were using 'code', I just wasn't sure exactly what you were saying.
I'd be curious to read what you think of this particular incarnation, even if you've already stated you don't like the casting.
#53
Posted: 12/19/10 at 10:22am
Thanks Q. I actually think this casting is exciting as I love Dana Ivey and Paxton Whitehead. I am also very taken with Charlotte Parry who along with Lynn Redgrave and Miriam Margoles shone in the Peter Hall Earnest. And hopefully Santino Fontana will break his string of bad luck (View from the Bridge, BBM) and have a real success- he's very good. I will definitely post after I've seen it.
#54
Posted: 12/19/10 at 10:28am
I'll be seeing it today with my ACCESS10 tickets. VERY excited!
Formerly SirNotAppearing - Joined 3/08
#55
Posted: 12/19/10 at 2:54pm
Saw yesterday's matinee and was generally pleased with the whole thing. It looks just right, IMO, and the acting was never less than adequate and in some instances, much more. I'd forgotten what a brilliant play this really is -- so much wit and wisdom. It flew by and I was hoping for more. Wilde actually wrote the play in four acts but that act was deleted -- wonder if any brave director would like to take a shot at doing the whole thing?
On another note, I first saw Brian Bedford in Cymbeline at Stratford-on-Avon in 1957 -- he played one of the sons in a cast that included Peggy Ashcroft as Imogen.
On another note, I first saw Brian Bedford in Cymbeline at Stratford-on-Avon in 1957 -- he played one of the sons in a cast that included Peggy Ashcroft as Imogen.
BroadwayEd
#56
Posted: 12/19/10 at 3:46pm
How exciting that you saw Bedford so early on in his career! I saw him in Five Finger Exercise on Broadway about 50 years ago! No doubt, a great talent! He had wonderful mentors like Gielgud and Coward. I wonder if he'll write a bio- would love to hear all his stories!
#57
Posted: 12/19/10 at 5:45pm
I would like to see a production of "Ernest in Love"---the musical version of this play.
#58
Posted: 12/19/10 at 6:07pm
Irish Rep did a nice production of "Ernest in Love" earlier this year. I thought it was great fun. It whetted my appetite to see the original, so I'm looking forward to the Roundabout production.
#59
Mike Shara does not have a speech impediment. Just to clarify that.
Posted: 12/19/10 at 6:42pm
Mike Shara does not have a speech impediment. Just to clarify that.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#60
Posted: 12/19/10 at 6:45pm
The audience response to the show has been very positive.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#61
Yay! I was hoping they'd have a really smooth transition, and it sounds like they've hit the ground running!
Posted: 12/19/10 at 6:47pm
Yay! I was hoping they'd have a really smooth transition, and it sounds like they've hit the ground running!
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#62
Posted: 12/19/10 at 6:56pm
>> Wilde actually wrote the play in four acts but that act was deleted -- wonder if any brave director would like to take a shot at doing the whole thing?
No point, actually. The four-act version is obviously a first draft: not as witty or well-written. It was performed on BBC Radio, and parts of it were used in the recent film version -- most of the act has to do with Chausable romance, as I remember.
No point, actually. The four-act version is obviously a first draft: not as witty or well-written. It was performed on BBC Radio, and parts of it were used in the recent film version -- most of the act has to do with Chausable romance, as I remember.
http://docandraider.com
#63
It does. A company in Pittsburgh staged it a few years ago, really for no other reason than to do it. There's no justification in the text for it to ever be done, really. The result feels flabby and less streamlined.
Posted: 12/19/10 at 7:02pm
It does. A company in Pittsburgh staged it a few years ago, really for no other reason than to do it. There's no justification in the text for it to ever be done, really. The result feels flabby and less streamlined.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#64
Posted: 12/19/10 at 8:08pm
I agree with you. I saw the 4 act version at the Stratford Festival probably 10 or 11 years ago. It had a couple of extra characters- one a bailiff and it really added not a lot to the perfect play. It was still a very funny production but I much prefer the three act version.
#65
Posted: 12/20/10 at 12:00pm
Speaking of the Stratford Festival, I saw this show some thirty years ago with one of Canada's finest actors, the late William Hutt in the Lady Bracknell role. A young actor played Algernon, his name was Brian Bedford.
I post this thread with fond rememberance of Nicholas Pennell also among that great cast.
I post this thread with fond rememberance of Nicholas Pennell also among that great cast.
#66
Posted: 12/20/10 at 7:43pm
I think you may be misremembering this. I also saw that production with the great William Hutt. It was the late Richard Monette playing Algernon and indeed the late great Nicholas Pennell as John Worthing. It was a wonderfully subtle production with terrific performances from (and I had to look this up as I simply could not remember) Pat Galloway and Marti Maraden. It was a magic night in the theatre. What has happened to the great director of this production, Robin Phillips?
#67
Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:03pm
Just in from the show tonight. A very solid production with a strong cast. I don't get the fuss about the set. I thought it rather bland to be perfectly honest. The costumes were gorgeous, and the lighting was standard. Santino was the standout, and I loved Dana Ivey as Miss Prism and Charlotte Parry as Cecily. The only person I wasn't in love with was Sara Topham as Gwendolen. I thought she was more caricature than character.
So Brian Bedford... I thought his performance was good. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it. BUT, I didn't feel like the choice to have the character played by a man ADDED anything. He didn't play the role as a gimmick, which I appreciated. But, at the same time, I was constantly wondering what was so special about the performance. He played Bracknell the way she is written on paper. So for me, I just didn't quite understand the decision. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure that someone at the back of the mezz would know he was a man if they didn't come in already knowing that he was playing the part. In the costumes, he easily passes as an elderly woman. One thing slightly bothered me... his decision to give himself the final bow at the end seemed a tad self-indulgent considering he isn't on stage for more than 1/3 of the show. In any case, his performance was good, but I didn't find it exceptional. I couldn't help but wonder what Angela Lansbury would have done with the role.
So Brian Bedford... I thought his performance was good. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it. BUT, I didn't feel like the choice to have the character played by a man ADDED anything. He didn't play the role as a gimmick, which I appreciated. But, at the same time, I was constantly wondering what was so special about the performance. He played Bracknell the way she is written on paper. So for me, I just didn't quite understand the decision. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure that someone at the back of the mezz would know he was a man if they didn't come in already knowing that he was playing the part. In the costumes, he easily passes as an elderly woman. One thing slightly bothered me... his decision to give himself the final bow at the end seemed a tad self-indulgent considering he isn't on stage for more than 1/3 of the show. In any case, his performance was good, but I didn't find it exceptional. I couldn't help but wonder what Angela Lansbury would have done with the role.
#68
Posted: 12/21/10 at 5:59am
Didn't Christine Baranski have the final bow in Boeing, Boeing a few seasons ago? If it was the final bow it certainly was "out of order".
Still SO looking forward to this on Sunday.
Still SO looking forward to this on Sunday.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#69
Posted: 12/21/10 at 7:31am
>>> He played Bracknell the way she is written on paper. So for me, I just didn't quite understand the decision. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure that someone at the back of the mezz would know he was a man if they didn't come in already knowing that he was playing the part. In the costumes, he easily passes as an elderly woman.
But isn't that the point? NOT that we're supposed to think that it's a man in drag (tee-hee), but that it's an actor playing a role. Thus we should see Lady Bracknell as Lady Bracknell--not Albin impersonating Mother.
But isn't that the point? NOT that we're supposed to think that it's a man in drag (tee-hee), but that it's an actor playing a role. Thus we should see Lady Bracknell as Lady Bracknell--not Albin impersonating Mother.
Coach Bob knew it all along: you've got to get obsessed and stay obsessed. You have to keep passing the open windows. (John Irving, The Hotel New Hampshire)
#70
Posted: 12/21/10 at 7:57am
But isn't that the point? NOT that we're supposed to think that it's a man in drag (tee-hee), but that it's an actor playing a role. Thus we should see Lady Bracknell as Lady Bracknell--not Albin impersonating Mother.
The way I see it, it can go two ways:
Either you can play the role as a man in drag and really ham up the performance, or you can play it as an actor playing the role. BUT, if you're going to do the latter, it should feel as though the performance is extraordinary. I didn't think that him being a man added anything. Many women would have done just as well. So I guess my issue was that I found myself constantly asking "what's the point?".
The way I see it, it can go two ways:
Either you can play the role as a man in drag and really ham up the performance, or you can play it as an actor playing the role. BUT, if you're going to do the latter, it should feel as though the performance is extraordinary. I didn't think that him being a man added anything. Many women would have done just as well. So I guess my issue was that I found myself constantly asking "what's the point?".
#71
Posted: 12/21/10 at 8:18am
I imagine the final bow has something to do with the fact that he also directed it.
I also find it a bit amusing that someone can unequivocally state that an actor completely inhabited a role, and then ask what the point is. I assume the point was to present the piece. To do that effectively while surmounting the acting challenge is quite something - to pull off AND behold.
I also find it a bit amusing that someone can unequivocally state that an actor completely inhabited a role, and then ask what the point is. I assume the point was to present the piece. To do that effectively while surmounting the acting challenge is quite something - to pull off AND behold.
#72
Posted: 12/22/10 at 8:02pm
Does anyone have a picture of the Show Curtain??
#73
Posted: 12/23/10 at 5:34am
Can anyone tell me the name of the tune that the two men whistle throughout the show? All I've been able to learn is that it is from a British opera - and it was also used years ago as a TV theme, but I can't recall to what program. Thanks!
#74
Posted: 12/23/10 at 9:54am
I also find it a bit amusing that someone can unequivocally state that an actor completely inhabited a role, and then ask what the point is.
Well, I guess my issue is that the role was written for a woman. It's been played by countless women (and obviously some men along the way too). Because the role is written for a woman and not FOR a man in drag, the choice to cast a man in drag should add some kind of layer to the character. It doesn't have to be a gimmick, but the actor playing the part should be able to bring something extra to the role that a woman could not. So when I say his performance was adequate, I mean just that. It was adequate. Not extraordinary, which it SHOULD have been.
Well, I guess my issue is that the role was written for a woman. It's been played by countless women (and obviously some men along the way too). Because the role is written for a woman and not FOR a man in drag, the choice to cast a man in drag should add some kind of layer to the character. It doesn't have to be a gimmick, but the actor playing the part should be able to bring something extra to the role that a woman could not. So when I say his performance was adequate, I mean just that. It was adequate. Not extraordinary, which it SHOULD have been.
#75
Also, there's something to be said for tradition here. Productions of Shakespeare today often use all-male casts, the decision for which may have nothing whatsoever to do with, say, a concept related to sexual politics or gender identity, but out of interest for performing the play in a manner that adheres to what, for many years, was the tradition of its performance history.
And if you don't care for that idea, let's also not forget that sexuality and gender are intrinsic components of Wilde's text -- particularly in TIoBE -- and that a director could easily construct a justification out of that.
Posted: 12/23/10 at 10:24am
Also, there's something to be said for tradition here. Productions of Shakespeare today often use all-male casts, the decision for which may have nothing whatsoever to do with, say, a concept related to sexual politics or gender identity, but out of interest for performing the play in a manner that adheres to what, for many years, was the tradition of its performance history.
And if you don't care for that idea, let's also not forget that sexuality and gender are intrinsic components of Wilde's text -- particularly in TIoBE -- and that a director could easily construct a justification out of that.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
Tickets From $73
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $65