|
Post by Mattsby on Jun 28, 2018 15:44:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 28, 2018 16:10:07 GMT
Well, this is a big deal and Scott Rudin is continuing his Hollywoodization of Broadway - I hope he kind of gets that he is screwing Denzel Washington of a Lear Broadway (already discussed) run for maybe the next 4-5 years but whatever - he'll just be more age appropriate but .........maybe his great roles things has taken a new direction with something in between. A couple points : Knowing what we know about the NYC theater community they may just give her the Tony now - actually seeing the shows always complicates things for them  . I would not be surprised if Billie Piper in Yerma who beat Jackson (in Lear) for the Olivier also comes to Broadway later this year - for now it's off-Broadway but ........we'll see. It is going to be a historic run when she does it, I mean even more than why Rylance plays females (lol).......and the Lear's just keep on coming and will continue too............and that's a good thing. I think Kevin Kline who did a very young Lear would like to take another run at it too.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 28, 2018 16:52:08 GMT
Well, this is a big deal and Scott Rudin is continuing his Hollywoodization of Broadway - I hope he kind of gets that he is screwing Denzel Washington of a Lear Broadway (already discussed) run for maybe the next 4-5 years but whatever - he'll just be more age appropriate but .........maybe his great roles things has taken a new direction with something in between. I don't think he'll be necessarily "screwing Denzel over." I think with most of the big Hollywood names that do Broadway reaching their winter years, you're just going to be seeing this particular role more frequently. And Washington's only in his sixties; he's got a while yet if he wants to play Lear. Even if he wanted to play it next year, I don't think having a dueling production featuring a British actress is going to hurt their business; if anything, it might galvanize more people to see both. It'd be kind of genius in a way.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 28, 2018 17:11:21 GMT
Maybe, I'm just thinking in general you have had historically had some kind of a gap - some plays get done to death though (Glengarry) - some plays have to rest usually the bigger the piece to be done on Broadway - Iceman and Angels took 20+ years, Lear has been done a lot in every medium but on the stage in NYC especially and I don't know how much interest there is to see anyone do it now after Jackson vs. a few years down the road where Washington would be more historically ideal for his age vs. the part....... Antony Sher did it this year too at BAM, etc.
It's a tricky thing because at 63 which I think Washington is now you'd initially say "too young" but not the way some of these guys (like Kline) have been doing it - late 40s! - personally I'd like to see him try something in between - I already discussed that only playing the great roles only thing in another thread........so who knows maybe he's still interested but also just interested in something else for the time being.
More interesting to me is Piper who could be screwing herself out of a Tony by taking on Jackson actually......
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 28, 2018 17:47:40 GMT
Maybe, I'm just thinking in general you have had historically had some kind of a gap - some plays get done to death though (Glengarry) - some plays have to rest usually the bigger the piece to be done on Broadway - Iceman and Angels took 20+ years, Lear has been done a lot in every medium but on the stage in NYC especially and I don't know how much interest there is to see anyone do it now after Jackson vs. a few years down the road where Washington would be more historically ideal for his age vs. the part....... Antony Sher did it this year too at BAM, etc. It's a tricky thing because at 63 which I think Washington is now you'd initially say "too young" but not the way some of these guys (like Kline) have been doing it - late 40s! - personally I'd like to see him try something in between - I already discussed that only playing the great roles only thing in another thread........so who knows maybe he's still interested but also just interested in something else for the time being. More interesting to me is Piper who could be screwing herself out of a Tony by taking on Jackson actually...... Let's be real, though: Tonys are rarely locked-in just because someone's signed on for a role. Many a poster here has made that mistake before. (Insert discussion on awards politics, etc.) Glenda Jackson just won, in the category she would be competing in again next year. Only six people have ever won consecutive acting Tonys (the most recent being Laurie Metcalf), and only one in the same category back-to-back (Judith Light). Jackson's beloved in the industry and a gender-flipped Lear would be exactly what they'd go for . . . but she just won, and there may be a sense of "we rewarded her for her comeback" in the voters' minds that might steer them to an alternative like Piper.
|
|
DanQuixote
Badass

Posts: 1,881
Likes: 989
Member is Online
|
Post by DanQuixote on Jul 9, 2018 18:57:58 GMT
Maybe, I'm just thinking in general you have had historically had some kind of a gap - some plays get done to death though (Glengarry) - some plays have to rest usually the bigger the piece to be done on Broadway - Iceman and Angels took 20+ years, Lear has been done a lot in every medium but on the stage in NYC especially and I don't know how much interest there is to see anyone do it now after Jackson vs. a few years down the road where Washington would be more historically ideal for his age vs. the part....... Antony Sher did it this year too at BAM, etc. It's a tricky thing because at 63 which I think Washington is now you'd initially say "too young" but not the way some of these guys (like Kline) have been doing it - late 40s! - personally I'd like to see him try something in between - I already discussed that only playing the great roles only thing in another thread........so who knows maybe he's still interested but also just interested in something else for the time being. More interesting to me is Piper who could be screwing herself out of a Tony by taking on Jackson actually...... Let's be real, though: Tonys are rarely locked-in just because someone's signed on for a role. Many a poster here has made that mistake before. (Insert discussion on awards politics, etc.) Glenda Jackson just won, in the category she would be competing in again next year. Only six people have ever won consecutive acting Tonys (the most recent being Laurie Metcalf), and only one in the same category back-to-back (Judith Light). Jackson's beloved in the industry and a gender-flipped Lear would be exactly what they'd go for . . . but she just won, and there may be a sense of "we rewarded her for her comeback" in the voters' minds that might steer them to an alternative like Piper. I saw Billie Piper doing Yerma and it's truly one of the finest performances I've ever seen. If it does end up on Broadway, Jackson has some unbelievably tough competition.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Jul 11, 2018 8:48:29 GMT
Oh honey, but she doesn't have a pipi...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2018 15:41:26 GMT
Oh honey, but she doesn't have a pipi... Why should the men have all the fun? Didn't Eleanor of Aquitaine ride into battle pregnant and bare-breasted?
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Jul 12, 2018 17:15:44 GMT
Oh honey, but she doesn't have a pipi... Why should the men have all the fun? Didn't Eleanor of Aquitaine ride into battle pregnant and bare-breasted?
Oh honey, Eleanor was so exhibitionistic and more than a bit of a tramp... She had eight kids! How hard is it to say 'Non' in French?
Why should the men have all the fun?
Well if they've paid for it, it's only fair they should get their monies worth... or some of it... but extras are extra!
|
|
atn
Full Member
Posts: 677
Likes: 351
|
Post by atn on Jul 15, 2018 7:04:21 GMT
king lear is a guy iirc
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 16, 2018 5:38:38 GMT
Living legend
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Sept 12, 2018 17:12:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 12, 2018 17:50:18 GMT
Got super-excited for a second when I saw Aisling O'Sullivan's name because I thought it was Aisling Bea, one of my favorite comedians who also happens to actually be named Aisling O'Sullivan but changed her name because there already was an existing actress with that name (this one, natch). Oh well. Still a solid cast. And Philip Glass!
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Feb 23, 2019 19:41:11 GMT
Got my ticket, a little after Opening - very excited!! Really bummed I missed her in the Albee last year.
Previews start next week!
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 10, 2019 15:24:30 GMT
Less than a month from its official opening and this so far is getting some surprising amounts of hate - some is the fact that this isn't a direct staging transfer of Jackson's UK triumph - same actress but different cast and staging and concept. We'll see how much they tweak before it opens.
You've now had 7 - 7! - big time recent stagings - 1 Australian, Geoffrey Rush in 2015, 5 UK: Russell Beale, 2 (!) by Jackson, Hopkins of the BBC and McKellen who's worked through many stagings himself (I saw him 10 years ago) - a word of advice to the Americans who more likely are envisioning the 1 US one - Langella from 5 years back - Pacino, Washington and other like-minded risk takers........it doesn't matter how good you are, you had better have the supporting cast, director and conception totally worked out or it fails (or only intermittently works).
Lear is a bear of a role but he (or she) disappears for much of this play in between dominating it.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Apr 20, 2019 20:20:01 GMT
Saw this last night! I haven’t seen many other Lear productions, so I don't have a base to compare it to, nevertheless I found this more often than not an engaging 3-1/2 hours, well acted from almost all, and surprisingly humorous. I’ve read the play a few times and never picked up on the potential humor. Are there other productions that push this? For example, these two line readings (you wouldn't laugh reading them) got huge laughs from the audience - Oswald, after “catching" Goneril and Edmund together, with Albany arriving, says “Madam here comes my lord” - the way they stagger that line got a laugh. And the other, Lear’s scene with the blinded Gloucester, Lear complete with the famous flower crown is madly raving when the Gentleman says, with great sarcasm as if talking someone off the ledge, “You are a royal one.... and we obey you.” That got a laugh and some applause too. Glenda Jackson is very very good; it’s an ironic and precise performance, her line readings are hefted and at times drawn out with rolling r’s, but her frail diminutive frame challenges, or else countermands, the fear and force of her stricken demeanor. Without a broader, outsized presence, her rage feels more isolated, thus sadder. Her best scene is the one mentioned with Gloucester - “A man may see how this word goes with no eyes” - where she’s flawlessly balancing hilarious bittersweet wit and despaired raggedy madness. Ruth Wilson another highlight - as The Fool she’s like a Dickensian urchin, rude and wry, and always seemed to be doing something interesting and comical even on the outskirts of scenes. Pedro Pascal (Edmund), Elizabeth Marvel (Goneril), Tony winner Jayne Houdyshell (Gloucester) - all solid. Special mention to the deaf Russell Harvard (older HW from TWBB) which was an admirable casting decision. Weakest of the lot was whoever played Edgar - really felt like a student performance, a tumid, overdone display. The blocking was good, I liked how a lot of the cast would sit on the sides during or between scenes creating a sort of enclosure of personnel. The gold-rimmed set, purple rug, props, costumes, interesting, and the practical fx were really effective. Some unique touches - Gloucester reading “These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us” as if reading headlines from a newspaper. The modern-y context is a little muddied though, the gunplay and army wear felt off. And well, some of the cast, in regards to impact in the total construct, come off as slight - too little Edmund, quite in the lineage of Richard III and Iago but without their dynamism, his winking scheming is forgotten when he isn’t on stage. Goneril and Regan are divested of focus, often scuttling inside “montage” esque scenes with Philip Glass’ music overlay - I loved his music about half of the time. Ummm… too much Edgar! Not just the performance, that too, but the character sort of rings-around and intrudes a lot, should be strange and heroic, instead feels excessive and tiresome. Kent here, arguably, feels totally extraneous. Although - Sam Gold’s direction is anything but banal, paced almost breathlessly, boldly foregrounds the humor, while also issuing startling violence, sexuality, etc... progressive casting a major point too… AUDIENCE — They seemed to love it, much laughing, extended standing ovation. Older guy next to me I overheard say “Very stripped down production.” In the audience there was a service dog that had its own seat lol, one Jared Harris, and also - pacinoyes cough cough - I spotted in the third row orchestra just some musician, no big deal…… Elvis Costello  …. (took some pics of curtain call below)  
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 20, 2019 21:27:35 GMT
Awesome review Matts - they let that scoundrel Costello in - wtf, I thought he was just King of America  I'm hoping to see this in a couple weeks - my friends saw it and the biggest complaints seem to be about where it isn't cut and how it's staged - nowadays a darker Lear seems out of fashion so I'm not really sure I understand some of the criticisms I heard from my friends but for the most part this does seem to be a satisfying adaptation all around, naysayers aside. In some ways as people try to find other elements in the play they sort of review Lear for what it isn't rather than what it is nowadays and try to find different strains in it. There's a line in the opening, that I think is the key line in the whole play and often tells you how good Lear will be - in the opening spoken to Kent "The moment is thy death. By Jupiter......away........This shall not be ...... revoked." - that line is where you first see how mad Lear (or dementia ravaged in some modern interpretations) can be to his loyal Kent, prior to this Lear is humorous, playful, vain, funny, hurt but with this line......it's suddenly I'll kill you and not think twice about it bigmouth  ........later every line spoken here in the opening comes back to sting "when majesty stoops to folly" indeed. Really looking forward to this opening scene and how you are dropped into this world with the Jackson casting especially etc.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 21, 2019 6:20:15 GMT
Surprised at how muted the reviews are for this, considering how well Jackson was recieved when her Lear was done in the UK.
Guess this makes things a little easier for Scott Rudin and Denzel Washington to justify another staging of Lear on Broadway in another 2-3 years (if they stick to that notion). Might have been a bit harder to do it so soon after if this one was a critical triumph.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 21, 2019 8:46:32 GMT
Surprised at how muted the reviews are for this, considering how well Jackson was recieved when her Lear was done in the UK. Guess this makes things a little easier for Scott Rudin and Denzel Washington to justify another staging of Lear on Broadway in another 2-3 years (if they stick to that notion). Might have been a bit harder to do it so soon after if this one was a critical triumph. Well it's surprising that it was so overhauled and they didn't just simply transfer that recent UK one here. New production/design/concept, music, new cast, new staging etc. and of course Rudin did this one too. It's just one of those contradictory theater things - Lear is the great autumnal role (Hamlet the young role, Richard III the middle aged role etc - generally speaking of course - you can play with the ages a bit) but this play really working depends on so much other peripheral stuff - I've seen some great performances of Lear (and missed a lot too) but.........I haven't seen that many great productions of the play as a whole by comparison to the Lear role. It's very easy to go wrong with the whole piece (see my post a couple back from March 10 in this thread) etc. The psychology is trickier too now in how people look at the play - Regan and Goneril are especially difficult to convey currently in fully rounded ways - you can heighten their "evil" say or make Lear appear responsible for it by how he has behaved towards them as a parent/monarch - Lear can appear more cruel or merely a buffoon in relation to them - one little alteration in that then changes a ton within the play/text/performances/sensitivity.........and there's a million little nuances like that happening all at once. It can be a tough nut to crack ..........deceptively so I think.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 25, 2019 11:31:26 GMT
I thought this was a mostly good production but also, crucially that there wasn't much grand in it - so a Lear without that resonating element, well I don't know if I'd actually recommend but I do of course - I mean, what am I going to do, blame the text  . In a way it reminded me of Network very much which is the only other show I saw this season but that at least that had a Great (capital G) performance in it (by Cranston, everyone was negligible) that grabbed you by the lapels..........here the performance by Jackson is working at cross-purposes from a muddled production. That's sad because Network had nothing else in it and this actually does (Ruth Wilson, a quite good Fool actually). Some of the muddled parts work but not in a way that you feel it's all interconnected - the humor is quite fun! - but maybe even too much of it, and at a certain point you forget that at it's core this is a play about madness. The familial subplots which should support that never fully click, and you can guess the way that some of this will be played by the setting too. I know that isn't hip to say, but just do the play - stop being so hip that you're doing Lear as Richard III and that you're transferring the play which is about more than just text after all. The text however provides the biggest thrills Jackson sort of evokes Olivier who looked quite frail to me also in the she looks shaky at times and gloriously strutting and vain at others - and looking small and pathetic is to me how you actually play Lear - he is not a towering figure (that is a cruel myth) he is a pathetic one and I saw great sadness and moving handling of the text from her. Several scenes where you watch her stop on a dime and wrench meaning or shades of meaning from the text. So overall a mixed bag for me, I'm glad I saw it, but see my earlier post in why doing Lear is a fools errand a lot of times.......and those who have it on their to do list.......as I said think about the production because otherwise you leave your magnificent lead to give a performance that doesn't amplify but rather, in a way diminishes in the theater.
|
|