(no subject)
Just been to see Complicit at the Old Vic with teaandbooks :D
Very nice evening all round, even with the totally deliberate and sligtly circular walk to the theatre and I managed to pretty much not cough till the play finished. Of course I coughed on and off all the way home (got some weird looks on the underground and some concerned ones on FCC mostly my chest aches now, and my back because I was sitting awkwardly) but really I got through the play so I don't care!
The play itself was good. We came to the conclusion as we left that it was "good but not great" and I think that's fair.
It's a play about the "War on Terror" and the use of torture by American troops (or on behalf of Americans) and it said a lot of interesting things but nothing... nothing groundbreaking was what L said, which I agree with, and I'd add nothing that provoked new thoughts for me. I keep comparing it with Lanscape With Weapon which I saw last year and thoguht about for days afterwards. Mostly this has been reminding me of a couple of really good interviews on The Daily Show recently.
Mind you it is an itneresting and important topic and the set up, just Ben (Richard Dreyfuss) the journalist being asked to give up his source, Roger (David Suchet) the lawyer and then Ben's wife (Elizabeth McGovern) meaning it's a lot of debate and talking so you get through a lot.
Also the Old Vic has been transformed into a theatre in the round (and that was kind of fascinating to see) so at some points it felt like the audience were all there, pulled into the room with the characters.
On the downside there was too much use of the video screens and FAR too much use of fading into static and repeating odd words and phrases from the "interview" Ben did with Andrew Marr. It just got annoying (yes, we know he just said the name of the play and we see why you don't need to play it three times like your DVD has an old record style scratch...)
Also it was Andrew Marr playing "Andrew Marr" which was a bit... well yes.
David Suchet was fantastic though. Completely fantastic. Richard Dreyfuss was good but maybe not as good and sometimes felt like the wrong person for the part... though sometimes it did seem right so it's a minor niggle. We couldn't work ou if Richard still had an earpiece to feed him lines or not *g*
Still I'm glad I saw it. Definitely glad of that.
Very nice evening all round, even with the totally deliberate and sligtly circular walk to the theatre and I managed to pretty much not cough till the play finished. Of course I coughed on and off all the way home (got some weird looks on the underground and some concerned ones on FCC mostly my chest aches now, and my back because I was sitting awkwardly) but really I got through the play so I don't care!
The play itself was good. We came to the conclusion as we left that it was "good but not great" and I think that's fair.
It's a play about the "War on Terror" and the use of torture by American troops (or on behalf of Americans) and it said a lot of interesting things but nothing... nothing groundbreaking was what L said, which I agree with, and I'd add nothing that provoked new thoughts for me. I keep comparing it with Lanscape With Weapon which I saw last year and thoguht about for days afterwards. Mostly this has been reminding me of a couple of really good interviews on The Daily Show recently.
Mind you it is an itneresting and important topic and the set up, just Ben (Richard Dreyfuss) the journalist being asked to give up his source, Roger (David Suchet) the lawyer and then Ben's wife (Elizabeth McGovern) meaning it's a lot of debate and talking so you get through a lot.
Also the Old Vic has been transformed into a theatre in the round (and that was kind of fascinating to see) so at some points it felt like the audience were all there, pulled into the room with the characters.
On the downside there was too much use of the video screens and FAR too much use of fading into static and repeating odd words and phrases from the "interview" Ben did with Andrew Marr. It just got annoying (yes, we know he just said the name of the play and we see why you don't need to play it three times like your DVD has an old record style scratch...)
Also it was Andrew Marr playing "Andrew Marr" which was a bit... well yes.
David Suchet was fantastic though. Completely fantastic. Richard Dreyfuss was good but maybe not as good and sometimes felt like the wrong person for the part... though sometimes it did seem right so it's a minor niggle. We couldn't work ou if Richard still had an earpiece to feed him lines or not *g*
Still I'm glad I saw it. Definitely glad of that.