PLAY : A life in the theatre
Don't remember much of this because it was a while ago that I saw it. I went with Murray and His mate Brett. Brett isn't really a theatre person - and pretty much fell asleep.
Anyway, the play is about an older actor and a younger actor, following their backstage antics as their 'life in the theatre' unfolds. The younger actor starts holding the older actor in high, if not so serious, esteem. He grows beyond the older actor and this is where the Pathos comes from.
The older character was played by Patrick Stewart, who did a pretty good job (he has an amazing body for a not young person!). He largely hit all the marks.
The younger character was played by some kid from Dawson's Creek. He was pretty ordinary, and couldn't really grow the character, or change his style from off-stage to on-stage.
The play lightens the mood by showing some on-stage work. All these 'plays within plays' are not only terribly written, but they are very ham-ily performed by our two actors. This is fine, and fun, my only problem being that I didn't think there was nearly enough difference between the ham acting on-stage and the 'real' acting off. Maybe the director was trying to be subtle, or maybe say that 'we're all acting in real life anyway', but it just didn't work for me. I think it was proabaly down to the younger guy's lesser acting ability.
Anyway, it was fun, but only because of Stewart and Mammet, no one else.
Anyway, the play is about an older actor and a younger actor, following their backstage antics as their 'life in the theatre' unfolds. The younger actor starts holding the older actor in high, if not so serious, esteem. He grows beyond the older actor and this is where the Pathos comes from.
The older character was played by Patrick Stewart, who did a pretty good job (he has an amazing body for a not young person!). He largely hit all the marks.
The younger character was played by some kid from Dawson's Creek. He was pretty ordinary, and couldn't really grow the character, or change his style from off-stage to on-stage.
The play lightens the mood by showing some on-stage work. All these 'plays within plays' are not only terribly written, but they are very ham-ily performed by our two actors. This is fine, and fun, my only problem being that I didn't think there was nearly enough difference between the ham acting on-stage and the 'real' acting off. Maybe the director was trying to be subtle, or maybe say that 'we're all acting in real life anyway', but it just didn't work for me. I think it was proabaly down to the younger guy's lesser acting ability.
Anyway, it was fun, but only because of Stewart and Mammet, no one else.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home