|
Post by roverpup on Feb 24, 2017 17:16:58 GMT
Found this article about Andrew Scott's Hamlet - www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2017/02/24/better-cumberbatch-just-long-sherlock-fans-react-andrew-scotts/Not exactly positive but I had heard of the delay of the opening before this - although it was stated that the cancellation of the first preview was "to allow for the production to complete its technical rehearsal and be fully ready for its first audiences". Which I think is a vague way of saying that the production wasn't ready to go on in time due to some serious problems that they weren't going to be specific about. Of course, previews are definitely a time for the production to iron out any glitches in the play, so I think it is fair to not judge it until things are smoothed out. I still wish that it was playing when we visit London this May but it is not to be sadly. Would have liked to be able to judge for myself AS's efforts. :-))
|
|
|
Post by igs on Feb 24, 2017 19:31:19 GMT
It's crazy how much more I pay attention to all Hamlet productions now that Benedict had one. I'm not a Shakespeare buff in any way or shape, so I've normally not really cared about celebs playing the Prince of Denmark on stage. I adore Andrew Scott so I hope he'll do well!
Oscar Isaac is also playing Hamlet this summer in New York, he's one of my very favorites.
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Feb 24, 2017 20:47:28 GMT
Oh, if only I could go to London this spring! I love Hamlet and always try to see a new production and I am definitaly very curious of Andrew's take.
But I disliked "Telegraph"'s article quite a lot, to begin with the title.What does it means "Sherlock fans" react to...? That this is Hamlet for Sherlock fans or that only Sherlock fans go to see it? Such an utter nonsense.
And while they are careful not to express "their" opinion, how characteristic of this slimy kind of journalism is to finish the text with a quote from some anti-Cumberbatch blogger and to say "Tellingly, Cumberbatch's production is at the bottom of her list." Tellingly, indeed!|
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Feb 24, 2017 20:56:15 GMT
I wouldn't call this article a review. They are just commenting reactions - not many either - on social media. It seems like click bait to me.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Feb 24, 2017 22:08:30 GMT
You are right Magda, this isn't a review (thank goodness) since the play is still in previews, but it is indeed clickbait. I only put it up here because it did offer some news as to the delay of the previews and I found it interesting that the length of the chosen version is a bit of a contentious issue as well.
I didn't like the emphasis on that blogger's opinions either (and yes I agree with Muriel, it was very evident that it was written by someone who just had it in for BC and the whole production, because what they complained about was so petty and totally without merit IMO).
I don't know why people like that blogger have to do that - it reminds me of all the nastiness floating around about the time of the Oscars between the fans of BC and Eddy Redmayne - with fans of both actors lobbing horrible comments back and forth as if it were a tennis match and they got points for who could toss the worst insults about the other actor. Just embarrassing and trying to encourage such animosity, when nothing of the sort exists between the actors themselves. Surely there is room enough for both actors to be admired by respective fans (and there is probably a large enough overlap to be sure as well).
I am not particularly a fan of Eddy Redmayne (I really like some of his roles and not so much others) but I can't imagine writing up insults about him and posting it on the "interwebs". I wouldn't even do that to actors I despise - like Nicholas Cage! Never in a million years! If I don't really like an actor I just ignore that person 99% of the time. I wouldn't purposely antagonise his/her fans.
:-))
|
|
|
Post by alarson on Feb 24, 2017 23:17:36 GMT
I thought the Telegraph was supposed to be a reputable paper? Quoting a bunch of bloggers is just stupid click bait.
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Feb 25, 2017 14:50:34 GMT
Apart from sneaky Cumberbatch reference, I think the article (of course click-bait) was somehow offensive to AS: suggesting in a way he only came to play Hamlet because of being "Sherlock star". Meh.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Feb 25, 2017 15:30:32 GMT
I didn't read that at all from the article. If anything it seemed to be suggesting that most people have come to know AS through Sherlock and for the vast majority of TV fans that is really quite true isn't it? There's nothing insulting in that concept to me. I have got to know a lot of British actors, directors, crew and producers through my exposure of Sherlock.
Granted people from the Ireland/UK probably know AS from other sources (and theatre goers know his stellar theatre involvement), but for those outside of that milieu, Sherlock is the main portal through which we get introduced to talent like AS.
That's my take on the article at least.
:-))
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Feb 26, 2017 16:08:23 GMT
I didn't read that at all from the article. If anything it seemed to be suggesting that most people have come to know AS through Sherlock and for the vast majority of TV fans that is really quite true isn't it? There's nothing insulting in that concept to me. I have got to know a lot of British actors, directors, crew and producers through my exposure of Sherlock. Granted people from the Ireland/UK probably know AS from other sources (and theatre goers know his stellar theatre involvement), but for those outside of that milieu, Sherlock is the main portal through which we get introduced to talent like AS. That's my take on the article at least. :-)) Ah, roverpup, you have such a good heart. I feel ashamed for my being so over-critical. It's probably my professional deviation: after all, analysing texts is what I am doing for living. First of all, Telegraph is UK paper and this article is a click-bait exactly because they assume the reader know who is Andrew Scott. And in any case suggesting that people go to see Scott as Hamlet because of his being Sherlock star is insulting: the man has two Olivier Awards already and the people who go to the theatre are not necessarily Sherlock buffs anyway. The title is nonsensical "Better than Cumberbatch or just too long" - this sentence doesn't make any sense! And of course the whole comparison with Cumberbatch - why not with Kinnear? his Hamlet was 4 hours long just as Scott's is just lazy journalism. Sorry for the rant
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Feb 26, 2017 17:01:13 GMT
I may have a good heart (at least I hope I do) but I am not without critical abilities. I was a journalist before I became a teacher, so I do know a thing or two about writing and newspapers.
I just don't see the article as insulting AS. I am not saying it was a piece of sterling journalism - not in the least. It was far from it.
And I agreed with you that it was click-bait.
Being so, makes it abundantly clear that it wasn't aimed at "theatre buffs" who were familiar with Scott's many accomplishments on the stage. In fact, the click-bait worthy part was aimed directly at Sherlock and Cumberbatch fans. The headline writer knows the title alone would be picked up by all those people who have filters that are set for the key words "Cumberbatch" and "Sherlock". So obviously it was aimed at Sherlock and Cumberbatch fans who might also be interested in seeing another cast member from the show in a play. As far as click-bait goes, what is so wrong with that? A lot of times I actually really appreciate coming across articles that are caught in my "Cumberbatch Web" (so to speak) beccause I am exposed to more good work by other cast members. Just the other day I found out about a Lyndsay Turner play that Matthew Needham is in because of my interest in BC and Sherlock (and yes, the article made several references to the fact that LT had directed BC's Hamlet and that MN was in Sherlock, and no, I don't think that one was insulting either).
So we both agree it was click-baity. But I still don't see any indication that they were especially insulting to AS as a result and I really don't get that the article said (or even insinuated) that he only came to play in this Hamlet because of being on Sherlock. I don't wish to be argumentative - I just really don't see that mentioned in the piece at all.
To me the only insulting bit was said by the blogger who had a predisposition to not like BC's Hamlet it seems. Now it can be argued that the author of the piece maybe shouldn't have included that in the article (but might have done to insult BC) but I don't think that can be made as also an insult to AS.
But obviously you see things differently and that is all right. Sometimes things strike different people in different ways. Always interesting having these sort of POV discussions.
:-))
|
|