Nation at the National

[fyffes]

On the subject of theatre: has anyone else been to see any of the Nation previews at the National theatre in London?

What I know about theatre would fail to overflow the head of a needle - even if the angels did budge over - so I would be interested to hear what others thought.

I reckoned it was fun, though it might have taken some of the audience a while to work out that the guy with the Flock of Seagulls hairstyle was a parrot. So, no nudity, lots more laughs than Pinter and cavorting dolphins. What more could you want?

[Who's Wee Dug]

Not yet having read the book (it's on the pile) I'm not sure I would want to see the play. I'm not convinced I would have went to see it anyway.

[Tonyblack]

Welcome to the site fyffes!

HERE'S a review of Nation in the Telegraph.

[fyffes]

When I read that link it looked like an interview with the director - who doesnt like fantasy! - before any of the performances.

A bit odd a director being uninterested in fantasy, I thought that was what theatre and cinema was: a waking dream.

Perhaps I clicked the wrong page.

[Tonyblack]

I know what you mean and was kind of disappointed when I first started reading the item. But it frequently makes me chuckle when I hear people say they don't like fantasy and then go on to say that something like 'Wind in the Willows' is their favourite book.

[fyffes]

Surely someone has been to see it. Were we lone Forum members in a sea of Londoners?

[Bouncy Castle]

Oh dear.

Nation at the National doesn't get very good reviews.

WARNING FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK - PLOT SPOILERS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 378195.stm

[Tone The Phone]

Hello, new to the forum, greetings one and all, glad to be here, etc.

I have a little inside knowledge about what transpired during the mounting of Nation at The National. Basically, the director was mostly interested in exploiting the visual aspects of the piece (her main field is choreography and movement in general) and the instruction for the adaptation was to make lots of opportunities for these aspects of the production to happen. As far as I can gather from my internal mole, this meant that vast chunks of the text had to be excised in order to accommodate the set-pieces and to keep the running time down to something that children would find manageable. So what you get is a show with some lovely visual effects and no really coherent story-line: I'm told that young children love it, because it looks pretty, but that teenagers and adults and Pratchett fans in particular feel rather badly let down. I will be going to see it at some point before it closes and should be able to report back with more detail. Personally, I hate to lose any of Terry's prose and I think it should have been done as a two part piece, like the RSC did Nicholas Nickleby all those years ago, but I guess that wouldn't really work as a Christmas show

Tony

[chris.ph]

welcome to the site tone

[Tonyblack]

Welcome Tone - That's the impression I pretty much got from the reviews. It's a shame, but maybe lots of people will buy the book and become hooked.

[Who's Wee Dug]

welcome to the site tone.you can always get a line here.

[Tone The Phone]

Thanks for the welcome, everyone. I'll pop in from time to time, but being a freelancer, I sometime disappear for weeks on end.

And although I like phones, (not a geek, definitely not a geek, I just like phones - nice old black bakelite ones, mostly), I like Sir Terry's work much more.

Best wishes from snowy and icy London.

Tony

[Sjoerd3000]

Welcome to the forum Tone