La Bete - Did Anyone Go?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 12:53am

Anyone go tonight? How is it? I'm not really keen on an entire show being in Rhyme like that, but who knows.

[maxximumvolume]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 3:13am

I'm dying to see it and will probably check it out sometime next week. I'd love to hear what people thought but I'll be sure to post my thoughts when I do see it.

[Weez]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 4:42am

I saw it. I don't get why anyone would be opposed to the idea of a show in rhyme; sure, people generally don't talk that way in everyday life, but then, people don't generally soliloquise, sing, or dance like they do onstage either. Suspend your disbelief and go see the damn play. It's a masterclass in acting; Mark Rylance will astound you for his command of language and inhabiting of a character, and David Hyde Pierce will amaze you by holding his own against the might of a garrulous Rylance without even getting having to say a word.

[once a month]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 9:41am

the commercial on TV is amusing.

[Noel&Cole]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 10:23am

I saw it last night and it was incredible. It's the first new show of the season I have seen, ( I did see a preview of BBAJ but I considered that part of last season) so i cannot compare it to other shows that have recently started previews. I'll see A LIFE IN THE THEATRE on Saturday.

But last night LA BETE was a wonderful way to start off a new season. I was not sure what to expect given the verse aspect. I had no need to worry. it is beautifully designed and staged. Matthew Warchus continues to be at the top of his game but the real standout here is Mark Rylance giving a performance that is unlike anything I have ever seen. He is incredibly funny and David Hyde Pierce play off him very nicely. Joanna Lumley does not have very much to do and does not come in until the last 3rd of the play. She is solid and has her moments but is not on the same level as the other.

The biggest complaint I would say is that they should slice the running time by about 10-15 minutes. It ran a bit long for a show with no intermission. It got out at 10pm. Curious to see what other people think since it's definitely a very unique piece. I'm sure it will have it's supporter and detractors.
Updated On: 9/24/10 at 10:23 AM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/24/10 at 11:58am

I saw a person of Candide by Voltaire that a friend was in and it was all in verse and I really hated it. So I'm a little skeptic about sitting through something like that again.

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/25/10 at 8:19pm

"I'm sure it will have it's supporter and detractors."



I'm sorry I'll have to be numbered among the detractors. I didn't care for it in its first Broadway production and I still don't care for it now. It's a static, labored affair, garrulous in the extreme, 2 unending intermissionless hours of huffing and puffing, all to little effect. Mark Rylance goes all out, but I didn't think his performance either in diction or manner fit the period or place. I would say he was misdirected. David Hyde Pierce was better in a thankless role. I thought Joanna Lumey was quite good. The play is handsomely designed.

But the problem is the play. It seems like the author was shooting for the moon in trying to rival Moliere. Well, anyone would fall short in that attempt, but he fell shorter. There is nothing in "La Bete" that "The Misanthrope" didn't say a million times more wisely, profoundly, wittily, and entertainingly.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 9/25/10 at 10:32pm

I'm with After Eight on this one. I just got in from the show tonight, and I thought the whole thing was miserable. The play itself just isn't good. And honestly, I found Rylance to be more annoying than entertaining. It's weird... while his character is obviously different, I can't help but feel that his overall performance approach was the same as it was in Boeing-Boeing. Staggering the accents on the unlikely syllables and cutting off the ends of phrases really grow tiresome after 10 minutes or so, let alone 2 hours. Hyde Pierce was ok, but nothing special. I think Lumley fares the best, but that's mostly by comparison. Overall, it's two hours I wish I could have back.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/25/10 at 11:00pm

What exactly happens and what's the design like?

[dave1606]

Posted: 9/25/10 at 11:28pm

I was not the biggest fan of the play itself, but I thought the direction, and the acting were absolutely fantastic to the point of superseding the pretentious material (the writer goes to great length to talk about how brilliant writing in rhyme is, and while I respect that he did this, I don't think he needed to work it into multiple speeches in the play).

Overall this is production is just excellent. The set design is fantastic, and really feels like a Broadway production. Not since the snoozefest that was Present Laughter have I been so bowled over with a straight play's set design.

None of that would matter though if it weren't for one man: Mark Rylance. For me, I feel that he should be given his tony now. He basically has nonstop dialogue for about a half hour at the start of the play, and makes what could have been a very dull and annoying speech hilarious and fascinating.

David Hyde Pierce is very good even if he doesn't have the showier of roles, and Joanna Lumley is fantastic in her part.

Overall I really enjoyed it despite not being overly impressed with the play itself. That said Matthew Warchus made me appreciate more than I would have under a lesser director. The almost sold out house seemed to really enjoy it.

Also, everyone could not have been nicer at the stage door. Everyone signed and took pictures for anyone who asked.

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/26/10 at 2:30am

"What exactly happens and what's the design like?"

Actually, not much happens, certainly not much of interest!
Basically, a royal patroness of the arts requests that a boorish street performer join an acting company patronized by her. The boor arrives, talks non-stop, engages in several gross acts, presents an excerpt from one of his plays-- absolutely deadly!-- and then she makes a decision. And that's it. And it's one long haul getting there.

The major set is a very handsome library with floor to ceiling leather-bound books all around. If they were the real thing, that library would be worth a fortune. Some very nice lighting effects in the play, as well. If only the writing could have been on the level of the design!

[mallardo]

Posted: 9/26/10 at 10:21am

I feel like David Hyde Pierce is the unsung hero here. Yes, Rylance is amazing and very very funny but one of the reasons he's so funny is Hyde Pierce's slow burn prowess. Like many comedy teams of yesteryear it's the straight man who actually gets the laughs.

And the scene at the end between Hyde Pierce and the terrific Joanna Lumley was, to me, very powerful and very moving, especially coming on the heels of the farcical stuff.

I think the play is much better than it's being given credit for here. And the production is certainly first rate - I would almost say it's Warchus's best, at least that I've seen.

[MariusPontmercy]

Posted: 9/26/10 at 10:44am

I really liked this play - in a way it's about people trying to find meaning and depth in a play that has none whatsoever, and the same is true of us the audience and La Bete itself - it's nonsense really, and I loved not being quite sure whether the playwright realised it was nonsense or thought he had written something genuinely profound. It sends up pretentious theatre and pretentious theatregoers while at the same time being just that and appealing to just that kind of audience (a category I'll happily include myself in!).

Guessing this will be a play people will love or hate - and I do entirely understand why some people would hate it, but it worked for me.

mallardo: I absolutely agree about David Hyde Pierce - as hilarious as Rylance was, his was the performance I really remember, especially right at the end which as you said was very (and quite surprisingly) moving. Updated On: 9/26/10 at 10:44 AM

[chrissydee]

Posted: 9/26/10 at 11:11am

I saw it in London. I think the cast/production totally make up for the play.

That said, i dont think the play is awful. I was thoroughly entertained for about 1 1.2 hours, and then thought it drags on at the end a little too long.

Still, as has been said many a time here already, Mark Rylance and David Hyde Pierce are excellent, and play the roles at complete opposite ends of the spectrum to create, for me, a dynamite duo! I literally couldnt stop laughing for about 45mins when I saw it.

It'll be interesting to see how it fares with the critics and such!

[VernonGersch]

Posted: 9/26/10 at 1:37pm

I also caught it in London and thought Mark Rylance and his masterful comedic performance is worth the price admission alone. The play is entertaining, witty and throughly enjoyable but agree it could be cut by 10-15 min or so...

Check it out - its light, its fun and its a world class performance by Rylance

[willep]

Posted: 9/26/10 at 11:46pm

Saw it today and absolutely loved it. As others have said, the set is beautiful, Mark Rylance is incredible, David Hyde Pierce is fantastic and an unsung hero, and, yeah, a whole lot of nothing happens, but I didn't care. I enjoyed everything about it (except maybe a week supporting performance or two...some of the ensemble actors don't quite match Rylance/Pierce/Lumley...but they are all on for so brief a time that it didn't really matter...). All in all, I really enjoyed this production.

[matty159]

Posted: 9/27/10 at 2:24pm

I am on board with the notion that it needs to be trimmed a tad. Sure, it is funny and has a point that it tries to make, but I felt my eyes beginning to shut in places.

Rylance is indeed giving a great performance. Though while it is very funny, I didn't laugh as hard as I think it was intended that I should do.

My favorite part of the evening was getting to meet Joanna Lumley at the stage door. What a doll...she even cranked up some Patsy action for all her minions!

[willep]

Posted: 9/27/10 at 2:34pm

"the pretentious material (the writer goes to great length to talk about how brilliant writing in rhyme is, and while I respect that he did this, I don't think he needed to work it into multiple speeches in the play)."

Not really. David Hyde Pierce's character says in the end that Valere wrote his play in rhyme THINKING that that alone would make it brilliant, but it doesn't. I saw it all as a way of poking fun at itself.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 9/27/10 at 3:14pm

I saw it yesterday- overall I enjoyed it, though it definitely dragged on a bit. Rylance was, as has been said, astounding, just a really brilliantly funny performance. Lumley did some great work as well, and I loved Hyde Pierce's last speech.

Not exactly a brilliant piece of theatre, but definitely fun and an interesting take on what art is.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 9/27/10 at 3:19pm

Saw it Saturday matinee and pretty much agree with those who feel it's just not all that great a play. But the performances by all the leads were studies in great acting and the set was phenomenal. About the only thing I didn't like about it was the play (I know, not original wisecrack).