Richard Armitage at another Mike Bartlett show



These were deleted and reposted, possibly because he messed with the dot at the beginning of the original posts. Here are the reposts.


~ by Servetus on June 16, 2016.

50 Responses to “Richard Armitage at another Mike Bartlett show”

  1. “the” what, Richard?! I’m jealous of all the amazing plays he has access to.

  2. Hampstead Theatre is just about next door to where my brother lives!

  3. Has Richard just broken Twitter or has he merely tweetdeleteretweeted again?

  4. Am I the last person to make a couple of connections with Bartlett? Just realised that he wrote the TV drama Dr Foster which so many Brits enjoyed last year. The guy is great with dramatic tension and constructed a superbly satisfying revelatory dinner table scene in the final episode. He also wrote Charles III which won an Olivier the same year that RA was nominated for The Crucible and which is now up for 7 Tonys. No wonder RA wants to be in his Love, Love, Love.

    • I knew about Charles III but not about the TV series. Only because I think there was a Charles III actor up for an Oliver at the same time as Armitage? Or the play was nominated? But yeah, it’s totally comprehensible, on a lot of levels. The theater is also known for the qulality of its productions (it got 95 noms for NY theater awards this last season and 37 wins). The Humans debuted there this last season and was a final for a Pulitzer Prize as well. This is really the perfect step for him professionally, and it partially reinforces my view that he is not incredibly eager to rush into stuff just to be working (no matter what was true once, or what he said about himself five years ago). I mean, I think he likes to be busy, but I don’t think he likes to do crap (so it also reinforces my hypothesis that Into the Storm was the payoff for a third Hobbit film).

    • ps — yeah, I noticed it b/c Armitage was up against Tim Pigott-Smith for Charles III and I remember thinking at the time that he was potentially a little stunned that.

  5. Ah, so that’s the first he chose. I confess my first thought at the possibility he was back in London was: wonder what plays he’ll see? Not surprised he chose that one of the ones currently playing. Bartlett has been going from success to success. I really wanted to see this one but unlikely i’ll make it. Sigh, can’t have it all. Hope he’ll still be around to see Branagh and Hurt in the Entertainer. And hope Bartlett picks up on his visit…

    • of course he would, forget i asked that stupid question, late hours of the night and very tired is my excuse

      • LOL, yeah, I’m guessing he knew / knows.

        • Oh and he must, absolutely must go see Richard III with Fiennes at the Almeida!🙂 Can’t wait to see it in a couple of weeks, a friend of mine has already been and it’s great🙂

          • What did you think of BC in Hollow Crown?

            • Not watched yet as not very keen after Hamlet, which i didn’t like. I will watch but i’ll work my way through Whishaw as RII and Irons&Hiddles in the Henry IV +V (i’ve started with the backlog, also because i like the plays more, Richard II is one of my very favourites).. it needs time i didn’t have so far.
              So far i’ve gone historic in the Shakespeare season and caught up on the stuff i hadn’t seen before like Kenneth B’s Henry V and Macbeth which are extraordinary. He’s something else. There is a naturalness and an ‘acting like breathing’ quality to him and Fiennes which are special. Rylance is another one like that🙂 I also want to see this new stuff in that context as sometimes they are portrayed as something nobody has seen before, but one needs context🙂 I know which contemporary Hamlet does the trick for me🙂 I actually quite like Richard III as a play, but i’ve seen Ian McKellen do it and that’s hard to forget LOL And in hindsight and with more experience i also really liked Jamie Lloyd+Martin Freeman in it. There are so many ways that character can go, it will be interesting to see this version.
              If it’s in line as concept with the first lot it is a very open, direct interpretation from the director. For plays like Macbeth and Richard III i’ve found that the more risks are taken the more successful it tends to be, or at least the more i like them. I really have to give myself a shove and write about the stuff i’ve seen this year, which has been excellent and very honestly all miles better than that Hamlet. But not all good actors are also good Shakespeare actors, and that’s fine🙂

              • I agree, but I can imagine feeling a certain amount of pressure if you’re British to do that stuff. It’s one of the calling cards of British theater, tourists come to see it, etc.

                • Possibly, although it is a pity that it’s the case as it does put undue pressure. And it very much depends on how you approach it. I just know after having finally seen it that, bar Patrick Stewart in an older production, i won’t see another Macbeth which will push my buttons like James’ MacAvoy’s did in Jamie Lloyds production. Everything about it was perfect, if that play can be called perfect LOL Very far from RSC Shakespeare but so true to the play! And as far as i’m concerned Bertie Carvel as the Hairy Ape was nothing less than Shakespearean. With the burden of so any performances behind you i think there is only one way: forget about them and risk it all🙂 After all everyone told Branagh back in his day that he was crazy and that was no way to do Shakespeare and now it’s part of that history young ones get slapped around with LOL
                  But we’re truly blessed with many not only being pressured into it but loving to do it, the standards at the Globe are amazing and it really makes you feel how alive the plays still are. I think many find they fall in love with doing Shakespeare and it shows on stage. It’s wonderful when it happens🙂
                  And i hate the pressure that gets put on well known names and when instead of theater it becomes circus because i am sure it nearly kills the experience for many of them and there is just no way you can be the best you can be if you are unable to enjoy it and forget about everything.

                  • I imagine there’s a lot of pressure in the sense of being “too big to fail.” I can also imagine that it might be frustrating to know that a lot of people are in the theater because they loved you in a blockbuster film and now you might be dropping trou (there was a lot of chat about that w/r/t Hiddleston in Coriolanus, although frankly I am on the fan’s side there. You’re allowed to buy a ticket, what you make of the experience is up to you). But if you look at Cumberbatch, he had a new baby and made his own decision to plug Syria the whole time — so I guess some people manage it. Still, I think I’d prefer to be someone who didn’t have a line of 50 people waiting for me when I left work if I felt I’d had a bad day of it.

                    • yes, doesn’t help, especially not with that role, probably the biggest mountain to have on your back :-S I felt for him.
                      But .. whispers.. i don’t want to hurt any fans but really Hiddles nailed Coriolanus and he very much did so Henry V and i have already seen 2 which i absolutely loved and didn’t think his could stand up to them but it did, he really is good🙂 It’s all in the language, lucky him, he’s dropped all smoothly in that ‘natural’ camp. I hope to see him on stage to assess the stage factor as not always screen is same on stage. McAvoy was a surprise that way, i didn’t know what hit me! He’s one i will always make an effort to see on stage, he’s absolutely fearless. Batchy was great in Frankenstein, both him and Miller were. Hamlet was too much circus and a very weak cast.

                    • If TH was good, more power to him. I’m sure his fans wanted him to be good. There were a bunch of fans who said things like, I am not interested in the play but I will pay money to see his rear end. Then there was the predictable backlash against that, which tired me out.

                    • oh, wasn’t aware of that, pft, people buy tickets and can go see what they want and for the reasons that they prefer, it’s nobody else’s business. Blah. As long as people don’t disturb me with noises or flash photography during a performance i couldn’t care less why they are there as long as i’m enjoying it and it is good🙂

                    • That’s basically my feeling, too.

              • And yeah, you should write about these plays. I admit that I’m as interested in the actors’ interpretations as the plays (or more so), though.

                It’s hard for me to see MF as an actor in serious drama. I accept that he does it; it’s just the only think he’s done that I’ve seen and liked is Sherlock.

                • Hindsight is a good thing, in the middle of the Crucible it was not the right thing to see, but i appreciate its merits. He wasn’t a very gutsy Richard but he really managed his cunning, scheming side very well. I missed the true brutality, he just didn’t take enough risks. And with a role like that it’s only truly successful if you don’t shy away from the extreme.

          • he’s gotta have either connections or be really lucky, Fiennes’ RIII has been sold out for a while. I tried to get tix when it opened for public booking – no chance. But hey, maybe he broke Internet and phone that day try to get through from NY 😉

            • I’d venture to say he has some connections, although who knows if the right ones. He had an allotment of seats himself every night at the Old Vic that he could give to friends or sell back to the box office, if I recall correctly. I assume that is standard practice in the profession and helps create a situation where actors get to see these shows, too.🙂

              • Yes, actors usually get a number of seats when they star in a play. Sometimes they still have to pay the ticket price though. Depends on the theatre

            • there will be day seats for every performance, i would encourage you to cue on the day, there is always a good chance if you cue early and it is worth sacrificing a day off i think. Also keep an eye on returns. We had no connections at all, we pooled our pennies literally and got a membership and on the 1 got each 1 ticket. It’s the way to go if you really want to see something like this, but it was also because we wanted the cheapest tickets, ie £10. But i have cues early morning to get tickets for things, it’s the surest way to get tickets, do try!
              Oh and all productions keep house seats, if he wants to go there will always be a seat🙂

              • I was surprised, first time ever I didn’t get tix for a show, even when RF played here in London

                • oh it was sadly predictable because of Regrave too and the Almeida is small, but my friend got tickets at the Ivanov he did there a few years ago and it was much worse than the RIII and she just did the day cue and saw it several times and the say tickets are cheap, the ones i got for Uncle Vanya were £10 and these are likely to be the same.

              • I live in SE, the Almeida is not exactly around the corner 😉 And tbh I’m not that desperate 😉 There’ll be other opportunities….

              • Excellent – so I guess, all I gotta do is meet RA and persuade him to help me get house seats, so I can see RF
                LOL simplz 😉

          • @Hariclea Very jealous now that you got tickets. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it. It sounds great from what I’ve heard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: