Charles III

[edjames]

The royals have descended upon Broadway! QE2 has passed and long live the King...Charles!

 

In a most interesting, well written, directed and acted production arriving from the West End, this show covers the fictional tale of Charles ascent to the throne and the chaos that arrives when he refuses to sign a new bill, approved by Parliament, to regulate the press.

Despite pleas from both sides of the House of Commons, Charles remains adamant. Public outcry turns violent and Charles, fearing for his life, plants a tank in the front of Buckingham Palace to deter attack. Prince Will, with Catherine's urging and advice, announces he will act as mediator for the crisis.

In the interim, Prince Harry has met up with a liberal commoner and wants out of the title and family.

It all comes to a crashing end when in desperation and despair, and riots in the street and threats of abolishing the monarchy, he is forced to abdicate to let his son ascend to the throne.

A stark set of brick backdrop and a three stepped platform set the ghostly aura for the action. A chorus of actors sings latin hymns accompanied by a cello and violin. The lighting effects vary from harsh to dark and sinister shades, especially when the ghost of Diana appears to haunt her former husband and son. Her prediction that one of them will become "the greatest king" signals the oncoming drama.

Mike Bartlett has written a wonderful script and at times, the dialogue takes on a Shakespearean/Elizabethan cadence which reminds us of Shakespeare's great royal tragedies.

Tim Pigott-Smith(many may remember his brilliant performance in the TV series, The Jewel and The Crown as local Indian Police superintendent is Ronald Merrick, a bigoted, cruel, closeted and sadistic character), as Charles, is brilliant! The rest of the cast is quite good, too. Well directed by Rupert Goold.

I wonder how US audiences will react to this tale of the monarchy. While there are those that are fascinated by the lives of this dysfunctional family, I wonder if tourists will flock to see it. Anglophiles will love it and I sat around a few of them in the theater and they loved the show. Audience response was good but the two guys sitting on either side of me bolted at intermission.

 

Ben Brantley has already seen this show in London way back in January, so it will be interesting to read his new thoughts...

 

ED

[+ WilliamM]

In the interim, Prince Harry has met up with a liberal commoner and wants out of the title and family.

 

Is the liberal commoner female or male?

[marylander1940]

Previouis thread with a youtube clip

 

http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/king-charles-iii-coming-soon-to-broadway.102763/

 

[calrichmond]

I kind of wish they would get rid of Charles in real life. He and his dad, prince phillip, treated Dianna terribly, and there's no excuse for that.

[+ Gar1eth]

Anyone watching The Royals on E!?

 

The heir whom I've posted about before is really hunky!! And I think the actor who plays the evil uncle is gay in real life.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1XvUYvdr3s

 

Gman

[foxy]

I was there tonight for opening night. I really enjoyed the production. I guess I am sort of an Anglophile and I also like plays that have a Shakesperean complexity and this one certainly has that. While a fantasy it has all the elements of things that could actually happen. It's also very funny at times. I thought the live music was quite beautiful. All the actors were first rate but I have to say I especially enjoyed Harry played by Richard Goulding. Okay he's very cute which doesn't hurt but mostly I thought it very interesting how much of the play was structured around him. A minor player in royal succession but gives a nice human touch to a family so out of touch with the average person.

[MrMiniver]

I kind of wish they would get rid of Charles in real life. He and his dad, prince phillip, treated Dianna terribly, and there's no excuse for that.

 

Let's not re-litigate that old canard. Diana was a completely self-absorbed, seriously disturbed young woman (read all about the way she manipulated her father when she was a teenager) who married into the absolute worst situation for someone that mentally ill. She should have been sent to an institution, and not a royal one. The days of portraying Diana as some sort of innocent girl ruined by the Royal Family are long past.

 

As for Charles III, I saw it in London, thought it was just a trifle, not very well done or written and see no reason to see it again now that it is in NYC.

[calrichmond]

Let's not re-litigate that old canard. Diana was a completely self-absorbed, seriously disturbed young woman (read all about the way she manipulated her father when she was a teenager) who married into the absolute worst situation for someone that mentally ill. She should have been sent to an institution, and not a royal one. The days of portraying Diana as some sort of innocent girl ruined by the Royal Family are long past.

 

As for Charles III, I saw it in London, thought it was just a trifle, not very well done or written and see no reason to see it again now that it is in NYC.

Never forget that Diana sat with and was photographed holding the hand of an AIDS patient during the height of hysteria over HIV transmission. In my opinion, that act forever created a positive impression, and I admire her for her good works over the years.

[foxy]

Let's not re-litigate that old canard. Diana was a completely self-absorbed, seriously disturbed young woman (read all about the way she manipulated her father when she was a teenager) who married into the absolute worst situation for someone that mentally ill. She should have been sent to an institution, and not a royal one. The days of portraying Diana as some sort of innocent girl ruined by the Royal Family are long past.

 

As for Charles III, I saw it in London, thought it was just a trifle, not very well done or written and see no reason to see it again now that it is in NYC.

 

Wise words indeed. One should never see a play a second time that you didn't like the first time around.

 

Still the NY Times seemed quite happy with it.

[MrMiniver]

Never forget that Diana sat with and was photographed holding the hand of an AIDS patient during the height of hysteria over HIV transmission. In my opinion, that act forever created a positive impression, and I admire her for her good works over the years.

 

Big whoop. A lot of people did that ... and did it without cameras rolling. I'm sorry but she was batshit crazy. Used her kids for photo ops. I think she was a parasite who never helped another living soul unless there was a camera present. Enough said.

[+ quoththeraven]

Oops, I thought this was Comedy & Tragedy, not a referendum on the royals. Are we done beating a dead horse, or does Mr. Miniver need the last word again?

[MrMiniver]

Oops, I thought this was Comedy & Tragedy, not a referendum on the royals. Are we done beating a dead horse, or does Mr. Miniver need the last word again?

 

Well, I wasn't the one who brought it up. And it would be comedy, if it wasn't such a tragedy. For all concerned.

[foxy]

To get back on the topic of the thread, having seen King Charles and Misery in the same week it certainly pointed out the huge difference between trained stage actors and movie stars. It's really two different species. King Charles is not only a well written exciting play but brilliantly performed. You have to hand it to British stage acrors. They know their craft well.

[MrMiniver]

To get back on the topic of the thread, having seen King Charles and Misery in the same week it certainly pointed out the huge difference between trained stage actors and movie stars. It's really two different species. King Charles is not only a well written exciting play but brilliantly performed. You have to hand it to British stage acrors. They know their craft well.

 

There are just as many bad British actors as there are bad American actors. You just picked prime examples of one vs. the other. I do think Charles is well-performed. But it's a curate's egg of a play that will be forgotten completely and never performed again 5 years from now. Alan Bennett it ain't.

[foxy]

I agree that some plays have the shelf life of a dairy product.

[MrMiniver]

Anyone watching The Royals on E!?

 

The heir whom I've posted about before is really hunky!! And I think the actor who plays the evil uncle is gay in real life.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1XvUYvdr3s

 

Gman

 

Watched the first season but gave up at some point. Yes, some attractive men but easily the worst acting I've ever seen on the small screen and that's saying a lot considering all the Sondra Rhimes shows. It was simpy appalling and the writing is pathetic.

[+ Gar1eth]

Anyone watching The Royals on E!?

 

The heir whom I've posted about before is really hunky!! And I think the actor who plays the evil uncle is gay in real life.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1XvUYvdr3s

 

Gman

 

Watched the first season but gave up at some point. Yes, some attractive men but easily the worst acting I've ever seen on the small screen and that's saying a lot considering all the Sondra Rhimes shows. It was simpy appalling and the writing is pathetic.

 

It's a soap opera albeit at night. But I have a different standard for them than I do other performance art. I remember when I was in high school watching Another World. The chief vixen was Iris Cory. She had a maid named IIRC Vivian. I couldn't believe the actress ever got that part. She was horrible. But if I could take her on a soap-I could endure most anything (except maybe Carrie Underwood's Maria).

 

Gman

[MrMiniver]

It's a soap opera albeit at night. But I have a different standard for them than I do other performance art. I remember when I was in high school watching Another World. The chief vixen was Iris Cory. She had a maid named IIRC Vivian. I couldn't believe the actress ever got that part. She was horrible. But if I could take her on a soap-I could endure most anything (except maybe Carrie Underwood's Maria).

 

Gman

 

I was using that "standard" and still the show came up awful. I was going to say they all are like cartoon characters but I didn't want to insult cartoons.

[+ Gar1eth]

It's a soap opera albeit at night. But I have a different standard for them than I do other performance art. I remember when I was in high school watching Another World. The chief vixen was Iris Cory. She had a maid named IIRC Vivian. I couldn't believe the actress ever got that part. She was horrible. But if I could take her on a soap-I could endure most anything (except maybe Carrie Underwood's Maria).

 

Gman

I was using that "standard" and still the show came up awful. I was going to say they all are like cartoon characters but I didn't want to insult cartoons.

 

To tell you the truth, I didn't mind the acting. I thought it was just as good as the majority of TV shows. And even if it wasn't, I'd still watch as long as William Mosely was on-HUBBA HUBBA!!

 

 

Gman

[MrMiniver]

William Mosely is the reason I started watching but he's just so bland that even that got tiring.

 

I don't think the acting is the same as on "most TV shows." Many TV shows are superb and have terrific actors ... This is not remotely on that level.