Saw this at the Noel Coward two weeks ago, one of the best plays I have ever seen, it has stayed with me ever since. It reduced my partner to tears , he's still not sure why. Powerful and beautifully performed. I love your review.
I saw motive and the cue at the National earlier this year, and as a young person I got a reduced price ticket in the second row of the stalls, and I had never had such a transcendent experience at a show before this one. I knew of the the '64 production of Hamlet but as a 20 year old, naturally my knowledge of it wasn't the most thorough going into the production, and on entering the show I had a premonition that it would become more of a 'historically accurate' retelling, as in, to put it frankly, a bit dull. But goodness was I wrong. Obviously, it was still a true story but I felt this powerful, gripping love of theatre that I just couldn't shake off well after leaving the National. The parallels of having 2 creatives onstage essentially discussing (and arguing over haha) what theatre means to them and knowing how those actors and creatives worked to develop this show, the transcendence took place of envisaging their rehearsal room, the school rehearsal rooms from my youth, the other audience members' theatrical experiences etc etc. And (as if I haven't sounded dramatic enough already!), the fact I was sat in a row made up of predominantly young people who joined in in a big group discussion at the interval despite having all never met before, I felt the future of theatre stirring in me. I would definitely say the show is a theatrical retelling for theatrical people, the resonance it had with everyone I talked to was astonishing! Okay, spiel over, if you haven't seen The Motive and the Cue, definitely go to watch!
You look SO DASHING, sir! You are a man of many looks, all of which are amazing, but today's look is my all time fave. Happy new year to you and your lovely fiance. ❤ I look forward to learning about more new shows this year! Your reviews are always thorough, thoughtful, and entertaining. I'm still rewatching you explain the plot of Apects of Love and crying laughing.
I really enjoyed this play at the interval I said to the person next to me that it was so nice to see John Gielgud on stage after so many years,,,so impressed was I of the portrayal of him. It took a while for me to get used to get used to the American accents in the first scenes so I was pleased to be able to pick up a copy of the play book the next day to catch bits that I missed. I'm reading Kenneth Tynan's book of theatre reviews at the moment and it was a pleasure to listen to your very perceptive review and it's good to know that there is someone here clearly enthusiastic about theatre and can express views clearly with accurate detail and reaching a similar standard to that author.
Saw this at The National but didn't love it. You left out that I recall this play suggests part of Gielgud's motivation is that he needs a "hit" - he feels at a crossroads and he has been given a chance with this Hamlet. But, he also can't yet let go of being an actor. And Burton, I recall, boldly tells Gielgud off saying that Gielgud is Gielgud and there is no way for Burton to measure up and Gielgud needs to stop trying to get Burton to be Gielgud. Part of the drama is, as you note, Gielgud realizing that he needs to convince Burton that Burton can be a great Hamlet and for it to be Burton's Hamlet. The Hamlet was a clash of acting generations - not that Burton was a "method" actor (ala Brando), but he was of a different time than Gielgud - and while Gielgud was a respected and honored actor, Burton was a "star." I did think Gatiss sounded a lot more like Mycroft Holmes than Gielgud and Tuppence, to me, used the standard UK version of a flat American accent, that didn't capture, in my mind, the allure of Taylor. Your last comment that this play could have been written/produced ten years ago rings very true - but, also, I left the theatre wondering what the point was. Yes, there were struggles to get the play "right" and, in the end, it was a huge financial hit for Gielgud and Burton - but why should I care? Is it just a slice of theatre history There were potentially larger themes suggested by the play but not communicated well. There could have been more about how learning about yourself is needed to achieve greatness - that facades hold you back - that everyone brings experiences to the table from which others can learn - and that a woman has the best insights, since it is Taylor who helps Gielgud see how to get the most from Burton. Anyways, those are some of my thoughts from memory of seeing this last June.
I saw it last week. I didn't love it at all. I'd read the views and was looking forward to it. There was a lot of shouting by the Richard Burton character. I kept wondering when it was going to get going...I left at the interval 😬
I didn't think 2023 was the greatest year ever for the West End, but this was the standout play for me. I was in those cheap seats at the front of the Lyttleton, and at times you'd look up at Johnny Flynn or Mark Gatiss and think it was Gielgud or Burton standing in front of you. The scene with Gielgud and the escort was stunning. It's eight months since I saw it, and your review has made me think about going back. I wasn't quite as sold on Tuppence as you were and I'd like to give her second chance. Kind of Fourpence, if you will. [I'll get my coat.] My runner-up was Medea, by the way. Best actor, Mark G, best actress Sophie Okenedo.
I’ve done that monologue! ‘The “speak the speech” speech’, as I think of it 😆 The theatre I used to work at participated in a First Night art walk, and I introduced our Shakespeare performances with that piece. Only time I’ve done Shakespeare on stage, actually 😆
Obviously haven't seen this production (not in London) but it should be noted that Burton and Gielgud had a long relationship: it was Gielgud whose production of ROMEO AND JULIET in 1950 (starring Burton as Romeo and Claire Bloom as Juliet) established Burton as a theater actor, with such acclaim that Burton was regarded as the heir to Gielgud and Laurence Olivier. Burton always regarded Gielgud as his mentor.
I saw the trailer and was immediately hooked. I found your review while I was researching. It was an excellent review and very informative. Also it mitigates my pain for never getting the chance to see this play since I live in Athens. Thank you ❤
Saw it at the National last year. Saw it at the Noel Coward last Wednesday. Going again next month. It is possibly the most intelligent and moving play I've ever seen. That final silent scene.....
I'm so excited to see that you finally saw it! i saw this back in December and I'm not British and my impression is still muddled. On the one hand, i found it beautiful and moving particularly Richard's arc and the scene between Gielgud and the escort but i also found it a little inaccessible and hard to follow without prior knowledge of Gielgud or this specific Hamlet production. The programme does help a little but Gielgud is a core character and i was trying to understand him and learn about him as I went - almost putting me in Richard's shoes. He felt a bit enigmatic and frustrating but perhaps that was intentional. Some of the jokes felt like inside British or theatre jokes or jokes that had not dated well. Some dramatic moments felt like they were purposely nodding to prior knowledge and didn't always work (aside from the moment near the end that you mentioned which worked really well). it was an odd experience of sort of being on the outside of an inside joke or clique even though i love theatre and Hamlet itself. It felt like it was made for pre-existing fans rather than to teach the story to new fans. I can only think of comparing it to the Crown where there were nods to present day events or opinions but they felt odd. I think Dear England did a better job of giving you enough exposition or knowledge to follow along. Hopefully if there is a pro-shot i'll have a chance to watch it again.
I just saw it an absolutely loved it! Mark gatiss was excellent, and the scene with the male escort was the best of the play, so well done. I also enjoyed the theme about aging, and how to live and do what you love when you feel like your glory days are behind you. I feel like if you enjoyed this play, you would also really enjoy Ethan Hawke's book "A bright ray of darkness" that has some similar themes around the acting/creative process
I’m alway intrigued with theatrical productions that attempt to recreate a moment in time that’s well documented and whether or not it’s done well. By all accounts from your critique this play has done it. I do hope it comes to NY after its run in London.👍🤪🙏😎
It absolutely should head to Broadway, would do well! I see no reason it couldn't either, though there seems to be more thrust behind their other play, Dear England.
I've been unable to get to London to see the play 'live' but saw a recorded performance last week at my local cinema in Oxford. I found the entire production excellent and couldn't really fault it apart from, perhaps, what seemed (to me at least) to be a rather unnecessary short scene in which Gielgud's unhappiness over his homosexuality is addressed (I am gay, btw). The cinema 'screen' was also more than three-quarters full - a far greater attendance than at some ROH and Met opera relays, so there's certainly still hope for serious theatre! I agree with MickeyJo; surely this play must be a natural candidate for successful transfer to NY?
shh - don't tell anyone but NTLive is broadcasting the play to cinemas starting 21 March. Could be "live" streamed or just filmed for distribution and edited (like Billy Elliott was).
I think it would help if you knew who John Gielgud was, how he looked and spoke. (And Burton too, of course.) But I think it would still work if you didn't.
i love your reviews but i disagree i think he seriously proposes to Elizabeth about drinking out of sheer desperation at trying to salvage any. edginess and THEN (as you said) "flippantly" tries it boyishly when his wife had such a fast and sensible reply as to why that was a bad idea
The play’s the thing… just not this one. If it was worse I might have had something to say about it but it just arose no emotion in me, no though besides “should I go home at interval?”
I love Shakespeare but the motive and the cue was some of the worst shakespeare acting i have ever seen, by supposedly the greatest actors of their generation. Burton was an entitled brat who cant act is what i gathered from it. The full hamlet recording is on youtube if you want to judge for yourself the level of quality that resulted from these events. Spolier alert, its bad and burton doesnt understand shakespeare. Why did this get any positive reviews. Taylor was a prop for burton and gielguds story to be realized, rather than a character with independent agency and purpose.
Saw this at the Noel Coward two weeks ago, one of the best plays I have ever seen, it has stayed with me ever since. It reduced my partner to tears , he's still not sure why. Powerful and beautifully performed. I love your review.
I saw motive and the cue at the National earlier this year, and as a young person I got a reduced price ticket in the second row of the stalls, and I had never had such a transcendent experience at a show before this one. I knew of the the '64 production of Hamlet but as a 20 year old, naturally my knowledge of it wasn't the most thorough going into the production, and on entering the show I had a premonition that it would become more of a 'historically accurate' retelling, as in, to put it frankly, a bit dull.
But goodness was I wrong.
Obviously, it was still a true story but I felt this powerful, gripping love of theatre that I just couldn't shake off well after leaving the National. The parallels of having 2 creatives onstage essentially discussing (and arguing over haha) what theatre means to them and knowing how those actors and creatives worked to develop this show, the transcendence took place of envisaging their rehearsal room, the school rehearsal rooms from my youth, the other audience members' theatrical experiences etc etc. And (as if I haven't sounded dramatic enough already!), the fact I was sat in a row made up of predominantly young people who joined in in a big group discussion at the interval despite having all never met before, I felt the future of theatre stirring in me. I would definitely say the show is a theatrical retelling for theatrical people, the resonance it had with everyone I talked to was astonishing!
Okay, spiel over, if you haven't seen The Motive and the Cue, definitely go to watch!
You look SO DASHING, sir! You are a man of many looks, all of which are amazing, but today's look is my all time fave. Happy new year to you and your lovely fiance. ❤ I look forward to learning about more new shows this year! Your reviews are always thorough, thoughtful, and entertaining. I'm still rewatching you explain the plot of Apects of Love and crying laughing.
I LOVE JOHNNY FLYNN SO THIS IS EVERYTHING TO ME! my worlds colliding!!!! johnny flynn is just amazing
I really enjoyed this play at the interval I said to the person next to me that it was so nice to see John Gielgud on stage after so many years,,,so impressed was I of the portrayal of him. It took a while for me to get used to get used to the American accents in the first scenes so I was pleased to be able to pick up a copy of the play book the next day to catch bits that I missed. I'm reading Kenneth Tynan's book of theatre reviews at the moment and it was a pleasure to listen to your very perceptive review and it's good to know that there is someone here clearly enthusiastic about theatre and can express views clearly with accurate detail and reaching a similar standard to that author.
I cannot wait for this to come to N.Y.! Kuddos to the producers for taking a chance on this play.
Saw this at The National but didn't love it. You left out that I recall this play suggests part of Gielgud's motivation is that he needs a "hit" - he feels at a crossroads and he has been given a chance with this Hamlet. But, he also can't yet let go of being an actor. And Burton, I recall, boldly tells Gielgud off saying that Gielgud is Gielgud and there is no way for Burton to measure up and Gielgud needs to stop trying to get Burton to be Gielgud. Part of the drama is, as you note, Gielgud realizing that he needs to convince Burton that Burton can be a great Hamlet and for it to be Burton's Hamlet. The Hamlet was a clash of acting generations - not that Burton was a "method" actor (ala Brando), but he was of a different time than Gielgud - and while Gielgud was a respected and honored actor, Burton was a "star." I did think Gatiss sounded a lot more like Mycroft Holmes than Gielgud and Tuppence, to me, used the standard UK version of a flat American accent, that didn't capture, in my mind, the allure of Taylor. Your last comment that this play could have been written/produced ten years ago rings very true - but, also, I left the theatre wondering what the point was. Yes, there were struggles to get the play "right" and, in the end, it was a huge financial hit for Gielgud and Burton - but why should I care? Is it just a slice of theatre history There were potentially larger themes suggested by the play but not communicated well. There could have been more about how learning about yourself is needed to achieve greatness - that facades hold you back - that everyone brings experiences to the table from which others can learn - and that a woman has the best insights, since it is Taylor who helps Gielgud see how to get the most from Burton. Anyways, those are some of my thoughts from memory of seeing this last June.
I saw it last week. I didn't love it at all. I'd read the views and was looking forward to it. There was a lot of shouting by the Richard Burton character. I kept wondering when it was going to get going...I left at the interval 😬
Agree. Second act was slightly better than the first but overall I'd give it 1.5/5
I didn't think 2023 was the greatest year ever for the West End, but this was the standout play for me. I was in those cheap seats at the front of the Lyttleton, and at times you'd look up at Johnny Flynn or Mark Gatiss and think it was Gielgud or Burton standing in front of you. The scene with Gielgud and the escort was stunning.
It's eight months since I saw it, and your review has made me think about going back. I wasn't quite as sold on Tuppence as you were and I'd like to give her second chance. Kind of Fourpence, if you will. [I'll get my coat.]
My runner-up was Medea, by the way. Best actor, Mark G, best actress Sophie Okenedo.
Yes this is the best play I’ve seen in years. Brilliant. I’m looking forward to seeing it on screen soon
This was my show of 2023, it was a truly inventive and breathtaking experience, perfectly executed in all ways
I’ve done that monologue! ‘The “speak the speech” speech’, as I think of it 😆
The theatre I used to work at participated in a First Night art walk, and I introduced our Shakespeare performances with that piece. Only time I’ve done Shakespeare on stage, actually 😆
Obviously haven't seen this production (not in London) but it should be noted that Burton and Gielgud had a long relationship: it was Gielgud whose production of ROMEO AND JULIET in 1950 (starring Burton as Romeo and Claire Bloom as Juliet) established Burton as a theater actor, with such acclaim that Burton was regarded as the heir to Gielgud and Laurence Olivier. Burton always regarded Gielgud as his mentor.
I saw the trailer and was immediately hooked. I found your review while I was researching. It was an excellent review and very informative. Also it mitigates my pain for never getting the chance to see this play since I live in Athens. Thank you ❤
Saw it at the National last year. Saw it at the Noel Coward last Wednesday. Going again next month. It is possibly the most intelligent and moving play I've ever seen. That final silent scene.....
I was in jhs when that Hamlet came to NYC would love to see this
Going to see this in March. Can"t wait!
This is a fantastic play. Loved your review. Please review Pacific Overtures!
I'm so excited to see that you finally saw it! i saw this back in December and I'm not British and my impression is still muddled. On the one hand, i found it beautiful and moving particularly Richard's arc and the scene between Gielgud and the escort but i also found it a little inaccessible and hard to follow without prior knowledge of Gielgud or this specific Hamlet production. The programme does help a little but Gielgud is a core character and i was trying to understand him and learn about him as I went - almost putting me in Richard's shoes. He felt a bit enigmatic and frustrating but perhaps that was intentional. Some of the jokes felt like inside British or theatre jokes or jokes that had not dated well. Some dramatic moments felt like they were purposely nodding to prior knowledge and didn't always work (aside from the moment near the end that you mentioned which worked really well). it was an odd experience of sort of being on the outside of an inside joke or clique even though i love theatre and Hamlet itself. It felt like it was made for pre-existing fans rather than to teach the story to new fans. I can only think of comparing it to the Crown where there were nods to present day events or opinions but they felt odd. I think Dear England did a better job of giving you enough exposition or knowledge to follow along. Hopefully if there is a pro-shot i'll have a chance to watch it again.
Excellent review as always….looking forward to seeing the cinema screened productions of both this and Dear England coming up very soon 👍😊
I just saw it an absolutely loved it! Mark gatiss was excellent, and the scene with the male escort was the best of the play, so well done. I also enjoyed the theme about aging, and how to live and do what you love when you feel like your glory days are behind you. I feel like if you enjoyed this play, you would also really enjoy Ethan Hawke's book "A bright ray of darkness" that has some similar themes around the acting/creative process
I’m alway intrigued with theatrical productions that attempt to recreate a moment in time that’s well documented and whether or not it’s done well. By all accounts from your critique this play has done it. I do hope it comes to NY after its run in London.👍🤪🙏😎
Thank you! This sounds like a very interesting production. Would be great to see. REALLY hope you’re right about a Broadway transfer!!!
It absolutely should head to Broadway, would do well! I see no reason it couldn't either, though there seems to be more thrust behind their other play, Dear England.
@@MickeyJoTheatre Dear England for Broadway? Doesn’t seem like it would capture a 🇺🇸 audience.
@@yankee04 Americans don't care at all about soccer. Anything related to soccer (except bend it like Beckham) is going to be a miss for me.
@@emhu2594 Exactly.
@@emhu2594 Some British people don't care about soccer either. Would never dream of going to see a play about it. No motive, no clue.
Just saw this in Los Angeles on film. Pretty great.
I wish you would explain the title.
I've been unable to get to London to see the play 'live' but saw a recorded performance last week at my local cinema in Oxford. I found the entire production excellent and couldn't really fault it apart from, perhaps, what seemed (to me at least) to be a rather unnecessary short scene in which Gielgud's unhappiness over his homosexuality is addressed (I am gay, btw).
The cinema 'screen' was also more than three-quarters full - a far greater attendance than at some ROH and Met opera relays, so there's certainly still hope for serious theatre! I agree with MickeyJo; surely this play must be a natural candidate for successful transfer to NY?
shh - don't tell anyone but NTLive is broadcasting the play to cinemas starting 21 March. Could be "live" streamed or just filmed for distribution and edited (like Billy Elliott was).
I'm in New York. I hope it comes here!
So excited love the national theatre
Those of us of a certain age remember that specTACular production of "Hamlet."
Is it better if you have seen Gielgud’s Hamlet before seeing this? Or is it all fairly self-explanatory?
I think it would help if you knew who John Gielgud was, how he looked and spoke. (And Burton too, of course.) But I think it would still work if you didn't.
I miss the vlogs of you going to the theatre....as aeron hasn't posted any in a while...
Apologies, but stay tuned, we're working on!
i love your reviews but i disagree i think he seriously proposes to Elizabeth about drinking out of sheer desperation at trying to salvage any. edginess and THEN (as you said) "flippantly" tries it boyishly when his wife had such a fast and sensible reply as to why that was a bad idea
Hi how are you doing
You’ve gone Burton in your outfit
You look hot today, Mickey. Aeron is a lucky man
The play’s the thing… just not this one. If it was worse I might have had something to say about it but it just arose no emotion in me, no though besides “should I go home at interval?”
I love Shakespeare but the motive and the cue was some of the worst shakespeare acting i have ever seen, by supposedly the greatest actors of their generation. Burton was an entitled brat who cant act is what i gathered from it. The full hamlet recording is on youtube if you want to judge for yourself the level of quality that resulted from these events. Spolier alert, its bad and burton doesnt understand shakespeare. Why did this get any positive reviews. Taylor was a prop for burton and gielguds story to be realized, rather than a character with independent agency and purpose.