Betrayal - member and critics reviews.
Moderator: Germangirl
So I finally saw it yesterday evening.
First of all, you appreciate Pinter or you don't.
I did. It's a very angry bit of writing despite the fact that there are some funny scenes and pieces of dialogue.
And because it's a angry bit of writing I think he chose the correct role. He's boiling with rage under the surface and he's not overdoing it. It's perfect.
You could feel his anger and you could see it in his eyes and in the firm set of his jaw (if you were close enough, though, we were I just have to rub it in )
Rachel is beautiful and I have to say the 70s clothes look better on her as in the pictures. IMO she was ok, but definetifly not the star of the play.
Rafe was good but I thought he was overdoing it a bit. Not in the sense of overacting, because I think that's the way Nichols wanted to see Jerry but sometimes he almost acted like a comedian and that role would have been so wrong for Daniel.
Daniel did what he does best, the smoldering emotions just under the calm facade. As an audience you can sense all those emotions, there's no need that they are thrown into your face.
Perfect way to spend an evening!
First of all, you appreciate Pinter or you don't.
I did. It's a very angry bit of writing despite the fact that there are some funny scenes and pieces of dialogue.
And because it's a angry bit of writing I think he chose the correct role. He's boiling with rage under the surface and he's not overdoing it. It's perfect.
You could feel his anger and you could see it in his eyes and in the firm set of his jaw (if you were close enough, though, we were I just have to rub it in )
Rachel is beautiful and I have to say the 70s clothes look better on her as in the pictures. IMO she was ok, but definetifly not the star of the play.
Rafe was good but I thought he was overdoing it a bit. Not in the sense of overacting, because I think that's the way Nichols wanted to see Jerry but sometimes he almost acted like a comedian and that role would have been so wrong for Daniel.
Daniel did what he does best, the smoldering emotions just under the calm facade. As an audience you can sense all those emotions, there's no need that they are thrown into your face.
Perfect way to spend an evening!
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7195
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:27 pm
-
- Posts: 11961
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:57 am
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 47075
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
A great 17.777 post I just told sf, that I will squeeze out every bit of information once I can lay my hands on you again BewareDunda wrote:So I finally saw it yesterday evening.
First of all, you appreciate Pinter or you don't.
I did. It's a very angry bit of writing despite the fact that there are some funny scenes and pieces of dialogue.
And because it's a angry bit of writing I think he chose the correct role. He's boiling with rage under the surface and he's not overdoing it. It's perfect.
You could feel his anger and you could see it in his eyes and in the firm set of his jaw (if you were close enough, though, we were I just have to rub it in )
Rachel is beautiful and I have to say the 70s clothes look better on her as in the pictures. IMO she was ok, but definetifly not the star of the play.
Rafe was good but I thought he was overdoing it a bit. Not in the sense of overacting, because I think that's the way Nichols wanted to see Jerry but sometimes he almost acted like a comedian and that role would have been so wrong for Daniel.
Daniel did what he does best, the smoldering emotions just under the calm facade. As an audience you can sense all those emotions, there's no need that they are thrown into your face.
Perfect way to spend an evening!
Have a great last day and a save trip home.
The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..
- CockHargreaves
- Posts: 1932
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:20 pm
- Location: UK
Thanks, Dunda, I'm glad that you enjoyed the play and that Daniel was so good. I also think Robert is the role better suited for Daniel than Jerry. I love your description of his acting, I can visualize him on stage and would die to see him live in this role - the suppressed, simmering anger, violence, hidden emotions - must have been a feast for the eyes.
The only thing that is somewhat wrong here is that I can't imagine ANY woman to even think of having an affair while being married to Daniel. NO WAY.
The only thing that is somewhat wrong here is that I can't imagine ANY woman to even think of having an affair while being married to Daniel. NO WAY.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 47075
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
That's what the tweets and some say - in that respect its the wrong role, as Rafe doesn't have the IT factor.But obviously makes up for it with good acting.
I am sure, there ARE men, women would and do prefer over Daniel but Rafe isn't one of them, so yes, this is weird. In a way, its all about acting and not looks. This is, why Daniel made it as Bond. He doesn't look like people envisioned Bond, but sure as hell, he acts like Bond. So he succeeded.
I am sure, there ARE men, women would and do prefer over Daniel but Rafe isn't one of them, so yes, this is weird. In a way, its all about acting and not looks. This is, why Daniel made it as Bond. He doesn't look like people envisioned Bond, but sure as hell, he acts like Bond. So he succeeded.
The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..
Yes, there are women who'd prefer other men over Daniel, but those women wouldn't marry him, would they? I rather referred to a situation when a woman is actually married to Daniel, like in the play - cheating on him seems simply unrealistic, let alone Rafe.
As far as Bond is concerned, well he does not look like previous Bond actors, but you are right - he simply is Bond. And acting wise he's better than all of them, imo.
As far as Bond is concerned, well he does not look like previous Bond actors, but you are right - he simply is Bond. And acting wise he's better than all of them, imo.
- CockHargreaves
- Posts: 1932
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:20 pm
- Location: UK
Dunda wrote:The only reason is that hairAlina wrote:The only thing that is somewhat wrong here is that I can't imagine ANY woman to even think of having an affair while being married to Daniel. NO WAY.
But thanks for the review! But tell us more!!! Did he try to get into Rachel's pants or is that permanently out of the play now? Was there a standing O? Did Daniel look like you thought he would? It was so nice hearing his actual accent. They sure make a gorgeous couple, don't they? I liked the play, but it took me more than once to really watch and absorb it. I was too focused on the testosterone that is Daniel.
Totally! Thank God for that red hat he has been sporting, Bee , I and other like minded folks get a respite...Dunda wrote:The only reason is that hairAlina wrote:The only thing that is somewhat wrong here is that I can't imagine ANY woman to even think of having an affair while being married to Daniel. NO WAY.
He needs that beanie on his head permanently now.
Wonderful! I am glad you are unequivocal in saying he chose the better role. He knows what he is doingDunda wrote:So I finally saw it yesterday evening.
First of all, you appreciate Pinter or you don't.
I did. It's a very angry bit of writing despite the fact that there are some funny scenes and pieces of dialogue.
And because it's a angry bit of writing I think he chose the correct role. He's boiling with rage under the surface and he's not overdoing it. It's perfect.
You could feel his anger and you could see it in his eyes and in the firm set of his jaw (if you were close enough, though, we were I just have to rub it in )
Rachel is beautiful and I have to say the 70s clothes look better on her as in the pictures. IMO she was ok, but definetifly not the star of the play.
Rafe was good but I thought he was overdoing it a bit. Not in the sense of overacting, because I think that's the way Nichols wanted to see Jerry but sometimes he almost acted like a comedian and that role would have been so wrong for Daniel.
Daniel did what he does best, the smoldering emotions just under the calm facade. As an audience you can sense all those emotions, there's no need that they are thrown into your face.
Perfect way to spend an evening!
Good that you enjoyed the play, Dunda
What do you mean? The scene on the couch? Well they were just making outsf2la wrote: But thanks for the review! But tell us more!!! Did he try to get into Rachel's pants or is that permanently out of the play now?
The scene Rachel has with Rafe was more risky
They are actors after all.
Some people stood, some not.sf2la wrote: Was there a standing O?
Yes, he did. I was actually aware that he would have that long hair and I don't like it at all. But it didn't bother me, because it fits the time frame of the play and I think the clothes they were on stage look much better in reality than on the pics.sf2la wrote: Did Daniel look like you thought he would? It was so nice hearing his actual accent. They sure make a gorgeous couple, don't they?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 47075
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany