Each actor has such specific and distinct physicality and movement. Ralph Richardson is monumental here even at his age he still had such elemental power in every gesture and sound. Incredible.
I mean to say, he had not lost any of his facility. That is to say, he had not slipped into fragility as he grew older as happens to some with less hearty constitutions. Rather, he was still so physically strong and fearless. My goodness that fall and crawl! And, he was clearly, kindness itself!
I completely agree. Gielgud seemed to get the lion's share of praise for this, whereas in their other "double act" from this period -- David Storey's 'Home', also on RU-vid -- it was the other way round, with Richardson receiving more of the accolades. But in truth, they were both equally fine in both plays and their acting together was like fine music.
Immaculate performances by all actors, down to the smallest possible details such as Spooner's semi-apologetic chuckle and the colour of Hirst's socks.
As soon as you think you understand what this is all about, you are struck with serious doubts. Which is very good! I've seen it 20 times, and I've now reached a point where I think this is a piece about alcohol! Isn't it always a question of everyone having enough to drink? At one point a wounded Hirst walks to the door and calls out for one of his servants, obviously to throw out Spooner, but what do we hear? "Benson! Whisky and soda!" Pinter had many titles for this play, one was "The Drinking Party".
i dont think thats the case drink has shrouded ralph's grief and john is unplucking spots of truth from him in his alcholic haze of loathing and bitterness
I saw the original production with Gielgud and Richardson in London in 1975. One of the great, great theatergoing memories of my 20s. So glad this video exists so other people will know what all the fuss was about!
I worked for the NT/Old Vic at the time. Was invited to the dress rehearsal, where I sat in the front row. If I tell any more, I'll give it away. Suffice it to say, it was the greatest moment of live theatre I've ever seen.
You lucky soul. I struggle nowadays to find anything worth seeing in theatreland. We have lost the ability to produce fine actors with clear diction and nuance that says a thousand words even with a gesture or glance. Britain has thrown it all away and the new lot try to emulate badly under the guise of a new way. Truth is they could never achieve this performance. Such a crashing shame. Mediocrity reigns.
@ Noblerot 1830 Yes. Apparently David Tennant is now our " leading actor "...?!?! Let that sink in and you will realise the depths to which British Acting has sunk...Unbelievable.!
granada was a great force a purist studio what a beautiful dialogue. I hope they used disappearing liquid glasses or wear diapers! I would have never made it thru the performance drinking so much! even pretending to drink made me want to run to the bathroom. What a great play
“We’re out of bread” glaring... “I’m looking at the housekeeper!!!” One of the funniest lines in a play full of absurdity brilliantly delivered by a brilliant actor, Terence Rigby. Anyone remember him from The Dogs of War?
Try as I may, I cannot see the greatness of Gielgud. His peculiar mannerisms, intonations, facial expressions are repeated across plays and films and characters. Richardson and Olivier are different: chameleons that transform themselves masterfully with each character.
This is the greatness of Gielgud here: He gets to send himself up better than anyone else could. He has the dingy, baggy suit and sandals, but that mellifluous voice, over the top... It is perfectly brilliant!
I'm a huge admirer of all three, and all are different and uniquely talented. Gielgud was magnificent in the film 'Providence' with Dirk Bogarde, Ellen Burstyn, David Warner and Elaine Stritch. Brilliant.
@@pauldayclemens7761 Also (on radio) in Alan Bennett’s Forty Years On, available here. He’s wonderful as the headmaster. “Once we resort to the lavatory for our humour, the writing is on the wall!”
Hmm......try watching Olivier in " Kartoum ". ? Vintage ham . Should have been sponsored by the City of Parma !
2 года назад
Reassistindo. Impagável, hilário em certos momentos sem perder a profundidade existencial, grandes atores, intrigante texto de valor literário. De um ponto de vista marxista, as classes sociais principais estão aqui representadas nesses quatro.
Yes Johnny was terrific but Ralph was irreplaceable here...it was twenty years before anyone would touch the play much of the reason why was Richardson.... Michael Gambon was asked if he would appear in a production and said 'no way' the memory of Ralph was too strong...
Are you talking about the Pinter as Hearst and Paul Eddington as Spooner Production at The Almeida? Douglas Hodge was brilliant in the Kitchen role ....
Pinter is/was always bleak and managed reduce the light shadow!! Great acting but not edifying or entertaining in a positive way. Gloomy and depressing
Yes . And their Waiting For Godot was cringeworthy. ! Presumably the Director was so in awe of these acting " Titans " that he didn't dare tell them to get a f*****g grip .!!
That's definitely a new one for me,,, calling someone ( a weekend wanker ) that 1 I most definitely will not forget....................... That three word phrase could have many definitions.........
This one of the gems of the internet. I am amazed that having those 3 actors around him Michael Kitchen shines out so strongly. His performance in this is one of the greatest I have ever seen. Utterly, believable, threatening, charming and vulnerable.
Gielgud's transition from being an exclusively "classical" actor to contemporary drama was a brave and successful leap for him. Incidentally, he based some of his characterization in No Man's Land on the great English poet W.H. Auden, who was notoriously ragtag and rumpled in his clothing and personal habits.
Pinter gives Gielgud and Richardson such long speeches to memorize, page after page of them, that one wonders if they ever "dried" in any of their stage performances. Even so, they're fascinating to watch and so indeed is the young Michael Kitchen, he of "Foyle's War"!
Agree. Pinter's like a grown-up angry young man, quintessentially English and understated. The cast completes it, all four with just enough restraint. Later productions never captured the same level of frustration and contempt.
John's exquisite poise of mingled obsequiousness and menace is something to behold: the soul of a Pinter performer. One feels he is genuinely, almost evilly enjoying the gay thrills of a part that he played in secret for many years.
The exact date eludes me but I saw these amazing actors in the Toronto production sometime in the 1970s at the Royal Alex Theatre. The quality of the performances has remained in my memory ever since. I consider myself so lucky to have seen some of the greatest actors and actresses of the theatre first hand, in both Toronto and the West End .
I lived one side of Baker Street for twenty years from 1967 onwards and was a great frequenter of pubs.I remember Terence Rigby as being an aloof insular bastard.
About people going nowhere, leeching off an elderly writer who probably has dementia. Spooner bitter at his own failure, and jealous of Hirst's success, senses Hirst's vulnerable state and begins screwing with his unreliable memory. But then he feels sorry for Hirst, after the younger men enter, probably due to pensioner solidarity and a sense of class loyalty. All in all, a bleak tale of failure and opportunism, of generational and class antagonisms. No Man's Land seems to refer to Hirst's mental state. Pinter used places as metaphors for mental illness - i.e. a Kind of Alaska. No Man's Land represents how a mind unsure of past events, is stranded, untethered from a sense of self. How without memory we are in limbo, between death and life, No Man's Land also represents the battle taking place to control Hirst's faltering mind. A battle that ultimately no one seems to win outright.
Good analysis Trev. I should add that Pinter, when asked about the meaning of his plays would invariably reply "they mean whatever you want them to mean". I have always found this one particularly strange and hard to understand, though I still very much appreciate it. Very relevant comments in your insight. Thanks.
Sweet Jesus, Daddy & the Spook, what has academia wrought in Trev Moffat's mind that he should so adore the taste of his own piss? His lecture-hall (and rather pat, at that) summary in the comments section very nearly ruined this play for me. He is clearly the worst thing to happen to Western theater since Goebels declared Fiddler On The Roof entertaining, but a little too yiddische for his taste. Please Lord, smite he down; smite he down to Chinatown, and let me enjoy this weird, motionless drama. Amen. And Amen. And Amen.
I suspect I might have been amongst the particularly repellant herd of lickspittling literati through which the path was negotiated, as pint in hand, Gielgud sallied forth to his table at Jack Straw's Castle. It wasn't long after this that I started scrolling through the comments and realised I am much more at home at Four Finger Discount or Eight Out Of Ten Cats Does Countdown and realising the sheer brilliance of Sean Lock's Nazi Island. Still, I was not leaving here without an explanation. Perhaps some kind soul could briefly summarise. And then... pay dirt! Aha... It's a Pinter play "OF COURSE!!!" Slaps head, the plot suddenly begins to unravel at this revelation. Then, your summary, your comments, right here. Yep, think I'll leave this video and this comments section right here, right now. After I've left this comment. This needs a level of brain cells that I last had around mmmm 1986. For all I know you may well indeed enjoy the taste of your own piss my good man, but anyone who reads the comments before watching surely has their head screwed on wrong. You get the plot ruined going about it that way. Pinter is for a clearer headed day, an unmuddled mind, nothing else to tax the grey matter because every synapse is going to go into overdrive as the performance meanders its complex web. My brain can't handle that today, I'll come back another time. Still, it'll be better than Star Wars, those battle scenes make no sense to me, and you still have to be told who won. At least at the end of this you will know much of what you were asking yourself at the start of the play: Who are you people and what tangled webs have you weaved with your lives to get to this point? That is all I have for you today, and of course, and as always, if you feel the need, by all means roast me!
Saw this from a box next to the stage in 1975 so got a wonderful close up of this masterclass and was lucky enough to go backstage after the performance and meet Sir John . It is quite simply the best, most nuanced , acting I have ever seen. How Sir Ralph , at his age, manages to fall flat out is just one remarkable moment of genius like Sir John wearing sandals and socks and doing that little skip when he refreshes his drink . I also saw McKellen and Stewart in the revival and whilst they were utterly brilliant when they did Godot , they came nowhere near these two masterful performances when they did this play. Sir John’s comment to me afterwards was “ we don’t really understand the play but we are thoroughly enjoying it “ . That enjoyment of their craft shines through their performances and they clearly relish working with each other . Check out David Storey’s “Home” which is also on RU-vid for another treat .
i saw this at the national theatre in 1975 when i was 15. It was the last performance and Pinter himself was in the audience. It is a memory that has stayed with me all my life. Although there are actors who are arguably better technically than Gielgud and Richardson, none have ever come close to achieving the unique sublime acting magic of these two titans of theatre. after all these years, their performances still send shivers down my spine. i would have loved them to do " waiting for Godot" sadly it was not to be.
A perfectly realised delineation of dementia, I believe. I was provoked into considerng whether attempting to pickle the condition may in the end be kinder than whisking the sufferer into enforced confinement "in their own best interests". Of course, King Lear (dementia with Lewy bodies) was not afforded any option at all!
I feel like this and long days journey into night might be the most excellent use of the English language on the twentieth century stage; aloof, high brow, and still completely devastating.
Does anyone remember the movie Arthur, with Dudley Moore and this gentleman that says he's a poet in a certain time in England, with this man standing there with a hankie hanging out of his front pocket some people would call him a Tramp. No not at all he was Arthur's Butler , and I did enjoy him in those movies. Well thank you for the upload, and I will be going back to the beginning of the conversation they are having with their scotch. Cheers...................
Wonderful (was lucky enough to see it at the National, when I was 14). May I recommend Home, by David Storey, Gielgud, Richardson, Dandy Nichols, Mona Washburn and Warren Clarke, on RU-vid? You won't be sorry!
I too saw it then and there, visiting London as a young American student. This production literally gobsmacked me! I had never seen anything so compelling and well executed. Bravo!
Gielgud and Richardson were consummate actors. But I don't think there was any question that Gielgud's enunciation and inflection were far better and easier to understand than Richardson's. It sounds to me as if Richardson mumbles. Anyway, is there a story here? Or is it just babbling? I really can't tell.
As a twenty something I saw, Richardson on stage opposite Celia Johnson (I struggle to remember her last name after Betty Marsden's Round the Horne character Dame Celia Molestrangler) in William Douglas Home's The Kingfisher. I can assure you Richardson's voice was as clear as a bell, and I was up in the Gods.
2 года назад
I need to watch more of Richardson, but here he is acting like a sleepy alcoholic who mumbles...
Pinter, simply wonderful doing his Ralph Richardson impersonation. Shortly before his famous affair with the revolutionary Margaret Thatcher. Heady days.
there is a hungarian expression : HAKNI ( a less then mediocre performance of an artist with delusions of grandeur ' ...a 'jazz pianist' playing in weddings on weekends) ....how bizarre: i check out two random videos of Pinter , and there you are hacking with your Pinter-Thatcher affair , post modernist style ...being a troll in a comment section. A steady and flawless performance.
There's no comedy like Pinter's comedy of menace. Nothing really happens, yet I'm riveted; unnerved. I really don't know how Pinter gets inside his characters like this. I guess it's because he's an actor, a consummate one. Seinfeld did nothing, but Pinter did nothing first; and this nothing is really something. Is it a Jewish thing? How wonderful to write those words and have them performed by these actors. A delight.
You've obviously never heard of the Irish playwright Samuel Beckett. He did nothing before the two jewish gentlemen copied the absurdist nothing that characterised his many excellent works.
I think this is more of the rotten apples from Becket's tree. The 70s produced clutches of these South Bank 'We're all going round the 20thC Freudian bend' Hampstead playwrights. It gets tedious after a while. I'd rather watch 'Minder' at least the comedy is better.
