stokebailey

I'm wondering whether if you've already read the Jeeves/Wooster books at least a few times each you'd see all the punchlines coming? And therefore find it less amusing?

Have you seen anything lately that was fun or otherwise worthwhile?

Cathinjoetown

I've tried to like Jeeves and Wooster, no luck. Casting Mr. Darcy (Mathew McFayden) as Jeeves is interesting. Can't stand the actor playing Bertie Wooster. Just don't find the characters or situations that amusing.

I'm not as "up" on the West Ens as I used to be. If I were there now I think I'd try to see Jude Law in "Henry V".

flanneruk

I've read most of them 5+ times.

Especially those from which most of the quotes come. There's absolutely no way in Pure Nonsense you can possibly predict their arrival.

For the literate (in civilised England, a good working definition of literacy is being able to recite the whole of 'Right Ho' from memory, or at least re-reading it as often as the better bits of the Authorised Version, which is the only book in English to rival The Master for style), it's precisely the emergence of a great line when you don't expect it that makes Pure Nonsense such a delight.

Pure Nonsense is helped by the ultimate author of the lines. It's the way the cast of (sort of) dozens mangle them that makes this up there with Rory Kinnear's Othello as the best play in England (ie the the world) this year.

If you can't get tickets, "One Man, Two Guvnors" might almost do. If you can, I'd be horrified. It ought to be fully sold by now.

stokebailey

Thanks, cath. My daughter thinks she'll try to see Henry V next month. I've liked McFayden in several films, but don't care about seeing stars. (OK, I would be willing to make an exception for Jude Law.)

Oh, good, flanner! Good that I'd pass for literate then, and good that I can safely get myself a seat for Nonsense.

We loved, loved 1 Man 2 Guv this past January, and somehow lucked into a performance with James Corden. Though I heard the next Man was equally fine.

Havana128

As subtle as a flying hammer.

alanRow

<i>in civilised England, a good working definition of literacy is being able to recite the whole of 'Right Ho' from memory</i>

Standards have really dropped - it used to be a good working definition of literacy is being able to translate the whole of 'Right Ho' into Latin from memory

stokebailey

I knew it was too good to be true.

And anyway I aren't quite as literary as I thought, since the play is really called "Perfect Nonsense."

PatrickLondon

FWIW, there's one ultra-fan-cum-expert who enjoyed it:

http://www.theguardian.com/stage/201...rfect-nonsense

Josser

...I've read most of them 5+ times...

It's a club. I remember once describing somebody as a "ten minute egg". The eyes of the person I was talking to, lit up. "Oh, you're a fan too!"

MissPrism

My husband said of one of his Scottish teachers that she chewed broken glass and wore barbed wire next to her skin.
I couldn't have married anyone who didn't like the master

flanneruk

<i>"a good working definition of literacy is being able to translate the whole of 'Right Ho' into Latin from memory"</i>

"Jeeve", dixi. "Licetne mihi ingenue loqui?"
"Certe, domine"

Et seq.

stokebailey

OK, then, let's see "right ho" in Latin.

MissPrism

Eggs, beans and crumpets?

stokebailey

Sounds perfect as far as I'd know.

mjs

There was a west end play titled "Jeeves " in the 1070's. Was panned by the critics and did poorly. I suspect that we all have a pre-concieved notion of the characters and any theatre that does not live up to those expectations would do poorly.

flanneruk

"Eggs, beans and crumpets?"

Callide.

Ova, fabae et lagana.

Incidentally, mjs ought to see Jeeves & Wooster. Mjs' criticism applies to almost all dramatisations of Wodehouse: apart from anything else, his plots are flimsy and many characters not even stereotypes.

Personally I was underwhelmed by both the Denis Price/Ian Carmichael and the Fry/Laurie TV adaptions of J&W - and probably the only person in Britain to watch more than one episode of the Jennifer Saunders/Timothy Spall Blandings. The Master wrote narrative prose - well, masterly. That just doesn't dramatise

Without spoiling things, the whole point of the latest West End treatment is that it understands this and ISN'T a dramatisation of a standard tale, though cow-creamers do feature prominently. It owes far more to "One Man, Two Guvnors" and the recent "Noises Off" than to yet another attempt to portray Wooster.

janisj

I was so disappointed that I missed the opening of Perfect Nonsense - I left London the day after previews started

Would it be silly to fly over just to see it?

PatrickLondon

>>and probably the only person in Britain to watch more than one episode of the Jennifer Saunders/Timothy Spall Blandings<<

Alas, you aren't.

Though I did actually enjoy the grotesques in the Fry/Laurie version, especially Spode (I had a great-uncle who dabbled in fascist politics, who I suspect might have been rather similar; I think he had a thing about silk underwear, for a start).

stokebailey

Yes, flanner! That was exactly my reservation about the current production. It's his unexpected turns of phrase, not knotted bedsheets and ladders at the wrong bedroom window, that make Wodehouse delightful.

(I found Fry's Jeeves a little annoying, but thought Laurie was a great Bertie,)

I have snagged myself a matinee seat.

stokebailey

>>I couldn't have married anyone who didn't like the master<<

Miss Prism, if I'd held out for such a person I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have a daughter to be visiting at university now.