Q:You need to delete your photo of the set from Richard III. The set is copyright, and it is not allowed to take pictures in the theatre. I suggest you do it as soon as possible to avoid legal actions. - Staff member of Trafalgar Studios
I’m really sorry you messaged me anonymously because I’d rather keep this private, but though I’m loath to post this publicly, I do wish to respond and I also have some questions.
First of all, the image in question is no longer posted, primarily because I am literally at the airport right now and will not have computer access for the next several weeks, and I am really not keen on dealing with legal issues whilst on holiday. So consider it done.
However, I’m very curious about several things and I hope you can answer these questions for me. Firstly, I never intended any copyright infringement by posting that photo; I was certainly not gaining anything by posting it other than (very) minor Tumblr fame, notes of thinks and, now, threats of potential legal action. The only reason I posted it is because I wanted the people who are not able to come to London to see the play to experience the tiniest sliver of its wonderfulness. I’ve been in the position before of being extremely interested in events happening overseas and I’ve always appreciated other attendees sharing their experiences. So, being in the position of seeing a play that there’s been a lot of excitement about in the fandom, I wanted to provide others with a glance in lieu of attending the performance itself. Just to be completely clear, there was absolutely no malicious intent behind posting it.
Secondly, I do have to ask whether you’re demanding that other Tumblr users also take down their photos from the show. Because there are many scattered all over Tumblr and most of them are (laughably, because I find it tacky) watermarked, which makes it seem as though they’re copyrighted by the photographer rather than Trafalgar Studios. Just to be clear, I’m talking about audience members, not press photographers. I’m not a lawyer, however, legally, I would think the watermarked photos even more disconcerting. Is there a difference, legally, and are you doing something about it? Or is mine the only photo you’re demanding be removed? If the latter, I would like to know why.
Thirdly, will there ever be a time when it’s acceptable for the audience to take photos of the set? I’m not being facetious, but, although I can understand the issue with taking unauthorised photos during the previews, I suppose I naively assumed that after the press night, it wouldn’t be a problem. Is this incorrect? I am admittedly rather new to the London theatre scene, but I know that many theatres do permit photos of the set prior to the start of the performance and during the intermission. Is it Trafalgar Studios’ policy to never allow photos of their sets? How does one obtain permission to take photographs inside the theatre?
Again, I’m asking these questions earnestly, because I’m genuinely curious and I really do hope you’re able to provide some clarification and answers. In the meantime, I have removed the photo of the set in question, and I hope that satisfies your request.
Just need to vent my frustrations for a second because I’m really really wound up right now..
So not only did I miss the fucking Richard III Q&A because it wasn’t fucking announced anywhere, but I just read that Benedict was apparently at the Old fucking Vic tonight of all fucking nights watching fucking Richard Armitage, which a) I’ve been planning to go see forfuckingever but haven’t yet because b) I’m flying to NYC tomorrow which means that, once fucking again, I get to miss Benedict just strolling around the fucking neighbourhood because, of course, it’s been like this for the past few months and I just keep missing him. And by the time I’m back in London again, he’ll be in fucking San Diego. Can’t the bloody man just stay at home for a fucking while?! Is it really that much to ask? Either I’m home or he is and that’s just not ok anymore.
And can Trafalgar Studios please announce the fucking Q&A’s and other extras in the future, fucking please?! Because I could really use a bit more in-person pink-trousered Martin Freeman in my life right now. Seriously.
I know i’m being ridiculously petty and entitled and that none of this matters one bit in the grand scheme of things and is really, utterly inconsequential, but ugh. So. Fucking. Frustrating.
(Sidenote: honestly, there’s a level of sarcasm here, as in all my words, and I am not that upset, really. Ok, maybe just a teensy tiny bit upset. Ugh.)
Found this gem on Martin’s wikipedia article talk page [x]
Richard III Reviews Masterpost
- The Independent: Richard III, Trafalgar Studios, review by Paul Taylor; ★★★☆☆
- The Telegraph: Richard III, Trafalgar Studios, review: ‘underpowered’ by Charles Spencer; ★★☆☆☆
- The Telegraph: Richard III, Trafalgar Studios: ‘chilling’ by Tim Walker
- The Guardian: Richard III review – Martin Freeman’s accomplished office politics not enough by Michael Billington; ★★★☆☆
- The Observer: Richard III review – Martin Freeman is a contained and cautious king by Susannah Clapp; ★★★☆☆
- The Times: Richard III at Trafalgar Studios by Dominic Maxwell; ★★★★☆
- Variety: London Theater Review: ‘Richard III’ Starring Martin Freeman by David Benedict
- The Daily Mail: Office politics and gory deaths for the Twitter generation: First Night Review of Richard III by Quentin Letts
- London Evening Standard: 'Martin Freeman is a smiling, self-satisfied Richard III' Trafalgar Studios - theatre review by Henry Hitchings; ★★★☆☆
- Radio Times: Martin Freeman shows his nasty side in a tight, taut, chilling Richard III by Ben Dowell
- Financial Times: Richard III, Trafalgar Studios, London – review by Sarah Hemming; ★★★★☆
- What’s on Stage: Richard III (Trafalgar Studios) by Maxwell Cooter; ★★★☆☆
- London Theatre Guide: Richard III Review by Mark Shenton; ★★★★☆
- The Upcoming: Richard III at Trafalgar Square Studios | Theatre review by Cinzia Leonard; ★★★★☆
- The Stage: Richard III Review by Michael Coveney; ★★★★☆
- Digital Spy: Richard III review: Martin Freeman chills as Shakespeare’s anti-hero by Emma Dibdin; ★★★★☆
- Den of Geek: Richard III Review by Louisa Mellor; ★★★★☆
- The Arts Desk: Richard III, Trafalgar Studios by Demetrios Matheou
- TimeOut London: Richard III Review by Andrzej Lukowski; ★★★★☆
- The Londonist: Martin Freeman Left Stranded In Bizarrely Office-Bound Richard III by Stu Black
- Kensington and Chelsea Today: Richard III at Trafalgar Studios by Max Feldman
- Exeunt Magazine: Richard III Review by Natasha Tripney; ★★★☆☆
- City A.M.: Review: Richard III at Trafalgar Studios by Steve Dinneen; ★★★★☆
- Official London Theatre: Richard III by Matthew Arner
- Huffington Post UK: Review: Martin Freeman in Richard III, Trafalgar Studios by Victoria Sadler
- The Big Issue: Richard III Review by Carmody Wilson; ★★★☆☆
Reblogging because I added several more reviews. That’s 26 so far.
So I was planning on leaving the house early in order to go to the London Film and ComicCon and see if I can still get a ticket, but instead I ended up going through the really really old versions of Martin Freeman’s website. Which are adorable. Screenshots forthcoming. Eventually.
I really need to get dressed and leave.
John & Sherlock + Manhandling
No, but these two are totally platonic. There’s absolutely no underlying sexual tension here. What are you even talking about? Of course John is not gay. And you can bet your ass that Sherlock certainly does not enjoy being handled like that by another man. It’s not like he’s gay or anything. I mean, really! That’s preposterous.
Ok, so, I’m sure this was discussed aplenty back when TRF first aired and I’m sure someone has an answer, but I just thought of this and it kinda blew my mind:
If, in Moriarty’s insane mind, Sherlock is the villain that every fairy tale needs, then who is the hero? Because Moriarty himself is only the storyteller. So who is Moriarty’s hero?
Thank you, people of Emmyland. To be nominated in such company is an honour, especially for two shows that I’m immensely proud of. I’m delighted.
Benedict Cumberbatch is to make his first appearance at the San Diego Comic-Con to promote the animated feature The Penguins of Madagascar.
The forthcoming film, due to be released in November, sees the actor voice a character called Agent Classified.
Cumberbatch will serve on a panel hosted by DreamWorks, the film’s production company, alongside John Malkovich, Tom McGrath and directors Simon J Smith and Eric Darnell.
It is also thought the British actor will stay at the convention to lend his support to Peter Jackson when he presents the final instalment of the Hobbit trilogy The Battle of the Five Armies.
The DreamWorks panel is likely to attract droves of Cumberbatch fans queuing around the block when the actor makes his appearance at 11.30am on 24 July.
The 37-year-old has attracted a worldwide fanbase after starring as the Necromancer in the Hobbit trilogy, as well as playing the title role in hit BBC drama series Sherlock.
Cumberbatch was yesterday nominated for an Emmy Award for his portrayal of the super-sleuth in Sherlock: The Last Vow.
Comic Con, held annually in San Diego, showcases comic books and science fiction and fantasy films to fans and members of the industry.
Since its inception, the comic book convention has expanded to include the presentation of forthcoming animation films as well.
I am slowly wittling away my wages…
On Richard the iii tickets.
Second date booked. Boom!
I have no regrets.
None. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Ha, you and me both. I’m seeing it three times for now, but will probably see it at least once more. Thank god for 15 quid Mondays. I’ve spent way too much money on it already.
Richard III with Martin Freeman: a roundup of reviews
…Over here. Kind of a mixed bag: one suggestion of miscasting, a sense of general approbation for MF, but some questions about the production proper.
Shamelessly self-promoting here (except not really), but here is a masterpost of over 20 Richard III reviews I put together yesterday. Contrary to media reports, most are overwhelmingly positive. The only way the ‘mixed reviews’ claim is accurate is if you only consider the ‘big four’ reviews (the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent and the Times) and not the myriad other, equally legitimate, reviews that gave it four stars.