Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
selenak: (Linda by Beatlemaniac90)
Aka the pictorial results of my latest time in the British capital. Despite the occasional rain, it was mostly sunny - and fun. I did return with the unfun sort of cold, though, but never mind, it happens, especially in autumn. Now, photos!


Tower-Yachten-St. Paul
London Town in photos )
selenak: (Bardolatry by Cheesygirl)
I was in London mostly for work reasons this last week, but I did get some sightseeing and friends meeting done as well, not to mention some book shopping and theatre going, and I'll post a pic spam as soon as I am able. But first, have some reviews:

Plays:

Antony and Cleopatra: staged at the Globe, with Nadia Nadarajah and John Hollingworth in the titular roles. Antony and Cleopatra is one of those plays which just doesn't work for me when I read it but magically does work when I see it performed. In this particular case, there was of course also the charm of seeing it played on a reconstructed Elizabethan theatre, and the particular concept of this specific production, which was letting the Egyptians talk in sign language and the Romans out loud. (Going by the programm, the actors playing the Egyptians are indeed deaf; the Roman actors learned how to do British sign language as well.) (The costumes went for a standard antiquity look.) This made for strengths and weaknesses - on the one hand, the audience was focused even more on facial and body language, plus Antony either using sign language as well or not immediately said something about his current standing with Cleopatra, and the production had the audacity of letting their last scene play out mostly silent - you could have heard a needle fall, and it was breathtaking. On the downside, it meant that early on, the audience had to make up their minds whether to read the subtitles (the play was subtitled throughout, i.e. deaf people could enjoy the solely spoken parts as well) or watch the performances until getting in the rhythm of things. Also, some of the poetry of the language was lost - well, expressed in a different way, I suppose, but the last time I saw this play staged, it was at Stratford with Patrick Stewart as Antony and Harriet Walters as Cleopatra, and once you've heard these two recite those lines...

Otoh: the one point where we hear sounds from Cleopatra - after she, Iras and Charmian have been taken captive by Octavian's people, and a soldier holds her so she can't sign, meaning she has to speak out loud - it felt like a horrible violation, which tells you something about how immersed into this performance I've become.

Hadestown: a musical of which I'd heard a lot of good things, and justly so. Takes both the Orpheus & Eurydice and the Hades & Persephone myths and narrates them in a vaguely Depression era environment - but not "secularized", as it were, i.e. Hades isn't simply an industrialist, he really is a god and Persephone a goddess, etc. This said, the musical does lean into the whole Hades = Pluto = Plutocrat, master of the riches of the earth - symbolism, and the power he has is that of money in a world full of poverty; the famous scene in Ovid where Orpheus manages to make all the Shades who are getting punished in the Underworld - Tantalus, Sisyphus, even the Furies themselves - stop their torment and cry transforms into him being able to stop the exploited Dead/factory workers who've just given him a beating on Hades' behalf from working and make them feel again, for example. Eurydice doesn't get bitten by a snake, she makes a deal with Hades, who in turn is on the outs with Persephone, who increasingly can't cope with the constant switching between Underworld and World of the Living that makes her life. The fifth lead is Hermes (played by an actress looking Dietirch-esque in 1930s suits). The music is great, and the musical has the courage of its convictions apropos the ending.

Stranger Things: The First Shadow: yep, it's a theatre play that works as a prequel to the Netlix series, written by Kate Trefry based on a story from her and Jack Thorne (who has written Harry Potter and the Cursed Child as a way to prove he can write sequels/prequels to hits in another medium). Set during the 1950s, this is the tale of Henry Creel (as sketched out in flashbacks in s4 of the show), plus a new character, Patty Newby (adopted sister of Bob the Hobbit whom Joyce dated in s2), with the teenage versions of Joyce, Hopper, Bob and to a far lesser degree the parents of our future heroes getting involved in varying degrees as things go increasingly weird. Spoilers for the play and the series ensue. )

Books:

Sarah Gordon: Underdog: The Other Other Bronte. Poor Charlotte. Whenever she shows in fiction these last few years, it seems to be as a villain and/or the embodiment of sibling jealousy. Last year, she played the role of the envious sister in the frustrating movie Emily about
guess who; this year, she's the bad girl in this play which I did not have the chance to watch but bought the script of. It's (supposed to be) about Anne and much as the novel The Madwoman Upstairs does, about how Charlotte done her wrong. (Different authors, btw, but both postulate Charlotte, realizing her first novel The Professor sucked, stole the premise from Anne's Agnes Grey to create Jane Eyre. Only this play goes way beyong "Jane Eyre is a plagiarized Agnes Grey!" charge and the historically more accurate "Charlotte didn't allow any reprintings of The Tenant of Wildfell Hall once Anne was dead and thus is responsible for Anne's masterpiece getting forgotten for a century until it was rediscovered"; nope, Underdog has Charlotte constantly belittle and bully Anne like you wouldn't believe. (What about Emily? may a Bronte reader familiar with the fact Anne was closest to Emily and vice versa in the famliy ask. Well, much like Anne hardly shows up in Emily the movie, here Emily is an also ran in Underdog the play until near the end, when she tells Charlotte off for constantly bullying Anne just before her death. But really, otherwise she's just sort of there and not really taking Anne that seriously as a writer, either. As for Anne: supposedly this is her play, but the authorial eagerness in making her the perfect (not Victorian perfect, 21st century perfect) heroine who can see that Charlotte and Emily write unhealthy m/f relationships and is the true pioneer of feminist fiction paradoxically means she's never three dimensional. Also, this is a tale told by its villain, i.e. Charlotte. There's just one sequence where Charlotte isn't present and which isn't about her (Anne's first governessing job). But otherwise, Charlotte is the narrator, trying to justify herself but really unmasking, in a very 19th century novel style, though Wilkie Collins more than any of the Brontes. In conclusion, To Walk Invisible the movie is still the only take on the Sisters which manages to portray all three with sympathy and skill.

Katherine Moar: Farm Hall. Another play, this one set in the titular place in1945 where the British government hosted the German scienistst they'd gotten their hands on until the nuclear bomb(s) dropped, trying to figure out by recording them how far the German atom bomb project had gotten and what they knew. It starts with a quote from Michael Frayn of Copenhagen fame and very much feels like Copenhagen fanfiction in terms of Heisenberg's characterisation (maybe a touch sharper about his ego early on, but two thirds in, in the aftermath of the Hiroshima news, he does talk Otto Hahn through how it could have worked, thus as in Copenhagen providing the counter argument to "he wouldn't have been able to figure out the key bits anyway"). However, it's much more of an ensemble piece. A well done play, but unfortunately I kept having my disbelief suspension snapped, for example when they have some of the German scientists wonder about American movies being so popular and being produced with so much effort when there's a war going on. Dear Katherine Moar, while the German film industry undoubtedly greatly suffered from the Nazi caused exodus of many incredibly talented people, it really got dream funding from the government (a firm believer of panem et circenses, Goebbels), and was producing films for the purpose of entertainment and propaganda right until the bitter end. I mean, freaking Goebbels ordered parts of the army to play spear carriers in Veit Harlan's Colberg in 1944. =>' No German living at that time would have been the least bit surprised that the US film industry is doing well in the war. Also, I had the impression the Carl Friedrich von Weizäcker characterisation is mostly based on him being the son of a prominent, privileged family, so he gets to be the spoiled young man of the ensemble, and wellllllll, not the impression I had. Most characters go through similar arcs - they start out feeling smug in their scientific superiority and determinedly not talking about recent genocides, get the superiority shattered and, some of them, starting to confront the recent past. As fanficton, it works; I'm not sure it does as a play.

Lucy Jago: A Net for Small Fishes. A novel that deals with the same Stuart court scandal I wrote a story about, Frances Howard (Essex, Somerset) and the Overbury Affair, in this case, though, narrated by Anne Turner, the long term friend who got Frances the poison. It's written with much sympathy for both ladies, Anne and Frances, and when I came to the afterward, I saw it drew from the same main source I had used ("The Trials of Fances Howard", i.e. the most recent and most balanced account of the Overbury affair. Lucy Jago doesn't provide Frances with the same motives I speculated about, but I find her version plausible as well, and I appreciate the complexity of the relationships - especially Anne and Frances (I was half afraid she'd do a Philippa Gregory and go for the mean girl/ exploited good girl approach, but no, absolutely not). Even bit players like Queen Anne are interesting. A compelling historical novel.
selenak: (City - KathyH)
Flying back to Munich this afternoon, I leave you with some visual impressions of my time in London, with a brief excursion to Winchester, and to Greenwich.

Museum vom Observatory aus photo image_zps906hv2ec.jpeg


More below the cut )
selenak: (Illyria by Kathyh)
Meeting friends is always one of the pleasures of being in London; yesterday I visited the "Sunken Treasures of Egypt" exposition at the British Museum with [personal profile] kathyh and self were amazed at various wooden statues made of Sycamore tree surviving the millennia. (They, btw, looked more Greek than Egyptian and depicted Serapis. This led us to a sidetrack to the Serapeion in Tivoli and Hadrian versus Alexander in who immortalized his grief over his dead boyfriend more efficiently. K and self agreed it was Hadrian but that Alexander would have if he could have; he died too soon after Hephaistos.)

In the evening, after a quick chat with [personal profile] kangeiko, I saw the Kenneth Branagh directed Romeo and Juliet at the Garrick. This one stars Derek Jacobi as Mercutio, Meera Syal at the Nurse and his two leads from the live action Cinderella, Lily James and Richard Madden, as the lovers, only Richard Madden was down and out and thus I saw the understudy, Freddie Fox. Not being a Jon Snow fan, I didn't mind. Mostly I was curious how Derek Jacobi as Mercutio would work, given, well, the age difference between him and the rest of the cast, and was looking foward to Meera Syal.

Now I wasn't surprised Branagh cast Jacobi per se; he's worked with him so often and clearly loves the man, in the introduction printed in the program he credits DJ with inspiring him to act as a teenager, and he's cast Jacobi as Mercutio once already, in the radio production of Romeo and Juliet he directed back in the 90s (that one had Samantha Bond as Juliet if I recall correctly). I strongly suspect the wish of letting Jacobi do the Queen Mab speech on stage might have also featured into the choice. But of course casting a man Jacobi's age in this particular role alters the dynamics; his Mercutio is basically everybody's fabulous gay uncle, with him and Romeo more resembling a non emotionally violent light side Falstaff and Hal than the bffs (with and without strong homoerotic overtones) the same age they usually end up as. Where the casting almost hits a logical snag but is pulled off by the strongness of acting is Mercutio's duel with Tybalt. Because Fabulous Gay Uncle Mercutio should be wiser than and way past minding that Romeo doesn't challenge Tybalt back, or getting into a duel at all.

The way the production pulls it off: by being in the middle between the two interpretations of the Mercutio versus Tybalt duel I've seen; usually it's either that the duel isn't at first meant to be serious and both are still posturing until Romeo tries to intervene, or that they go at it violently straight away. Here, Mercutio revealing that his walking stick on which he sauntered and danced through the play so far has a hidden blade comes as a shock to everyone, including Tybalt, but it's also clear at this point Mercutio doesn't intend a duel, he just wants to humiliate Tybalt with this shock after Tybalt, in M's pov, has scored one off Romeo due to Romeo not answering the challenge. Mercutio then turns to Romeo as if to say "see, that's how it's done", and that's when Tybalt also draws, which again causes shock in the rest of both gangs. They then start to actually fence a bit, but still stylized; there's the danger of blood letting, and you can see why Romeo is worried and tries to separate them, yet at the same time, arguably both Tybalt and Mercutio are still more posturing than meaning it. Mercutio getting lethally hit is a complete accident due to Romeo's well intentioned separation attempt, not a deliberately meant deadly thrust on Tybalt's part, putting the guilt of it completely on Romeo. Mercutio actually follows stage directions and woundedly walks off stage, which I don't think I've seen before - all the productions, both stage and film, that I've encountered let him die on stage instead of Romeo having to wait for Benvolio's report to freak out and go after Tybalt.

Speaking of Tybalt, the production gives him and Juliet some interaction at the Montague ball, letting them goof around and hug, and he introduces her to the crowd, which I thought was a neat touch, though it also included something that annoyed me throughout - the characters sometimes get random lines in Italian. This presumably is meant to fit with everything being supposedly set in 1950s Italy, fashion wise, and taking its aesthetic cue from La Dolce Vita, but instead only helps making the characters feel like movie Italians, and not in a good way. The programm tells me that the 1950s Italy look is meant to evoke glamor on the surface but deep dysfunction underneath, with fascism but barely over and not talked about, but on stage, there's no sense of that, just of random "ciao, bella" type of interjections.

The one point where it really gets disturbingly dysfunctional is, not surprisingly, the Juliet versus her father scene late in the play, where Papa Capulet not just freaks out at his daughter and manhandles her, which I've seen before, but even slaps his wife and the Nurse around, and that feels like a brief excursion into a 'verse where the bonhommie old Capulet has shown before covers the brutal authoritarian, even fascist, underneath. But that's the only point where I felt what the program claimed was the reason for the setting actually was on stage.

In general, this was a fast paced, enjoyable production - Meera Syal wasn't just an earthy but highly attractive Nurse who wasn't too bothered by the young crowd & Mercutio's comments, and Lily James delivered the gallops pace speech in a way that made it clear even to the last row that this was Juliet looking forward to having sex and was a hormonal young teenager in general, with the big shift when the Nurse switches to Team Paris and Juliet realises she's alone and no longer confides in her coming across clear. Freddie Fox was a seasonably good Romeo, which is why I thought it was a shame his scene with the Apothocary was cut - to me, that scene says a lot about Romeo. I did miss some intensity in his relationship with Mercutio - the production does the by now usual thing where Mercutio gets carried away into his own rethoric in the last third of the Queen Mab speech, and Romeo has to talk him down again, but because of the age difference, this came across as a protegé calms suddenly fragile parental figure thing.

In conclusion: not a must, I've seen better, I've seen worse, but I enjoyed seeing this one.
selenak: (Frobisher by Letmypidgeonsgo)
London for a week always means theatre time for me. My main treat will happen on Friday, but in the meantime, here are two I already managed to see.

Hobson's Choice: one of those British comedy classics which for some reason I never managed to catch before, including the David Lean film version starring Charles Laughton. This one has Martin Shaw (of The Professionals fame in his younger days) as the title character, but turns out one of those plays where the title character isn't the main character - that would be, without a question, Maggie, ably played by Naomi Frederick. As a pay, it also strikes me as a bit of a late 19th century middle and working class Lear from the daughters' pov, and done as a comedy. Which is to say: at the start of the pla, shoe shop owner Hobson is a petty tyrant to his three daughters, getting drunk in the pub and indulging in grandiose speeches while they do all the (unpaid) work both in the household and in the shop, above all the oldest, Maggie. Through the play, Maggie not only plots her and her sisters' escape but the complete overthrow of her father, establishes a rival business that soon takes away the trade, and by the end takes over the orginal shop while her father (having nearly drunk himself to death without her) concedes utter defeat and has to give complete power to her. If you think about it, there are any number of points where this could have gone into very dark territory, but the production never does - there is never any sense that Hobson's early insults and ongoing humiliations of his daughters have impaired, let alone destroyed their sense of self worth, and Maggie's triumph at the end comes without cruelty, just very matter-of-factly, and the narrative makes it clear she's saving her father's life while she's at it. Plus Maggie is such a force of nature throughout that one in the play is a match for her; that she enlists shy underpaid bootmaker Will for marriage (you could also say: bullies - he really doesn't want to marry her at the start) is one of those things that would look terribly with reversed genders, but again, the play not only goes for the comedy of shy trembling man versus strong no nonsense woman, but also makes it clear Will benefits from Maggie taking over his life; instead of an underpaid exploited worker, he ends up boss of two shops and with a much stronger sense of self worth, standing up for himself.

Everyone involved had great comic timing, and it's easy to see why this play keeps getting revived. It's also something that, like G.B. Shaw's plays, was written as a contemporary story and is now a costume play because you can't update it when its plot and problems are very much that of a specific setting, so late Victorian/early Edwardian costumes (not too grand, we're in Manchester shops, not in Ascot) are used. All in all, I felt greatly entertained, but don't have the urge to watch it again.

1984: adaption of George Orwell's novel by Robert Icke and Duncan Macmillan. Adapting a novel (any novel) for the theatre always is tricky, let alone this one, but team Icke and Macmillan for my money did a superb job of it. One key angle for their angle is the appendix Orwell wrote about Newspeak, which implies that the Party fell after all - since it analyzes from a future perspective that's not totalitarian -, another the question of what makes reality and how to maintain a sense of past and present if you're completely taken over. And thus, you have structures within structures - Winston is remembering, or tries to, the events leading up to his arrest and torture even while he's being tortured and his past is being rewritten (O'Brien's "where do you think you are, Winston?" Question keeps returning through the play?), but at the same time, people from a post - Big Brother world are discussing his diary as a text (fictional? Historical?), and yet that reality, too, with the end of the play is called into question.

Orwell's depiction of a totalitarian state remains as disturbing as ever. (Being German, I didn't read it in school as part of the curriculum, I read it while still at school as part of my spare time reading, and was freaked out in a "wow" way.) And absolutely not dated, au contraire, sad to say. The "hate" rallies and the blaming of Goldstein as a traitor figure for all the misery could be Turkey (and Gülen as Goldstein) now, but you don't have to go East, going West will do, too (see "Lock her up!" Chants at the recent RNC or rallies last autumn in Germany where effigies of Angela Merkel were hanged). The constant recreation of reality to fit the Party's current position, the way blatant lies are accepted no matter or ridiculous they are, and then reversed into new lies again: yes, hello, Brexit campain and aftermath, we don't even have to go to Russia for this.

One element that as a teenager didn't resonate for me the way it does now: when O'Brien, pretending to be a resistance member, gets Winston and Julia to volunteer for any number of criminal acts which sound as if they're taken from the current news but really are in the novel: kill themselves and kill any number of innocent people for the cause, throw acid in a child's face. The recording of this agreement is what O'Brien later uses to demonstrate to Winston that he can't claim moral superiority, and when I read that as a teenager, it didn't seem as effective as later things O'Brien did to me because after all Winston and Julia did none of those things, and it was all a trick. But here, on stage, in an age where people do kill lots of innocents (and themselves) for what they perceive to be a world saving cause against an evil state, it was a devastating moment.

Still not as bad as what followed, though. The way they handle the problem of torture on stage: every time it happens, the white clad goons close in on Winston so the audience can't see him, and when they go back to their position, he's got bloody finger tips, or bleeds out of the mouth etc. And then the rats. Which you don't see at all, but the imagination works overtime at this point and Winston's panicked scream that finally breaks him inwardly as well as outwardly is so harrowing because you couldn't bear it anymore as an audience member as well, even in the tv age of torture torture all the time.

If I have one complaint, than that one of the most disturbing elements of the novel, the strange, perverse intimacy between inquisitor and victim that is there between O'Brien and Winston does not come across. The film version starring Richard Burton (in his last screen role) as O'Brien and John Hurt as Winston Smith managed that, but here between Angus Wright as O'Brien and Andrew Gower as Winston it's not there, and earlier it's also not clear why Winston trusts O'Brien enough to approach him in the first place. Angus Wright is just too obviously chilling a bureaucrat from the start.

The audience isn't left off the hook at any point. One of the most effective uses of modern day technology is that when Winston and Julia are in the room they believe to be without surveillance, cherishing this little bit of privacy, they're not on stage but the audience sees them on screen, being in the position of the surveilling Big Brother in the post Orwell sense themselves. And while the appendix-inspired frame of treating Winston's diary as a historical text (or a historical fiction), complete with debate of mobile phone using contemporaries, could offer some emotional relief (the Party does fall after all, Winston wrote his plea to the future for us), it's called into question again by the end (did the Party fall, or did it just find a different method of controlling and shaping reality?), and the very end isn't the appendix inspired frame but, as in the novel, Winston's last moment of complete emotional capitulation.

I hadn't been sure the dramatic form would be able to get the power of Orwell's fiction across, but did it ever. No intermission, either, it just builds and builds and builds; the emotional effect isn't "now I've seen an adaption of a dystopian classic" but "through a mirror - into the hear and now - darkly".
selenak: (VanGogh - Lefaym)
Sunday was a bit gloomy, weather-wise, but Monday was sunny, and thus I did again something I hadn't for two decades and went to Kew Gardens. Then, because it was such a fine day, I added something I hadn't done during previous London trips, full stop, and took the boat on the Thames instead of the train in order to get from Kew Gardens to Hampton Court. (Aka how the the kings and queens and their courts did it.) Of course, by the time I arrived in Hampton Court clouds had gathered and I was a bit frozen, but never mind, it had been worth it. All in all, it was a great way to say goodbye to London for this year, although not quite, because in the evening I went to [personal profile] rozk's book launch, which was fabulous. Now I'm off to the air port, but won't be able to resume my fannish life until next week because tomorrow I'm bound for Prague! (Where I was only once in my life before, and then I was 13, so I hardly remember anything.)


Meanwhile, share the beauty of gardens, mansions and palaces, not to mention the Thames:


 photo image.jpg11_zpsblqpsa6o.jpg


More beneath the cut )
selenak: (City - KathyH)
I'm very very exhausted, in a good way, so no report yet on a play and a film that I've seen, which shall be written at some future point, but for now, just pics. Because while this is about the gazillionest visit to London, I still can't resist using my camera, and on this very beautiful day, I was with [personal profile] kathyh in Windsor.

 photo image.jpg6_zpsy7shvwal.jpg

Read more... )
selenak: (Dork)
Because there was the occasional spot of sunshine. Like yesterday morning, before I had to catch my flight. Guess what I did before I left that island on the silver sea?

 photo 2014_0221England0126_zps58ddcd5b.jpg


Pity the traffic which has to go through Abbey Road because they literally have not a moment of uninterrupted access from dawn to dusk... )
selenak: (Bardolatry by Cheesygirl)
Overheard, just the other day, near Marble Arch while having lunch, the following conversation:

Aged Father: "What about the Roma who were here last time?"
Daughter (my age, Tory politician). "We're not calling them that, Dad, we're calling them agressive beggars of Eastern European Origin. And we got rid of them."

And thus you know you're surrounded by conservative England. There was a lot of interesting talk during that lunch otherwise, on all types of subjects from the EU to Dickens to Thomas Mann, but that part was the only point where I felt positively Orwellian.

Thursday also saw me watching Rapture, Blister, Burn, a play written by Gina Gionfriddo and performed at Hampstead Theatre. It occurs to me that means that out of five plays I watched during my time in London, three were written by women (Red Velvet, A Taste of Honey and Rapture - Blister - Burn, respectively), and today I also watched a film, The Invisible Woman, which was written by Abi Morgan and based on the book by Claire Tomalin. The times, they are (hopefully) changing. Which was partly the subject of Rapture, Blister, Burn, a play starring Emilia Fox (which is why I went) and Emma Fielding, and focused on women and their choices, and different generations of feminism. Rapture-Blister-Burn with spoilers ) It's not a play that offers some amazing new insights but it it's one that offers a very funny depiction of the inevitable imperfection of current day female life (in all its variations). Who says feminists are without a sense of humour?

Thursday was very rainy, so I first went to the National Gallery (me and half of London, but as opposed to the National Portrait Gallery, I hadn't visited the NG for years, and I did want to see some of these paintings in non-printed form again), which was, despite all the other people, a very relaxing thing to do. When wandering around the Impressionists, I was struck again by how many of them sat out the Franco-Prussian war in Britain, which was probably the most sensible thing to do, but can't have been that comfortable an exile, since they all went back once it was over.

Then I watched The Invisible Woman, because non-blockbuster foreign films which weren't co-produced with German money take sometimes a year or so before they get shown in our cinemas, and I really wanted to see this one, for various reasons: I had read Claire Tomalin's Dickens biography, which impressed me in its even handedness and vivacity, Claire Tomalin's report about how the film came to me, and the various reviews which assured me on what were the two most criticial points for me in advance to know: that this film would not excuse Dickens' behaviour by demonizing or denigrating his wife, that it would not play out Nelly against Catherine, on the one hand, but on the other that it would also manage to show just why so many people cared about Dickens as a person, not "just" as an author. (Because otherwise Nelly looks foolish.) And because Nelly's personality always eluded me in the biographies, I hoped for the film, which is after all fiction, to help out there. Which it did. The Invisible Woman with spoilers )

My last London play this year was The Knight of the Burning Pestle at the new Sam Wannamaker Playhouse, which is an addition to the Globe; an indoor Jacobean playhouse where the Globe company can now stage plays in winter, too. I had tried for the Duchess of Malfi, their first play in the new house, about which I'd heard great things, but it was completely sold out, so last night I could watch the premiere of the next play, Beaumont's rarely performed Knight of the Burning Pestle. I had never seen it on stage before, and haven't read it though I knew one or two scenes from books about the Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre - since it is a play-within-a-play type of drama, which breaks the fourth wall with gusto, it gets quoted as an (of course dramatically exaggareted) example of what the stage practice of the day would have been. As it turns out, it is ideal for this particular theatre, which is build similar to the Swan in Stratford, only completely in wood, modelled on the Blackfriars Playhouse. So as opposed to the Globe, you have this relatively small space, with the basic archetectural structure of a refectory with a nod to an alehouse, all in wood. I'd been warned about the hard seats, but let me tell you, for the Bayreuth-trained theatre and opera enthusiast, this was downright comfortable by comparison. Also the play was very much about audience participation; the other thing I was told was that for the Duchess of Malfi, everything was completely dark except for the candles used for lighting. Not so here; the doors were always open, partly because at some points the characters ran off stage and through them and back again, but also because the audience reactions were part of the play so you needed the audience to be visible.

The Knight of the Burning Pestle presents you, among other things, with a London citizen, a grocer, his wife and his apprentice going to a play, not being content with what they watch as they don't like the hero and taking over the plot, inserting a new character, their apprentice, in it who is to have all types of glorious adventures which suspiciously resemble Don Quixote (a book which was out in Spanish but not yet in English at the time so there is some debate whether Beaumont had read it) while the actors try to stage their original play (which is about a London merchant's apprentice being forbidden to marry said merchant's daughter and after all sorts of shenanigans getting together with her anyway), which doesn't fit the demanded adventure plots at all. It's the kind of thing which sounds hopelessly confusing when written but when staged as it was last night really is hilarious, with the whole audience cheering Rafe on when he has his Quixotic adventures and adoring the Citizen and his Wife who were the heart of the performance and sat among the audience commenting when they weren't on stage trying to help the actors/their characters. They are basically Jacobean fandom living the fans-know-everything-better-anyway dream (which tells me Francis Beaumont must have been lectured by fanboys and fangirls a lot), and presented with great affection. Instead of the usual break ca. halfway through a play, for this play we got three interludes that lasted about four minutes during which there were on stage dances, and during which also food and drinks were sold as well (yes, you could, in the true Jacobean spirit, eat and drink during the performance, though at one point one of the actors of The London Merchant went down to the Citizen's wife and took her food away, and one longer, fifteen minutes interlude announced as "privvy break". Like I said, this was pretty much the Rocky Horror Show type of live performance audience experience, Jacobean style, and terrific fun from beginning to end.

Today: the sun has come back! Will walk a while before heading off to the airport - my flight is in the afternoon. What a trip!
selenak: (Linda by Beatlemaniac90)
Yesterday was actually a sunny day, and I met the St. James pelicans on my way through the park.

I always visit the National Portrait Gallery when I'm in London; it's less crowded than the National Gallery, and it appeals to the historical obsessive in me. This time, as it turned out I could also visit the exhibition showcasing David Bailey's work over the decades, Stardust. There is an undertone of "I didn't just photograph the 60s, you know" there, but then, it's true. Mind you, whether 60s, 80s or 2000 onwards, what's undeniable is that black and white is Bailey's metier; the occasional colour photograph simply isn't as effective. The title not withstanding, the exhibition doesn't solely consist of Bailey's celebrity photos; there is one room with showing his photos of New Guinea people and Australian Aborigines, neither of whom are treated condescendingly or in any different from the way he photographs Western people, and another with his contribution to Live Aid which was to go to Sudan and document the situation there without fee. But inevitably, this being David Bailey, two thirds of the exhibition show people which one does know. (Well, I did, anyway.) Two of the most interesting portraits to me which I hadn't seen before were photos Bailey did of fellow photographers, of Don McCullin (probably most famous for his Vietnam work and in this the antipode of Bailey in terms of subject matter in the 60s) in the 90s, looking craggy and sage and yet somewhat amused, and of Linda McCartney in 1985, the face unabashedly without make-up and showing every line of a woman in her mid forties, and strong in herself for it. Incidentally, in terms of self portraits, Bailey's are a mixture of unflinching sense-of-humor about himself - the more current day ones not only are as unflattering as possible but also tend to have him posing as a clown, all grimaces, puffed up cheeks and nose - and youthful showing off; there is one photo of the young David Bailey lounging in bed which is amazingly sexy and makes it understandably why supposedly two thirds of his models ended up having sex with him.

His favourite band, the Rolling Stones, get their own room (the notes informing us that David Bailey first met Mick Jagger when they were dating the Shrimpton sisters, Jean and Chrissie, in 1963, and that they're friends till this day), but in terms of his older work, the non-Stone photos are more memorable; another part of exhibition shows the "Pin-Box" collection he published in 1965 which had most of Swinging London (some of whom remained famous, and some folk who have since fallen into obscurity) in it, including the most notorious gangsters of the day, the Kray twins. Now I had seen Bailey's portrait shot of Ronnie and Reggie Kray before (and so have you, if you've seen photos of the Krays at all), but what I hadn't been aware of was that he took that photo in session with all three Kray brothers (yes, there was a third). Older brother Charlie was subsequently edited out of all the pictures (the exhibition has the originals, though), since no one cared about him. I sometimes wonder whether it's the awareness of who the Krays were that make me imagine you can see the cold brutality in the eyes, a certain psychopathic blankness, and whether I would read the photographsh differently if they were labeled "Ronald and Reginald Smith". But I think not; Bailey, at his best, can get across much character in his pictures.

Among the today obscure/forgotten people from the 1965 Pin-Box is for example Gordon Waller (of Peter & Gordon); among the still instantly recognizable one of the most famous pictures ever taken of John Lennon & Paul McCartney. So I knew that one, of course, but what I hadn't known was that Bailey also took portrait shots of Brian Epstein, three of which are included in the exhibition, two regular shots and a double exposure portrait, all excellent. It's worth noting that while the exhibition has several portraits of Jean Shrimpton, there are none from the photo shooting that made Bailey famous in 1962 (maybe Vogue still has the copy right?).

From photography to theatre: after visiting the National Portrait Gallery, I headed off to the other side of the river to see King Lear at the National Theatre, starring Simon Russell Beale in the title role, directed by Sam Mendes. Which was a very strong production, even if I'm still uncertain about some of the choices. Mendes went for a vaguely 1940s - general 20th century look, military dictatorship instead of traditional monarchy; interestingly, the French forces under Cordelia are clad in a brown guerilla look while the English ones both under Lear and later under Albany and Edmund are clad in a fascist black. Beale's Lear, as most good Lears do, starts very unsympathetic and gets more and more human and pitiable as the play proceeds. When he first says "let me not go mad" it's also the first time I felt any sympathy for him. Mind you, the autocratic behaviour in the opening scene of course means Lear comes off badly towards Cordelia and Kent however you play it, but in this production he also came off badly towards Goneril and Regan, with no warmth towards them yet expecting them to love (and proclaim their love for) him, plus the production had the hundred knights really rowdy (and, remember, in sinister black) at Goneril's, so Goneril feeling threatened and wanting to get rid of them in addition to having a strained relationship with her father was understandable. When Lear curses her, you can see how terrible this is for her. And then, like I said, the first human moment: "Let me not go mad". And suddenly Beale is projecting this fear, the moment of awareness, and it's so relatable - the fear of dementia, of Alzheimer's, of your own body and mind betraying you, of the helplessness when everything threatens to be taken away.

This is a production that feels very fast paced, but not in a bad way, as things go from bad to worse in both the Lear and the Gloucester plot; the suspense never snaps. Two outstanding moments in the first half before the interval - Gloucester's blinding, with the servant's intervention given its dramatic due when most productions I've seen tend to get that moment over with very quickly. (I think it's a great touch of Shakespeare's, especially given the "even if the King's cause is wrong, our duty towards him absolves us from any blame" debate in Henry V, because here you have a character who is not a noble going against the rule of duty and obedience because he can't stand seeing a man tortured this way. Also, before the blinding there is waterboarding as Regan and Cornwall interrogate Gloucester. Obvious contemporary nod is obvious. And speaking of Regan and Cornwall, usually because Regan moves on quickly to Edmund and is the less present sister in any case she doesn't get more emotional range beyond sadistic sex kitten; here she's sadistic and enjoying sex, but she's also sincerely in love with her equally cruel husband and devasteted when he's killed, desperately trying to stop the bleeding and save him. (She's also played by Anna Maxwell Martin of Bletchley Circle fame.)

The other outstanding scene, and a production choice I'm not sure about, is the climax of Lear's mad scene just before the interval. In the text, he stages a mad mock trial of his daughters. "Is your name Goneril" etc. In Sam Mendes' production, he doesn't just mistake a stage prop for Goneril, though he starts out with that. No, he then does something spoilery and unique to this production ) Then again, madness. I just don't know.

Later Lear also acts kindly towards Edgar-as-Tom, and towards Gloucester, which shows why Cordelia and Kent love this man (which is important; if you play Lear as solely bad, which I've also seen - and Jane Smiley does it in her modern Lear, A Thousand Acres, where he's a daughter rapist to boot - then not only there's no tragedy but it doesn't make sense anyone would feel love and loyalty for such a man). And the reconciliaton scene with Cordelia is outstanding; I have never seen a production where not only there is a Lear reluctant because he's so ashamed at how he treated her but also Cordelia who on the one hand loves and pities him but on the other is scarred by what happened herself, and so there is physical distance and uncomfortableness and slow, slow getting closer, so that when they do at last embrace, it is incredibly moving.

Always a question for actors for Lear: are you on the one hand old enough not to need ghastly make up but on the other strong enough to carry your Cordelia on the stage? Beale is up to the job. I've seen Lears drag their Cordelia because carrying an adult woman in your arms is no mean feat, but he accomplishes it. He's also one of the Lears whose "look there, look there" isn't a comforting final delusion that Cordelia still lives and starts to breathe again,but a despair about her death. It's heartrendering.

I haven't said much about the Gloucester plot, which is partly because it contains another of those choices I'm not sure about. Now this production's Edmund (Sam Troughton - a relation, I wonder?) with his sleeked back blond hair is slick enough in the machinations early on but also presented as a cold fish, which, fair enough, it's just that you have a hard time seeing why Goneril and Regan (both played by charismatic and beautiful actresses conveying much emotion) would fall for him. And in the later half, Mendes cuts Edgar's narration of Gloucester's death (so while on the one hand he adds that spoilery thing from the big madness scene ) on the other he lets Gloucester survive), and thus also Edmund's moment of being moved by it and the following not exactly repentance but at least attempt to take his orders for Lear's and Cordelia's deaths back. Also cut is Edmund's possibly vain and/or possibly being moved remark re: Regan's and Goneril's demise, "so Edmund was beloved". In short, those slight touches which don't make Edmund less of a villain but do make him human.

These caveats not withstanding, it is an excellent Lear, and I'm glad to have watched it. Onwards to more London theatre!
selenak: (Omar by Monanotlisa)
I arrived in London amidst rain and wind on Friday afternoon, but my trusty umbrella protected me enough so I could purchase the rest of the theatre tickets I wanted which they hadn't wanted to sell me online, and on Saturday morning London looked like this:

Parlament photo image_zpsc8a0f1bc.jpg

Mind you, the wind hadn't gone, which is why more and more clouds gathered during the day until it started to rain again. Still, I had planned on doing something I'd never managed during all my previous visits to London, which was to see Highgate Cemetery. Which I did, with [personal profile] jesuswasbatman, and you'll find the pic spam complete with Douglas Adams and Karl Marx and ongoing narration below under the cut. Afterwards, we had a quick lunch because by then it was heavily raining again and we needed something warm, and then I hastened away to meet [personal profile] rozk, whom I had tea and chatted away with until it was time for me to walk back to my hotel, change and take the Jubilee line to Kilburn where I watched the play Red Velvet, about Ira Albridge, one of the earliest black actors of the 19th century who became an international star. It's a new play, written by Lolita Chakrabarti and directed by Indhu Rubasingham, and Ira Albridge is played by Adrian Lester, who won an awardf or this role.

Albridge was American, born in New York in 1807, and left the US in 1824 for Britain where he toured the provinces and worked his way towards greater reknown until 1833 when he played Othello at Covent Garden, the first black actor to perform on a patented British theatre in London. What happened before, during and after forms the gist of the play, which the beginning and ending set thirty years later in on tour in Poland, where Ira Albridge, at that point an actor who'd performed across the continent, including Russia, been given medals by the King of Prussian and the Emperor of Austria and knighted by the Duke of Sachsen-Meiningen (who, btw, was a big theatre fan and is credited for some major reforms in German theatre) would eventually die. (His death isn't part of the play, but there is a reason why we see him near the end of his life and career, I'll get to that.)

Ira Albridge's performance as Othello at Covent Garden came to be becaus a week earlier, the most famous actor in Britain, Edmund Kean, playing Othello, had collapsed on stage in the arms of his son Charles who played Jago. Edmund Kean didn't recover and would die a few weeks later; he never shows up in the play but his shadow hangs over it. The manager of Covent Garden, Pierre LaPorte, faced with the prospect of losing the audience because the big star and draw had just dropped dead (or nearly so), then took a gamble and hired Ira Albridge. In the play Red Velvet, Pierre and Ira were friends before and one of the younger actors has seen Ira on stage previously, but for everyone else the fact that the new Othello is actually a black man comes as a shock, especially for Charles Kean.

Sidenote: this is probably the biggest departure the play does from history. Charles Kean in the play gets saddled with the role of prime antagonist, and it's not hard to see why the playwright picked him as the voice of racism and conservative traditionalism; as opposed to his father Edmund, who was one of the big innovative actors of his day, Charles Kean not only had the misfortune that comes from being the so-so talented son of a genius father in the same profession but also is remembered mostly for stately Shakespeare productions with detailed historical costumes who generated placid approval but never excitement. And it would make psychological sense if he felt supplanted by and jealous of Ira Albridge playing his father's role (but never his) opposite his fiancee, Ellen Tree, as Desdemona. Plus, you know, ironic doubling of the Iago role etc. However, the timeline of Albridge's life in the program points out that actually Charles Kean had already acted with Ira Albridge four years previously in Belfast... and the play was Othello, no less, with Ira as Othello and Charles as Iago. So in order for Charles to be the racist No.1 who is indignant at the mere thought of a black man playing Shakespeare and refuses to act with him, who can't stand the sight of him touching a white woman etc., this earlier cooperation had to be wiped out from history.

As the play also points out, 1833 was when slavery finally became illegal in the British colonies as well (the slave trade had been outlawed in 1807, but not slavery itself as far as the colonies are concerned), and it was very much a topic of the day; it's a topic of debate among the actors, too. Who also employ a black maid but never, including the fervent abolitionists, actually talk to her beyond giving her coats etc. or asking for tea; Connie, who is from Jamaica, is a silent presence (and the only other black character) except for one scene, after the first Othello performance and before the second one, when she and Ira are alone and have a conversation both about the play itself (she's not too impressed because Othello was so easily persuaded) and the circumstances (she tries, in vain, to warn him of what's to come).

Adrian Lester plays Ira in two different time frames - as old Ira, he's the essential old star, a bit tyrannical but also still able of charm if he cares to, hiding the unhealed scars of what happened in 1833 until they get laid open and you realise just what the price for his stardom was. As young Ira, he's passionate, ambitious and hopeful, and the play is great in capturing both the intense camraderie that can develop between actors, the excitement of developing performances together (which happens with Ellen Tree) - and its quick falling apart under pressure. Because the reviews are horribly racist (and btw, not invented - none of these critics seems to have been self aware enough of the irony of complaining of a "stupid looking, thick-lipped ill-formed African" daring to play Othello and "pawing" a white actress), and the entire Covent Garden theatre is closed after only two performances. (Ira Albridge didn't play in London again for another fifteen years, and then only once; all his triumphs took place elsewhere.) The play doesn't go for simple good/bad equation; you believe, for example, that Pierre LaPorte is sincere in his friendship and really wanted Ira to suceed, and their breakup scene is heartrendering, but at the same time, he's not just making a business decision, and he's also not free from the universally biased world around them - in the climax of their fierce argument, some expressions like "your true nature" get out, and it's clear he means "your nature as a black man".

The play doesn't examine how prejudice works in solely one direction, though; I already mentioned Connie, the black maid. There is also Ira's first wife Margaret, who is white, and doesn't get a seat at the evening of his first performance at Covent Garden because being married to a black man has put her beyond the social pale. And in the framing opening and closing scenes of the play, there is the female Polish journalist Halina who tries to get an interview with Ira in order to get her big break which could finally make the men at her paper take her seriously instead of keeping her solely around to write about ladies winning flower arrangement prices. Now the play both draws a parallel between the glass ceiling Halina is trying to break as a woman reporter and the one young Ira tried to break on the stage AND shows they're different things; in the final scene, when Halina pours her heart out about what she wants and why, old Ira is slowly putting on his make-up for playing King Lear. Adrian Lester hardly says anything in that scene and is yet absolutely devastating by body language and by what he does - because the make-up Ira is putting on for Lear is whitening his face. And you realise that all the other, non-Othello,non-Aaron roles he played so successfully - he had to play in whiteface. By the time he asks for his gloves to cover his hands, it's hard not to cry, and like I said - Adrian Lester does it almost silently. (Whereas he's very verbal in the rest of the play, and btw - the man has a terrific voice.)

I also found it a very courageous choice on the part of the playwright. It would have been easy to make the audience feel good by letting them leave in the knowledge that hey, yes, there was the London disaster but Ira did become a star after all! Happy ending! Instead, the last scene is like a punch in the gut: yes, he did become a star, but the time he lived in still managed to humiliate him through all his years of being one.

In conclusion: go watch, if you can.

Now, on to my earlier visit to the most famous cemetery in London.

Where they bury English writers and German revolutionaries alike )
selenak: (Band on the Run - Jackdawsonsgrl)
Sadly, the weather, as of easing me in to my departure, remained on the cold and cloudy side, so I paid the Dickens museum a visit, where, as with the Tower, I hadn't been since I was 21. It is as a I dimly remembered a really well reconstructed Victorian house, and the three things which struck me most this time were:

- Dickens's reading desk with a manuscript for his vaunted public readings, full of crossed out print and handwritten sentences over it
- the serpent ring which Kate Dickens gave to her sister, Georgiana Hogarth, as a very pointed present (Georgiana stayed with Dickens and sided with him in the infamous separation after he kicked his wife out) - it is so large a ring that Georgiana must have had thick fingers, btw
- the bust of Dickens' eternally broke father John and on the opposite side of the room a drawing of Wilkins Micawber from David Copperfield ; the fictional Micawber looks so remarkably like John Dickens (who was his real life model), that I suspect either the artist who made the illustrations knew Dickens's father (possible), or conversely the artist who made the bust knew the illustration (even more likely)

With the occasional drop of wetness in either watery or snowy form from the sky I decided to indulge myself and round my time in London off with what was basically a Beatles tribute band going through their entire career, the show Let it Be. Not a musical, as there was no plot or pretense at dialogue, aside from the occasional quip, but the songs themselves and the musicians in costume as appropriate to whichever period the songs hailed from. (Though they stopped short of fake beards of depression for the final year.) It was great fun, though it was a bit distracting that the Paul player was not left handed! Other than that, though, they had the body language for each Beatle down, and the voices were pretty good. The sheer range of songs, the development within a few measly years, reminded me all over again why the Beatles are my favourites. Since it was a matinee performance but still completely filled, I was in company in that regard.:) Most bewildering moment: first the George, while their Paul is moving from bass to piano, says the next song was never written to be played with an orchestra arrangment (boo, hiss, Phil Spector!), but to be heard like this, cue "Paul" playing piano and singing The Long and Winding Road... and then, after the first two verses, up pops the cursed Spector arrangment on playback in the background. I swear, it's a conspiracy.

But anyway: it was a good way to say goodbye, and I'm heading towards the airport now, with a much heavier suitcase full of books and dvds I did not arrive with. Oh, to be in England, now that April is there.:)
selenak: (M and Bond)
Saturday brought back a dash of rain and even snow, but also lunch with [personal profile] jesuswasbatman, dinner and theatre with [personal profile] kangeiko and [personal profile] queenspanky and of course Judi Dench & Ben Wishaw in the evening, so it was another great day.

If also one with disturbance and sadness. I visited the National Portrait Gallery, which I usually do when in London - it's never overcrowded (as opposed to the British Museum, especially this Easter Weekend - I strolled by, and the crowds were insane!), I like this trip through history via faces, and the temporary exhibitions are always interesting as well. This time, the exhibition du jour was "George Catlin: American Indian Portraits". Apparantly George Catlin, whom I have to admit I had never heard of before, spent most of the 1830s painting and sketching as many people from different tribes as he could, being aware that there was the danger of extinction for the Native Americans. In this, the museum notes tell us, he wasn't alone, and this part in particular made me sad and frustrated: the idea that the awareness there was a kind of slow genocide going on was there, and no one was doing anything. It's not new, of course, but seeing all these paintings - which are very different, highly individualistic, btw, not technically very skilled, but they get across a real sense of personality - just brought it home again.

Other, more familiar sections of the NPG also had their novelties: the Tudor section boasted of a newly identified portrait of Katharine of Aragon and one from roughly the same period, pre-Holbein and mostly pre-fatness, of Henry VIII. The Bloomsbury Group section that was focused on Julian Bell also included photos of a young Guy Burgess (who had been friends with Bell at Cambridge) and McLean (who, in these wonderfully wry mini biographies, is describred as as "diplomat, Soviet spy" who ended up "teaching international relations in Moscow"). Among the newest acquisitions is an "actors' last supper" photograph starring several of the current cream of the crop in Leonardo poses. See, our actors sadly would not get the idea. I love Britain.

Peter and Alice, the third play I absolutely wanted to see, was written by John Logan, who among other things wrote the script for RKO 521, aka still my favourite film about Orson Welles, and the latest James Bond pic, Skyfall, which makes me suspect that he wrote Peter and Alice specifically with Ben Wishaw and Judi Dench in mind. (Dame Judi's Alice gets to make a joke about how famous people should not be so tiny, while Wishaw's Peter is at one point described as "beautiful and damaged", but that's the least of it.) It's a play that takes a real life anecdote - Alice Liddell, who inspired Lewis Carroll, meeting when in her 80s in 1932 Peter Llewelyn Davies, who was one of the five boys befriended and later fostered by James Barrie, and who inspired Peter Pan. I've seen critics call the play overly wordy, but that wasn't my impression - not least because if you deal with both the real life characters and two literary creations, with the clash of fantasy and reality and the emotional mess that becoming a muse for a writer means, especially if you're a child and he's an adult man, wordiness strikes me as quintessential. Also, as I said to [personal profile] kangeiko later, my impression was that the play tries to do what A. S. Byatt did in her novel The Children's Book with the writer Olive and son Tom part of the plot (which was partly inspired by the fate of the Davies boys, which is why a climactic scene takes place at the premiere of Peter Pan, only she needs 600 pages and Logan does it in a one and a half hour play without a break.

Any play, film, biography dealing with either Lewis Carrol or James Barrie and their respective child muses has to face the big question mark about the nature of these relationships, and whether or not there was a sexual element in it. (A couple of years ago the film Finding Neverland, starring Johnny Depp as Barrie, tried to get around this by changing several facts, like having the boys' father, Arthur Davies, being already dead when Barrie meets the family, cutting down the number of children, and developing a tender understated romance between Barrie and Sylvia Llewelyn Davies, but it still included a scene where a friend of Barrie's mentions there is gossip, and Barrie outragedly dismisses it.) This particular play's interpretation is that nothing physical happened in either case, but emotionally a lot did, and for children to have that intense love directed at them did do damage, in addition to the lure of fantasy and impossibility for reality to compete with it.

One of the play's devices is that Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan, the literary creations, are also characters, interacting with their adult inspirers and each other, and whether or not this works was one of the things we debated afterwards: it did for me. As for the two stars, they were both marvellous: Judi Dench shedding and gaining years when Alice goes from old lady who finds it painful to move at all to the girl interacting with Dodgson/Caroll, at times like the girl playing Alice but even then with an awareness that Alice, as an eternal child in a book, can't have, in turns haughty, wistful, curious, sad and hopeful. Ben Wishaw, who looks far taller next to Judi Dench than I've ever seen him look on film, is so very, very broken as Peter, but never one note. The scene where he tells Alice - who lost two sons in the war - about his own war service, killing a man, then his mental breakdown - is something that is so devastating precisely because he doesn't chew scenery.

The scenes with Caroll and Barrie are both compelling and disturbing - Caroll going from spinning a marvellous story to asking Alice never to grow up, Barrie luring Peter into believing in Captain Hook, notably. Also the flashback to Michael Davies - Barrie's favourite - and his suicide. When in the end Alice is choosing to go back to Wonderland in her mind because the reality of old age, loneliness and genteel poverty is worse, but Peter can't and won't go back to Neverland, you understand both their choices, and they're both heartbreaking.

I'm not sure whether the play is objectively a good play. But it moved me immensely, and of all the plays I've seen on this trip to London, this cut deepest.
selenak: (City - KathyH)
Due to being in London, I won't be able to indulge in my annual pictorial admiration of our Franconian Easter Wells, but London at Easter isn't half bad a sight, either.:).

 photo 35f75aa85f88fce9ebc424cb091cbf6e_zpsd0e75c4d.jpg


Let me share some more London with you below the cut.

Read more... )
selenak: (Brian 1963 by Naraht)
Thursday was devoted to meeting friends and paying homage to gay geniuses (genii?) with tragic endings courtesy of the British penalty code. I also renewed my reader access at the British Library, which is ever so useful if you're into research in any way.

Meeting [personal profile] kathyh was fabulous. We checked out an exhibition at the Victoria & Albert about the contacts between Tudors, Stuarts and the Russian czars, which didn't miss to point out Ivan the Terrible was one of the candidates for Elizabeth's hand, which, well, the mind, it boggles. Sadly there was no mention of Orlando despite the fact there was a lot of the Muscovy trade organization and Virginia Woolf made that connection immortal. Also, the portrait of young prince Charles, the later Charles I., weirded me put because I'm not used to him clean shaven without even a hint of a Van Dyck beard or mustache.

After having some tea at a nearby café, we headed of to the Science Museum to see the Alan Turing exhibition. Which boasts of several of the early computers he's responsible for, and looking at them is a bit like watching a 60s (not a 40s!) sci fi movie. There were also several Enigma machines, one of which was lend by, as the note dutifully informed us, "Sir Michael Jagger, Musician" who currently owns it. It's a small world, I tell you.

(As part of the video background they have one of our ghastly WWII propaganda news shows running on a loop, but since I doubt many of the current day visitors actually speak German, I wonder about the point - or maybe it's that the sound of the language already sounds sinister to English ears? Anyway, the Wochenschau in question announces the upcoming invasion which never happened due to Mr. Turing and friends at Bletchley Park, so I see the point of the content, it's just that some subtitles would have been useful for the non German visitors, I guess?)

At first I thought the exhibition was being censored when it came to Turing's treatment in the 50s, but no: that was simply a later section. Also I learned that there are doubts about his death being suicide, which was news to me. I mean, my inner cynical conspiracy theorist is entirely willing to believe the government, not content with having inflicted chemical castration on him, actually offed him, but I hadn't expected such an ominous hint in a national museum. On the shallow side, the photos of Alan Turing which were used all make him look incredibly dashing.

In the evening, I had another great get together, with [personal profile] rozk this time, who went to see David Hare's play The Judas Kiss with me, which is about Oscar Wilde, the first act about his fatal decision to stay in England instead of fleeing to France after his first trial, and the second about his final time and eventual break up with Bosie in Naples post prison. Rupert Everett was Oscar, Freddie Fox (related to Emilia and Edward, so Kathy told me) was Bosie, and Cal Macaninch the much put upon Robbie Ross. Also we were treated to two male nudes on the form of Ben Hardy (a waiter) and Tom Colley (an Italian fisherman). I'm not sure about the play as such, because the first act already makes it premise abundantly clear - Bosie is a ghastly narcisissist and Oscar sticks it out anyway because he needs to believe in this love of his life thing, or the whole disaster was for nothing, meaning the second act is sort of self evident - but it does work as a character portrait, and Hare, who proves immense guts by tackling a master of the dramatic art and the aphorism like Oscar Wilde and writing dialogue for him, manages to make said dialogue sound natural, not a series of pre approved soundbites. (He's very restrained about using actual Wilde lines, but still everything sounds as if Oscar could have said it, which is the point.) Everett gets to be in turn moving, funny, kind, cutting, heartbroken, wry, and even occasionally brutal (poor Robbie!); it's a great role, and he plays it well. Fox looks handsome enough to make it clear why Oscar was drawn in to begin with and is basically Prince Joffrey from Game of Thrones with more polish, which he also does well. (Does that make Oscar first book/season Sansa? Huh.) Robbie's actor I don't think I had seen in anything before, but he reminded me yet again that someone should actually write a Ross centric novel or play or film, because this is the time for eternally devoted sidekicks who spend such a lot of time cleaning up messes and fighting against windmills getting center stage, surely. And I really would like to know how these post scandal conversations between Robbbie Ross and Constance Wilde went, because not only was running interference a thankless job for anyone under these circumstances but here there's also the fact that Robbie was (according to most sources anyway) the first man Oscar had had sex with, and post scandal Constance probably had figured that part out.

Next: Good Friday, and hours spent on both sides of the Thames and in the Tower of London.
selenak: (Elizabeth - shadows in shadows by Poison)
Yesterday I started my Easter time in London with the Manet exhibition at the Royal Academy, which was fabulous. I knew some of the paintings - the obvious suspects are there, like the "breakfast" that made Manet famous - but a lot were new to me, and also, the context of such an exhibition creates a new way of seeing them. For example, the various portraits he did of his fellow painter, maybe at one time romantic interest and later sister-in-law Berthe Morisot, which show her across the time span of several years, with an intense, very arresting face which in its earliest rendition has youthful cheer and its chronologically later, painted after the death of her father, version is haggard with grief but still observing and looking back, not away. There is one portrait that was never shown during Manet's life time, and may have been unfinished, which is a more in profile study but also, maybe because of the unfinishedness, feels very intimate.

Manet's portrait of his younger colleague and near name sake Monet gardening, with his wife and child sitting contently in the gras, has a snapshot family album quality which only later makes you wonder: but wouldn't the grass have left stains on Madame Monet's very white dress? (And thus: did he paint what he saw, or how the colours fitted?) Not while watching. Though the colour Manet really did amazing things with is black and a very dark brown - whether it's a man, like his portrait of Emile Zola, or a woman, like Berthe Morisot, black hair and dark cloths come across not as becoming one with the background but as something starkly etched like a Japanese drawing. All in all, a great exhibition, and I'm glad I still caught it (it's ending soon).

The other highlight yesterday was Peter Morgan's new play The Audience, starring Helen Mirren as the Queen. Whom she had already played in the equally Morgan-scripted The Queen, the second entry in his Tony Blair trilogy. (Consisting of: The Deal - Blair and Brown - The Queen - Blair and you know who - and The Special Relationship - Blair and Clinton.) The Audience shows the Queen with several, but by no means all of her twelve Prime Ministers during the decades of her reign, and it's one of those plays you can't imagine working on film, because what Helen Mirren does, moving from old to young to middle aged to old in a non linear way with a fantastic display of voice and body language conveying age and youth, isn't something you can do in a medium which depends on close up. But on stage, it's perfect.

The Audience's McGuffin is the weekly chat the Queen has with the PMs, which, the play informs us, isn't due to a law but was a custom that basically became one. For Peter Morgan, it makes for a highly useful storytelling device to play of his leading lady against various men, and one other woman, all of whom are in various different ways her temperamental opposites. He does that in a non-linear way - the play isn't chronological, it moves in a zig zag course through the decades of Elizabeth's life, and it also expects you to have some awareness of British politics through said life time, i.e. to recognise more than Churchill and Thatcher. Both of whom, btw, get only one scene, while John Major (aka The One Between Thatcher And Blair) gets two, including the opening one, where the first lines of dialogue make you aware Peter Morgan is in high one liner form:

Major: I only ever wanted to be ordinary.
Elizabeth: And in which way do you consider to have failed in that ambition?

It's Helen Mirren's delivery that makes the entire room laugh that early in the evening. But what makes the play is that it's actually not going for caricature with any of the PMs, including Major, and including Margaret Thatcher. Incidentally, if you've been reading the journal longer you may recall that when I reviewed two Thatcher tv biopics, "The Long Road To Finchley" (young M.) and "Margaret" (the last days, basically), I mentioned that while Thatcher getting power and Thatcher losing power have become dramatic subjects, but Thatcher depicted while having power is something scriptwriters still shy away from (even the latest biopic, which I haven't seen, went for an Alzheimer days frame narration), and I suspected this was because you can't play the "Margaret versus the old boys's club" card and have to actually say something about her politics. Well, her scene in The Audience is from Thatcher at the height of her power, and of course she's on stage with another woman. Morgan avoids any implication of "catfight" while making it clear that the Queen is no fan. Nor, one suspects, is Peter Morgan, though one of the things he has M.T. say is the kind of pronouncement that probably makes Thatcherites cheer while sending chills through everyone else: I came to office with one deliberate intent, to change this country from a dependent to a self reliant culture, and I think in that I have succeeded. Britons now instinctively understand that there is no longer such a thing as society. They have learned to look aftet number one, use their elbowsm get ahead, and are richer for it. No one would remember the good Samaritan if he hadn't had money.

One PM who doesn't show up, presumably because our author feels he's been there and done that is Tony Blair. However, Blair gets talked about and alluded to, in the Queen's scenes with Gordon Brown (who is played by Nathaniel "Agravaine" Parker, which made for a weird moment for this viewer) and David Cameron, and also Morgan uses the historical parallel thing and his non linear storytelling for good effect. We hear the Queen remark that a conversation she had with Tony Blair reminded her of one she had with Anthony Eden several scenes before Eden shows up. The topic of the Eden scene is the Suez canal affair, which I suspect the majority of the audience doesn't remember anymore, but it's also Iraq, since we get this dialogue:

Elizabeth: With what justification?
Eden: Every justification.
Elizabeth: (...) An unjustiable incursion into a sovereign nation to depose its leader and plunder its canal based on personal animosity?
Eden: No.
Elizabeth: Is it even legal?
Eden: Let's keep the lawyers out of it.(...) (W)e rehabilitate a country ravaged by a maniacal tyrant, and reinstate a co-operative, friendly pro-Western government. An MI6 agent placed deep inside Egypt confidently predicts emancipated Egyptians will cheer our soldiers in the streets, and carry our generals on their shoulders.

If there is a danger, it's that Morgan more often than not lets the Queen get the better of the argument, and I presume one scene is specifically in there to show her in the wrong and being the one in need of advice so there is a bit of balance. (The second John Major scene, set shortly after Andrew Morton's Diana biography has been published.) But Helen Mirren carries it off, the one liners ("a letter stamp with a pulse" as a wry self description) as well as the pointed silences, since NOT saying something can be used to devastating effect as well. Along the way, the audience gets a refresher course in British politics in an entertaining way: also, apparantly Elizabeth's favourite PM was Harold Wilson, who therefore gets three scenes, interspersed at various points of the play, with him telling her about his Alzheimer diagnosis and her telling him she'd like to dine with him at Downing Street, something she only did for Churchill and no other PM upon his resignation, as the poignant emotional climax of Morgan's non linear narrative. Wilson is played by Richard McCabe in a Yorkshire accent (I think), and Morgan employs a bit of romantic comedy here, as their first audience is a disaster with Labour man Wilson (arriving in 1964) determined to change the country and its institutions.

Speaking of institutions, Morgan sums up the current monarchy and its PMs thusly in Elizabeth's concluding monologue (she is talking to her younger self): No matter how old-fashioned, expensive and unjustiable we are, we will still be preferable to a elected president meddling in what they do, which is why they always dive in to rescue us every time we make a mess of things. Basically, the impression you're left is that Morgan isn't pro monarchy per se but thinks it's better than the alternative as long at least as the current Queen is still in office. (Wilson gets to deliver a zinger about Prince Charles.) Coming from a country where we had at least two cringe worthy Presidents and otherwise mostly dignified fellows whose existence sometimes was a good counterpoint to their respective Chancellor's, I doubt that, but by the power of a witty script and a great actress , he certainly makes me glad the second Elizabeth ruled and rules as long as she did/does. :)
selenak: (Clara Oswin Oswald by Magickira)
I'll be in London for the Easter holidays, which will include the chance to see some great British dames - two on the stage (Judi Dench and Helen Mirren) and the rest in real life. :) *waves at [personal profile] kathyh, [personal profile] kangeiko and [personal profile] rozk* This unfortunately means no annual Easter Wells post, as they don't have those in England. However, I will try to make up for it with stage reports and possibly some snowy London photos.

Depressingly, every time I visit London I notice more bookstores have closed, so I expect there will be more of that this time, too, but the theatre can always be relied upon. Also, Doctor Who is about to return to the screen, which I'm mostly looking forward to, although the just released webisode prequel made me have this reaction precisely . (Seriously, Moff, three, four times if you count R-as-M in a row is way too often and not clever but unimaginative.) But I had liked the first half of season 7 more than the two previous Moffat seasons (as seasons: s5 and s6 suffered for me from the same "this is a horrible and important thing, but only in arc episodes and otherwise we'll just forget about it" syndrome and some ooc behaviour from the Doctor to make that possible; as far as individual episodes are concerned, both s5 and s6 had some gems, too), and I'm really intrigued by the new companion, so, as I said: I'm mostly looking forward to season 7.5. Something I expect to remain constant: after each episode is broadcast, I'll read positive reviews that will make me wonder why I can't see that wonder of deep storytelling and see a talented, improvised mess instead, and then I'll read bashing reviews which will make me think "hang on, this is really unfair, such and such was great and this and that endearing, and weren't you just looking for stuff to hate?".

Also: I'm only occasionally reading interviews of the DW actors - it depends on the people, i.e. I read and listend to a lot that David Tennant and Catherine Tate did, because they were hilarious together off screen as well, but I never read a single Billie Piper interview and the only one with Karen G. I read was about her role in We'll Take Manhattan, not about DW. But as accident would have it I read a recent one by Jenna-Louise Coleman and in it she mentioned her favourite current show is Breaking Bad. Clearly a woman of taste. :)
selenak: (KircheAuvers - Lefaym)
Some photos from last week in England, because London, no matter how often one visits, is a glorious place.

As proven below the cut )

Yesterday I was in Cologne for another conference, and before I went back to Munich, I could pay homage to the cathedral. I mean, I'm biased and in favour of the Bamberg cathedral emotionally, but there is no question the Cologne one is one of the most majestic buildings we have. Check it out by daylight and at night:

The Cathedral of Cologne )

Back again

Jun. 9th, 2011 05:06 pm
selenak: (Ray and Shaz by Kathyh)
Back from England (as of yesterday evening), exhausted, but happy. It continued to be a theatre, books & meeting friends paradise, though not surprisingly, the weather changed (it changed back though before I left).

Playwise, I saw Terence Rattigan's last play, Cause Celebre, with Anne-Marie Duff and Niamh Cusack, and The School for Scandal directed by Deborah Warner and with Harry Melling (of Dudley Dursley fame, more recently surprising us all as Gilly in Merlin) in a minor role, though I didn't find out about that until I saw it. I had gone because I had never seen Sheridan staged. Deborah Warner went for a Brechtian approach with banners and alienation, which sort of fit with Sheridan's comedy of manners but also made me feel amusedly nostalgic. (This was what many German theatre productions did decades ago.) Anyway, the introduction in the programm made me feel in need of reading an entire biography of Sheridan, if there is one, because I've come across him before in an overall Regency/Georgian context, of course, but now I want to know more details. As for Harry Melling, he's one to look out for, clearly, because if Gilly was completely different from Dudley Sir Benjamin Backbite, bitchy poet at large, couldn't be more different from either, and I would not have recognized him if I hadn't checked the programm for previous roles.

Cause Celebre was a radio play turned drama and sometimes you noticed, but it had all the Rattigan virtues; great character roles, things both said and unsaid, no easy solutions. A well-made play in the best sense. I had seen Anne-Marie Duff on stage before, as Shaw's St. Joan, but most recently I had seen her as Julia Lennon in Nowhere Boy and because Alma Rattenbury has an identical hairstyle and shares some traits with Julia - the same brittle hedonism, for example - it was an odd experience. She was good in that part, mind, as was Niamh Cusack as Edith, one of Rattigan's repressed ladies (modelled after his mother) with a lot of feeling underneath. Alma, as opposed to Edith, really existed, and was a songwriter, no less (she's in the play, too), under a pseudonym, which made me curious; I'll have to check her out now that I'm back home.

Friends-wise, I met with [personal profile] jesuswasbatman, [personal profile] kathyh and two lovely old people, Edgar Feuchtwanger (written about in this journal before) and the fabulous Bea Green who escaped the Third Reich as a youngster to England via the Kindertransport and every time I meet her stuns her with her graciousness, kindness and vivacity. A true victory over Hitler, her life. She's a patron at the Royal Academy and so took me a long to a preview of the summer show, which was lucky for me since otherwise I'd have had to queue and probably would not have seen a lot. Since she's taken up woodcarving and produced some sculptures herself, the interest isn't merely watcher-wise on her part.

Book-wise, I'll try to get some reviews out in the next few days, becaues naturally I read some of my purchases already. Just an observation about a book I didn't read or buy but whose back cover amused me greatly. There's a new biography of Richard Burton (the actor, not the late Victorian) out which assures its readers it's about "The Greatest Welshman Who Ever Lived". Now I happen to like the quondam Richard Jenkins, but say what? Not that I have a candidate for Greatest Welshman Ever myself, but I could think of several candidates for the upper positions before R.B. Also, another biography I unfortunately didn't have time to more than browse through was of Shirley Bassey. I hadn't been aware she was Welsh, which tells me something about my biased default assumptions about black singers in the 50s. What I did read made me curious to learn more.

Speaking of the Welsh: I'm so looking forward to Torchwood next month. Because I'm intrigued by the premise of Miracle Day, because I've missed Gwen, Rhys and to my surprise Jack, because I'm curious about the RTD-Espenson-Egan collaboration, and because I missed Rusty himself on my tv. Meaning: I miss tv created by him. Just so there aren't any misunderstandings, I don't mean that in the sense of wishing him back on the DW steering wheel; you could tell his Whovian exhaustion by the specials. But Children of Earth was Russell T. at his best, and I loved the last season of SJA, occasional nitpicks not withstanding, so bring on the new Torchwood already, tv!

Lastly: just watched X-Men: First Class again. So my favourite comic books film this year. I want to draw sparkling hearts around it, I truly do.
selenak: (City - KathyH)
Currently I'm definitely in Geek heaven. Arrived on Friday afternoon only to be greeted by London in sunshine, which is always nice though rarely the case, and proceeded to acquire mym coveted Much Ado ticket(s) for Saturday, about which later. I also went and watched Pygmalion on Friday evening, with Rupert Everett as Higgins, Kara Tointon as Eliza and Diana Rigg as Mrs. Higgins. It's always a pleasure to hear Shaw's words spoken out loud, and this was the first production I've seen which took him at his word in another sense, to wit. Now, the final scene of the play Pygmalion as written can be played ambigously and with the implication that Eliza despite her declaration will return to Higgins, which is of course also what the musical version, My Fair Lady does. But in the afterword (and in many letters during the original production to the actress who played the first Eliza in 1913, Stella Patrick Campbell), Shaw is crystal clear that she won't, that she'll stick to her declaration of independence, and that this is a good thing. As I said, this is the first on stage production which really takes him up on it and makes the Eliza-Higgins confrontation at the end as the heart of the piece, making it as a coming of age tale for Eliza rather than emphasizing the romance. Which is not to say that there is an absence of emotion. When Higgins says "I shall miss you, Eliza", there's no doubt he means it and that he does feel affection. But there is also no doubt that this is one jerk hero (tm) belonging to the school that eventually produced House and current Sherlock whom the heroine is far better without after having learned from him what he had to offer, because he won't chance, that that makes him stuck. Everett starts waspish (also it occured to me, not for the first time, that the first scene of Pygmalion where Higgins performs his naming everyone's place of origin by accent trick is Shaw taking a leaf from contemporary ACD's Sherlock Holmes and that in many ways, Higgins and Pickering are a reply to Holmes and Watson, with the difference that neither of them in the end are the heroes of their story) and ends very vulnerable and aware of his loss but also, finally, of the whys; Kara Tointon gives you a really strong sense of Eliza's personality and makes you actually believe her when she ways in the final confrontation that what she wanted from Higgins was never romance and that if they ended in bed together they'd hate each other five days later.

(A mother and her two daughters were next to and in front of me respectively, and the daughters hadn't realized until the play started that this was the version without the songs. And they were much insulted that "it didn't work out". Ah, teenagers. And also, Loewe & Lerner.)

Saturday started by me meeting [personal profile] kangeiko for breakfast, proceeded to meeting [personal profile] rozk for lunch, and then saw us spend a geekfest of an afternoon and evening by watching X-Men: First Class and Much Ado About Nothing. Reviews under the cut, thoroughly enjoying both.

X-Men: First Class )

After a break at the rooftop of my hotel, we then went on to watch Tate 'n Tennant tackle Much Ado. It's modern dress production going in the Italian farce direction (or Mamma Mia the film - that kind of atmosphere), but glorious fun. Based on other people's reviews I was a bit afraid they'd play Beatrice's "Kill Claudio" moment for laughs, too, but they didn't. Justly so, this is the moment when things get serious in so many ways between them, and the contrast to the relieved giggles just before when they finally admitted they loved each other is all the more efficient. There is no farce there in that moment and no doubt Beatrice means it, and on Benedick's part DT plays it with complete awareness of the enormity as well; ditto in the subsequent scene where Benedick delivers his challenge.

There is a lot of slapstick in the scenes where first Benedick and then Beatrice are tricked by their friends, but then I haven't seen a production where there isn't, including the Branagh film; it just begs for it. Something I hadn't seen before and which our T & T duo carried off with aplomb was that the masked dance scene, CT is dressed as a man in suit (looks good on her!) and DT as a woman in a miniskirt. (He has great legs.) It's not just a visual gag, it also emphasizes the fluid gender dynamics between them, as opposed to the conventional couple of Hero and Claudio. I was amused that Leonato's brother Antonio is made into his wife in this production and renamed, no, not Antonia, but, wait for it, Imogen. As a reminder of how later Shakespeare would deal with this whole jealousy, fake death and restoration plot, it was neat.

Chemistry and comic timing: as excellent as ever. As with Hamlet a couple of years ago I was surprised of how much younger DT looks in person. As opposed to the other Shakespeare I saw him in, here he uses his Scottish accent, which works for Benedick. CT seems to have lost a bit of weight but still proudly owns her curves. The only times when I could not quite suspend my role disbelief was when she said "nooooo" because that drawn out "no" is a Donna mannerism (she didn't do it when I saw her in Under the Blue Sky).

Hero is in many ways a thankless role but I thought Sarah Macrae made the most of it, especially strong in scene after Claudio and Don Pedro have stomped off and her father attacks her. (One thing I always liked about Benedick in any production and during reading is that he's the only man at the aborted wedding who reacts rationally. Even her father is ready to believe the worst of Hero.) She's not tearful in her denials but quietly strong as she assures her father that she's innocent, and my attention at that moment was on her and not on B & B, which deserved kudos.

Finally: the funky disco rendering of Sigh No More at the end just about summed up the brash vitality of this production.

Profile

selenak: (Default)
selenak

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  1234 5
67 89101112
131415161718 19
20 21222324 2526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated Jul. 26th, 2025 02:22 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios