Budra Notes: lecture by Dr Paul Budra (SFU) at Bard on the Beach on June 23, 2012

These are my personal notes from an informational lecture given by Dr Paul Budra (SFU) as part of the Bard Explored: Lecture Series. 

“The Elephant in the Room” – saying the name "Macbeth"
--  As old as the play itself.

--  Two possible sources for it

     a) a boy actor in the 17th century playing the role of Lady Macbeth, died at home
        shortly after returning home from a performance.

    b) real witches saw the play and upset at having their ‘trade secrets’ shared
        cursed the play

Historical Background and Context

--  Mary, Queen of Scots was executed in 1587. Her son was James VI of Scotland. He
    married Anne of Denmark in 1589 and when returning with her to England by ship
    the party were beset by such storms that, in James’s estimation, they could only
    be of supernatural origin. 

--  Witches in Denmark were subsequently found and executed, but they also had to
     find one in England. Enter Agnes Sampson. Under torture she confessed she had
     christened a cat, tied pieces of a dead man to it, set it afloat in a sieve and
     started the storm. James VI was said to be Satan’s greatest enemy on earth and it
     was only his great Christian faith that saved him. Agnes Sampson was executed by
     garrotte and her body burned. This was documented in a pamphlet entitled
     “Wonderful News from Scotland”, published in London.

--  No British monarch published as much as James VI did.
--  In 1597 James VI published an encyclopaedia on Daemonology and was very
    interested in witches and witchcraft
--  Elizabeth I of England died in 1603 and James is proclaimed her successor as
    James I of England.
--  His coronation medal read: James I, Caesar Augustus of Britain, Caesar born of
    Caesars.
--  All things Scottish suddenly became very fashionable at the royal court.
--  James had a morbid fear of violent death and believed in the sanctity of the
    monarch as God’s Anointed on Earth (published the Basilikon Doron (royal gift) in
    1597/98).
--  1603 – James I took over the patronage of Shakespeare’s theatre company, the            Lord Chamberlain’s Men, which then became the King’s Men.
--  1605 – Gunpowder Plot (he’d only been on the throne 2 years at that point)
--  1606 – Shakespeare wrote Macbeth featuring witches, the scenario of “what
     happens when you overthrow a king”, and even included topical references to the
     Gunpowder Plot.
--  In Holinshed’s Chronicles, there was a story of a Macbeth who had killed his king
    and was punished for it. A nobleman by the name of Banquo helped Macbeth in the
    murder. Shakespeare could not use that in his play as James I (who was also very
    interested in genealogy) traced his lineage back to that same nobleman. In the            Chronicles, Macbeth was a good ruler and was king for over 10 years. That bit of
    information Shakespeare also needed to change. 
--  In the story, the prophecy came from “goddesses of destiny”, but because of
    James and his particular interest in the supernatural, they became evil witches.
--  Although James I enjoyed plays, they could not be ‘too long’. Macbeth is
    Shakespeare’s shortest tragedy (N.B. The 2012 Bard on the Beach production runs
    just over 2 and a half hours, including a 20-minute interval).
--  Christopher Marlowe, in his Dr Faustus, changed the function of a ‘stage devil’
    from clownish and over-the-top to a serious and creepy character. Stories about
    seeing ‘real’ devils on stage started to circulate.
--  Shakespeare plays up common conceptions of witches   
      -> They had familiars (Grey Malkin was a popular name for a cat, Paddock was
          a name for a toad)

      -> They could fly

      -> They reverse things (foul is fair and fair is foul)
--  BUT, the name of Satan is never invoked, the witches are never referred to as
    such; Macbeth and Banquo always call them the “Weird Sisters” (or Wyrd, the
    Anglo-Saxon word) and they seem to be elemental natural forces and ambiguous in
    their sex.
--  Critics ask if the witches are actually important. If they are, why do they
    disappear after Act IV and if they’re not, would Macbeth have done what he did if
    they hadn’t been. Lady Mac calls her husband ambitious but for the milk of human
    kindness he is filled with.

Why are witches usually female?

--  The theory goes that Satan wants to invert the natural order of things and
    therefore empowers women over men.
--  Shakespeare shows this inversion by language and rhythm in the spells of the
   sisters:
    Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble  
    Fire burn and cauldron bubble  
--  Instead of using the usual iambic pentameter (10 syllables of unstressed/stressed
    pairs (iambs), he starts a shorter pattern with a stressed syllable followed by  
    unstressed, and so on.

Mac and Lady Mac

--   Parallel set-up: “Great Glamis (pronounced Gloms)! Worthy Cawdor!”

--  Lady Macbeth greets Macbeth in virtually the same way the Weird Sisters did

--  She is humanised only when she says she couldn’t kill Duncan because he resembled
      her father. (Act II, scene ii). He calls her “dearest love” (Act I, Scene v), “love”
      and “dearest chuck” (Act III, Scene ii) she has no terms of endearment for him
      (my note: unless there is affection in her calling him “My husband”).

--  She is very tightly wound, but when her subconscious takes over (i.e. when she
     sleepwalks), she can no longer hold down her emotions. When the cracks in her
     composure become too great, she kills herself.
--  Macbeth – is a soldier. As a soldier, he is a killing machine. As a soldier, he believes
    in hierarchy. Act I, Scene ii refers to “another Golgotha”, Golgotha, the ‘hill of
    skulls’ on which Christ is believed to have been crucified.
--  In Macbeth’s Act II, Scene i soliloquy, he doesn’t worry about an afterlife, he
    worries about ‘this’ life and that is what he struggles with. Not sure if he sees a
    dagger or not is a manifestation of the struggle he has about breaking rank. All his
    training percolates when he breaks hierarchy. It takes a little while until he gets it
    back together.
--  Macbeth counts as the only protagonist in the Shakespeare canon who knowingly
    does evil. Even Richard III has henchmen, but doesn’t bloody his own hands.
--  Macbeth later comes to the realisation of what he has lost

     o   He does not have what other people of his rank and age ‘should’ have

     o   He has no real friends, only fear and blood.

     o   Orders the killing of children

     o   He is humanised by his own bravery and that he remains courteous throughout
          (in my words: a kind of gentle murderer)

The Porter

--  Is from a medieval dramatic tradition. Between the time Christ is crucifed and is
    resurrected, three days pass. The tradition holds that he descended into hell
    where he cleans house, the so-called “harrowing of hell”. But he has to get by hell’s
    doorman first.
--  The character of the Porter calls upon that tradition and plays with it.
--  Act II, Scene iii the Porter talks about opening the door to three sinners, the first
    a farmer, the second an equivocator, the third a tailor. Equivocator is a reference
    to one of the men convicted (executed) for his part in the Gunpowder Plot. Father
    Henry Garnet was a Jesuit priest. The Jesuits were founded in 1540 by Ignatius of
    Loyola in the Counter-Reformation. Their purpose was to win people back to
    Catholicism (their presence was forbidden in England for that reason) and they
    were a kind of Papal “SWAT” team.
--  The term ‘equivocator’ was used in reference to Garnet because he would not
     impeach himself. He answered questions put to him in riddles, seen as lies.
--  The use of riddles by the Weird Sisters echoes through the play.

Juxtapositions throughout 

--  Hierarchy and order for the soldier descend into chaos --> witches, Satan’s attempts to invert the natural order of things. Taking off ‘the head’ does not mean Macbeth can easily slip into its place.

--  Hospitality --> murder

--  Sterile --> found dynasties

--  Friends --> betrayal

--  Act II, Scene iv

     --> reference to an unnatural storm (lines 6-12)

         ROSS:                   Thou seest, the heavens, as troubled with man's act,

                                     Threaten his bloody stage: by the clock, 'tis day,

                                     And yet dark night strangles the travelling lamp:

                                     Is't night's predominance, or the day's shame,

                                     That darkness does the face of earth entomb,

                                     When living light should kiss it?

         Old Man:                'Tis unnatural,

     --> reversal of hierarchy of birds (lines 13-15)

         Old Man:                 ... On Tuesday last,

                                      A falcon, towering in her pride of place,

                                      Was by a mousing owl hawk'd at and kill'd.

     --> horses become cannibals (lines 16-23)

         ROSS:                     Duncan's horses--a thing most strange and certain --

                                       Beauteous and swift, the minions of their race,

                                       Turn'd wild in nature, broke their stalls, flung out,

                                       Contending 'gainst obedience, as they would make

                                       War with mankind.

         Old Man:                  'Tis said they eat each other.

         ROSS:                      They did so, to the amazement of mine eyes That look'd  
                                         upon't.

Image Patterns

Include:

   --  Blood (most bloody in the world)
   --  Night (never any sunshine)
   --  Time (Where things come together in Macbeth’s mind is in Act V, Scene v, lines
       19-28) – all we’re doing is marking time, it’s all meaningless – absolutely nihilistic. 
        MACBETH:         To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,                      

                                  Creeps in this petty pace from day to day                               
                                  To the last syllable of recorded time,                                 
                                  And all our yesterdays have lighted fools                                 
                                  The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!   
                                  Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player                                  
                                  That struts and frets his hour upon the stage              
                                  And then is heard no more: it is a tale                               
                                  Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,                                 
                                  Signifying nothing.
--  The play is saved by its ending: With Malcolm, the good guys win (Act V, Scene
     viii) time will mean something again, now the days of the “dead butcher and his            fiend-like queen” (line 69) are behind them; Scotland is redeemed.

Q & A

How is Macbeth like/unlike Richard III

--  Richard III – gleeful and theatrical in his evil doing, he doesn’t care about human
     life
--  Macbeth – solemn, thinks things through, understands the value of a human life,
    that what he’s doing is bad, and then goes ahead regardless.

Difficult to dislike

--  Precisely because he does consider the consequences of his actions, that his
    murders have a purpose (mind, to further ambition and to get rid of the
    competition), a lecture participant expressed that because Macbeth shows again
    and again that he has a conscience, that he’s difficult to dislike.
--  Not so much a question, but a comment. Dr Budra did not disagree.

The view to English Bay is obscured

--  Rightly so, Dr Budra observed. It makes sense: it’s dark, foggy, night (never day)
    in the play. By covering the view it sets the mood. Seeing party boats in the
    distance and kites flying off Kits Point only distract. At the Globe Theatre,
    performances would happen in the daytime, so the repeated mentions of night and
    darkness serve to remind the audience that it’s supposed to be nighttime.

Significance of sleep / dream

--  People in the 16th century were very interested in dream states: changes in
    traits, behaviour, people can act strangely in their dreams.
--  Sleep was viewed as important to rest.
--  Idea/Horror of sleeplessness
--  Guilt bubbled up in sleep – Lady Macbeth is so in control when she’s awake, but
     asleep, she loses control of her emotions.

How was it received?

--  The earliest published record was in 1610 by a Dr Simon Forman and he did not
     review it as much as he gave a fairly accurate plot summary.

Destiny vs Free Will

--  Ask me something easier.

Banquo’s Ghost: is it real

--  It’s only real to the person seeing it and that’s what counts. So, it is real to
    Macbeth and the audience.

The End.

NT Live Encore Presentation: One Man, Two Guvnors - April 2012

Preface: I really wanted to get this review up before the final NTlive encore presentation on the afternoon of May 5. In the meantime a month has gone by, Corden has won the Best Actor Tony Award for his performance in the same role since the show transferred to Broadway a few months ago, and, on a personal note, my physio appointments are done and I can move my right arm and shoulder again without pain.

It seems a little odd to write a review of an encore presentation I saw in a movie theatre on April 26, 2012 of a delayed live broadcast from September 15, 2011. However, since One Man, Two Guvnors recently transferred to Broadway with the “Man” James Corden, his two Guvnors Oliver Chris and Jemima Rooper, as well as Tom Edden (Alfie), Martyn Ellis (Harry Dangle), Trevor Laird (Lloyd), Claire Lams (Pauline), Fred Ridgeway (Charlie), Daniel Rigby (Alan), AND Suzie Toase (Dolly) – essentially everyone in the main roles but the actor who played Gareth (David Benson) in the production I just saw, I believe it still has relevance. If my little review can get more butts in seats both in London with Owain Arthur in the role of Francis and in New York, then all the better, because this is a proper funny show and it’s a lot of fun to watch.

There’s a reason Corden carries the show. As an admirer of the Gavin & Stacey series Corden created and co-wrote with Ruth Jones, I have often tried to put my finger on his appeal - an actor by trade, to my perception, he just exudes sincerity – and then I read a review of the show in an LA Times article in the middle of May that really nailed it for me: “Part of the secret of Corden's comic gift is that he combines innocence so naturally with mischief. Although he's 33, his face is that of an adolescent boy who has just discovered beer, Internet porn and some new flavor of potato chip.”

For those of you who don’t like spoilers, just read this: I found the show utterly enjoyable. Richard Bean’s script pokes fun at the future, it’s witty, and isn’t ‘mere’ slapstick (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and physical comedy; it has a noticeable depth to it which raises it a notch or two above slapstick. There are even educational components such as theatre history in the area of commedia dell’arte and biology in the difference between identical and fraternal twins, all done in a really funny way. 

Jemima Rooper is a joy as Rachel Crabbe masquerading as her deceased brother. I hadn’t seen her in much of anything since the Lost in Austen mini-series was broadcast here in Canada, so it was great to see her wonderful talent on the stage. Oliver Chris as Stanley Stubbers is note perfect as a very posh, highly educated but not that bright, gangster and these two actors play the two Guvnors Corden’s Francis Henshall is man to. It’s 1963 and the scene is first London and then Brighton. The plot is set in motion when Francis takes on a second job with Stubbers, spends the whole of the play trying to keep them apart (when he’s not falling in love or imagining the deliciousness of food – he’s an uncomplicated man, in search of simple pleasures, and sometimes his mind doesn’t work quite quickly enough to get himself out of situations), not realising that they are a couple and have travelled to Brighton to meet up and run away with one another as Stanley is a wanted man for killing Rachel’s gangster brother while she’s in town collecting some of her brother’s debts so she and Stanley have money to run away with and start over somewhere else. Sounds simple enough, but as the saying goes, nothing is ever easy. 

Great performances also from Tom Edden as the hapless Alfie, Daniel Rigby as Alan, the aspiring actor, and Suzie Toase, the worldly wise and Francis’s match, Dolly. The bonus comes when, on occasion, Corden appears to break character and just lose himself in laughter. It’s obvious he loves what he’s doing and it’s infectious. 

Not to be forgotten, the music! The play starts with the musicians and they return for scene changes as I’ve noticed the National Theatre likes to do. The music is very upbeat and fun and not just lyrically connecting the music to the play, but the actors take turns playing or singing something. Corden plays the xylophone, Chris plays a rack of bicycle horns, Lams, Rooper and Toase sing a song, Ellis plays guitar while Rigby plays his chest (oh yes), Boateng plays the steel drums and they all sing together at the end. With a little research (apparently encore presentations at Cineplex do not include the usual photocopied sheet that functions as a ‘programme’), I found that all the music is original to this production and was written by Grant Olding, the lead singer for the play’s band called The Craze. As an aside, he even looks like a nerdier and younger version of Martin Freeman with the period costuming (1963) and glasses, also not a bad thing. 

I’m not going to give this play a high-brow review because it isn’t a high-brow show. Sometimes you just want to laugh, and as an audience member of this show, laugh you will. One Man, Two Guvnors will continue its run on Broadway through the summer and is scheduled to close September 2/2012. 

Quote from: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/17/entertainment/la-ca-james-corden-20120520 by Charles McNulty.
Image from www.cineplex.com.

Snow Patrol & Ed Sheeran - The Orpheum - April 30, 2012

Writing this review and keeping it unbiased are two separate things for me. As a band, I adore Snow Patrol. The words and music have the ability to get under my skin, fill my mind, make my heart feel full and make my soul smile or sob. This was only the second time I saw them (the first time was when they supported Coldplay on the La Vida tour – I only bought my ticket 5 minutes I found out Snow Patrol would be opening for them, after the obligatory password reset) and my first time seeing them as the main attraction. They did not disappoint, but I’m getting ahead of myself. Snow Patrol had a support act in Ed Sheeran, someone who I’d only heard of as a consequence of this tour (he’s been getting some incredibly positive buzz) but whose music I was unfamiliar with. 

Ed Sheeran is an unassuming looking young man, of a gingery complexion and of English descent, with a much used and abused acoustic guitar (he broke a string on the first and final songs he played). He performed a grand total of 4 songs during his half hour in the spotlight and he used them to his full advantage. There was already a lot of love in the room. He even had the audience divide up and sing two part harmonies while he sang. I don’t buy into the whole singer/songwriter ‘thing’ – it generally bores me to changing the station. What sets Sheeran apart is his very intimate knowledge of his instrument, the flexibility of his voice, and the technology he employs to make him sound like he has a band and backing vocals supporting him. He creates loops – with his guitar, vocal harmonies, percussive sounds (on the body of the guitar as well as with beatboxing), and just layers on top of layers with impeccable timing as to when to use them or not – beat by beat, note by note. I don’t know the names of any of his songs, so my summary is vague:

• 1st song – more of an r&b-ish number with a nice little insta-loop at the end
• 2nd song – his guitar was getting restrung by a tech so he did it a capella with loops and beats. It was impressive. The person sitting next to me videoed it – I wish I had, it was generally wow.
• 3rd song - Sheeran called it his debut single. Had very much ‘that’ singer/songwriter vibe I don’t have a huge fondness for. It was pleasant enough.
• 4th (and final) song – another impressive number. Twanged up but guitar sounded stripped down, went from an ‘energetic spoken word’ song to morphing into a rap. This is where he really showed his mettle with the looping system. The song ended up really intricate and technical and above all precise. And it sounded so very good. The audience thought so as well – he left the stage after a standing ovation. 

At some point during the set Sheeran mentioned (to much cheering) that he would be back in September. I’ll see if I can get a ticket. I’d like to see more.    

Snow Patrol. Singer, front man, and main songwriter Gary Lightbody has been having troubles with his voice for the last week or so. Even under the weather, I don’t think the audience could complain about his performance in terms of voice or energy level. The crowd was very receptive and enthusiastic. It was a sold-out show and from school-age children to people who looked old enough to have been retired, this is definitely a band that appeals to all ages. I’m smack dab in the middle of them, I suppose. I have been a fan of Snow Patrol even before I knew their name. I still don’t know the names of all the members of the band. I’m there for the music and the experience. Run was the song that hooked me. Then came Chocolate. I needed a few more singles before the shoe finally dropped – THAT’s who they are. The year was 2001ish. 

As varied as their songs are, I’ve never not liked anything they’ve recorded (I have every CD since Final Straw) – the rhythmic flows of songs like Lifeboats and The Golden Floor always remind me of Sting during his Ten Summoner’s Tales period. I also enjoy their cover of that Beyonce song Crazy in love or whatever it’s called. There’s humour in it – they’re professionals, no doubt about that, but they also don’t take themselves too seriously. They’re also grateful. The liner notes on Final Straw say thank you to the fans who bought the CD instead of just downloading a pirated copy off the internet. 

Snow Patrol are often/invariably compared to Coldplay and while I understand the comparison in their sound (they like piano, they like percussion, they like syncopation), lyrically, I’ll take Lightbody over Martin any day. Snow Patrol also make better use of their guitars (with Lightbody and Connolly they can do a lead guitar and rhythm guitar configuration in addition to percussion, bass and piano) creating a consistently richer sound.

As far as the front man comparison goes: Martin is more like a geeky nerd boy in the way he dances, tells jokes or stories, but does it in an endearing and sympathetic way. He’s also big into audience interaction, and for an arena tour they have a main stage, a stage in the audience somewhere, and he’s very mobile – Coldplay don’t just own the stage, they make use of as much of the stadium as they can. There’s also the way they have of making you think you’re at a private show, one that you’re sharing with 30,000 other people. That kind of intimacy is really rather extraordinary. 

Snow Patrol don’t do those huge arena tours – they have projection screens like Coldplay do, but the rest is all them. On the stage Lightbody has a lot of presence, but he’s a different personality from Martin. As a band, they’ve been together for a very long time (28 years I thought he said – when did they first get together? When they were 10?), that they enjoy what they do and are humbled that they are able to continue. They were genuinely impressed by the venue. Other than the audience, the primary person he interacted with was fellow guitarist Nathan Connolly. Connolly in turn, visited the drummer and pianist a number of times (remember: I don’t know all their names), but the majority of the set was focused on either his own parts or on the audience.  

The set: Snow Patrol took to the stage to Berlin off Fallen Empires (it was also what plays when the crew starts taking everything down).

• Hands Open
• Take Back the City
• Crack the Shutters
• This isn’t everything you are
• Run
• In the end
• New York (Ed Sheeran was called back to the stage to help out)
• Set the Fire to the Third Bar (Lightbody solo, no one sang or played Martha Wainwright’s part – I did, but no one else around me knew the harmony, much less the song).
• Make this go on forever – which just kept going, with changing moods and it could have gone on longer as far as I was concerned.
• Shut your Eyes
• Chasing Cars (just about CD perfect)
• Final Straw
• Called out in the Dark
• All that I have 

Encore songs were This is all I ever wanted and Just Say Yes – with much audience participation encouraged and received. Standing ovation not necessary, everyone was already on their feet.   
   
Afterwards I headed to Seymour Street to the stage door. Lightbody had tweeted he’d be there and after an hour he and Connolly came out to say hello. I had a very personal reason for going. I had wanted to say thank you for the words Lightbody writes and the music Snow Patrol create. From excesses of joy to helping me get through the anniversary of my mother’s death every year, and that they collectively make the 30th of May not suck so much. That elicited one of those awkward shoulder touches – you just don’t know what else to do. Heck, if someone told me that, I wouldn’t know what to do either. But they both signed my ticket (Johnny Quinn, drums) had signed it earlier) and I went away a very happy camper.  

* I do not use the word ginger as a slight or a slur – can’t stand ginger root, love ginger people – some of the most creative people I know happen to be of that complexion and hair combination. 

Photo of Ed Sheeran from www.aceshowbiz.com
Photo of Snow Patrol from www.ssgmusic.com
Photo of ticket by Sigrid Bernhoerster

The Duchess of Malfi - The Old Vic - April 9

The air was clouded by incense, the scent of which wafted by my nose, as the audience waited for The Duchess of Malfi by John Webster to begin on April 9, a soggy London evening, at The Old Vic. The theatre is legendary; not quite 200 years old and so many name changes and closures that it could make a person’s head spin. This is a serious theatre – imagine the auditorium and stage in thirds, the surface area of the stage alone seems to be one third of that space – backstage is a very long way back.

The set was atmospheric: all in rich hues of burnished bronze and brown-black wood. It immediately creates a sumptuous mood and the lack of light brings an undercurrent of the sinister with it. Mark Bonnar’s character of Bosola starts out as a principled man, but quickly becomes Harry Lloyd’s Ferdinand’s creature. Bosola even calls himself a “true servant and an honest man”, which explains his moral dilemmas succinctly. Ferdinand is a nobleman, as is his brother, the lecherous Cardinal (played by Finbar Lynch), and the title character, the Duchess of Malfi, his sister (played by Eve Best).

I’d never studied the play before and I always thought the Duchess was the evil one – turns out, it’s everyone of status BUT her. The language, though not difficult (the play was written in the first quarter of the 17^th century), is very lyrical – it seemed all metaphor, allegory, and simile to me. In the hands of a less skilful director* and cast, this play definitely has the potential for tediousness. Instead, it’s a master class of high drama, stylised melodrama even. With all the deaths that happen in the play, actors need to be able to die well enough not to incur giggles from the audience. This audience was consistently mesmerised, but I did get a bit weary of all the onstage deaths – by varied means, but the body count I think numbers just shy of double digits and happen in fairly quick succession after the Duchess dies twice in the first scene of Act 4. I ought to also mention that Act 3, Scene 2 is positively creepy as Ferdinand is in the Duchess’s bed and I got confirmation of my suspicions that Ferdinand’s interest in his sister’s affairs was altogether of the incestuous variety. It was all very well done, executed finely, but, while it had all the precision, it lacked heart. I felt sympathy and empathy for some of the characters, dislike for others, but after such an emotional roller coaster, one would think the audience ought to leave emotionally drained. Instead I was mildly irritated by what I call the “bothery bits”: the niggling things that just linger in one’s mind and taint the overall experience.  

Bothery bits:

• It may be a custom of the time it was written in, but the play’s final speech as delivered by Delio was reminiscent of how Hamlet ended with Horatio summing up the tragedy of the events.
• Delio – played by Tunji Kasim, had a wandering accent. Began as a North American one, became more English as the play progressed, and then slipped back and forth. Tsk, tsk. They give lessons for that, very close to the theatre too, I remember seeing a sign between Waterloo station and the theatre.
• During Bosola’s death scene (not Bonnar's fault), not shutting up and dying whilst supposedly dying reminded me of Antony’s death scene in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra. Again, maybe it was just what was done at the time, but it goes on and on (in Antony’s case, doesn’t he climb to a balcony so he can die in Cleopatra’s arms or was that just the most recent version I saw to give him something to do while he was dying but not getting on with it?). 

The Duchess of Malfi is at London's The Old Vic Theatre until June 9/12: Follow this link for more information and to purchase tickets: http://www.oldvictheatre.com/the-duchess-of-malfi/

* I'd seen Jamie Lloyd's production of She Stoops to Conquer (by Oliver Goldsmith) for the National Theatre earlier this year via NTlive and really enjoyed it. Very camp, and very good. 

The Recruiting Officer - Donmar Warehouse - April 7 and 10

I don’t often say this – I don’t think I’ve ever said this – I recently saw a play that was pure theatrical magic. I saw John Farquhar’s The Recruiting Officer at London’s Donmar Warehouse on the evening of Saturday, April 7 and on an impulse, again on Tuesday, April 10. Something I’d never done before: my phone call to the box office went something like this “It’s my last night in London, I saw the play on Saturday, do you have ANY tickets available for this evening?” – I ended up with a standing ticket. Fan-tas-tic!

Let’s begin with the venue: Donmar Warehouse. I had never been to the Donmar before and the space alone is wonderful. Only a few rows in Stalls and a few rows in Dress Circle – a maximum capacity of 250, it couldn't get more intimate, and yet it does: in order to access the first several rows in the stalls, the audience must step either on the stage itself or on the boards going from each front corner of the stage diagonally to the back of the house. I was supposed to have one of those front row seats, but was sent a front row Circle ticket instead, but that’s another story. The seats are padded wooden benches, the balustrade is also wood – it couldn’t look any more rustic if it tried. Shielded lights line the stage on the three audience-facing sides as well as the circle but the mood lighting comes mainly from 4 giant round chandeliers with at least 30 candles on each, lowered while the musicians played pre-show folksy music reminiscent of Cape Breton fiddling tunes a la Sandy McIntyre (location specific reference to many a Sunday afternoon spent in a Toronto pub on Yonge Street called the Bow & Arrow listening to wonderful folk music), and lit by members of the cast before being raised again – and providing a gorgeous sort of heat I was very grateful for. I think it was the first time I’d been warm in an indoor environment since I arrived in London 2 days prior.

The Recruiting Officer is technically not Restoration Theatre, the 18^th century resurgence in writing for theatre as well as production after the Puritan, no-nonsense rule of Oliver Cromwell. Restoration technically ended with the death of Queen Mary in 1698, this play was written in 1706 but retains the “comedy of manners” flavour, with sobering undertones. What I did not realise at the time was that John Farquhar actually was a recruiting officer in the early 1700s before becoming a playwright. Thank you for that information and more, my 3 pound programme. The tactics used in the play are historically accurate, even if the characters themselves: Captains Plume and Brazen, Mssrs Worthy, Balance, and Scales, for instance, are not.

I have to say I felt a little bad for Tobias Menzies (Captain Plume). He seemed to have to work at least twice as hard to get a fraction of the laughs that Mark Gatiss (Captain Brazen) got. Gatiss played his captain rather camp and it was delightful. Menzies played his captain fairly straight, which let his many words delivered in a raspy/husky voice speak to their best advantage, and it also made sense because the two male characters he had the most to do with, Sgt Kite and Mister Worthy, were melodramatic in their own ways. Worthy as a love-struck and underappreciated suitor of Melinda, and Sgt Kite as a resourceful and cunning recruiting officer who is at his most over-the-top as the German-gypsy fortune teller Conundrum. Someone has to be the grounding influence and that was Plume. His intellectual and emotional counterpart (and functional, as far as the dynamics of the play are concerned), was Silvia, which brings me to the women.   

Without exception, they are a laugh riot in their own right: Rachael Stirling as the newly-rich and newly-proud Melinda, her smart and ambitious maid Lucy played by Kathryn Drysdale, and Melinda’s cousin Silvia (played by Nancy Carroll), who is in love with Captain Plume but in a Twelfth Night sort of deception, dresses up in her deceased brother’s clothing so she can join her intended’s ranks after she learns she has become her father’s sole heir, and therefore out of Plume’s social class. Even a Captain of the Grenadiers has limits as to how high into society he can marry. A Justice’s daughter – no problem; a Justice’s heir to 1200 a year –major obstacle. Aimee-Ffion Edwards plays the country women, mainly Rose, a potential conquest of Plume’s, but also a pregnant young girl called to court when her baby’s father is ‘listed’ to the army. She also sings one (or was it two?) songs and had a very pleasant, young-sounding voice, underscoring the youth of the characters she plays. The airs, the vocal and inflective range, the dialogue – it was such fun. The humour amongst the women is chiefly about men and manners. The humour around the men was mainly around wenching and methods of recruiting. We’re not so different now, I think.

Unlike the musicians in the National Theatre’s production of The Comedy of Errors that I recently saw, the musicians in this play set the mood between scenes and each were proper members of the Company (speaking parts at least one each, some more) in their own right. At the NT, I’m sure the musicians were “filler” during set changes – familiar songs in a foreign language with rhythms and instrumentation that were a bit gypsy-like, I suppose. This play had no set to speak of: a sky-blue backdrop painted with white fluffy clouds in front of which rows of votive candles cascaded down, a virtual waterfall of candlelight. The musicians were fine instrumentalists as well as singers: Flute, fiddle, double-bass, guitar, drum/bodhran/tambourine. During one five-part harmony a capella piece, the flautist sang the top tenor part so incredibly beautifully. They and the music they played, were core components of the play, and the recurrence of the song “Over the Hills and far away” did much to influence mood and pathos.  

I did not understand the significance of the court scene – even after seeing it twice. MAYBE it has to do with the Justice’s verdict to Plume never to discharge Wilful from his army. Silvia, as Jack Wilful, her male alter-ego, had been arrested because of something to do with Rose. Then before we get to her/his part of the hearing, we meet two conscripts – the first is a father of five who is the sole provider for his wife and family and the second is a collier. According to the Acts of Parliament, they should never have been ‘listed because the first was the sole breadwinner and the other because he had a trade/profession. It does not take long to understand (I hope) that the Acts had been passed to protect people exactly like that, but even in a court of law, the ways in which those same Acts were interpreted rendered them virtually useless. I understand that part. Morally, these are the most important cases of the court session. Then we get to Silvia, the spurious charge against her, in a guise so complete her own father presiding over the court does not recognise her. Does there need to be a court case surrounding this upper class woman in man’s garb in order for there to BE a court case? In other words, was society so structured that the moral centre of the scene had to be disguised as a lead-in to the “main event” – a person of the upper classes becomes the focus and retains it until her true identity is revealed? Since 400 years later there is still discussion on the endurance of England’s class system, my feeling is that I have already answered my queries, and the answers are in the affirmative. But also see my first point regarding the verdict.  

The theatre, the play, this production: it was a truly magical night. Perfection. Twice. I cannot sufficiently express how special this production is. It is enjoyable, heart warming, hopeful, and sobering. There are truisms in spades that are as representative of the 21st century as they were in the 18th. The refreshing earnestness, the sublime pretensions, any plotting is done without any 'real' malice, set against the ever-present tension of what actually would await those poor 'listed men. Sometimes sub-text, sometimes metaphorical, and sometimes just blunt. This is what theatre should be. Rarely have I felt as privileged as I did to have seen this cast and production as often as I did. I would have gone nightly if it had been possible. 

The final performance of this production of The Recruiting Officer was on Saturday, April 14, 2012. For images and further links, visit http://www.donmarwarehouse.com/pl142.html

All New People - Duke of York's - April 7

I saw the matinee performance of All New People at London's Duke of York’s Theatre on Saturday, April 7. It struck me how thoroughly in the “modernist” movement this play is. As is so often the case, there is no resolution; more like a “slice of life” of 4 people who happen to meet at a location (in this case a beach house on Long Beach Island in the middle of winter) and things unfold from there. The four characters are strangers virtually – only 2 of them had ever met previously (Emma and Myron), but each had never met Charlie or Kim. Emma, as played by Eve Myles, is a bit of a basket case. She is in the US from Britain without a green card and is desperate to stay, but not desperate enough to marry Myron, played by Paul Hilton. Myron is in love with Emma, is the island’s fire chief and drug dealer, but he looks as though he might be one of his own best customers.

Where the play begins is with Charlie, played by Zach Braff, trying to hang himself on what turns out to be his 35^th birthday. How serious he is about the attempted suicide is debatable as he doesn’t slip kick the chair out from under him until he hears Emma’s approach. Either hearing her voice makes him think "do it now" and maybe he’ll be gone by the time she walks in, or hearing her voice means he’ll likely be rescued. The latter is obviously what happens and this starts the play off. Myron is called to the scene to assist Emma with Charlie and before too much time has passed, high-priced escort Kim (played by Susannah Fielding) arrives because Charlie’s friend Kevin hired her to keep Charlie company during his stay at Kevin’s beach house, not aware of Charlie’s ulterior motive in asking to use the house.

How the four got to where they were: Emma in New Jersey, Myron a fire chief on Long Beach Island, Kim hired to go to New Jersey, and Charlie at the point of suicide is told in filmed flashbacks, ably assisted by David Bradley, Amanda Redman, and Joseph Millson – they do not appear on stage, they only serve to provide a back story with the actors freezing as a screen is quickly and quietly lowered to play the relevant character’s defining moment and then being raised again, and then the story continues. Four characters, four defining moments - only Charlie’s moment is narrated by him in front of the screen in contrast to the other three which were more like a freeze-frame insertion. This ‘getting to know the characters’ is juxtaposed against the absurd idea that in order to keep Charlie from going through with his suicide, they cannot leave and so they decide to throw him an impromptu birthday party. Charlie, Emma, and Myron are all very tightly wound characters; it is Kim, who as the stereotypical dumb blonde provides a lot of the comedy relief, while the vast majority of the humour is a release from the tension of dramatic moments.

I don’t understand why this play is billed as a comedy. Yes, Zach Braff wrote/co-wrote it and he is most well known for playing comedic parts, but it is as much a comedy as Garden State was; most certainly a drama with funny parts, just like a comedy isn’t just one laugh after another for 2 hours and then you go home. The play ends with Kim singing a song she wrote while Myron is smoking on the balcony, and Charlie and Emma are holding each other in what I can only interpret as desperation. By that time Emma has kind of-sort of asked Charlie out but he doesn’t react to Emma’s proposition, so while Charlie’s motivation to sit by a crying Emma to comfort her is credible in its awkwardness, his guiding her head towards the front of his shoulder for what ends up being a long, caressing embrace as Kim sings her sad song, the lyrics of which sum up the play fairly well, is not. I do wonder where that came from because this is a character who two short hours ago was slipping a noose around his neck and ends up with a very emotional new (maybe) girlfriend? He had shown her no interest up to that point. Even when he was shouting at her to get her to leave, it was because he wanted to be left alone. The tightly wound characters had each revealed themselves to be deeply unhappy people, and Kim is the eternal optimist who keeps on making lemonade, sharing with the others the wisdom that if you don’t like the world as it is, be consoled in the fact that in a hundred years’ time, there’ll be all new people. Simple as her logic is, she doesn’t see that in order for there to be “All New People”, all of the people currently living can be no more. Ah, there’s the rub...or is that the irony? 

Closing Night on April 28, 2012. Tickets (if available) via Ambassador Ticket Group http://www.atgtickets.com/
Poster Image from hamlife.blogspot.com

As a side note: it was less than 10 degrees Celsius outside at the time. Just because the play’s action took place in the middle of winter didn’t mean the air-conditioning needed to be on. The audience only needs to suspend their disbelief, they do not need to bodily commiserate. The actors (with the exception of Kim) were wearing sufficient amounts of clothing with bright lights shining on them – we members of the audience were not as lucky. I never took my coat or gloves off. 

Being Human (the original) – Season 3 to Season 4 transition

Disclaimer: for people who haven’t watched any Series 4, this review contains some spoilers. This review only affects the first half of the series. 

Watching the first half of Series 4 made me realise how utterly DARK Series 3 was. As it turns out, it was the swan song for ¾ of the regular cast, with Aidan Turner’s character getting dusted* in the final episode of Series 3, Sinead Keenan not returning in Series 4 but her death is referenced a couple of times as having occurred a mere week after Eve was born, and Russell Tovey’s departure at the end of the first episode of Series 4. As despondent George, Tovey was very much secondary to Michael Socha’s Tom McNair becoming more of a presence in the development of a narrative dynamic. Over a very short period of time, young Tom has turned into the show’s “action man” ** while George seemed to be paralysed by grief and in one final act of heroism assists in the rescue of his daughter which costs him his life, which he has no issue with.

Series 4, Episode 1 Eve of the War offers a nice twist. Right up until the end of the first episode, viewers had been led to believe that the flash forwards to a young woman in the year 2037, in possession of the vampire prophecy involving Eve was in fact Eve, until the moment she declares her intent of killing the child back in 2012ish. Then doubt creeps in for the viewer. Is she or is she not?

    

Damien Molony offers a lot of depth to the position left vacant by Aidan Turner as resident frenemy vampire. As Hal, an “Old One”, he has even more of a past than Mitchell did, and he’s been “clean” a much shorter amount of time relative to his age (not yet revealed). Molony himself is a recent theatre graduate (2011) and a relative unknown, but he brings a lot of intensity, tension, and integrity to the part. I actually saw him in the National Theatre’s production of Travelling Light several months ago and as one of the two leading males, and in the dual roles of Nate and Motl, he definitely stood out as someone to watch.  

Another twist of a sort was the introduction of Lee Ingleby as the efficient and brutal über-vamp Edgar Wyndam taking control of a department of police near the end of the final episode of Series 3. Great, I thought. I’d like to see what kind of havoc he tries to wreak in the coming series. Not so. He is referenced in the past tense in the first episodes as having been killed, so there was a definite void in the vampire enemy category: enter Andrew Gower as Cutler, who looked very familiar and turns out I remembered him from his first commercial role as a surgical intern in the ITV series Monroe (starring the always amazing James Nesbitt, Sarah Parish and Tom Riley). Veering away from the stereotypical Being Human vampire profession of policeman, Cutler’s “day job” is that of a lawyer, which is revealed in the fourth episode A Spectre Calls as he advocates for Tom to be released from jail. This episode is my favourite of the first 4: it is seriously creepy (Kirby’s machinations), seriously tugs at the heart strings (Tom’s anticipation of his first birthday party), and seriously laugh-out-loud funny*** in the scene with the GP when Tom and Hal pretend to be lovers in order to present themselves as ‘plausible caregivers’ for Eve - Annie’s ghostiness very much a disadvantage when dealing with people from social services or, in this case, the medical profession.

So far it’s like a brand-new show. New faces. New feel. What is paramount is that the “supernatural trinity” of vampire/werewolf/ghost co-habitating stays intact, that much is clear. Apart from that, it’s probably not a good a idea to get attached. As evidenced in the transition between Series 3 and 4, everyone is disposable.    

* Buffy the Vampire Slayer reference.

** Michael Socha proving to be just as much a force to be reckoned with as his younger sister Lauren is on Misfits.

*** Mind you, in the episode “The Graveyard Shift”, there are also a number of really funny moments. Molony and Socha have very good comedic chemistry.