Reviews: Edward II at The National Theatre

Edward II

The National Theatre, October 21, 2013

“Crazy” was the word I kept hearing in relation to The National Theatre’s Edward II, and so crazy was what I was expecting going in. That was my first mistake. Yes, that’s a fair word to use for certain moments of the production, but it isn’t a word I would use to sum up the production as a whole… unless we’re talking about the crazy lack of continuity present in this production.

            The production starts before you even take your seat, the stage is fully lit with no sort of curtain to conceal the exit and entrance of cast and crew as they prepared for the beginning of the play. There was a sort of Brechtian alienation effect in the obviousness of the ‘play,’ the revocation of a ‘suspended disbelief’ by putting it all out in the forefront. And then, with a sudden banging of drums, the play begins with the coronation of Edward II.

            Going onward with this alienation effect, as the coronation ends, a loud applause and screaming came from House Right, introducing us the bold and reckless Gaveston, Edward’s banished lover. Now that Edward is King, many of his father’s laws and precautions have been tossed out the window, giving the rest of the nobility just cause for worry. The plays continues onward in this fashion as director Joe Hill-Gibbs uses a film crew following the cast into an enclose area of the stage to illuminate the ‘behind closed doors’ elements of Edwards’ court. From a homosexual club scene to plans of coups take place within this space, projected onto two screens for the audience to view. While this was visually interesting, and added a depth of layering to the show – and allowed the director to draw our attention to very specific details – I honestly could not find any sort of textual support or reasoning behind this choice.

            The performance of Kyle Soller as Gaveston was a highlight of the night, as he jumped from the House onto the stage, showcasing a variety of physical capabilities while still delivering Marlowe’s words with clarity and true feeling. The character is a difficult one, he is both loving and conniving, enabling and controlling – obviously flawed but wholly unapologetic. As his significant other and complete servant, John Heffernan’s Edward II is a petty young boy: selfish, reckless and petulant. When together on stage, the power play is turned upside down as the common-born Gaveston flaunts his power over the King. Whatever Gaveston wants and more is granted to him and the nobles’ obvious disdain is understandable.

            Also shining in their hideously flawed role was Vanessa Kirby as Queen Isabella, the desperate and neglected wife of Edward. While there were times when my inner-actor was jarred by her disregard for her own vocal safety as she cried out against her mistreatment, I was touched by the truth and feeling behind her words. Her relationships with her son as well as the somewhat confusing character Mortimer the Younger, who another one of Marlowe’s confusingly good and cruel characters, are strong and understandable while still hazing in her desperation to be accepted by Edward.

            What was most confusing with this production was the constant set-up for a scene that could leave you stunned, and then the letdown as the plays backs away instead of careening forward. Act I is filled with a number of small elements that had the possibility of coming to a satisfying climax of conflict in Act II, but then Act II backs away from the intense energy of Act I and we as an audience, are left struggling to stay awake. I liked the beginning of Edward II and the introduction of different controversial elements, but was disappointed by the lack of dedication and risk.

Reviews: The Light Princess @ The National Theatre

The Light Princess

The National Theatre - October 10, 2013

            Last night I saw an amazing production. Last night I saw an amazing production of a horrible show. I like Tori Amos, don’t get me wrong, the woman has 8 Grammy nominations, she’s obviously talented, but perhaps some song-writers shouldn’t attempt to write musicals. However, the visuals were well worth the ticket prices and then some.

             Before the show even starts, from the displayed on the stage and covering the main curtain, we are aware that we are about to watch a Fairy Tale. A brightly colored set displaying the Golden Kingdom of Lagobel and the Blue Kingdom of Sealand, divided by a Green wilderness, along with an explanatory song, sets the stage for this Fairy Tale. And like many of its magical predecessors, we begin with the death of a mother (or two). The Prince of Sealand reacts with heavy grief that prevents all joy and smiling, whereas as Princess Althia of Lagobel refuses to be brought down by grief and subsequently begins to float and can take nothing seriously.

            It is a simple story, yet difficult to follow. It’s simple because the story is Romeo and Juliet with emotionally stunted teenagers, it’s difficult because the songs go nowhere and accomplish nothing. This is not uncommon in many musicals, but in most of those musicals, there is dialogue to fill in the gaps. We did not get that stroke of luck.

            The music wasn’t entirely unpleasant, though. While every song, running around 5-8 minutes, was probably 9 minutes too long, the singing was excellent. Nick Hendrix, as the somber Prince Digby, adds beautiful depth with his warm tenor vocals to an otherwise 2D character. As The Light Princess Althea, Rosalie Craig must be commended for maintaining beautiful and strong vocals in whatever position she happens to be floating in at that moment.

            In fact Rosalie Craig’s performance alone deserves great acclaim, as The Light Princess who’s feet never touch the ground, I can’t imagine how much training she had to undergo before setting foot off stage. I wont go so far as to describe the amazing ways that the creative team devised to keep her feet from the floor – but I imagine that a lot of strength training was involved. Then, on top of all that floating, she still manages to belt at every angle possible, even upside down.

            The set, the lighting, the creative twists that Marianne Elliot utilized to tell the story, as well as the puppetry element, were all-excellent. Visually, The Light Princess is a masterpiece. Now, whether or not you want to sit through 3 hours (yes, 3) of uninteresting melodies and conversations that lead nowhere in particular, that’s up to you.

            

Reviews: Farragut North @ Southwark Playhouse

Farragut North

Southwark Playhouse, October 1, 2013

The Sneeze that Brought Down Farragut North

Act 1, nearing the interval… tension is high – and in a semi-dramatic moment, the most awkward sneeze I have had the pleasure of witnessing brought Farragut North to a standstill. Well, they weren’t really standing still, both Max Irons and Aysha Kala were trying their very best to stifle their laughter. To their credit, they did an excellent job of getting back into it after they admitted their break, and the audience applauded their honesty.

           

As an American, I was skeptical to see a show performed by the English about the mechanisms of my country’s political bodies. At the end of the night, though, I walked out of Southwark Playhouse thoroughly pleased and satisfyingly entertained. It was almost strange to sit down in a theatre to watch a play about American Politics, less than 24 hours after the government shut down. In the program, it does state that the play takes place in January 2012, so this is long before this summer’s government furloughs and the recent total shut down.

            The play opens on Stephen (Irons), a startlingly young campaign press secretary for one of the runners for the Democratic Primaries for the 2012 elections. He is a star within the Democratic Party and he knows it. But no one is doing anything to temper his ego, complimented by a reporter, flirting with the hot intern– he is riding the all too powerful high of early success. But all good things must come to an end – with one phone call, that success loses all its meaning as mistakes turn to into misdeeds.

            In that first scene, when we are introduced to a majority of this small ensemble of seven actors, a very electric Irons is describing his first large campaign victory with enough energy to power the entire room. Williamson, as Paul Zara, his boss, adds to the crackling electricity in the air, feeding Irons’ energy with his own. Tucker as the reporter, Ida Horowicz, is the perfect partner to Irons in this scene, matching his energy in their dialogue with the cool calm of enlightened experience and a touch of jadedness. It’s funny, entertaining, and had me on the edge of my seat, leaning forward and pulled in by this fast-talking trio. The scenario seems impossible, the script even hints that it is, but there is an arrogant swagger and over confidence to Irons’ Stephen, that makes his success easy to believe.

As the play moves forward, we meet Molly Pearson played by the young Aysha Kole. Molly is ambitious – hell, to be an intern for a political campaign at 19, you must have something special about you. And we soon learn how special. Kala confused me at first, I wasn’t sure if I was watching someone ambitious, or love-struck, looking back, I now know I was watching both. Her relationship with Irons I found confusing, however, not because of her age like the script suggests, but I just didn’t feel the chemistry between them. There were hints here and there, but I honestly thought Irons had more chemistry with Tucker and was actually expecting that relationship to extend past the first scene.

            As the ball really starts rolling, and falling and tumbling out of control, Stephen becomes more and more desperate and one of my favorite scene changes to date occurs as a way of highlighting this. If you have not seen the play, look away now, because this is too good not to mention. The cast performs the role of stage-hand/props-run (as it was labeled at my alma mater), that’s wonderful – Director Guy Unsworth took that to new levels in Act 2 to highlight Stephen’s fall from grace. In a strobe heavy scene change, Tucker and Williamson’s characters reappear, bringing liquor to Stephen as he sits at a table while the set changes around him. It’s a moment that could have me waxing literary for days. Instead I shall just say, driving does not mix well with liquor – and that blood looked fantastic, I think my gasp was fairly audible as the lights came up.

            Someone to watch out for, both in the play and in theatre in general would definitely be Josh O’Connor as the over-eager and ambitious Ben Fowles. He starts off unassuming and hard-working but morphs quickly into an undermining and sly political devil. For my film lovers, this is definitely a All About Eve situation. One thing that really struck me, at the very end of the play, Fowles delivers a speech, I knew I was watching a young white guy, but it really felt more like I was watching President Obama speak. The pauses, the gestures and even the facial mechanics were on point, and it was more than a little chilling. O’Connor is an actor to watch out for, I feel like I can say that with a pretty safe sense of certainty.

            I really enjoyed Farragut North, I went with three of my classmates from my MA Theatre Studies at Central and we were all in agreement, evening well spent. I wouldn’t say it was five stars (or wine glasses by West End Whinger standards), but a solid four. There were times when I felt emotions were being projected rather than genuinely expressed, though from my training back in 2011, I think that’s more due to the style of drama in England. At times, my American Spidey-senses were tingling as certain words and phrases came out a tad more English than American. I would just like Mr. Irons to know that most Americans do know how to pronounce the word ‘naïve.’ I understand the American accent is not the easiest, but give us some credit. Accents aside, if you enjoy being entertained while simultaneously being educated on some of the stranger points of American Politics, this is an excellent play. At just £16 a ticket to see smart, attractive young people – this is an amazing value. 

The Critics' Circle Centenary Conference: Theatre Criticism Now

Theatre Criticism Now: What’s the Point?

           

This was a panel set-up, made up of Kate Bassett (formally from The Independent on Sunday), Dominic Cavendish (Daily Telegraph), Mark Fisher (freelance), and Fiona Mountford (Evening Standard). It was a lively panel, and for the most part, it included a very lively discussion, not just about the role of critics but also their value and treatment by those who pay for their services.

            One of the big questions that came up and was discussed was the ‘why do we review theatre?’ It was met with some of the simple answers like ‘for posterity,’ which, as someone pursuing a Masters in Theatre Studies, I certainly appreciate. There is definite merit in transcribing the theatrical experience, what it was like to be there, how the audience is feeling through the ups and downs of the production, and to record this so that future generations can gain insight to our theatrical culture through these writings. I believe Kenneth Tynan and Michael Billington both did this very well. When I read the two books that compile their reviews, Tynan on Theatre and Michael Billington’s One Night Stands, I really do feel like I am learning what the theatre on that night was legitimately like.

            Another answer to that question of ‘why we review’ was, basically, for the general good of the public. I believe it was Kate Bassett who made the remark that today people are extremely careful on how they spend both their time and money. Both are extremely valuable in today’s society, and if a reviewer can better steer you to a night you will thoroughly enjoy, then they really are providing a service. I like this idea, I think it holds a great deal of merit, especially for the average London theatre-goer. For myself, personally, as a student I tell myself that everything deserves to be seen and considered, even if I find I do not like it. But this is not the case for most people, I am an oddity, a very small minority. For those are looking for a good night, perhaps intelligent, or perhaps just entertaining, a critic one trusts can be a very valuable resource.

            The critic is also important as a bridge between the audience and the production. A critic very often has a more informed view of the production, and can convey the ideas and concepts that appear in the play that we average viewers might miss at first. This also brought up later on the question of ‘the embedded critic,’ and here, I find myself agreeing with Michael Billington. In his book, One Night Stands, at one point he wrote about his experience of sitting in during a rehearsal. He didn’t seem to enjoy it, and I feel like it gives the reviewer a tainted instead of objective view of the play.

            There were many other points covered, and many other really great comments on the importance of the critic, the role of a critic and the further role that that criticism can have. But the one thing mentioned time and time again in almost every different facet of critiquing mentioned, was honesty. An honest review is the most important review you can write. It’s more important than a smooth or nice review. How you truly felt sitting in that theatre, what you saw and heard. Give that back to your readers, put it on paper (or blog) and give people your true thoughts so that they can use that and make their decisions accordingly.

            Personally, I gained a lot from this panel discussion, I also learned about how a lot of magazines and papers have cut their arts staff. One woman who was speaking, had just been let go as The Independent on Sunday apparently cut their entire arts staff. The first thing I go to in a newspaper is the arts section, I look for the reviews and the features on theatre – if The Washington Post or The Guardian ever cut their Arts sections, I think I might find myself canceling my subscriptions. It was scary to hear, though, I love reviewing, and was thinking of it as a possible career path. I don’t think I will discredit the profession as a pathway for myself entirely, I’ll still be reviewing on here for a long time to come, but hearing about the lack of openings and lack of opportunities as a theatre critic does give me some realistic perspective. This was actually touched on in the following panel – and I will speak about that as well in a post possibly later tonight or tomorrow. 

Reviews: The Copla @ The Collisions Festival

The Copla

The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, September 28^th

I’ll be honest, when I used to think of the Spanish Civil War, transvestite performers don’t usually spring to mind. The Copla, presented at The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama’s Collision Festival, opened my eyes to the struggles that many citizens and cultural groups went through during the war. Through the play, we learned about the struggle for homosexuals and drag artists under the reign of The Nationals as they fought The Republic of previous years.

Alejandro Postigo, who not only wrote but also starred in The Copla as La Gitana, is striking from the moment the lights go up on his sad form, shivering and singing, praying for death. After escaping from prison, the linear movement of the play fades in and out. There are a number of scenes that flashback to first meetings and pivitol moments for La Gitana that defined her as she made her journey. We are transported back to when a young man named Imperio falls in love with an American salesman, and is subsequently ejected from his childhood home by his Nationalist father. He is saved by the kind-hearted Campanera from The Republican forces, and is able to embrace his true identity as La Gitana, a drag artists in a Republican cabaret.

The play follows her time after being freed from prison, and reunion with The American in the Caberet where she returned. While her story progresses, the play continues to enlighten our understanding of the struggle of The Republicans against the oppression of The Nationalists.

In one particularly difficult scene, The Nationalist soldiers are searching for Campenera, who has become a symbol for The Republican force. The two soldiers terrorize and physically abuse the women, asking for them to give up who is Campanera. It is La Gitana who speaks up, turning herself in for the sake of the true Campanera, it is the first moment of the play where we see La Gitana truly participating and sacrificing for the cause.

When we are returned to the present, the end of the Spanish Civil War is played out in brief and we see La Gitana with her American as they plan to move on with the next stage of their life.

 Through the moving, sometimes sorrowful, sometimes victorious and hopeful Copla melodies pulled from Spain’s rich folk music traditions of the 1930’s, ‘40’s and ‘50’s, a story of hope, strength and ultimate resilience comes through. Violeta Garcia gives an amazing sense of strength and brilliance of character that shines brightly through her portrayal of the spirited Campanera. Simultaneously, she is supported by Javier Rasero and Carolina Bandeira as her equally committed comrades, Jacincto and Dolores. Undeniably, the creator of this production, Alejandro Postigo, created a brilliantly moving, beautifully sung character in La Gitana. I was transported by his translation of the traditional Copla songs, performing in a style not often seen in musical theatre seamlessly. I was truly moved by his piece and sincerely hope that he marries it with the second act that he previously presented so that this musical can see life in again and reach and even wider audience.

There is only one more performance of The Copla during The Collisions Festival, and it may be sold out, buy I highly recommend trying to reserve a place on September 30 at 8pm. It is definitely a piece worth one’s time and attention.

The Critics' Circle Centenary Conference: Historical Session

The Critics’ Circle Centenary Conference

100 Years of Criticism: Key Changes

On Friday, Semptember 27, 2013, I walked in The Central School of Speech and Drama, along with many others young and old, to watch the Critics’ Circle discuss key changes in the world of theatrical criticism.

Historical Session

The beginning of the conference started out with two talks focused on historical criticism. The first speaker was Frances Hughes, Chair of the Irving Society; she spoke about criticism a century ago. Apparently, not only was this year the 100^th birthday of the creation of the Critics’ Circle, but it is also that 101^st Birthday of the book, Who’s Who in Theatre – among which, 50 people listed were Critics. It was significant to point out the importance and large pool of critics available to the world of theatre at the beginning of the 20^th century. Every magazine published in Britain seemed to have a theatre critic: The Sporting Life had a theatre critic!

Hughes also went on to discuss the most famous theatre critics of the day, of which, most were playwright/critics. For instance, Max Beerbohm (1872-1956) whom I had never heard of until this day, was rumored to have seen and critiqued over 12,000 plays in his lifetime. Max was actually a large critic of Shaw’s, they were completely different men: Max was a conservative Tory whereas Shaw was a reformist Fabien. The two men were connected by their great love of theatre and Max even praised Shaw and his work.

She went on to discuss the critics, Montague and Cole, and how Cole was very largely responsible for what today know as The Fringe in Edinburgh, Scotland. It was a wonderful discussion of the theatrical community of playwrights, actors and critics before the Critics’ Circle was established in 1913.

Then Nicholas de Jongh, and critic and playwright, spoke about critics and censorship in the 20^th Century. Theatre was controlled and censored in England by The Lord Chamberlain from 1727 until 1968. It was in 1967, just a year before the censorship was removed, at the Hampstead Theatre (just next to Central), appeared in Ballad of a False Doorman, in which he stands with his back to the audience, completely bared from the torso down. A person (whom I’m sad to say I did not record the name) wrote to the Lord Chamberlain in a rage about this play, and the sight of a man’s “hideous bottom” shown to the audience. The Lord Chamberlain was for the most part a Conservative Gentleman, and any play that was ‘for hire’ must be submitted and approved by the Lord Chamberlain.

            One way the theatre companies and playwrights got around this rule, which was actually something Dr. Godwin referred to often in Theatre History at CNU, were ‘clubs’ with subscriptions. So if you had a subscription to certain special theatrical clubs, you could enjoy your Tolstoy and your George Bernard Shaw who were two of the most censored playwrights of the 1900’s.

             One prime example of the conservatives of The Lord Chamberlain’s office, a musical (I think, not certain): The World of Paul Slickey (sp?). Sex is not something The Lord Chamberlain wanted on stage, any mention, reference, hint or insinuation that the act every happened was not appropriate. Well Paul Slickey began with the curtain rising on a man lying atop a woman, and getting up to tuck his shirt back into his trousers. The woman was also wearing breeches and a slip but she did not tuck in her slip. Well, bad enough that they hinted that the two had just had intercourse out-of-wedlock, but she hadn’t even attempted to put herself perfectly to right directly after (basically, she was a slut). The play was instructed by The Lord Chamberlain’s office to change so that the two were sitting side by side on the bed, fully dressed, and her slip must be tucked into her breeches.

            Kenneth Tynan, whom you can read more about in the Books section of this blog, was one of the first critics and theatre professionals to lead a fight against The Lord Chamberlain and censorship in British Theatre. But it was really the playwrights, not the critics, who lead the fight against censorship and the eventual dissolution of Theatrical Censorship in the UK in 1968.

What I took from these:

            Obviously, what I wrote about above is what stood out to me the most from these two lectures. I learned a lot, I had no idea that The Lord Chamberlain’s Office and it’s control of British Theatre was around for that long. I definitely think now that we owe many thanks to John Osborne and the other playwright’s of his generation who fought against this control. Personally, it reminds me of the America in the 1980s and 1990s, when the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts, which was criticized by the public for funding artists who used sexual references and homosexuality as the subject of their art.

            These were two fantastic speakers, and I feel like I was very lucky to be able to listen and be a part of this special day. In the future, throughout today and tomorrow, I will be adding more posts from the other talks onto this blog.

Next will be what I gained from the panel on “Theatre Criticism Now.”

Books: Performance, a critical introduction

An excerpt from the notes I took while reading this text:

Performance: a critical introduction

The performance of culture: anthropological and ethnographic approaches

Performance and Anthropology

-     - Number of different behaviors lumped into ‘performance’ for different cultures in ANTH

-      - Dell Hymes 2 Catagories of Performance:

o   Behavior and Conduct:

§  B = “anything and everything that happens”

§  C = “under the aegis of social norms, cultural rules, shared principles of interpretability

o   Conduct within Behavior

§  When one of persons “assumed a responsibility to an audience and to tradition as the understand it”

-      -  Performance involved ‘responsibility’ to audience and to tradition

-       - Theory: all performance is based on some pre-existing model, script or pattern of action

o   Richard Schechner: performance is “restored behavior”

-      -  BUT – performance can work in society for underminding tradition and providing a way of exploration and new behavior

-       - In almost every culture, there is a specific cultural activity set apart that can be considered and studied as ‘performance’

Liminal and Liminoid

-       Turner defined liminal as:

o   “anti-structure” of normal cultural operations

-       The space provided for members of a culture to think not about cultural codes, but about themselves individually

-       Simplified by Sutton-Smith as “letting of steam”

-       Learning from disorder

o   Learning from a ‘latent system of potential alternatives’

o   A ‘protocultural system’: the precurser of innovative normative forms, source of NEW culture

-       Liminal may invert the established order, but never subverts it

o   Suggests frightening chaos is alternative to established order (Elena’s thoughts: some organized religions? Anyone reminded of the puritans?)

-       Turner defined “liminoid” activities as:

o   ‘Limited, individualistic’ activities more along the lines of ‘play’: sport, leisure, art – anything outside of regular work and business

o   Marks cites where conventional structure is no longer honored

o   More likely to be subversive, playful and exploratory of alternatives to ‘status quo’

-       Clifford Geertz: Distinction of ‘deep play’ and ‘shallow play’

o   Differing ideas between scholars for which one can incite more thought toward change

-       MacAloon: Cultural Performance:

o   “Occasion in which as a culture or society we reflect upon and define our alternatives, and eventually change in some ways while remaining the same in others” 

______________ does anyone even want me to continue on with the other 20 pages of notes?______________