Play Review: "Who Is Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" by Edward Albee (NT live)

in

"Who Is Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" by Edward Albee (NT live)  

Edward Albee’s award winning play “Who is Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” was produced by Sonia Friedman Productions and broadcasted by NT Live. You might have already heard of Sonia Friedman Productions as they also produced Hamlet with Benedict Cumberbatch at The Barbican in 2015 (that was broadcasted by NTLive), Much Ado About Nothing, King Charles III (with David Tennant, Catherine Tate) - to name a few. They plan to bring Harry Potter and The Cursed Child on Broadway on 2018 too. And this year they are producing Hamlet with Andrew Scott (also on stage of Harold Pinter Theatre), and I am keeping all of my fingers crossed that NTLive would pick it up too. Because there is no such thing as too much Hamlet.

“Who Is Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” spots an all-star cast, including Imelda Staunton (Gypsy, Vera Drake, the Harry Potter films); Conleth Hill (Game Of Thrones, The Producers); Luke Treadaway (The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, Fortitude, The Hollow Crown) and Imogen Poots (A Long Way Down, Jane Eyre).

 

From NTLive.com:

 

In the early hours of the morning on the campus of an American college, Martha, much to her husband George’s displeasure, has invited the new professor and his wife to their home for some after-party drinks. As the alcohol flows and dawn approaches, the young couple are drawn into George and Martha’s toxic games until the evening reaches its climax in a moment of devastating truth-telling.

 

I had not read the play before going to see it, so the impact of it was quite intense. I loved the build-up and eventual catharsis through which the characters go through. It is a rather intense and harrowing performance to watch as you first think that it is just all innocent fun and Martha just had a couple of too many drinks. But as her voice becomes more shrill and her accusations more sharp, you can’t help thinking that there might be something more behind it all.

 

I must give it to Imelda - she is definitely the driving force of this play, and I admire the way she is able to deliver lines almost at the yelling volume throughout the play without losing her voice. She is a force to be reckoned with and pulls all of the attention towards her, which makes the revelation delivered by George even more astounding. George seems to be pushed around a lot, but he is the one who eventually delivers the final blow.

 

The recurring line of “Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf?” which was sung throughout the play to the tune of Three Little Pigs got stuck in my head for days. It made me also wonder who was supposed to represent ‘big bad wolf’ in this play. Perhaps, it is reality itself, as all characters seem to be living in some sort of fantasy that they have constructed themselves.

 

Nothing as it seems in this play. It is a mix of reality and illusion - and I loved it for it. However, the ending left me feeling desolate and despaired of the humanity, as it intended, I assume. Definitely recommend this play and this production in particular. I spent the whole evening on the edge on the edge of my seat.

 

 

Rating: 4 stars

 

More of my play reviews

 

Sources:

Play Review: Obsession - National Theatre Live

in

 

I went to see the broadcast of "Obsession" play on May 11. It was broadcast live from the Barbican Theatre in London and was only about an hour and a half long with no intermission. The play is a new stage adaptation of Luchino Visconti’s 1943 film. I have never watched the movie, but I was attracted to this play because of two things: one, the main protagonist Gino is played by Jude Law, whom I had never seen on stage; and two, the play was produced by Ivo van Hove, whose in Hedda Gabler I really enjoyed (he also produced A View From The Bridge).

The movie “Obsession” that this play is based on, was quoted to be the first neorealist movie and an unofficial adaptation of the novel The Postman Always Rings Twice (the book that I have heard of but never read).

 

The play was introduced by a short video clip of the rehearsals and interviews with Ivo van Hove and Jude Law.

 

Here is the synopsis of the play from NT Live:

 

Gino is a drifter, down-at-heel and magnetically handsome. At a road side restaurant he encounters husband and wife, Giuseppe and Giovanna. Irresistibly attracted to each other, Gino and Giovanna begin a fiery affair and plot to murder her husband. But, in this chilling tale of passion and destruction, the crime only serves to tear them apart.

 

No matter, how much it hurts me to admit it, but I was extremely bored throughout the play. The stage decorations and props are so few and minimalistic that it leaves most to the imagination of the audience to decide when the characters are eating, sleeping or how much time has passed. I understand that it comes from the premise and the background of the story: Giuseppe and Giovanna are poor - their restaurant is void of customers when Gino stumbles in. Gino himself barely has enough money for one meal and definitely not enough things to call his own. Even though the attraction between Gino and Giovanna is portrayed interestingly through movements and glances, their love story is nothing new. The whole plot felt trite and predictable, and I was grateful that I didn’t have to suffer through more than one act of it.

 

Jude Law is great as Gino, both alluring and wild, but Giovanna was barely anything at all as a character, and it is sad. The most exciting part of the play was how van Hove decided to portray murder and blood. Instead of an actual car, there was a car engine hanging a bit over the stage. It revved and smoked and produced black oil-like substance that covered the characters on stage as they grappled and twisted in fight. That black slime represented the blood and crime, and that was probably the most unique setup that I have ever seen. Definitely an ingenuous idea on Ivo van Hove's part.

 

But otherwise it was so uninspiring - I found the behind the scenes footage more interesting to watch than the actual play - that I couldn't help glancing at my watch, and it never happens! Slightly disappointed, but otherwise content, if not happy, to have seen both Jude Law’s and Ivo van Hove’s work on stage. Can’t say it is something I would recommend, unless you are a fan of either or the movie.

 

Personal rating: 3 stars

 

Sources:

 

Play Review: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead - National Theatre Live

in

 

Raise a hand if you can pronounce the title of this play, “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, in one go without twisting your tongue - because I can’t! So, I am going to refer to it from now it as ‘RaG’ in my review, because even typing it in full is a hassle.

I heard about this play for the first time at my very first job, where we had the movie with same title available at the library. It was released in 1990 and had two of my (now) favourite actors - Gary Oldman and Tim Roth. I never had a chance to rent this movie and for years ‘RaG’ in my head was labelled as ‘that one movie I never got to watch’. I knew that it was somehow linked to Shakespeare, but only later I learned that it was originally a play by Tom Stoppard and not a movie (the movie had Stoppard as both director and writer). When National Theatre announced this play in honour of the play’s 50th anniversary and casted Joshua McGuire and Daniel Radcliffe (the latter I had been dying to see on stage), I was ready to buy tickets on spot. I believe that the fact that ex Harry Potter was on stage had to do something with the younger than usual audience at the broadcast - which is great as I would love to more younger people go to theatre. I watched this play on April 20, and if I could, I would watch it again.

 

As per usual, I set my mind on reading the play before watching it on stage, but I didn’t have time to finish it. And I am glad it happened this way as I think it is easy to get lost in the absurdist nature of the dialogues and miss the point, while watching it on stage added a different layer of meaning.

 

If you don’t know what this play is about but you feel that it is vaguely familiar, well, you are not alone. Tom Stoppard took two secondary characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, from Shakespeare’s Hamlet and wrote an absurdist, existentialist tragicomedy that portrays those two inseparable friends as confused and unwilling participants in the events of Hamlet. There are bits of dialogues and actual scenes from Hamlet, but they are used to only enhance the absurdity of everything that is happening. R and G are confused by their existence, by the world’s existence, by everything that is happening, including Hamlet’s depression and obsession with his father’s death. They futilely try to find the meaning in everything, but eventually, even when they discover that the letter with death sentence that they carry has their names, they still follow the appointed road to the end.

 

The play is funny, absurd, existential, and thought provoking. It is a meta within a meta, and theatrical bits and scenes serve as the commentary and parody on Hamlet. Both Joshua McGuire and Daniel Radcliffe do an amazing job as two confused fellows, who try and fail to make sense of things. They talk about life and death, and probability. The play has too many layers to take in just in one viewing. That is why I hope I would get a chance to see it on stage again, as I feel in no way qualified to talk about the play indepth.

 

The play was introduced by a short movie, as usual, with both actors talking about the play and stage. The Old Vic’s stage was transformed and sort of elongated to bring it closer to the audience. The play originally premiered in the same theatre 50 years ago, which made it an incredible experience for both the actors and the audience to experience it again on the same stage.

 

Highly recommend to English majors, Shakespeare lovers as well as fans of theatre!

 

Personal rating: 4 stars

 

Sources:

 

Book/Play review: The Deep Blue Sea by Terence Rattigan (script + National Theatre)

in ,

 

If you have been following me for some time, you probably already know that I go to see every and each NT Live broadcast, time permitting. I saw Helen McCrory in both Medea and The Last of the Haussmans and as a huge fan of The Three Musketeers in general I instantly became a fan of Tom Burke’s Athos in BBC The Musketeers. Needless to say, when I found out that both of those actors were going to be on stage at National Theatre, I knew that I would be seeing it for sure. I purchased tickets for both broadcasts (they were a week or so apart, I believe) and set on reading the play beforehand.

Sadly, I failed at my plan to read the play before watching it as it turned out to be a bit difficult to find a new edition in local stores, and by the time I got my copy from BookDepository, I was already otherwise engaged.

 

I read the script months later after watching the play and, to be honest, I don’t regret it, as it allowed me to process my thoughts and form my opinions, and reading the script later only enhanced the experience. National Theatre production follows the script almost to the point, with the exception of few details, so unless mentioned otherwise my review is applicable to both.

 

From NT Live website:

 

Helen McCrory (Medea and The Last of the Haussmans at the National Theatre, Penny Dreadful, Peaky Blinders) returns to the National Theatre in Terence Rattigan’s devastating masterpiece, playing one of the greatest female roles in contemporary drama. Tom Burke (War and Peace, The Musketeers) also features in Carrie Cracknell’s critically acclaimed new production.

A flat in Ladbroke Grove, West London. 1952.

When Hester Collyer is found by her neighbours in the aftermath of a failed suicide attempt, the story of her tempestuous affair with a former RAF pilot and the breakdown of her marriage to a High Court judge begins to emerge.

With it comes a portrait of need, loneliness and long-repressed passion. Behind the fragile veneer of post-war civility burns a brutal sense of loss and longing.

 

I think this play has one of the most dramatic openings I have ever seen. The play opens with the aftermath of Hester’s attempted suicide, but at first we do not know what is happening and why she did what she did, when she is found. The depth of her despair is unraveled throughout the play. Hester is lost and trapped between the encompassing passion towards Freddie and the realization that he may never love her as much as she loves him. Both strong and weak, Hester as portrayed by Helen McCrory is a beautiful disaster to watch. Hester is desperate and her desperation drives Freddie away. He is scared, but also lost, as after the war he knows naught what to do with himself. ‘We will be death to each other’ is his excuse for leaving Hester. But, perhaps, it is what might help her rise up from the ashes at the end.

 

In spite of a rather heavy topic of depression, mental health and deep desire, the play is richly peppered with sarcastic remarks and witticisms, that make the play very addicting. I watched it twice and would watch it again in a heartbeat, as this production was simply amazing. What adds to the plot’s already dark beginning is the fact that Rattigan wanted his play to specifically start with the suicide by the fireplace, as it was the way his former lover had ended his life. It is said that unable to write openly about his relationship, Rattigan wrote it coded in this play.

 

I don’t think I will ever be able to imagine anyone else but Helen McCrory as Hester. She was stunning as Hester, her desperation and addiction to Freddie portrayed with incredible rawness on stage. Hester is convinced that there is nothing for her beyond this, until she is somewhat inspired by the former doctor who is tending to her after the suicide attempt. Every character in this play is fascinating in their own way, from the neighbours to Hester’s ‘not so ex’ husband, Freddie and his friends, but Heter steals all attention. Helen McCrory is wonderful to watch, especially in the end, which is as open as it gets. I thought about it a lot, and I personally like to see it as a beginning not an end for her character.

 

It is a wonderful, albeit dark play, and if you are looking for a bit of heartbreak mixed with a good doze of British sarcasm - I highly recommend you watch or read this play. My copy of this script is as heavily tabbed and bookmarked as my Oscar Wilde plays. Terrence might end up being my other favourite playwright of all time.

 

Play script: 5 stars

Play by National Theatre: 5 stars

 

Sources:

Book/Play review: Hedda Gabler by Henrik Ibsen + National Theatre Live

in ,

This is going to be the review for both the script and National Theatre Live production, as there are some certain differences to Hedda’s character, which I found really interesting. Beware of plot spoilers ahead.

“Hedda Gabler” is a four act play written by the norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen in 1890. The edition that I read was translated by Jens Arup and the introduction written by James McFarlane (Oxford World’s Classics). The introduction gives us a brief synopsis of Ibsen’s life and work.

 

The play starts on the morning after Hedda and her husband, Jorgen Tesman, arrived from their six months long honeymoon. Tesman holds a University Fellowship in cultural history and used the opportunity of their honeymoon to do his research, which Hedda finds incredibly boring and ridiculous. They are visited by Tesman’s aunt, who lives nearby and takes care of her seriously ill sister. The next visitor is Mrs. Elvested who brings the rumour of Ejlert Lovborg being back in town. There is also a rumour, brought by Tesman’s friend, a judge named Mr. Black, that Lovborg is going to apply for the same position in University as Tesman and that his latest book was very successful. All of this prompts a series of events that snowball to a climatic ending.

 

“Hedda Gabler” is a very interesting play with multiple layers. Written in the 19th century, it shows us a character of Hedda who is quite obviously ahead of her time. Ibsen even intentionally titled the play with Hedda’s maiden name as if to show that she was not just her husband’s wife. Hedda is smart and strong-willed, she is hungry for knowledge and dominance - things that were only available to men in that time. She was brought up by her father, the general, and is said to have learnt to ride a horse and fire a gun - as a matter of fact, she owns a pair of pistols that play a prominent role in the play. She despises any sign of weakness, expressed by either a man or a woman. There are mentions of her pregnancy throughout the play, but she ignores or diverts the attention whenever the subject is brought up, which made me think that she viewed her pregnancy as yet another boundary of the marriage and the weakness.

 

Hedda can be quite cruel and unsympathetic towards people in her quest to overpower them, and Ibsen even said that the play is “the study in demonic”, which made me think at the very beginning that Hedda exhibits signs of psychopathy. It is, obviously, almost impossible to prove, and I think it would be safe to assume that Hedda was suffering from some sort of mental illness, as a result of her life.

 

Hedda is trapped by the society norms and expectations. She married Tesman because it was expected of her. She doesn’t love him, she doesn’t care about his research, but she does care about appearances and social status. She has high expectations for his potential promotion at University, as that would bring money and status, and that is why the moment that promotion is threatened, she springs into action. Hedda does all she can to protect herself and her status, however, it still leads to her downfall, as she is unable to break away from the society’s rules. She can’t leave her husband, she has no way of making money or supporting herself. In a way, she even envies Mrs. Elvested her simple courage to leave her husband for Lovborg. At the end, she takes her own life as her only way of escape.

 

I found the way Hedda manipulates people incredibly fascinating. She is a true mastermind in this play, although she does fall prey to Mr. Black. In many ways, “Hedda Gabler” is a feminist play as it shows a woman struggling to be on the same level as men. Since it was set in the 19th century, it is obvious, that the root of all her troubles is the time and society itself. That is why I was incredibly excited to learn that National Theatre production moved the time of the play to contemporary age.

 

 

 

 

If we take Hedda out of the 19th century and the boundaries that existed there, would she still exhibit the same internal conflict? Would she be still trapped? How different would she be? Those were the questions that kept running through my head.

 

This new version of the play was written by Patrick Marber. He quite masterfully adapted the script, changing some of the settings and dialogues to fit the modern time. Hedda is played by Ruth Wilson, who brings both fierceness and vulnerability to her character.

 

Why did modern Hedda marry Tesman? She didn’t have to. But she did because she felt that she was getting old. Was she really as trapped as she thought she was? Because she could have left her husband, she could have divorced him, she could have started a new life. So, why?

 

I think, that the difference between Ibsen’s and Marber’s Hedda lies in the fact that while the former is trapped by society - something that she unable to change, the latter is trapped in her own mind. Modern Hedda is brilliant and beautiful but she is also lost and unable to find her way out. Why? It is hard to say as we don’t get any glimpses into her childhood. However, it is clear that there are certain, probably self-imposed, rules, that Hedda has to abide by. And that makes me believe that Hedda is plagued by mental illness more so in the modern version than the original play. I found both the script and the NT production to be equally fascinating, but for me those were two different Heddas: one trapped by society and another by herself.

 

Was Hedda a demon, who gave a recovering alcoholic a drink and then a gun to “do it beautifully”? Or was she a coward with “no talent for life”, who couldn’t break the chains of marriage and society? I believe that she can be viewed as both and none at the same time. Hedda Gabler is a unique character, who defies all expectations.

 

Sources:

 

  • Ibsen, Henrik. Four Major Plays. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Hedda Gabler - National Theatre Live. March 26, 2017. http://ntlive.nationaltheatre.org.uk/productions/59687-hedda-gabler

Play review: My Night with Reg by Kevin Elyot (Mirvish)

in

My Night with Reg I watched "My Night with Reg" on February 24, almost by the end of the play’s run, which is unfortunate as I would have loved to see it again. This was one of those plays which I had on my list as something that I would like to see but it was nowhere near at the top. More so, I bought the ticket only because it was on sale on Boxing Day, since I am not too fond of Panasonic Theatre as a venue.

I also knew next to nothing about the play as I have never heard of it before but I did have an inkling that it might have something to do with LGBTQ+ community (I still have no idea how I guessed but here you go!). But then the show started its run, three actors of the main cast did a short interview during Morning Show on Global (which I watch faithfully every day), so it gave me a better understanding of what I was going to see. And I got excited.

It is a rather short, only one hour and a half long, chamber play. There is no intermission, however, there are three distinctive parts that span across several years. The transition is so quick that the audience is often left to wonder how much time has actually passed.

 

It is a play written by British playwright Kevin Elyot. The events take place within gay community in London in 1980s, when the threat of HIV/AIDS is on the rise. The story is about a group of close friends who go through love, heartbreak, betrayal, and death, somehow still maintaining their friendship. The central figure in the majority of conversations is a mysterious Reg, who never makes an appearance, but whose existence affects most of the characters in one way or another. In spite of a looming threat of terminal disease and occasional bouts of depression, the play is surprisingly funny and racy (plus, it includes full frontal nudity on stage - just saying!). There are a lot of tongue in cheek jokes, as well as jokes that might fly over the heads of those who are not part of LGBTQ+ community (I was sitting next to a couple who seemed to be confused throughout of the play), however, the problems that those guys face are universal and relatable.

 

I, personally, found the play both heartwarming and heartbreaking. All of the characters have their own secrets and troubles. The threat of HIV/AIDS is never discussed or mentioned explicitly, although it is being referred to more than once. There is also a mention of rape, which is sort of glossed over as well. I had a feeling as if the Guy’s apartment was some sort of a bubble in which they all encompassed themselves, trying to hide from the realities of death, disease and reality. This bubble, unfortunately, starts to crack as the play progresses and the friend face the deaths of their loved ones.

 

I think all the actors did an amazing job at playing their characters. If I had to pick my favourite, I would say that Daniel was probably my favourite. I stayed for a bit of Q&A at the end of the play, which provided a bit of more insight into the characters of Bernie and Benny.

 

I wish I had read the play before watching it but I am going to rectify it soon. This was the first time it was performed in Canada, but hopefully not the last time.

 

Personal rating: 4 stars

 

Sources:

 

More of my theatre reviews

Play review: The Audience (Mirvish)

in

The Audience

 

The Audience is a play by Peter Morgan, written and originally produced in 2013 by National Theatre, with magnificent Helen Mirren as The Queen. (Morgan is also the the creator and writer of Netflix original series The Crown.)  The play received several awards, starting with Helen Mirren who received the best actress Olivier for her portrayal of the Queen in 2013. The play was briefly brought to Broadway in 2015 with Helen Mirren reprising her role of Queen Elizabeth II but with the whole new cast. Later in 2015, the play was revived in West End with Dame Kristin Scott Thomas as Queen Elizabeth II.

I was lucky to see the live broadcast with Helen Mirren three times in the past few years. And I admit that I might even consider seeing it again if I have a chance. Needless to say that I loved the play so much that I was ecstatic to learn that Mirvish decided to bring it to our local stage. Description from Mirvish website:

 

THE AUDIENCE takes theatregoers behind the walls of Buckingham Palace and into the private chambers of Queen Elizabeth II as she meets with each of her Prime Ministers through her 60 year reign, from when she was a young mother to now as a Great Grandmother. From the old warrior Winston Churchill, to the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher, through the charm offensive of Tony Blair right up to today's meetings with the current incumbent David Cameron, the Queen advises her Prime Ministers on all matters both public and personal. Through these private audiences, we see glimpses of the woman behind the crown and witness the moments that shaped a monarch. Don’t miss being a part of THE AUDIENCE.

 

In this production, Fiona Reid takes on the role of Queen Elizabeth II, and she does it splendidly. Seeing as I have seen this play enough times to know certain lines almost by heart, it allowed me to pay additional attention to the way the lines were delivered and the production itself.

 

The set design is rather simple, representing Buckingham Palace with two big armchairs as the main focus for the majority of the play. The only major difference in the setting and scenes that I noticed was that Mirvish decided to show the coronation - something that was not part of National Theatre’s original production.

 

There was one particular thing that I was very much so looking forward to in Mirvish production was how they were going to deal with changing the Queen’s outfits. During the course of the play, the time jumps from recent years to the beginning of the Queen’s reign, which required Helen Mirren to change quickly on stage. There were barely any pauses between the scenes and dialogues, and sometimes she had to jump right into another scene. I was extremely curious about how Mirvish was going to deal with that. NT managed to orchestrate the first change on stage so quickly that I remember audience applauding right after it happened. And all following changes were done on stage as well.

 

I admit that Mirvish disappointed me a bit. The first change happened on stage in a very similar way - with the help of two ladies. However, Mirvish cheated a bit: they dimmed the lights and focused the audience’s attention on the equerry and his monologue. For some other changes, Fiona was hidden behind the folding screen and delivering lines from behind it.

 

I understand that having an actress quickly change the costume and wigs on stage is a rather complicating endeavour, that is why I was so impressed by NT production.

 

I found Fiona a bit more brisk and less warm than Helen in her portrayal of the Queen. She made shorter pauses between lines, which took me some time to get used to, to be honest. However, her performance was as good, as funny, and Fiona’s little dance during the Scotland scene was just precious (although Helen was even more hilarious). I personally liked KATE HENNIG as Margaret Thatcher more than her counterpart, Haydn Gwynne (however, Haydn was fabulous in her indignation! Seriously, comparing these productions is like comparing green and red apples - both are great!).

 

And the corgis! Don’t forget the corgis, whose two second dash across the stage resulted in an unified ‘awwwws’ from the audience.

 

Overall, I really enjoyed seeing this play. I do admit that my heart will forever be taken by Helen Mirren. Nevertheless, I can easily give this play 4 out of 5 stars. I watched this play on February 3rd, 2017 on stage at Royal Alexandra Theater.

 

If you love British history, the monarchy or old good British humour, this is the play for you!

 

Personal rating: 4.5 stars

 

Sources:

 

 

More of my theatre reviews

Play review: Amadeus - National Theatre Live

in

Amadeus Amadeus

 

Amadeus is a play by Peter Shaffer, written and originally produced in 1979, which recounts the fictional story about the lives of famous 18th century composers, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Antonio Salieri. The play was turned by Shaffer into an award winning film with the same title in 1984.

I admit that I can’t really remember if I ever watched the movie, but I was quite familiar with the plot of this play even before watching this production, as years ago I read the poetic drama ‘Mozart and Solieri’ by Alexander Pushkin, which, undoubtedly, served as an inspiration for Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus.

 

The play depicts Solieri as an established Italian composer in Vienna, who is quite comfortable in his position in society, until one day he hears of a young composer by the name of Mozart who is said to be as eccentric as he is talented. Solieri believes nothing of this until he himself hears Mozart’s music. He is struck by its beauty and feels immediately threatened. As the play progresses, Solieri presents himself as Mozart’s friend while, in fact, plotting his demise. After Mozart’s death and at the end of his own life, Solieri stages the big revelation claiming that it was he who killed Mozart, before taking his own life.

 

In this production, the role of Solieri is played by Lucian Msamati, who is most probably familiar to many for his role on Game of Thrones. The role of his rival, Mozart, is played by Adam Gillen who looks like a cherub but behaves like a spoiled kid, disregarding social etiquette and causing trouble for everyone. I can only applaud both actors for their! However, if I had to pick between the two, Solieri would be my favourite. I couldn’t help but sympathize with a man who was, perhaps, limited in talent but not ambition and who worked hard to be accepted as an Italian at the court of the Austrian king.  

 

The play incorporates pieces of operas and concerts by Mozart, and the orchestra assembly is part of the action itself. The musicians are not hidden in the pit but, on the contrary, move freely across the stage. Some of those musical numbers looked rather unusual. I remember one violinist playing while lying on the floor, which left me wondering how she managed it with limited arm movement range. Quite impressive.

 

I watched this play as a live broadcast on February 2 in my local cinema. I found the first act a bit slow at the beginning, but the second one was more fast paced and powerful. I wouldn’t call this play my absolutely favourite thing but I was very impressed by the acting and music.

 

Personal rating: 3.5 stars

 

Sources:

More of my play reviews

Play review: The Entertainer - Kenneth Branagh Theatre Company

in

The Entertainer - Kenneth BranaghI am fortunate to live close to a Cineplex movie theatre which allows me to go to pretty much every special event or theatre play broadcast they do. I try to go to all of them (or 99% of them), regardless of whether I have heard of them or have seen them before. Most of the time I luck out and come home thoroughly impressed by acting, production, etc. I very rarely leave disappointed. But sometimes, just sometimes, I get this "meh" feeling, and, unfortunately, The Entertainer falls into this category. To to put it shortly, The Entertainer failed to entertain me. (Sorry, couldn't resist the pun!) The Entertainer is a John Osborne play about a middle-aged man, Archie Rice, who is a musical-hall performer, but his career is a failure. He was married twice, had numerous affairs, and at the beginning of the play he lives in the house with his second wife Phoebe, his father Billy, and his younger son Frank. His daughter Jean comes to visit unexpectedly, following her quarrel with her fiancé Graham who breaks an engagement with her because she went to a Trafalgar Square to join a protest. This family's get together and their quarrels are quickly overshadowed by the news of Mick, Archie's elder son, taken prisoner of war in Middle East. The play is set in 1960s in Britain, and is full of various references to "the old days". The broadcast opened with a short film about a young John Osborne (not the playwright) who was talking about THE John Osbourne (the playwright), which was somewhat funny but also confusing. The Entertainer is a production of Kenneth Branagh Theatre Company, in which Kenneth stars as Archie Rice but doesn't direct it. The play is on stage at London's Garrick Theatre. The Entertainer is a three act play, however, this production split into two acts with one intermission. The scenes in the play switch between Rice's family living room and their bickering and the stage of a theatre where Archie performs. The transformation is quick and fluid with the characters often freezing after a punchline and the limelight suddenly illuminating Archie (and once Frank) who talks or sings or tap dances on the stage, surrounded by dancing girls. I found the transitions to be quite fascinating. However, when Archie was on the stage of an imaginary music-hall and was looking straight at the audience of Garrick Theatre, it felt as if Kenneth was basically breaking the fourth wall, while still being in character, and I found quite curious but also a bit annoying. He would react to laughs or comments from an imaginary audience and the discrepancy of the reaction of the actual audience at Garrick didn't seem funny at all. (I was in the audience of a cinema hall watching Kenneth as Archie on the stage of Garrick Theatre pretending to be on stage of a music-hall. It was a bit weird. Kenneth, undoubtedly, is an extremely skilled actor as he managed to bore me out of my wits by Archie's performance. Archie is mediocre, grumpy, angry at life. He had an affair with Phoebe when Jean was just born. He continues to have affairs with other girls while being married to Phoebe, and even plans to marry a young girl but his own father prevents it. He has been avoiding to pay taxes for 20 years and he consistently hides from creditors. He is dismissive of Phoebe, his father, not cordial with his daughter. He is a disappointment and acts like one. His character left me confused: are we supposed to sympathize with him, or despise him, or what? Throughout the play, I just wanted to shake him and tell him to get a grip. He was offered a very good option by Phoebe's brother's daughter to come to Canada (Toronto no less!) but he refuses to take it even though there is nothing for him in England. I loved the actor who played his father, Billy Rice. He was really on point, old and grumpy and grumbling about "old times". He had the funniest silences and face expressions. Jean and Phoebe were plain, boring, and predictable. Frank was nice too, however, I feel that I liked him only because he had a nice voice and reminded me of the lead actor in War Horse (National Theatre). Unfortunately, the plot of the play was overall way too predictable. I could tell where it was going miles off. And the ending was anti-climatic. The stage design and light were great. I loved how easily the stage transitioned between the house and the music hall. You can see how the stage incorporates the items of both. The music was great too, but the plot was just way too boring. I sat through the whole thing but to be honest I would not recommend it unless you are a fan of Kenneth Branagh or John Osborne's work or both. For me it was curious but nothing beyond that.

Personal rating: 3 stars

Sources:

New Year Resolutions

in , , , , , ,

I'm quite aware it is February ;) I wrote those down a month ago, but never got to share them.

  • read 70 books*
  • listen to 10 audiobooks
  • see 10 theatre plays
  • watch 50 movies
  • start art journal again
  • write more
  • blog regularly (once a day)
  • take more photos and share them
  • consistently write book reviews
  • write plays/events reviews
  • take care of my health
  • start going to the gym again
  • travel to new places
  • meet new people
  • smile every day

*I set my goal at GoodReads for 70 books as well, but it is not the same. On GoodReads I keep track of both books and audiobooks, but in my journal I keep them separate. Which means that I will hit my GoodReads goal before my personal one.

I must say that my book reading challenge is going quite nicely AND I have already listened to 10 audiobooks, so that is quite encouraging :D

I also started a new art journal. I hope to keep doing that throughout the year.

I still suck at writing and posting reviews right after the events/plays/reading books. But I am working on it!