The Real Thing by Tom Stoppard is sort of like The Habit of Art in that it also toys with plays within plays, but it's less integral to the plot here and is more tacked on to show the characters' mental states. It follows the relationship of Henry and Annie, who are both married to different people at the beginning, but have an affair, leave their respective spouses and get married. We then follow their relationships through the years.
It was an okay play, but it suffered from a lot of monologueing that kind of came off like the author needed to say something and he was going to say it regardless of if it actually sounds like the sort of conversation real people have. This in itself would probably have been bearable, except that the acting got kind of over the top sometimes, usually when Annie was around. The play followed several years of the characters' life, but I feel like the only moments we see are the most melodramatic, philosophical ones. I'm not saying I want to see the boring parts, but I certainly would have liked to have felt like there *were* boring parts in their lives.
Not to say that it was all bad, it certainly was entertaining. I was just put off by the emphasis on philosophy over characterization. Also, it kind of annoyed me that even though the characters certainly change over time, we don't actually see how a lot of those changes happen. We know that Annie starts off jealous and then gets over it, but this happens over the course of a time skip and we never really see her evolution, just the end result of it. This makes the characters come off as kind of inconsistent, I felt.
So overall, it was okay, but not great.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Posh
Posh is intense. It starts out very silly, with just some rich kids in a fraternity-like club acting like one would expect them to. They're members of the Riot Club, whose sole purpose seems to be eating fancy food and then wrecking up the place they ate in. We get to see some inner politics, with several of the boys having decided to try to gain the favor of their peers in hopes of becoming the next president of the club, and we see the new recruits under the stress of initiations. They make lewd jokes and plan their extravagant evening, all while complaining about the inn they're in not being fancy enough or whatever. As the night goes on and more things go wrong with their evening, they spend more time complaining about how terrible their lives are and how much they hate poor people. The tension builds until finally, the group attacks and nearly kills the owner of the inn after sexually assaulting his daughter. The play ends with the assurance that everyone is going to get off scot-free.
Good to note is the contrast between how the Riot Club sees the world and how the world actually is. They complain about poor peoples' sense of "entitlement" and how disgusting it is, but they themselves feel entitled to all kinds of things they've never done anything to deserve. Furthermore, while they insist that all poor people want is their money, every time they try to buy someone off, it fails. The escort won't fellate them all, despite the money being offered, nor will the innkeeper's daughter, and the innkeeper won't take the bribe to let them wreck the place and get away with assaulting his daughter.
In the end, though, despite the working-class characters being the more likable and noble characters, they really get nothing for their efforts. This isn't really a new statement though, and that's where this otherwise good play falls short. While it does a good job at getting you angry at the unfair class system, it doesn't say anything you didn't already know. I already hated spoiled rich kids who abuse their status, why do I need a play to tell me that I should feel that way? I already knew that people with money and connections can bend the law, what do you suggest we *do* about it? The play doesn't really offer any answers. Of course, literature isn't about answering anything, but rather it's about posing questions. What questions is this trying to pose that we all haven't already asked?
... well, at least there's the irony of it being performed in a very posh neighborhood.
Good to note is the contrast between how the Riot Club sees the world and how the world actually is. They complain about poor peoples' sense of "entitlement" and how disgusting it is, but they themselves feel entitled to all kinds of things they've never done anything to deserve. Furthermore, while they insist that all poor people want is their money, every time they try to buy someone off, it fails. The escort won't fellate them all, despite the money being offered, nor will the innkeeper's daughter, and the innkeeper won't take the bribe to let them wreck the place and get away with assaulting his daughter.
In the end, though, despite the working-class characters being the more likable and noble characters, they really get nothing for their efforts. This isn't really a new statement though, and that's where this otherwise good play falls short. While it does a good job at getting you angry at the unfair class system, it doesn't say anything you didn't already know. I already hated spoiled rich kids who abuse their status, why do I need a play to tell me that I should feel that way? I already knew that people with money and connections can bend the law, what do you suggest we *do* about it? The play doesn't really offer any answers. Of course, literature isn't about answering anything, but rather it's about posing questions. What questions is this trying to pose that we all haven't already asked?
... well, at least there's the irony of it being performed in a very posh neighborhood.
The Habit of Art
The Habit of Art by Alan Bennett is one of those layered sorts of things, like rock strata or onions. It's about a theatre troupe putting on a play about WH Auden and Benjamin Britten (as well as their biographer and a call boy). The play follows them as they rehearse the play, in the presence of their stage manager and the writer. As they go through the play, they are constantly interrupted and have conversations and arguments about the play, its subject, and about anything else they can think of.
This play is a wonderful example of characterization, with each character standing out in both the play itself and the play within the play. Nobody comes off as flat or dull, everyone seems to have a background and interesting stories, even if we don't get to hear all of them. Through the play we get to see one little glimpse of their lives, this one rehearsal of a work in progress. This is the sort of glimpse that the average person never sees of a real play, as theatregoers only ever get to see the play in its final form, once it's been rehearsed repeatedly and revised to (near-)perfection.
The play, especially towards the end, gives a message about how, when we remember great men, there's always someone left out of the story. This message is wonderfully conveyed at the end when the writer asks the manager if he's right and if there are people left out. She quietly agrees, and he leaves. She then turns the lights out and leaves, herself. One is left to feel that, if all these actors and the writer and all of them are remembered, she probably will not be.
Of special note is the set the play was performed on. I had assumed that the wall and all its details-- doors, wires and the like-- were actual parts of the theatre, but as we all found out during the tour, it was actually part of the set! Here I thought the set was very minimal and it turned out that a lot of work and detail had gone into it after all. Sneaky.
This play is a wonderful example of characterization, with each character standing out in both the play itself and the play within the play. Nobody comes off as flat or dull, everyone seems to have a background and interesting stories, even if we don't get to hear all of them. Through the play we get to see one little glimpse of their lives, this one rehearsal of a work in progress. This is the sort of glimpse that the average person never sees of a real play, as theatregoers only ever get to see the play in its final form, once it's been rehearsed repeatedly and revised to (near-)perfection.
The play, especially towards the end, gives a message about how, when we remember great men, there's always someone left out of the story. This message is wonderfully conveyed at the end when the writer asks the manager if he's right and if there are people left out. She quietly agrees, and he leaves. She then turns the lights out and leaves, herself. One is left to feel that, if all these actors and the writer and all of them are remembered, she probably will not be.
Of special note is the set the play was performed on. I had assumed that the wall and all its details-- doors, wires and the like-- were actual parts of the theatre, but as we all found out during the tour, it was actually part of the set! Here I thought the set was very minimal and it turned out that a lot of work and detail had gone into it after all. Sneaky.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Twelfth Night
Most audiences, particularly the American sort, tend to think of Shakespeare as stuffy, overly-intellectual fare. If you say “Shakespeare”, generally people imagine actors walking around in fancy costumes, speaking middle English and spouting “To be or not to be”.
You know, a snore-fest.
Of course, this ignores the fact that Shakespeare wrote quite a few comedies in his day, many of which are still just as funny as they were when they were written. Anyone who doubts the hilarity of Shakespeare should see the production of Twelfth Night that's being put on at the Tricycle Theatre right now.
It's described as a “rock-and-roll” Shakespeare, although it's pretty jazz-influenced as well. It takes Twelfth Night and performs it with all the silliness it was intended to have, with constant musical interludes and audience interaction-- including giving out free pizza for no real reason at all. The actors do a good job of adapting the script to appeal to modern audiences, and are lively and interesting as they spice up the dialogue with body language and facial expressions. The music itself is also very good, and in fact I still have the songs to it stuck in my head. Is there a soundtrack available, I wonder?
In any case, I actually haven't seen/read the original Twelfth Night, as it's not one of the plays that usually gets shoved down a student's throat, like Macbeth or that damned Romeo and Juliet. So I did confuse Viola and Sebastian a bit, what with them being played by the same person and all, but otherwise had little trouble following the action. Overall, it was a very good production. I can only wish Shakespeare was always done this well.
You know, a snore-fest.
Of course, this ignores the fact that Shakespeare wrote quite a few comedies in his day, many of which are still just as funny as they were when they were written. Anyone who doubts the hilarity of Shakespeare should see the production of Twelfth Night that's being put on at the Tricycle Theatre right now.
It's described as a “rock-and-roll” Shakespeare, although it's pretty jazz-influenced as well. It takes Twelfth Night and performs it with all the silliness it was intended to have, with constant musical interludes and audience interaction-- including giving out free pizza for no real reason at all. The actors do a good job of adapting the script to appeal to modern audiences, and are lively and interesting as they spice up the dialogue with body language and facial expressions. The music itself is also very good, and in fact I still have the songs to it stuck in my head. Is there a soundtrack available, I wonder?
In any case, I actually haven't seen/read the original Twelfth Night, as it's not one of the plays that usually gets shoved down a student's throat, like Macbeth or that damned Romeo and Juliet. So I did confuse Viola and Sebastian a bit, what with them being played by the same person and all, but otherwise had little trouble following the action. Overall, it was a very good production. I can only wish Shakespeare was always done this well.
Oliver!
Oliver! is a musical rendition of Charles Dickens' classic novel, Oliver Twist. Now, I'll be honest and admit that I'm not actually all that familiar with Oliver Twist, beyond being aware of the oft-parodied “Please sir, I want some more” scene. So my impressions are based mostly on the musical itself and on my knowledge of Dickens' other works, rather than being a direct comparison between the novel and the musical.
Oliver! follows Oliver Twist, an oddly-named boy who starts out in an orphanage/workhouse. After asking for more gruel, he is sold to an undertaker and then runs away. He then heads to London to seek his fortune, where he meets Dodger, who introduces him to a gang of young thieves lead by Fagin. On his first “job” stealing, he is caught. Fagin and another criminal, Bill Sikes, fear that Oliver might say something to incriminate them, so they conspire to kidnap him. Meanwhile, Oliver has been taken in by the man he stole from, Mr. Brownlow, who pities Oliver and feels that the theft was the fault of Dodger et al. He sends Oliver to return some books for him, where Oliver is kidnapped by the reluctant Nancy. In Oliver's absence, Mr. Brownlow discovers that Oliver is the son of his long-lost daughter. Nancy eventually tries to bring Oliver back to Mr. Brownlow on London Bridge, but is intercepted and killed by Sikes. Brownlow calls the police and, after a chase scene, they shoot down Sikes and Oliver is free to live with his new, loving caretaker.
Overall, the musical is very good, with nice costumes and very well-done scenery. The child actors in particular do a fantastic job, especially the actor who plays Dodger. One criticism I had was that it felt like the musical was in too much of a hurry to get to the music, often quickly glossing over plot details in order to get to the next musical number. Many of those musical numbers, in fact, conveyed very little information, often just repeating one fact rather than trying to fit more into the song.
Another thing about the story itself that struck me was that, in the end, Oliver just is given his happy ending-- he plays a very passive role despite being the main character. Normally this is bad practice, but perhaps it was done on purpose. After all, a recurring theme in Dickens' work is the exploitation and mistreatment of children, and this story definitely follows that theme. Perhaps the reason why Oliver had his happy ending given to him is because Dickens feels that this is the way it should be-- as a small child, Oliver is too young to have to work to earn love and security. These things should already be given to him from the beginning. The fact that people have to die in order for him to get them is meant to make the viewer realize exactly how wrong the world of the play (and, in turn, the world Dickens lived in) really is.
Overall, it's a good play with a good plot, but needs to reevaluate the emphasis put on the musical aspect of it.
Oliver! follows Oliver Twist, an oddly-named boy who starts out in an orphanage/workhouse. After asking for more gruel, he is sold to an undertaker and then runs away. He then heads to London to seek his fortune, where he meets Dodger, who introduces him to a gang of young thieves lead by Fagin. On his first “job” stealing, he is caught. Fagin and another criminal, Bill Sikes, fear that Oliver might say something to incriminate them, so they conspire to kidnap him. Meanwhile, Oliver has been taken in by the man he stole from, Mr. Brownlow, who pities Oliver and feels that the theft was the fault of Dodger et al. He sends Oliver to return some books for him, where Oliver is kidnapped by the reluctant Nancy. In Oliver's absence, Mr. Brownlow discovers that Oliver is the son of his long-lost daughter. Nancy eventually tries to bring Oliver back to Mr. Brownlow on London Bridge, but is intercepted and killed by Sikes. Brownlow calls the police and, after a chase scene, they shoot down Sikes and Oliver is free to live with his new, loving caretaker.
Overall, the musical is very good, with nice costumes and very well-done scenery. The child actors in particular do a fantastic job, especially the actor who plays Dodger. One criticism I had was that it felt like the musical was in too much of a hurry to get to the music, often quickly glossing over plot details in order to get to the next musical number. Many of those musical numbers, in fact, conveyed very little information, often just repeating one fact rather than trying to fit more into the song.
Another thing about the story itself that struck me was that, in the end, Oliver just is given his happy ending-- he plays a very passive role despite being the main character. Normally this is bad practice, but perhaps it was done on purpose. After all, a recurring theme in Dickens' work is the exploitation and mistreatment of children, and this story definitely follows that theme. Perhaps the reason why Oliver had his happy ending given to him is because Dickens feels that this is the way it should be-- as a small child, Oliver is too young to have to work to earn love and security. These things should already be given to him from the beginning. The fact that people have to die in order for him to get them is meant to make the viewer realize exactly how wrong the world of the play (and, in turn, the world Dickens lived in) really is.
Overall, it's a good play with a good plot, but needs to reevaluate the emphasis put on the musical aspect of it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
