![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
back to the surface
Well. I was gone for a little longer than I intended to be, wasn't I?
The move is complete. (The unpacking isn't, but what can you do.) The old accounts are closed. The near-disaster with the phone was averted, thank god. The problem with the computer was solved. The fact that I haven't yet received a bill from the university, much less paid them any money, is a non-issue and didn't stop me from registering. Classes begin tomorrow. Cable guy comes a week from Thursday. All in all, it's okay that I went up to the Stratford Festival last week.
Tuesday
matinee: The Threepenny Opera
I'm not as bonkers about this show as (a) my friend is and (b) I am about some others, but I like it fine. (It's Brecht. He and I have never really gotten along very well.) This production was good. The performances were solid, even if the singing was (to be honest) weak, except for Lucy Brown -- she nailed that "Sorry" number right between the eyes, yes she did. Part of the trouble is that the opening number is (obviously) "Mack the Knife," and (equally obviously) it's not Bobby Darin singing it, ever, which is a thing for me -- in my mind, there's no other way to do that song. So from the very beginning, I always feel like the show is misguided, even when it's nothing of the sort.
evening: King Lear
I. Love. This. Play. A few years ago, they did a production up there that was just miraculous, with William Hutt as Lear and a very young guy as the Fool, and I swear I have never seen a more enthusiastic ovation; curtain call, curtain call, curtain call, and then Hutt came out on stage and in an instant the entire house was on its feet. Over three thousand people -- boom. This production had less of that, I'm afraid, but I don't know how many people in the audience were making the comparison, because this one had Christopher Plummer as Lear. He got a round of applause at the beginning of the show, which I'm afraid always irritates me. (It's not his fault, of course; it was the audience I found irksome.) He was good; he might even have been great. But he wasn't William Hutt; he didn't make the hair on your arms stand on end. The Fool was good. The daughters, the bad ones, were good. The sons-in-law were fine. The Gloucester family was fine -- Edmund was a little better, and Edgar was a little annoying. Cordelia, unfortunately, was entirely unsympathetic. She came off, to us at least, as very smug -- which is all, all wrong. All wrong. I'll tell you who was really good, was Benedict Campbell as Kent. Kent's a good part anyway (one of Shakespeare's pantheon, headed by Horatio, of Awfully Nice Guys), but in Campbell's hands it became freakin' terrific. My friend lists him among those who can Do No Wrong.
Wednesday
matinee: Henry VI, part A
I say part A because it was the first of two parts, rather than the first of three. Henry VI is long and (in large part) dreary, so this director did a good deal of slicing and dicing and, mercifully, removing of Re-Expository Monologues (which, as some of you know, I loathe). This thing was subtitled "Revenge in France," which is a shame, but what can you do. It was uniformly excellent. Whole bunch of characters in these histories, and to the extent that we needed to keep track of who was who, I felt like we were able to do so. Plus, Michael Therriault (as Henry VI) and Seana McKenna (as Queen Margaret) can Do No Wrong, and Thom Marriott (as Richard, Duke of York) seems to be headed in that direction. We saw McKenna as Medea two years ago, and that production left me ragged and drained; I saw her as Lady Macbeth some time before that, and it was similarly impressive. Therriault is younger, but I've never seen him give a bad performance -- bleedin' fantastic. All in all, the fact that the girl who played Joan of Arc drives my friend right up the wall was a minor point.
evening: Henry VI, part B
Every bit as good as the first part. Better, in a lot of ways. A marathon of Shakespeare histories, though -- damn.
Thursday
matinee: The Scarlet Pimpernel
Not the musical that was nominated for some Tonys a few years back; this is a different play altogether, although there is music in it. We decided at the last minute to see this one, on the recommendation of my friend's parents, and couldn't think why they'd been so all over it. It was inoffensive, but about as substantial as candy-glass. Not that we minded seeing it, but we could probably each have found other things to do with the money we spent on the tickets -- and the folks around us were ... well. I admit I can be unforgiving when it comes to behavior in a live theatre. It's one area in which I'm afraid I'm quite conservative. I don't mind comments to one's neighbor, but if anyone else can hear so much as a whisper, it's too loud. Paper-rustling is right out. I get annoyed when people cough, okay, which I know they can't always help. But there's always another change-of-scene coming up, where there's no dialogue for people to miss -- that's when to make whatever noises people need to make, you know? :-) And don't get me started on cell phones. So. Around us was a bunch of especially lively people. In particular, the woman next to my friend was very chatty with her own friend, seated on her other side, and didn't even bother to whisper until the whole balcony shushed her at once; meanwhile, behind me was a girl who must, I swear, have been drunk, if her goofed-out laughter was anything to go by. Don't get me wrong: I think people ought to laugh when they find things funny. This is not one of the Proscribed Noises. :-) But, I mean, damn.
evening: Richard III
The conclusion, thank god, of the Wars of the Roses series. Last year, they did Henry IV (parts 1 and 2) and Henry V; the year before, I think, they'd done Richard II. So this was really a wrap-up of biggish dimensions. The concept wasn't too weird, and the performances were solid here; it was a little distracting to have Seana McKenna (see above) as Queen Elizabeth, since Queen Margaret also appears in this play, but she's compelling enough that it wasn't an issue. As Richard, we had Tom McCamus, who can Do No Wrong (and who DS fans may remember as the head bad guy in The Gift of the Wheelman). He was tremendous -- it's a great part, of course, but he was especially good in it. Very satisfying -- especially since the last time they did Richard III up there, also with a dynamite cast, it was weird and nonsensical, and ultimately only pretty good.
Friday
matinee: The Two Noble Kinsmen
On the fence about this one for a long time -- but we finally pointed out to ourselves that we weren't likely to get another chance to see this play performed for an awfully long time, and it was unlikely to suck, so we went ahead and saw it. And let me tell you how glad we were. The play was fine -- it's the Knight's Tale, is what it is, with the addition of a subplot by Shakespeare's co-writer -- but the performances were terrific. My friend could spot the differences between Shakespeare's language and Fletcher's from sixty paces, but I was sufficiently drawn in to the play that I didn't even notice, which is really satisfying. Plus, they played a little with sexuality, which I'm always glad to see. The two noble kinsmen, right, are both in love with the same girl, Emilia, who's devoted to Diana, goddess of chastity. So there's some discussion in the dialogue about her assurance that she'll never love a man -- but a couple of scenes later, she has a conversation with a servant girl, and the vibe between them was a little on the romantic side. Very nice. (Also adds depth to the character, in my opinion, which never hurts.) As well, the duke's lieutenant has some lines about the fineness of form of one of the kinsmen, and spent a couple of scenes looking quite appreciatively at the guy; add this to the moment when he joins the two women (Emilia and her sister, the duke's bride) in begging the duke for mercy on the kinsmen's behalf, and you have just enough subtext where it's really only subtext for those audience members who really have to remain in denial of such things. I was entirely pleased.
So, all in all, a good outing. And now I'm off to bed, to dream of linguistic typology and Old English phonetics. Back in the groove again! Hurrah!
The move is complete. (The unpacking isn't, but what can you do.) The old accounts are closed. The near-disaster with the phone was averted, thank god. The problem with the computer was solved. The fact that I haven't yet received a bill from the university, much less paid them any money, is a non-issue and didn't stop me from registering. Classes begin tomorrow. Cable guy comes a week from Thursday. All in all, it's okay that I went up to the Stratford Festival last week.
Tuesday
matinee: The Threepenny Opera
I'm not as bonkers about this show as (a) my friend is and (b) I am about some others, but I like it fine. (It's Brecht. He and I have never really gotten along very well.) This production was good. The performances were solid, even if the singing was (to be honest) weak, except for Lucy Brown -- she nailed that "Sorry" number right between the eyes, yes she did. Part of the trouble is that the opening number is (obviously) "Mack the Knife," and (equally obviously) it's not Bobby Darin singing it, ever, which is a thing for me -- in my mind, there's no other way to do that song. So from the very beginning, I always feel like the show is misguided, even when it's nothing of the sort.
evening: King Lear
I. Love. This. Play. A few years ago, they did a production up there that was just miraculous, with William Hutt as Lear and a very young guy as the Fool, and I swear I have never seen a more enthusiastic ovation; curtain call, curtain call, curtain call, and then Hutt came out on stage and in an instant the entire house was on its feet. Over three thousand people -- boom. This production had less of that, I'm afraid, but I don't know how many people in the audience were making the comparison, because this one had Christopher Plummer as Lear. He got a round of applause at the beginning of the show, which I'm afraid always irritates me. (It's not his fault, of course; it was the audience I found irksome.) He was good; he might even have been great. But he wasn't William Hutt; he didn't make the hair on your arms stand on end. The Fool was good. The daughters, the bad ones, were good. The sons-in-law were fine. The Gloucester family was fine -- Edmund was a little better, and Edgar was a little annoying. Cordelia, unfortunately, was entirely unsympathetic. She came off, to us at least, as very smug -- which is all, all wrong. All wrong. I'll tell you who was really good, was Benedict Campbell as Kent. Kent's a good part anyway (one of Shakespeare's pantheon, headed by Horatio, of Awfully Nice Guys), but in Campbell's hands it became freakin' terrific. My friend lists him among those who can Do No Wrong.
Wednesday
matinee: Henry VI, part A
I say part A because it was the first of two parts, rather than the first of three. Henry VI is long and (in large part) dreary, so this director did a good deal of slicing and dicing and, mercifully, removing of Re-Expository Monologues (which, as some of you know, I loathe). This thing was subtitled "Revenge in France," which is a shame, but what can you do. It was uniformly excellent. Whole bunch of characters in these histories, and to the extent that we needed to keep track of who was who, I felt like we were able to do so. Plus, Michael Therriault (as Henry VI) and Seana McKenna (as Queen Margaret) can Do No Wrong, and Thom Marriott (as Richard, Duke of York) seems to be headed in that direction. We saw McKenna as Medea two years ago, and that production left me ragged and drained; I saw her as Lady Macbeth some time before that, and it was similarly impressive. Therriault is younger, but I've never seen him give a bad performance -- bleedin' fantastic. All in all, the fact that the girl who played Joan of Arc drives my friend right up the wall was a minor point.
evening: Henry VI, part B
Every bit as good as the first part. Better, in a lot of ways. A marathon of Shakespeare histories, though -- damn.
Thursday
matinee: The Scarlet Pimpernel
Not the musical that was nominated for some Tonys a few years back; this is a different play altogether, although there is music in it. We decided at the last minute to see this one, on the recommendation of my friend's parents, and couldn't think why they'd been so all over it. It was inoffensive, but about as substantial as candy-glass. Not that we minded seeing it, but we could probably each have found other things to do with the money we spent on the tickets -- and the folks around us were ... well. I admit I can be unforgiving when it comes to behavior in a live theatre. It's one area in which I'm afraid I'm quite conservative. I don't mind comments to one's neighbor, but if anyone else can hear so much as a whisper, it's too loud. Paper-rustling is right out. I get annoyed when people cough, okay, which I know they can't always help. But there's always another change-of-scene coming up, where there's no dialogue for people to miss -- that's when to make whatever noises people need to make, you know? :-) And don't get me started on cell phones. So. Around us was a bunch of especially lively people. In particular, the woman next to my friend was very chatty with her own friend, seated on her other side, and didn't even bother to whisper until the whole balcony shushed her at once; meanwhile, behind me was a girl who must, I swear, have been drunk, if her goofed-out laughter was anything to go by. Don't get me wrong: I think people ought to laugh when they find things funny. This is not one of the Proscribed Noises. :-) But, I mean, damn.
evening: Richard III
The conclusion, thank god, of the Wars of the Roses series. Last year, they did Henry IV (parts 1 and 2) and Henry V; the year before, I think, they'd done Richard II. So this was really a wrap-up of biggish dimensions. The concept wasn't too weird, and the performances were solid here; it was a little distracting to have Seana McKenna (see above) as Queen Elizabeth, since Queen Margaret also appears in this play, but she's compelling enough that it wasn't an issue. As Richard, we had Tom McCamus, who can Do No Wrong (and who DS fans may remember as the head bad guy in The Gift of the Wheelman). He was tremendous -- it's a great part, of course, but he was especially good in it. Very satisfying -- especially since the last time they did Richard III up there, also with a dynamite cast, it was weird and nonsensical, and ultimately only pretty good.
Friday
matinee: The Two Noble Kinsmen
On the fence about this one for a long time -- but we finally pointed out to ourselves that we weren't likely to get another chance to see this play performed for an awfully long time, and it was unlikely to suck, so we went ahead and saw it. And let me tell you how glad we were. The play was fine -- it's the Knight's Tale, is what it is, with the addition of a subplot by Shakespeare's co-writer -- but the performances were terrific. My friend could spot the differences between Shakespeare's language and Fletcher's from sixty paces, but I was sufficiently drawn in to the play that I didn't even notice, which is really satisfying. Plus, they played a little with sexuality, which I'm always glad to see. The two noble kinsmen, right, are both in love with the same girl, Emilia, who's devoted to Diana, goddess of chastity. So there's some discussion in the dialogue about her assurance that she'll never love a man -- but a couple of scenes later, she has a conversation with a servant girl, and the vibe between them was a little on the romantic side. Very nice. (Also adds depth to the character, in my opinion, which never hurts.) As well, the duke's lieutenant has some lines about the fineness of form of one of the kinsmen, and spent a couple of scenes looking quite appreciatively at the guy; add this to the moment when he joins the two women (Emilia and her sister, the duke's bride) in begging the duke for mercy on the kinsmen's behalf, and you have just enough subtext where it's really only subtext for those audience members who really have to remain in denial of such things. I was entirely pleased.
So, all in all, a good outing. And now I'm off to bed, to dream of linguistic typology and Old English phonetics. Back in the groove again! Hurrah!
no subject
no subject
Have you ever seen The Reduced Shakespeare Company's The Complete Works of Shakespeare, Abridged? We saw it in London, which seemed kind of blasphemous. They do all of Shakespeare's plays in two hours, and it's hilarious. They turned the histories into a game of American football, and they condensed the comedies into one play with six sets of twins. And they're familiar enough with the plays to make the whole thing work.