The Entertainer, Faith Healer, The Wharf Revue, Denial
Hmmm. I tend to forget that 'reading' is not the same thing as 'communicating'. Hi! Things are piling up, and I do pretty much use this journal as my record of events, so here goes.
Theatre
Saw the Kenneth Branagh Theatre Company screening of The Entertainer (by John Osborne), starring the aforementioned Kenneth Branagh. This production was originally slated to co-star John Hurt, but he had to pull out due to health issues, which is sad. Branagh is Archie Rice, a ye olde music hall entertainer, and the play charts the decline not only of his profession and way of life, but of grand old England, which is getting involved in foreign wars while being overrun by immigrants who don't know their place (those bloody Poles!). Archie is white, male, middle-aged, angry and bitter, and holding on to his past and future as best he can. So it would appear to hold a lot of thematic promise and relevance, but considering I only pieced the connections together for myself after the fact, it didn't really deliver.
The first obstacle for me was that the play was intended for audiences of its time (1957). And unlike many other plays, which are pretty self-explanatory regardless of when they are set, it did not bother explaining the prevailing circumstances, because the original audience would have already understood them. So when Rice's daughter returns home right at the beginning, one of the major controversies that is referred to repeatedly is that she "was at Trafalgar Square", and this may be related to her breaking up with her boyfriend. I had no idea what this was about, and mentally subbed in a theory about women's rights until I could google it. Secondly, one of Rice's sons is fighting in a war overseas. Much later we are informed he's in Egypt. Again, sorry for not knowing my history, but in a quiz show I would never choose the category "British military conflicts of the 50s" for double points.
The answer is "the Suez Crisis", during which there were British soldiers in Egypt, and about which protests were held in Trafalgar Square against British involvement. Do you see how crucial these minor pieces of information are in understanding the play? And if so, do you not think it might be nice to include a teeny-tiny explanation at the beginning (the way the National Theatre often does) if you're going to have an introduction at all? No, INSTEAD - and I wish I were making this up - we got a 10-minute "documentary" by a guy called John Osborne (no, another one), who wandered around some town (probably the one playwright Osborne grew up in) and talked about his personal connection with the other John Osborne, and how it made him want to become a writer. Well, thanks for that. Only during interval did we get a mock radio quiz that still wasn't that enlightening but at least yielded helpful google search terms. Granted, maybe if you were British you'd know all this and I ought to have read up on it. My bad.
Anyway, so even subbing in Xs for unknowns, the play could still have been good on a moment-by-moment basis, but that didn't work for me either. Parts of the writing were interesting - Rice's bitter speeches and songs are compelling, and basically the high points of the show, but other parts were just odd, seeming to set up dramatic moments that never eventuate, making it all feel very random. And some of the moments of actual drama were incredibly cheesy - which perhaps can't be helped, because they made me think of those overwrought 1950s dramas... and this is one, so that's probably where the trope originally came from *g*
The acting was also patchy. Branagh displayed some lovely tap dancing (seriously, who knew?) but just wasn't terribly convincing - he felt like a parody of a working class vaudevillian rather than someone who'd actually been one. There's something about him that just screams "luvvie". I also read a review that said he wasn't bitter enough, and I recognise the truth in that too - he tried, but he has such a genial face that there always seemed to be a glimmer of optimism in it rather than true loathing and despair. Greta Scacchi as Archie's second wife Phoebe (it took me until the second act to get all the family relationships clear as well - again, the play doesn't bother explaining) was basically being Mrs Lovett without the psychopathic tendencies - seriously, her physical and vocal mannerisms could all have been transplanted. Most painful of all was daughter Jean (Sophie McShera), whose voice was basically a piping chirp that never altered in pitch or intensity. Imagine a tiny smoke alarm going off for three hours - peep peep! Peep peep peep peep. Peep peep. Peep peep peep! After a while it just became white noise - I couldn't imagine why they cast her until I read that she played someone in Downton Abbey, so I imagine that makes her a drawcard for some people. By far the best performer was Gawn Grainger (who?) as Archie's declining father, Bill Rice. He had a wonderful voice, great delivery, and I could truly believe that he used to work in vaudeville. He had a relatively small role, and I don't know who he is, but he outshone them all, including Branagh.
Then saw an actual play at the Belvoir, Faith Healer, by the late Brian Friel. A production of this was on in London recently, and to be honest, half the philosophy of the Australian theatre scene seems to be "let's copy what's on in London". We had Charles III and Hamlet last year, and next year we're getting a production of Chimerica and Icke's 1984 (which I do want to see). Sure, some of these are new plays, and therefore you might expect them to be picked up and produced, but given how small the theatre scene is in comparison, it really is an ongoing theme.
This was an interesting play, structurally, in the sense that it was not so much a play but three separate monologues, something none of us realised going in. I spent the first 15 minutes wondering if anyone else was going to come on and wondering if I'd inadvertently booked a one-man show. The play begins with the Irish "faith healer" in questions, Francis Hardy (played by Colin Friels, no relation, note the 's'). He talks about his life travelling from town to town, and admits that most of the time he's a complete fake, but sometimes... sometimes he really does have the gift. He just can't predict when he'll have it, but he knows when it happens. He talks about his dear wife Grace and his eccentric manager Teddy, and that time he cured an entire room of people, and the time he was in a bar with a roomful of drunken men who ask him to cure one of their friends - and he agrees even though he knows he won't be able to. The second monologue is from Grace (Alison Whyte) who talks about her own life with Francis, and through her we realise that Francis' version of events may not be entirely reliable. Finally, we have manager Teddy (Pip Miller) who elaborates on, corrects, and extends the first two versions.
I really liked the structure, once I understood the intent of it, but other people I went with hated it. I did find that one problem with having three monologues is that each is extremely dependent on the individual skill of the actor. While the biggest 'name', and well-respected from his movie career, Friels was not quite interesting enough to listen to for half an hour. He was good in Death of a Salesman, but he really does need people to bounce off. I adore Alison Whyte from her TV work, and she cried nicely on demand, but again it was difficult to care too much despite the tragedy of Grace's story. I could see members of the audience falling asleep around us and I may have lapsed into microsleeps a few times myself. However, Teddy (Pip Miller) saved the day - I don't know the actor from anywhere, but it was like a huge wave of relief when he started talking. Unlike the other two, it took no effort of concentration to listen to him at all. Perhaps the writing helped, but I think this is where you see - or rather hear - the difference between someone suited to stage rather than screen. He just had the kind of vocal delivery and warmth that drew me into whatever he was talking about - he could probably have made his laundry list seem fascinating. He inhabited his role rather than reciting it.
All in all, it felt like a really long set-up that only paid off at the end, but I really did like the play, and Pip Miller.
Also went to see The Wharf Revue. This is an annual comedy revue at the Wharf Theatre based on current and political events of the preceding year, and a well-loved tradition. I've only been once before, but it's generally a lot of fun, and given the year's events I decided at the last moment that I wanted to go. Tickets were already sold out, but I managed to get some discount last-minute releases (similar to the NT's Friday rush tickets) which I was really happy about. It's always written and performed by the core cast of Jonathan Biggins, Drew Forsythe, and Phillip Scott, who are all amazingly talented, and this year with Katrina Retallick playing many (not all) of the female roles and supplying some excellent vocals.
The actors really are chameleons, and their impersonations of our local politicians were spot on - Tony Abbott (Jonathan Biggins) fan-dancing in red budgie smugglers was terrifyingly realistic, and Drew Forsythe as Pauline Hanson and Philip Scott as Derryn Hinch (a former controversial current affairs host - I can't believe he's a for-real politician now) were other highlights. They rounded off with a nod to US politics in the form of 'Little GOP of Horrors" (I never said it was high-brow comedy) which featured the songs "Suddenly Donald" and Bernie Sanders with his flyaway hair imploring the public to "Vote for Me". There was also a bizarre but hilarious parody of Disney's "Under the Sea" (because we should all go back where we came from!) featuring the cast in full-size turtle, lobster and starfish costumes.
Movies
Movie-wise, I keep meaning to see Arrival and Fantastic Beasts, but have seen neither of them. However, I did go see Denial, which screened here as part of the Jewish International Film Festival. I mainly went to see it for Mark Gatiss (and bonus Andrew Scott), but I was interested in the subject matter as well. I grew up with Holocaust books and movies, which in hindsight is kind of weird, because Jewishness isn't really a part of the cultural landscape here, the way it seems to be in the US. While the media might occasionally have a story on Lunar New Year or Ramadan, everything I know about Jewish cultural traditions I got from my f-list (and/or research and reading). Nevertheless.
The movie centers around the true story of US historian Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz), and the legal case brought against her by British Holocaust denier David Irving (Timothy Spall) for defamation. Apparently she called him a Holocaust denier, which is libel... because the Holocaust didn't happen. Okay then. I thought it was fascinating that it was Irving who sued her, a fact that is easy to forget in the flurry of legal activity around trying to defend Lipstadt's position and discredit Irving, and it's good that the movie reminds the audience of this when Lipstadt's legal team start playing hardball. Andrew Scott plays Anthony Julius, the barrister heading her defense team (and apparently famous for representing Princess Diana in her divorce), and is nicely ruthless doing so. Mark Gatiss is a professor of Holocaust studies who takes her team on a 'tour' of Auschwitz and points out the evidence. I think this was probably the most affecting part of the movie - I've never been sure whether I actually want to visit Auschwitz for various reasons, but even the idea has a weight that's impossible to ignore.
Anyway, Mark's character turned out to be Dutch, meaning he sounded very unlike his usual self. I have no idea whether it was a decent accent, but at least it was light and subtle, no more than an inflection here and there, which was nice. He's only in a couple of scenes - after the tour of Auschwitz, Van der Pelt and Lipstadt stand by the fence to bow their heads and chant a prayer (?) together, which was solemn and moving. He also appears on the witness stand wearing a black suit that is just a little too big for him (...obviously I only noticed this because I couldn't help comparing him to Mycroft), and is bewildered and hurt when Irving (representing himself) tries to cast doubt on his testimony. Being a British courtroom, it pretty much looks exactly the same as the one in The Reichenbach Fall, so if you lose your bearings for a second it's a bit freaky seeing Mycroft in the stand with Moriarty as lead counsel for the defence *g*
Overall, I'd say it was a solid film without being particularly noteworthy. The acting was good all around, the characters had appropriate depth and occasional flashes of humour, the script was well written, and the story was interesting, so it wasn't really as though it lacked anything - it did everything it promised, and did it well, but it just didn't do anything more.
Oh, and last and very much least, I watched The Visit (M Night Shyamalan) on DVD. Two children go and stay with their grandparents, who seem to be acting very strangely. But, as their mother reassures them over Skype, they're just a bit eccentric - because they're old. The kids were both great actors, but the resolution was obvious in the first half hour (even though I am generally Captain Clueless), then took forever to get there, and was thoroughly unsatisfying when it finally did. Eh.
I'm really looking forward to Split (James McAvoy) and T2. Honestly, I was put off by the idea of a sequel to Trainspotting, but the trailer looked unexpectedly cool and now I must see it :D. What movies are you looking forward to?
Theatre
Saw the Kenneth Branagh Theatre Company screening of The Entertainer (by John Osborne), starring the aforementioned Kenneth Branagh. This production was originally slated to co-star John Hurt, but he had to pull out due to health issues, which is sad. Branagh is Archie Rice, a ye olde music hall entertainer, and the play charts the decline not only of his profession and way of life, but of grand old England, which is getting involved in foreign wars while being overrun by immigrants who don't know their place (those bloody Poles!). Archie is white, male, middle-aged, angry and bitter, and holding on to his past and future as best he can. So it would appear to hold a lot of thematic promise and relevance, but considering I only pieced the connections together for myself after the fact, it didn't really deliver.
The first obstacle for me was that the play was intended for audiences of its time (1957). And unlike many other plays, which are pretty self-explanatory regardless of when they are set, it did not bother explaining the prevailing circumstances, because the original audience would have already understood them. So when Rice's daughter returns home right at the beginning, one of the major controversies that is referred to repeatedly is that she "was at Trafalgar Square", and this may be related to her breaking up with her boyfriend. I had no idea what this was about, and mentally subbed in a theory about women's rights until I could google it. Secondly, one of Rice's sons is fighting in a war overseas. Much later we are informed he's in Egypt. Again, sorry for not knowing my history, but in a quiz show I would never choose the category "British military conflicts of the 50s" for double points.
The answer is "the Suez Crisis", during which there were British soldiers in Egypt, and about which protests were held in Trafalgar Square against British involvement. Do you see how crucial these minor pieces of information are in understanding the play? And if so, do you not think it might be nice to include a teeny-tiny explanation at the beginning (the way the National Theatre often does) if you're going to have an introduction at all? No, INSTEAD - and I wish I were making this up - we got a 10-minute "documentary" by a guy called John Osborne (no, another one), who wandered around some town (probably the one playwright Osborne grew up in) and talked about his personal connection with the other John Osborne, and how it made him want to become a writer. Well, thanks for that. Only during interval did we get a mock radio quiz that still wasn't that enlightening but at least yielded helpful google search terms. Granted, maybe if you were British you'd know all this and I ought to have read up on it. My bad.
Anyway, so even subbing in Xs for unknowns, the play could still have been good on a moment-by-moment basis, but that didn't work for me either. Parts of the writing were interesting - Rice's bitter speeches and songs are compelling, and basically the high points of the show, but other parts were just odd, seeming to set up dramatic moments that never eventuate, making it all feel very random. And some of the moments of actual drama were incredibly cheesy - which perhaps can't be helped, because they made me think of those overwrought 1950s dramas... and this is one, so that's probably where the trope originally came from *g*
The acting was also patchy. Branagh displayed some lovely tap dancing (seriously, who knew?) but just wasn't terribly convincing - he felt like a parody of a working class vaudevillian rather than someone who'd actually been one. There's something about him that just screams "luvvie". I also read a review that said he wasn't bitter enough, and I recognise the truth in that too - he tried, but he has such a genial face that there always seemed to be a glimmer of optimism in it rather than true loathing and despair. Greta Scacchi as Archie's second wife Phoebe (it took me until the second act to get all the family relationships clear as well - again, the play doesn't bother explaining) was basically being Mrs Lovett without the psychopathic tendencies - seriously, her physical and vocal mannerisms could all have been transplanted. Most painful of all was daughter Jean (Sophie McShera), whose voice was basically a piping chirp that never altered in pitch or intensity. Imagine a tiny smoke alarm going off for three hours - peep peep! Peep peep peep peep. Peep peep. Peep peep peep! After a while it just became white noise - I couldn't imagine why they cast her until I read that she played someone in Downton Abbey, so I imagine that makes her a drawcard for some people. By far the best performer was Gawn Grainger (who?) as Archie's declining father, Bill Rice. He had a wonderful voice, great delivery, and I could truly believe that he used to work in vaudeville. He had a relatively small role, and I don't know who he is, but he outshone them all, including Branagh.
Then saw an actual play at the Belvoir, Faith Healer, by the late Brian Friel. A production of this was on in London recently, and to be honest, half the philosophy of the Australian theatre scene seems to be "let's copy what's on in London". We had Charles III and Hamlet last year, and next year we're getting a production of Chimerica and Icke's 1984 (which I do want to see). Sure, some of these are new plays, and therefore you might expect them to be picked up and produced, but given how small the theatre scene is in comparison, it really is an ongoing theme.
This was an interesting play, structurally, in the sense that it was not so much a play but three separate monologues, something none of us realised going in. I spent the first 15 minutes wondering if anyone else was going to come on and wondering if I'd inadvertently booked a one-man show. The play begins with the Irish "faith healer" in questions, Francis Hardy (played by Colin Friels, no relation, note the 's'). He talks about his life travelling from town to town, and admits that most of the time he's a complete fake, but sometimes... sometimes he really does have the gift. He just can't predict when he'll have it, but he knows when it happens. He talks about his dear wife Grace and his eccentric manager Teddy, and that time he cured an entire room of people, and the time he was in a bar with a roomful of drunken men who ask him to cure one of their friends - and he agrees even though he knows he won't be able to. The second monologue is from Grace (Alison Whyte) who talks about her own life with Francis, and through her we realise that Francis' version of events may not be entirely reliable. Finally, we have manager Teddy (Pip Miller) who elaborates on, corrects, and extends the first two versions.
I really liked the structure, once I understood the intent of it, but other people I went with hated it. I did find that one problem with having three monologues is that each is extremely dependent on the individual skill of the actor. While the biggest 'name', and well-respected from his movie career, Friels was not quite interesting enough to listen to for half an hour. He was good in Death of a Salesman, but he really does need people to bounce off. I adore Alison Whyte from her TV work, and she cried nicely on demand, but again it was difficult to care too much despite the tragedy of Grace's story. I could see members of the audience falling asleep around us and I may have lapsed into microsleeps a few times myself. However, Teddy (Pip Miller) saved the day - I don't know the actor from anywhere, but it was like a huge wave of relief when he started talking. Unlike the other two, it took no effort of concentration to listen to him at all. Perhaps the writing helped, but I think this is where you see - or rather hear - the difference between someone suited to stage rather than screen. He just had the kind of vocal delivery and warmth that drew me into whatever he was talking about - he could probably have made his laundry list seem fascinating. He inhabited his role rather than reciting it.
All in all, it felt like a really long set-up that only paid off at the end, but I really did like the play, and Pip Miller.
Also went to see The Wharf Revue. This is an annual comedy revue at the Wharf Theatre based on current and political events of the preceding year, and a well-loved tradition. I've only been once before, but it's generally a lot of fun, and given the year's events I decided at the last moment that I wanted to go. Tickets were already sold out, but I managed to get some discount last-minute releases (similar to the NT's Friday rush tickets) which I was really happy about. It's always written and performed by the core cast of Jonathan Biggins, Drew Forsythe, and Phillip Scott, who are all amazingly talented, and this year with Katrina Retallick playing many (not all) of the female roles and supplying some excellent vocals.
The actors really are chameleons, and their impersonations of our local politicians were spot on - Tony Abbott (Jonathan Biggins) fan-dancing in red budgie smugglers was terrifyingly realistic, and Drew Forsythe as Pauline Hanson and Philip Scott as Derryn Hinch (a former controversial current affairs host - I can't believe he's a for-real politician now) were other highlights. They rounded off with a nod to US politics in the form of 'Little GOP of Horrors" (I never said it was high-brow comedy) which featured the songs "Suddenly Donald" and Bernie Sanders with his flyaway hair imploring the public to "Vote for Me". There was also a bizarre but hilarious parody of Disney's "Under the Sea" (because we should all go back where we came from!) featuring the cast in full-size turtle, lobster and starfish costumes.
Movies
Movie-wise, I keep meaning to see Arrival and Fantastic Beasts, but have seen neither of them. However, I did go see Denial, which screened here as part of the Jewish International Film Festival. I mainly went to see it for Mark Gatiss (and bonus Andrew Scott), but I was interested in the subject matter as well. I grew up with Holocaust books and movies, which in hindsight is kind of weird, because Jewishness isn't really a part of the cultural landscape here, the way it seems to be in the US. While the media might occasionally have a story on Lunar New Year or Ramadan, everything I know about Jewish cultural traditions I got from my f-list (and/or research and reading). Nevertheless.
The movie centers around the true story of US historian Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz), and the legal case brought against her by British Holocaust denier David Irving (Timothy Spall) for defamation. Apparently she called him a Holocaust denier, which is libel... because the Holocaust didn't happen. Okay then. I thought it was fascinating that it was Irving who sued her, a fact that is easy to forget in the flurry of legal activity around trying to defend Lipstadt's position and discredit Irving, and it's good that the movie reminds the audience of this when Lipstadt's legal team start playing hardball. Andrew Scott plays Anthony Julius, the barrister heading her defense team (and apparently famous for representing Princess Diana in her divorce), and is nicely ruthless doing so. Mark Gatiss is a professor of Holocaust studies who takes her team on a 'tour' of Auschwitz and points out the evidence. I think this was probably the most affecting part of the movie - I've never been sure whether I actually want to visit Auschwitz for various reasons, but even the idea has a weight that's impossible to ignore.
Anyway, Mark's character turned out to be Dutch, meaning he sounded very unlike his usual self. I have no idea whether it was a decent accent, but at least it was light and subtle, no more than an inflection here and there, which was nice. He's only in a couple of scenes - after the tour of Auschwitz, Van der Pelt and Lipstadt stand by the fence to bow their heads and chant a prayer (?) together, which was solemn and moving. He also appears on the witness stand wearing a black suit that is just a little too big for him (...obviously I only noticed this because I couldn't help comparing him to Mycroft), and is bewildered and hurt when Irving (representing himself) tries to cast doubt on his testimony. Being a British courtroom, it pretty much looks exactly the same as the one in The Reichenbach Fall, so if you lose your bearings for a second it's a bit freaky seeing Mycroft in the stand with Moriarty as lead counsel for the defence *g*
Overall, I'd say it was a solid film without being particularly noteworthy. The acting was good all around, the characters had appropriate depth and occasional flashes of humour, the script was well written, and the story was interesting, so it wasn't really as though it lacked anything - it did everything it promised, and did it well, but it just didn't do anything more.
Oh, and last and very much least, I watched The Visit (M Night Shyamalan) on DVD. Two children go and stay with their grandparents, who seem to be acting very strangely. But, as their mother reassures them over Skype, they're just a bit eccentric - because they're old. The kids were both great actors, but the resolution was obvious in the first half hour (even though I am generally Captain Clueless), then took forever to get there, and was thoroughly unsatisfying when it finally did. Eh.
I'm really looking forward to Split (James McAvoy) and T2. Honestly, I was put off by the idea of a sequel to Trainspotting, but the trailer looked unexpectedly cool and now I must see it :D. What movies are you looking forward to?