New Universal #2 - #4; Theatre Review - EQUUS; Book review - Good Bones (M. Atwood)
New Universal #2 - #4
The new Warren Ellis is rather good.
It seems a bit straight-forward at the moment - a whole bunch of superhumans are manifesting left, right and centre, and the good old US of A is planning on killing them - but I think that it has potential. It could be that I'm judging it against his limited-run work, which has a lot of stuff happening very fast because there are only a few issues of it, and that this is supposed to be longer-running, and therefore things are taking a long time to happen - I don't know. Anyway. I like the bad guy - well, Jenny's boss, I dunno if he's a bad guy, per se - and the fact that he "killed the last one [superhuman] in 1959" - and we get a panel of a sleeping baby in its crib, with a gun pointed at it. Because, dude. Totally.
I also liked the underground city stuff they've vaguely mentioned, but I'm hoping that it doesn't go all Lovecraftian or Invisibles on me, 'cause that might hurt.
Anyway. I somehow missed issue 1, so that's a bit annoying. Will have to back-order.
Not spoilery - but why is the art for Ken Connell, the defense guy, based on Josh Holloway? I mean, it doesn't just look like Josh Holloway, it is Josh Holloway. That's just... weird. I suppose the artist was watching a little too much LOST?
*
EQUUS - Gielgud Theatre, 10th March
This, too was v. good. One might even go so far as to call it fab. I don't put theatre reviews behind a cut because, well, spoiler warnings don't count for them (and no one can convince me otherwise).
I've never read Equus or seen it before, but have been a Shaffer fan for a long time. Hence the tickets, despite worrying that it might be crap. See, with Shaffer, you either end up with gold or with a big fat turd, and I was petrified that it would be the latter. Luckily, a good production of Equus requires three things:
1. Good design
2. Good direction and
3. A good Martin
What I was worried about - Alan - was mostly irrelevant, as it turned out.
Richard Griffiths played Martin (he'd had the flu for a while, so we were lucky to get him), and he was amazing. He was, in turns, funny, touching and a little frightening. He totally dominated the show; not that much of a surprise, really, as it is primarily centred on his character.
The design was amazing. They managed to convince John Napier (who did the original run in 1973) to come back to the play and to design a new look to it. This time, the stage was extended into the round by hoisting up balconies behind the stage and all around, so all (except the stalls) were sitting in this lop-sided circle, looking down into the circular stage. There was a raised cross platform, on which there were four large blocks that could be moved, and the entire stage was covered/painted with something that took light and texture beautifully. The triumph of stage design in this production was in its use of lighting design: the lights indicated the beach scenes by projections of sand dunes; they indicated pavements by the projection of grills and cobblestones; they indicated the stables by hay bales. The other good thing were the masks, which were very impressive indeed. They were metal, with lights fitted where the eyes were, the 'horses' were several ballet dancers.
The direction was fine - nothing particularly spectacular, nothing that took my breath away, but, then, I don't know what work Thea Sharrock did with Richard Griffiths and Daniel Radcliffe, so. The production was amazing, at any rate.
Now. Daniel Radclifee. I wasn't particularly impressed in the first half which, to be fair, was because the character of Alan was a very shouty character, which basically made me think of Harry Potter and I couldn't take him seriously. Maybe a case of having too much similitude? I liked his physical work, though: he moved well, and expressed quite a lot when Richard was speaking and it was his job to act silently. So, when the second half hit, I was vaguely hopeful - and, yes, he did a good job. Once he was out of the 'shout if you mean it!' part of Alan's head, he really started to let go. Maybe it took him that long to loosen up on stage? Anyway. Thumbs up on that score, too.
So, yes. If you haven't seen it yet, Equus is recommended.
*
Good Bones
by Margaret Atwood
Good Bones is a series of short stories. I've liked Margaret Atwood's work in the past (but, then, I've only really read the stuff that most people don't like, so maybe this says something about me?) so I was hoping that this would be similar. No joy, though. Oh, Good Bones isn't boring, per se, or straight-forward or simple or any of those other obvious choices. It is, however, annoyingly predictable in the matters it covers and the way in which it covers them.
Overall - fun if you haven't read / studied Atwood before, rather dull if you have.
The new Warren Ellis is rather good.
It seems a bit straight-forward at the moment - a whole bunch of superhumans are manifesting left, right and centre, and the good old US of A is planning on killing them - but I think that it has potential. It could be that I'm judging it against his limited-run work, which has a lot of stuff happening very fast because there are only a few issues of it, and that this is supposed to be longer-running, and therefore things are taking a long time to happen - I don't know. Anyway. I like the bad guy - well, Jenny's boss, I dunno if he's a bad guy, per se - and the fact that he "killed the last one [superhuman] in 1959" - and we get a panel of a sleeping baby in its crib, with a gun pointed at it. Because, dude. Totally.
I also liked the underground city stuff they've vaguely mentioned, but I'm hoping that it doesn't go all Lovecraftian or Invisibles on me, 'cause that might hurt.
Anyway. I somehow missed issue 1, so that's a bit annoying. Will have to back-order.
Not spoilery - but why is the art for Ken Connell, the defense guy, based on Josh Holloway? I mean, it doesn't just look like Josh Holloway, it is Josh Holloway. That's just... weird. I suppose the artist was watching a little too much LOST?
*
EQUUS - Gielgud Theatre, 10th March
This, too was v. good. One might even go so far as to call it fab. I don't put theatre reviews behind a cut because, well, spoiler warnings don't count for them (and no one can convince me otherwise).
I've never read Equus or seen it before, but have been a Shaffer fan for a long time. Hence the tickets, despite worrying that it might be crap. See, with Shaffer, you either end up with gold or with a big fat turd, and I was petrified that it would be the latter. Luckily, a good production of Equus requires three things:
1. Good design
2. Good direction and
3. A good Martin
What I was worried about - Alan - was mostly irrelevant, as it turned out.
Richard Griffiths played Martin (he'd had the flu for a while, so we were lucky to get him), and he was amazing. He was, in turns, funny, touching and a little frightening. He totally dominated the show; not that much of a surprise, really, as it is primarily centred on his character.
The design was amazing. They managed to convince John Napier (who did the original run in 1973) to come back to the play and to design a new look to it. This time, the stage was extended into the round by hoisting up balconies behind the stage and all around, so all (except the stalls) were sitting in this lop-sided circle, looking down into the circular stage. There was a raised cross platform, on which there were four large blocks that could be moved, and the entire stage was covered/painted with something that took light and texture beautifully. The triumph of stage design in this production was in its use of lighting design: the lights indicated the beach scenes by projections of sand dunes; they indicated pavements by the projection of grills and cobblestones; they indicated the stables by hay bales. The other good thing were the masks, which were very impressive indeed. They were metal, with lights fitted where the eyes were, the 'horses' were several ballet dancers.
The direction was fine - nothing particularly spectacular, nothing that took my breath away, but, then, I don't know what work Thea Sharrock did with Richard Griffiths and Daniel Radcliffe, so. The production was amazing, at any rate.
Now. Daniel Radclifee. I wasn't particularly impressed in the first half which, to be fair, was because the character of Alan was a very shouty character, which basically made me think of Harry Potter and I couldn't take him seriously. Maybe a case of having too much similitude? I liked his physical work, though: he moved well, and expressed quite a lot when Richard was speaking and it was his job to act silently. So, when the second half hit, I was vaguely hopeful - and, yes, he did a good job. Once he was out of the 'shout if you mean it!' part of Alan's head, he really started to let go. Maybe it took him that long to loosen up on stage? Anyway. Thumbs up on that score, too.
So, yes. If you haven't seen it yet, Equus is recommended.
*
Good Bones
by Margaret Atwood
Good Bones is a series of short stories. I've liked Margaret Atwood's work in the past (but, then, I've only really read the stuff that most people don't like, so maybe this says something about me?) so I was hoping that this would be similar. No joy, though. Oh, Good Bones isn't boring, per se, or straight-forward or simple or any of those other obvious choices. It is, however, annoyingly predictable in the matters it covers and the way in which it covers them.
Overall - fun if you haven't read / studied Atwood before, rather dull if you have.