Theatrical Delights: Review of National Theatre Live's Frankenstein

View of Stratford theatre where I saw Taming of the Shrew in 2008

One of the things the British are known for is amazing theatre.  I was lucky enough to experience it for myself when I went to Shakespeare's birthplace of Stratford-upon-Avon during a visit to England in 2008, and it will be an experience I will never forget.

The Royal Shakespeare Company, or RSC as it is commonly called, is likely the most recognizable company, but London's West End is the equivalent to New York City's Broadway and the city has many of its own theatrical treats--a haven for theatre-going buffs.  One of the best treats in London has to be the National Theatre.  Settled beautifully on the South bank, the National has featured some of the most memorable plays in recent years.  War Horse to One Man, Two Govnurs, and Frankenstein are just a few  of the plays that have made a splash in one form or another.  The National Theatre now broadcasts their best pieces to theatres around the world via National Theatre Live (NT Live).  As a budding theatre-goer, I was particularly attracted to NT Live's Frankenstein.  If I couldn't be in London, I figured a virtual screening of it would be well worth it.  I was not disappointed.

The unique take on director Danny Boyle's (Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Seconds) Frankenstein delivered an amazing interpretation of Mary Shelley's classic novel.  The production's two leads, Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller, alternated the roles of Dr. Frankenstein and his Creature each night throughout the production making it a different play each time:


Miller's Creature and Cumberbatch's Frankenstein
Last summer, I drove up to Portland to one of the only theatres in the state that wisely chooses to screen NT Live productions, the Third Rail Repertory Theatre.  Being unfamiliar with the original novel or  many screen adaptations, (my only Frankenstein was Gene Wilder's hilarious rendition in Young Frankenstein) I was a true novice and learned the story was actually quite different.

The story I saw was nothing to laugh at, but to genuinely contemplate.  Decisions.  Ethical, moral and even societal which are as true today as they were in the 19th Century.  Questions of science and our role in creation hang in the background of the Creature's self-awareness and growth and subsequent chase to the end of the earth, and seemingly time, with his creator.  In the first minutes, the stage is nothing but the Creature's flailing about in attempts at understanding the patterns of movement and learning to walk with no one to guide him.  A blind man educates him and befriends him, but friendship is fleeting for the Creature, which leads him to commit his first act of revenge.  Seeking a real companion, the Creature returns to his creator only to be disappointed and, once again, seeks revenge on he who hurt him.  An act that leaves both Creature and creator seemingly bound to each other.

Miller's Creature was innocent and childlike.  In fact, one great thing about the virtual screening was a behind the scenes intro where the actors explained their inspirations for their performances.  Miller pointed out that he found inspiration from his toddler; therefore, his movement and speech were indeed childlike allowing me to feel sympathy for the character as I saw my own young niece in his honest and unblemished Creature.  The reactions of society to his seemingly unnatural state made him an altogether different being.  Therefore, it made for an amazing contrast to Cumberbatch's Frankenstein.

As a fan of BBC's Sherlock, Cumberbatch's Victor Frankenstein was, for me, a mirror image of the great detective.  That's not a bad thing, in fact, it's a performance that's full of vigor and madness, but also humanity--particularly at the end.  Victor Frankenstein and Sherlock Holmes could almost be seen as similar creatures.  Both of them locked into science to do their work and ground their beliefs.  So, though it was an excellent performance, I felt like I had seen it before and, ultimately, the combination of Miller's child-like Creature and Cumberbatch's Holmesian Dr. Frankenstein left me feeling like I had watched an odd episode of Sherlock, instead of a piece of theatre.  In the end, I enjoyed it, but I was left wondering how the other version turned out and how I would have reacted to it.  

A view of the South Bank and the
National Theatre worthy of Frankenstein.Photo courtesy of a friend in
London, Heidi Ober.

Cumberbatch's Creature and Miller's Frankenstein
Last weekend, I had the good fortune to see that other version.  After a hearty meal at one of the few Brit pubs in town, I was able to go to an encore viewing of Frankenstein via NT Live and Third Rail Repertory Theater.  If I had to choose between one of the two as the better piece of theatre, this version would be my pick.  The story was exactly the same so I did focus more on the brilliant technicalities of the staging and lighting.  Unfortunately, a virtual screening does not do the scenery justice, but I could tell that the bunch of simple strings of light bulbs, a modern soundtrack, and the sparing use of scenery set an unforgettable stage.  Not to mention a turning and raising piece of the stage!  The technical aspects benefited both versions and was an added dimension that I'd never seen in a play.

Cumberbatch's Creature was exquisite.  That's the only word for it.  A completely different interpretation and performance to his co-star which seemed to make the play tell a different, yet familiar, story.  Cumberbatch revealed, in the behind the scenes intro, that his interpretation of the Creature came from adults who had to re-learn movement and speech a second time in contrast to a child learning them for the first time.  The difference in the two performances was evident in the first scene. I was grateful for the close camera angles as Cumberbatch's body twisted and writhed in the attempts to learn and master movement (he'll make one heck of a Smaug!).  In contrast to Miller's speech pattern which, much like a child, seemed to improve upon more practice, Cumberbatch visibly continued to struggle with speech even after learning to read.  Even with the role of the Creature switched the themes and questions posed were still evident.  The societal outcast and abandoned creation of Frankenstein was even more sympathetic this time around due to the continued clear and striking difficulties manifested by the Creature.

Miller's Victor Frankenstein was a calmer, more controlled version in my eyes.  His dedication and belief in his work was still there; however this creator appeared to be more frightened and unsure of what to make of his creation, as opposed to the wild, fast-talking Frankenstein portrayed by his co-star.  All in all, my preferred version of play.  The RSC released a recorded version of Hamlet starring David Tennant and Sir Patrick Stewart on disc and I have enjoyed it despite not being able to see the original.  If the National Theatre were to do something similar, they would already have one sale!  And, if Frankenstein ever gets to Broadway, as War Horse and One Man, Two Guvnors have done, a trip to New York may be warranted.

Both versions of Frankenstein were worth an outing for this theatre-goer and I wouldn't have missed any of them.  I am only slightly disappointed I couldn't be in the London audience last year.

Doylian Delights: Doyle's former home--Undershaw--saved from development!

Undershaw Saved!

in Oregon adds its voice to the campaign.

The local Baker Street Irregular scion

At 2:30am on the 30th of May I was still up and, it turns out, it was a good thing because I got to hear the news when those of us on this side of the Atlantic who cared where either tucked away in bed or maybe starting their day. 

A cause that had become important to me a couple of years ago--the preservation of Conan Doyle's residence Undershaw, came to a head last week with a judicial review in London's Royal Courts of Justice. On  April 23 the Undershaw Preservation Trust (UPT), an organization dedicated to preserving the building, went to court to oppose a decision that would grant permission for the property to be split up into nine separate homes.  The Trust was backed and supported by a global campaign of people from around the world who did not want to see the author's home destroyed for future generations.  After a day in court, the judges took the opportunity to delay the decision.  The judgement could have taken as long as two months, but a week later a judgement was announced that planning permission 'must be quashed' because of  'legal flaws' during the process.  

John Gibson, a Conan Doyle scholar who helped found UPT, reacted to the news by saying that it had been a long and difficult battle, but he was thrilled with the decision to 'quash planning permission to redevelop the property'.  

He also said, " Conan Doyle's life and works are a fundamental part of British culture and arguably their stock has never been higher.  We have been absolutely delighted to see enthusiasts from across the world get in touch and pledge their support to our efforts."

What's next?

Now that the permission has been halted, what's next for the Trust and Undershaw?   The Trust continues to work on preservation by submitting an application for an upgrade in status from grade II to grade I.  What does that mean?  According to the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport website,   a grade II buildings are noted as 'special interest'.  It means the building is 'protected against unauthorized demolition, altering or extension', which means if proper channels are taken then it allowed to be changed.  Grade I is a building with 'exceptional interest' and could not be changed under any means. There are several criteria for each listing.  Undershaw has been listed as grade II since 1977.  

The ultimate goal for the property would be to see it preserved as a single building, and as a museum or centre for future generations.  Claude Monet's home at Giverny outside Paris, France, and Horta's home in Brussels, Belgium, have been restored and converted into just such sites of cultural and historic information.  Having visited Giverny myself and being an enthusiat, I would love to see Undershaw preserved and restored in such a fashion.  I would pilgrim to England PDQ to experience the place where Conan Doyle worked, lived and wrote and resurrected perhaps his most (in)famous creation, Sherlock Holmes.  I am happy to have done what I could do (and will continue) for this worthy cause.  Yay, Yay, Yay!

  

Doylian Delights Book Review: 'An Entirely New Country' for an entirely worthy cause, Undershaw.

My Introduction to Sir Arthur C. Doyle: 
It was exciting to get this particular book in the mail.  I had a feeling I would enjoy it since my ever-growing Sherlockian tendencies find me reading (even re-reading) most of the canon stories over the last few years.  It did not disappoint.

My first foray into learning more about the creator of Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is through Alistair Duncan's excellent book An Entirely New Country: Arthur Conan Doyle, Undershaw, and the Resurrection of Sherlock Holmes.  Duncan's book, which focuses on the ten-year period Conan Doyle spent at his home Undershaw in Hindhead, Surrey, England, develops a tantalizing timeline of events in Conan Doyle's life in and around Undershaw that shows not only the author, but a potential politician, avid sportsman, and family man.  The years between 1897 and 1907 spent at Undershaw, we learn via Duncan, were full of  activity for both Sherlock Holmes and his creator.

As a reader of Holmes, the most insightful years on the timeline is the year of 1901 and the beginnings of The Hound of the Baskervilles.  Much like today, the phenomena that is Sherlock Holmes continued even after his "death".  The background and ultimate reaction to possibly the most famous adventure was so interesting that I found myself jotting little reactions and notations in the margins.  And it seemed that even more than 100 years later, I was finding similarities between our 21st and early 20th century societies making my read even more extraordinary.  Sherlock's eventual return soon followed in 1903 and '04, which are surely sections of equal interest to Holmes readers.

Leaving 1907 and returning to 2012 left me wanting to learn more about Sir Arthur and the times that he lived.  A recommended read for any fan of Sherlock Holmes, whether one is a recent or longtime fan.  The final pages of the book show Undershaw in its current state:  a rather sad and dilapidated shell of what it once was.  Today, it is in danger of  being torn down and rebuilt into townhouses.  For the past couple years, there has been a great effort to spread the word across England (and the world) in order to save the home.  Duncan's book is part of that effort with proceeds from the book going towards the cause.    

The Cause: Saving Undershaw-the ten-year residence of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Undershaw during Conan Doyle's tenure.
This picture can be found in the book. 

One of the things I love about England (and Europe in general) is history.  There is so much to absorb and to imagine.  You could be standing in a street, cathedral/church, house, or sometimes even a pub and be in the midst of history.  Literary history is no exception.  London is filled with Dickens.  Bath has Jane Austen connections.  Undershaw should be part of that literary history.

Noteworthy information :

• The first design drafts of Undershaw were done by Conan Doyle. 
• Apart from the house of Thomas Hardy, Undershaw is the only literary house in England that can claim the resident's input in its design.
• Conan Doyle came up with the name of Undershaw for his new home. 
•  Undershaw was used a small hotel and restaurant for almost 70 years, where it was visited by many Doyle and Holmes enthusiasts.

The state of Undershaw today: broken and boarded. 

Much has been done to raise awareness over the past couple years.  The Undershaw Preservation Trust was formed and is working hard to fight the plans for development.  Awareness efforts have increased as the date for judicial review gets closer.  Fans and enthusiasts from all over the world are now doing what they can to save the site such as taking photos from various sites all over the world with a message to "Save Undershaw".  In London, local Sherlock fans gathered in Trafalgar Square to inform locals and tourists about the state of Undershaw with great success.

Despite all the efforts there still can be much more to help save this historic, literary site.  Please visit the Undershaw Preservation Trust website for more information on the Trust and Undershaw itself.  

Movie Delights: Sherlock Holmes-Game of Shadows reviewed

I have done it.  I've experienced my first midnight showing in a movie theatre and, with the help of tea at around 10pm to keep me from yawning, I made it through a first showing of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. The members of the fairly large, young audience was my first clue to what ended up being a night easily described as indifference, at best.  In the first film, I arrived not knowing what to expect and was pleasantly surprised.  I enjoyed myself!  This time, I knew what to expect and it was delivered...maybe even overdone.   


Varying portrayals or interpretations of Holmes and Watson are numerous.  With the recent 21st Century resurgence, the Baker Street boys have once again become part of our lives and the Warner Bros. film franchise has a lot to do with it.  This particular version focuses on Holmes as the man of action.  Guy Ritchie has Holmes (and Watson) get into more fights, hear more shots fired, have more things blow-up around them, and experience what seems like the type of mayhem that James Bond or even Batman and Robin would encounter.  It was strange to see the great intellect of Holmes reduced to only a few lightening-quick moments.

RDJ's Holmes is an action-hero.  Plain and simple.  The movie-audience-member part of me enjoyed seeing an exciting, fun movie, but these days the Sherlockian part of me missed the Holmes I feel I know so well from Doyle's canon (and Cumberbatch's Sherlock, but that's another discussion).  Sherlock Holmes, in this film, has lost the reflective intellect that make him a Victorian gentleman.  In only two moments in more than two hours, the action man slowed down and became the man of thought.  Holmes was a clean, well-dressed, Victorian gentleman, but this version is a complete opposite. The unkept, scruffy, almost un-hygenic appearance of this particular Holmes bothered me more this time around.

Jude Law's John Watson is a gleam of light in this darker, dirtier London.  He perfectly retains Watson's loyalty and bafflement to his eccentric friend.  Plus, he is able to take on the action just as much as this action-oriented Holmes.  And, he looks his part.  John manages to stay the soldier and doctor in manner and personality.  Downey and Law do play the friendship well, and despite Watson's marriage, we still feel that the doctor will miss his friend and their adventures.  Irene Adler was sadly disposed of quite quickly and Mycroft Holmes, "Sherly's" older brother, was played by the wonderful Stephen Fry.  However, the elder Holmes fit into the scheme of things a bit awkwardly.  I couldn't tell if he was the enigma from canon, or a comic relief element a la Nigel Bruce.

James Moriarty and Sebastian Moran, the baddies, played their part.  As ominous and powerful as the great M is supposed to be, this one was almost underwhelming.  Moran, M's Watson, was excellent as a baddie.  Sebastian certainly showed his colors and turned out being far more interesting than the Big Bad.  Combine that with the threat of war and Germans, it makes for an odd overall story.

There were a few clever references to canon, but on the whole Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is far from its roots.  For those that like a good action movie, then they will not be disappointed.  For this  Sherlockian, the first turned out better than the sequel.

Sound Delights: The radio play and a box with no pictures

I can't remember, but I can imagine...gathering around a large, or small, box without pictures and listening only the sounds coming out of it.  People telling the news, sharing stories: simply communicating.  No, I can't remember the day when the radio was used for the primary form of information and entertainment.  My grandparents, certainly.  My parents, maybe.  But, not me.  I recall days without the internet, computers, and even remote controls, but my box always had a picture with it.  

Radio, as I know it, has been a source of entertainment and communication, but always in a particular, even limited way.  Various stations specializing in different music genres  for entertainment, and even news or informational shows are all that I knew radio had to offer.  However, I recently discovered the most hilarious and creative thirty minutes on the British radio waves and it's a comedy.  A comic radio show.  

Cabin Pressure: a BBC radio comedy

 The above is the recording of the below series.

I love Cabin Pressure.  It's a half an hour of silliness that abounds for the small (one plane) charter airline call MJN Air.  Starring only four main actors/characters, with the occasional guest(s), and being mostly set in an airplane cockpit the radio format is actually an ideal format.  Sounds and background noises cue the listener when scenery has changed and allows for the imagination to fly along with them.  For six weeks this summer, I gathered around my modern box (a laptop) to enjoy this modern radio sit-com, for lack of a better description.  There is nothing equivalent to this on the American airwaves, and I can't imagine there ever would be, or could be.  BBC4, the radio station that features readings of stories, interviews and reviews on literature and music and culture and everything in between, produces this (and other) radio plays that are quite entertaining.  

Comedies are certainly not the only genre that pass on the radio. Recently, the station took on the Russian novel Life and Fate as a serial.  Want to listen to the radio serial? Give it a shot.  It's better than an audio book. My interest peaked when I saw two notable British actors took on parts.  Cabin Pressure also has actors that have appeared in television and movies and it's a treat to hear an actor perform a character.  So,  this clip was of particular interest

Quick History Lesson


A bit ironically, radio dramas appeared to have had a start in the 1920s in the US.  That decade saw a surge of radio drama activity beginning with a brief sketch to Broadway musical comedies and their casts to weekly broadcasts of full plays with a regular troupe of actors.  In 1923,  original pieces written for radio were airing on radio stations across the country.  Serious study of radio dramas in the 1920s and 30s are limited, however.  And, with the arrival of television in the 1950s, it seems as if Americans have almost forgotten radio plays.  Today, it continues to thrive in Europe, particularly England and Germany.  XM Radio features radio dramas for US listeners as well as ACB radio (American Council for the Blind), but it can barely be found on mainstream US radio.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_drama)  


So, I find radio plays, particularly ones on BBC, to be another Anglo-delight.  My box may be able to give me sound, pictures, and access to just about anything; however, I am glad it can be used in the same fashion that allows my own imagination to soar just by good stories, talented voices and sounds.