I haven't been blogging much because there hasn't been much to relate until now. I have blogged recently about how wonderful the National Theatre is in terms of production values and important theatrical work it puts up. Today I saw Our Class in their black box theatre. It was one of the most powerful shows I have ever seen. Now, I'm only twenty, but this show reminded me of why I want to be an actor and moreover why theatre is so important to human society.
Our Class takes place in the 1930s in Poland and documents a group of classmates, both Polish and Jewish, through WWII through to the present day. The show was presented in the round and used no set except chairs that surrounded the stage. For those who saw Cleveland Public Theatre's Our Town the set up was very similar. Each individual character's story was presented mostly through monologues, as if they were recalling their experiences and while you may think it was distracting from the reality of the show it wasn't at all. I found the three hour production to be absolutely mesmerizing.
Our Class begins with each "child" (all of the characters played by adults) stating what they want to be when they grow up - a soldier, a teacher, a movie star, etc. Quickly the story shifts to the Red Army invading Poland. The divide between the Poles and the Jews becomes quite evident with Poles blaming the Jews for supporting the Red Army. The unified class of innocent children was immediately beginning to fracture.
Most of the first act described a pogrom that happened in this small town before the invasion of the Nazis. A Jewish classmate was framed for "selling out" his classmates who were arresting for organizing an underground Polish Resistance Army. He was killed by his classmates and by the real informant to the Red Army (a classmate as well). Another Jewish classmate, who was married to her Jewish classmate, was raped by these same classmates before being taken to the public square with other Jews from the town. She was told, as were all the Jews in the square, that they would be sent to the ghetto tomorrow but had to stay in a tiny barn overnight. Like many Jews in towns during that time, they were stuffed into a barn that was set on fire.
Two classmates were hid by other Polish classmates. One, a girl, was immediately converted to Catholicism and married to her classmate after finding out she was the only one left of her family.
I have given away most of the plot, but not entirely. The play is not really about the horrors of the WWII. While it does not spare any details about rape and how Jews were slaughtered and then thrown into pits, this play is so tragic because we see how a class of peers was torn a part from each other. But what's most depressing is we see how these early actions effect these characters for their entire lives. When at times the we begin to think that maybe there is hope after these tragedies, the realities of what these teenagers experienced stays with them forever. We don't necessarily see remorse from the murderers in the first act. I think it would be too sentimental if we did. What we see is a convoluted web of feelings of betrayal, loyalty, and history.
What I love about this play is it doesn't blame one "side" or the other, in fact, there are no "sides" and nothing is ever black or white. It also depressingly shows how one night effects a group of once happy peers for their entire life. One classmate becomes a priest but on his death bed is haunted by the classmate he killed and the other he raped. One, a woman who hid her Jewish classmate goes to America to only be confused by being praised for saving Jews, hated for saving Jews, and lost for not knowing what to think or feel.
I was in an emotional state for most of this show. With each ending of each character's life I saw how there is no resolution to the problem, no redemption for confessing to the truth, for saving a Jew, and for trying to persecute those who murdered their classmates.
The only hope found in this play was through the one classmate who left Poland in 1937 for America. Through his story we find hope for the future amidst the confusion of seeing his classmates turn against each other, deceive him, and see his guilt for surviving. There are two defining moments in his speeches - one where he finds out through a letter that all the Jews of his town were burned in a barn. He recites the names of all the family he lost - concluding that he is the only one left. He then ends the play by reciting all of his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
I haven't yet fully come to understand this play besides that it is unbelievably powerful. But what sticks with me is not just the horror of each account described but how each character cannot escape what they experienced and how through the decades they live with this pain, confusion, guilt, and betrayal. It's a wonderful metaphor - a class divided by a war. It shows how war can so easily tear the ties of human connection and so quickly and effectively torture the humanity within people. In fact, war dividing the class is the only true distinct division within the play. It's the only real "truth" that can be deduced from the play - everything else - loyalties, guilt, feelings are all ambiguous and constantly changing. What remains is a huge sense of loss because nothing is ever "fixed" no matter how hard people try or don't try to repent, make amends, or seek revenge. The "truth" and the actions cannot be remedied.
I would see this show again and again. But I would bring tissues next time.
Our Class at the National Theatre
Saturday, 14 November 2009
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Into the Woods without delay but careful not to lose the way!
I have been sort of MIA... mostly because I haven't had much to comment on and because I have been occupied with essays, readings, and INTO THE WOODS!
Below you will find the main publicity photo for UCL's Musical Theatre Society's production in the Bloomsbury:
Although pretty much all of you who read this won't be able to come, I thought it would be fitting to still post the website for tickets.
Also, here's another link to the full album of publicity photos I took from my not so great camera. It was loads of fun... and so many children stared in awe!
Thursday, 15 October 2009
The First Amendment and Censorship in Britain
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Growing up in America, the idea of "freedom of speech" has been ingrained in me since I was a child. For both good and bad I knew that because of the first amendment anyone in the United States could say and express what they pleased (now, of course there were times when censorship did exist by the people but rarely, if ever, was it government instigated). That meant that the KKK could have "white power" protests and that civil rights activists could march in Washington. More recently it means that gay activists can march for equality and that anti-national health care fanatics can obnoxiously protest in Town Hall meetings through the country.
It also means that artists of all kinds can produce their work for an audience without government regulation.
One of my classes at UCL is called "Moderns II." It focuses on modern literature post WWII. The topic of this lecture was on theatrical censorship in Britain. As an American I was surprised to hear that censorship of plays did not stop in Britain until 1968. And, even more incredible, this censorship committee, The Lord Chamberlain's Office, began in the 1500s. That's four hundred years ago. And if any of you know your Shakespeare - it's the SAME Lord Chamberlain's Office that existed during Shakespeare's time (its function has morphed over time).
So what did this censorship entail? It meant that every play that wanted to be produced HAD to be given to the Lord Chamberlain's Office for approval. What did they censor? Anything too political, anything talking about foreign enemies, anything concerning homosexuality, immoral behavior, and sexuality in general (I may note that what I am saying is a gross generalization - there are books and documents that I am too lazy to find). When A Streetcar Named Desire was produced in London for the first time various clergymen and officials were outraged at its "immoral" message - essentially a sympathetic prostitute who depended on the "kindness of strangers." You could not have plays simulate sex or other bodily functions on stage and language was censored heavily as well. And people from the Lord Chamberlain's Office would visit shows and take extremely detailed notes (now found in The British Library) documenting shows.
(And as a side note, even though censorship was abolished in 1968, when Margaret Thatcher was in office censorship began again.)
Obviously, there were ways to get around this. If a theatre was also listed as a "club" they could simulate sex and more controversial behavior (profanity was still not that heavily used). The biggest beacon of anti-censorship was The Royal Court Theatre. They produced and still continue to produce new and slightly controversial plays such as Look Back in Anger, The Rocky Horror Show, and more recently That Face and Enron. Even though censorship is abolished, The Royal Court still is a beacon for new and daring works.
So what does this mean? For me, it's a reminder of how much the first amendment is so ingrained in my head and how I believed that any western country was similar. Yes, while censorship did and still does exist on different levels in the States ("banned" book lists, local people shutting down shows, etc.) we haven't necessarily had anything government regulated. This is a VERY foreign idea for me. And on an artistic level, it makes me appreciate British theatre in a much different way. Britain is known for its controversial and daring plays. If Enron transfers to Broadway you will understand what I mean. America HAS a legacy of political and social playwrights (Edward Albee, Arthur Miller, Tony Kushner, the list goes on...) but we don't have the legacy of censorship that Britain does. With censorship, I believe, comes a great need to boldly express opinions. Theatre and the freedom of expression, therefore, have a much deeper value. Because with censorship comes an appreciation for the freedom to express without any boundaries.
Unlike other countries who've encountered censorship, as Americans I believe that we at times forget to appreciate how lucky we are that freedom of expression (for good or for evil) has existed since the creation of the United States of America.
Growing up in America, the idea of "freedom of speech" has been ingrained in me since I was a child. For both good and bad I knew that because of the first amendment anyone in the United States could say and express what they pleased (now, of course there were times when censorship did exist by the people but rarely, if ever, was it government instigated). That meant that the KKK could have "white power" protests and that civil rights activists could march in Washington. More recently it means that gay activists can march for equality and that anti-national health care fanatics can obnoxiously protest in Town Hall meetings through the country.
It also means that artists of all kinds can produce their work for an audience without government regulation.
One of my classes at UCL is called "Moderns II." It focuses on modern literature post WWII. The topic of this lecture was on theatrical censorship in Britain. As an American I was surprised to hear that censorship of plays did not stop in Britain until 1968. And, even more incredible, this censorship committee, The Lord Chamberlain's Office, began in the 1500s. That's four hundred years ago. And if any of you know your Shakespeare - it's the SAME Lord Chamberlain's Office that existed during Shakespeare's time (its function has morphed over time).
So what did this censorship entail? It meant that every play that wanted to be produced HAD to be given to the Lord Chamberlain's Office for approval. What did they censor? Anything too political, anything talking about foreign enemies, anything concerning homosexuality, immoral behavior, and sexuality in general (I may note that what I am saying is a gross generalization - there are books and documents that I am too lazy to find). When A Streetcar Named Desire was produced in London for the first time various clergymen and officials were outraged at its "immoral" message - essentially a sympathetic prostitute who depended on the "kindness of strangers." You could not have plays simulate sex or other bodily functions on stage and language was censored heavily as well. And people from the Lord Chamberlain's Office would visit shows and take extremely detailed notes (now found in The British Library) documenting shows.
(And as a side note, even though censorship was abolished in 1968, when Margaret Thatcher was in office censorship began again.)
Obviously, there were ways to get around this. If a theatre was also listed as a "club" they could simulate sex and more controversial behavior (profanity was still not that heavily used). The biggest beacon of anti-censorship was The Royal Court Theatre. They produced and still continue to produce new and slightly controversial plays such as Look Back in Anger, The Rocky Horror Show, and more recently That Face and Enron. Even though censorship is abolished, The Royal Court still is a beacon for new and daring works.
So what does this mean? For me, it's a reminder of how much the first amendment is so ingrained in my head and how I believed that any western country was similar. Yes, while censorship did and still does exist on different levels in the States ("banned" book lists, local people shutting down shows, etc.) we haven't necessarily had anything government regulated. This is a VERY foreign idea for me. And on an artistic level, it makes me appreciate British theatre in a much different way. Britain is known for its controversial and daring plays. If Enron transfers to Broadway you will understand what I mean. America HAS a legacy of political and social playwrights (Edward Albee, Arthur Miller, Tony Kushner, the list goes on...) but we don't have the legacy of censorship that Britain does. With censorship, I believe, comes a great need to boldly express opinions. Theatre and the freedom of expression, therefore, have a much deeper value. Because with censorship comes an appreciation for the freedom to express without any boundaries.
Unlike other countries who've encountered censorship, as Americans I believe that we at times forget to appreciate how lucky we are that freedom of expression (for good or for evil) has existed since the creation of the United States of America.
Friday, 9 October 2009
4th University in the World
On another great note: the Times (London) comes out with a "higher education" ranking every year. UCL has always been at the top but this year did extremely well - fourth in the world and beating Oxford!
I share the table for you all to marvel at:
The Times Higher Education Table
Columbia didn't do so bad either...
I share the table for you all to marvel at:
The Times Higher Education Table
Columbia didn't do so bad either...
Musical Theatre and Swine Flu
The two are not necessarily related. Well, in the London production of Avenue Q they joked that "Swine flu is only for now."
And so it seems I MIGHT have swine flu. The lovely doctors and nurses were all too worried that me being asthmatic and sick right now results in swine flu. The trouble is, swine flu has normal flu like symptoms. So who knows. But I'm on the infamous "Tamiflu" that is quite unpleasant. And I am essentially quarantined for a few days. Oh precautions...
On another much more positive note, I had the lovely opportunity to be a part of the UCL musical theatre society's "24-hour Fresher Musical". Yep, 24 hours. The show was essentially Les Miserables and I had the fortunate opportunity to play Cosette. It was great fun and truly a beautiful testament to how much teamwork and passion really fuel a production. I was so happy and touched to see people building a set, working lights, really working hard to learn their lines, get their costumes right, etc. in JUST the course of 24 hours. And the support - now that was great too.
Piggy backing on that - I auditioned for the main stage production of Into the Woods at The Bloomsbury Theatre. Despite massive doubts about my work - a realization that I am changing as a person and therefore an actor, I feel so pleased (and in some ways shocked but really really really happy) to be playing Cinderella. I am so excited to tackle her and the complexity of Sondheim and really USE all that I learned at Adler in this character!
As for lectures and seminars - they're good - not too much to say so far! Interesting people - much more individualized. But I am more focused on the fact that I need to get better before anything truly gets rolling!
And so it seems I MIGHT have swine flu. The lovely doctors and nurses were all too worried that me being asthmatic and sick right now results in swine flu. The trouble is, swine flu has normal flu like symptoms. So who knows. But I'm on the infamous "Tamiflu" that is quite unpleasant. And I am essentially quarantined for a few days. Oh precautions...
On another much more positive note, I had the lovely opportunity to be a part of the UCL musical theatre society's "24-hour Fresher Musical". Yep, 24 hours. The show was essentially Les Miserables and I had the fortunate opportunity to play Cosette. It was great fun and truly a beautiful testament to how much teamwork and passion really fuel a production. I was so happy and touched to see people building a set, working lights, really working hard to learn their lines, get their costumes right, etc. in JUST the course of 24 hours. And the support - now that was great too.
Piggy backing on that - I auditioned for the main stage production of Into the Woods at The Bloomsbury Theatre. Despite massive doubts about my work - a realization that I am changing as a person and therefore an actor, I feel so pleased (and in some ways shocked but really really really happy) to be playing Cinderella. I am so excited to tackle her and the complexity of Sondheim and really USE all that I learned at Adler in this character!
As for lectures and seminars - they're good - not too much to say so far! Interesting people - much more individualized. But I am more focused on the fact that I need to get better before anything truly gets rolling!
Thursday, 1 October 2009
All's Well That End's Well at the National (a bit of a mini essay)
The National Theatre truly is a wonderful place. They have recently started a program where they broadcast live performances to theatres across the UK and around the world. Tonight, I was in the audience of Shakespeare's All's Well That End's Well (and my friend Josh SAW me on tv!)
As many of you know, I am a Shakespeare fanatic. It seems to be the true "thing" that links my love for academics and my love for acting - it feeds my intellectual and emotional/artistic sides. Seeing great Shakespeare PERFORMED is truly a treat. I loved this performance for a variety of reasons. I did one of Helena's (the protagonist) speeches when I was just starting to really delve into attempting to act Shakespeare. And therefore knew this play very well and seeing it live opened up my eyes to aspects of the play I had never thought of before.
One of the reasons why I love Shakespeare is because he writes fantastic women. His women are notoriously intelligent, calculating, ambitious, emotional, and full of heart (some would beg to differ considering Lady Macbeth but that conversation can be played out later). BUT my one critique of Shakespeare's women is that they consistently fall for the most unappreciative, banal, and superficial men. I have found it hard to reason why an intelligent woman like Helena in All's Well or Viola in Twelfth Night would actively pursue with all of her energy a man like Bertram (All's Well) or Orsino (Twelfth Night). While this production did not resolve my question, it did, however, reveal an element of humanity in Bertram that truly led me to believe that he, despite his violent attempts to dispose of his wife (going to war and proclaiming she was dead), grew to respect and honor his wife Helena. It seemed that on the brink of his imprisonment he began to see how much Helena loved him.
Now. One of the other new things I found while seeing this play was the way in which narcissism propels the play's actions. For example, Helena cures the King and is thus allowed to choose her husband. She chooses Bertram who then refuses and the King is outraged. Yes, Bertram is a superficial boy who wants to choose his own love and cannot obey the wishes of his family. BUT the King's outrage is so monumental because Bertram DISOBEYS his orders. What starts as an insult against Helena (Bertram refusing to marry her) turns into a King's rage against Bertram because Bertram's disobedience defies the King's rule. In addition, at the end of the play, while Bertram reveals a sense of humanity that justifies him willingly staying with Helena, his shift, I would argue, comes from the recognition of how much Helena loves HIM. Not necessarily because Helena is clever - if he recognized this he would have willingly married her in the first act.
This narcissism in the play contrasts DIRECTLY with Helena's selflessness. She is a slave to her love for Bertram and sacrifices herself to ultimately win him back (literally - by following statements in a letter). Before this production I used to see her speeches proclaiming her guilt about Bertram's fate as a weakness on her part. For example, when Bertram leaves to go to war Helena blames herself - not Bertram's idiocy. What I see now is Shakespeare's attempt to both contrast Helena's blind selflessness with the King and Bertram's blind selfishness. But in addition to the literary contrast, what I saw now in this Helena was a woman who while intelligent, was truly a victim of love.
Shakespeare writes about humanity. All's Well That End's Well is a testament to how love propels and affects all aspects of every single human being. And while I still find it hard to believe that such an intelligent woman would fall for such a doofus as Bertram, I find contentment in Shakespeare's extreme portrayal of blind love in this play. How else could he truly portray selfless love without contrasting Helena's selflessness to Bertram's selfishness? The paradox allows us to see the core of this play - all consuming love.
Lastly, this play emphasized the fairy tale quality of the play. The set used the symbolism of a red riding hood, sparkly slippers, a scary forest, etc., to portray a fantasy world. The play itself debunks what we read in stories as children. The stepmother isn't evil and the prince doesn't automatically fall for you. While this is a story about the humanity of love it is also a play about the reality of life. It proposes a new sort of "happy ending" to the fairy tales. A woman can love and "get" her prince... if she's a smart cookie and has the ambition to do it.
So... there's my novel to you. Perhaps this will turn into a paper in the near future...
As many of you know, I am a Shakespeare fanatic. It seems to be the true "thing" that links my love for academics and my love for acting - it feeds my intellectual and emotional/artistic sides. Seeing great Shakespeare PERFORMED is truly a treat. I loved this performance for a variety of reasons. I did one of Helena's (the protagonist) speeches when I was just starting to really delve into attempting to act Shakespeare. And therefore knew this play very well and seeing it live opened up my eyes to aspects of the play I had never thought of before.
One of the reasons why I love Shakespeare is because he writes fantastic women. His women are notoriously intelligent, calculating, ambitious, emotional, and full of heart (some would beg to differ considering Lady Macbeth but that conversation can be played out later). BUT my one critique of Shakespeare's women is that they consistently fall for the most unappreciative, banal, and superficial men. I have found it hard to reason why an intelligent woman like Helena in All's Well or Viola in Twelfth Night would actively pursue with all of her energy a man like Bertram (All's Well) or Orsino (Twelfth Night). While this production did not resolve my question, it did, however, reveal an element of humanity in Bertram that truly led me to believe that he, despite his violent attempts to dispose of his wife (going to war and proclaiming she was dead), grew to respect and honor his wife Helena. It seemed that on the brink of his imprisonment he began to see how much Helena loved him.
Now. One of the other new things I found while seeing this play was the way in which narcissism propels the play's actions. For example, Helena cures the King and is thus allowed to choose her husband. She chooses Bertram who then refuses and the King is outraged. Yes, Bertram is a superficial boy who wants to choose his own love and cannot obey the wishes of his family. BUT the King's outrage is so monumental because Bertram DISOBEYS his orders. What starts as an insult against Helena (Bertram refusing to marry her) turns into a King's rage against Bertram because Bertram's disobedience defies the King's rule. In addition, at the end of the play, while Bertram reveals a sense of humanity that justifies him willingly staying with Helena, his shift, I would argue, comes from the recognition of how much Helena loves HIM. Not necessarily because Helena is clever - if he recognized this he would have willingly married her in the first act.
This narcissism in the play contrasts DIRECTLY with Helena's selflessness. She is a slave to her love for Bertram and sacrifices herself to ultimately win him back (literally - by following statements in a letter). Before this production I used to see her speeches proclaiming her guilt about Bertram's fate as a weakness on her part. For example, when Bertram leaves to go to war Helena blames herself - not Bertram's idiocy. What I see now is Shakespeare's attempt to both contrast Helena's blind selflessness with the King and Bertram's blind selfishness. But in addition to the literary contrast, what I saw now in this Helena was a woman who while intelligent, was truly a victim of love.
Shakespeare writes about humanity. All's Well That End's Well is a testament to how love propels and affects all aspects of every single human being. And while I still find it hard to believe that such an intelligent woman would fall for such a doofus as Bertram, I find contentment in Shakespeare's extreme portrayal of blind love in this play. How else could he truly portray selfless love without contrasting Helena's selflessness to Bertram's selfishness? The paradox allows us to see the core of this play - all consuming love.
Lastly, this play emphasized the fairy tale quality of the play. The set used the symbolism of a red riding hood, sparkly slippers, a scary forest, etc., to portray a fantasy world. The play itself debunks what we read in stories as children. The stepmother isn't evil and the prince doesn't automatically fall for you. While this is a story about the humanity of love it is also a play about the reality of life. It proposes a new sort of "happy ending" to the fairy tales. A woman can love and "get" her prince... if she's a smart cookie and has the ambition to do it.
So... there's my novel to you. Perhaps this will turn into a paper in the near future...
British "isms" continued
"Hiya" - common greeting
"Are you okay?" - seems odd but it's used a lot when people see you in stores, are looking lost, etc.
"Full Stop" - synonym to a "period" in a sentence
"Faff" - courtesy of Josh Seymour it is akin to "putzing" (think Yiddish)
"Fag" - cigarette
"trolly" - shopping cart
"carriage" - train car
I have attended the famous "Fresher's Fayre" which is essentially booths of the university's student societies and clubs. It's a MADHOUSE. I got loads of free stuff including a BAG of stuff from the Jewish Society.
Today also marks the FIRST of my many trips to the National Theatre to see All's Well that End's Well. This show will actually be BROADCAST which is pretty cool.
Classes start Monday. I have never had a break this long - it's October. I believe I should start on some reading...
"Are you okay?" - seems odd but it's used a lot when people see you in stores, are looking lost, etc.
"Full Stop" - synonym to a "period" in a sentence
"Faff" - courtesy of Josh Seymour it is akin to "putzing" (think Yiddish)
"Fag" - cigarette
"trolly" - shopping cart
"carriage" - train car
I have attended the famous "Fresher's Fayre" which is essentially booths of the university's student societies and clubs. It's a MADHOUSE. I got loads of free stuff including a BAG of stuff from the Jewish Society.
Today also marks the FIRST of my many trips to the National Theatre to see All's Well that End's Well. This show will actually be BROADCAST which is pretty cool.
Classes start Monday. I have never had a break this long - it's October. I believe I should start on some reading...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
