Midday on the last day of this program. Early we had our knowledge tested for the very reason we were here in the first place: our Shakespeare class. 9 plays, all but one Shakespearean (the one being War Horse), 11 identification passages, of which we needed to explain five, and one essay. A long test with a lot of writing. But not...as bad as I thought. We'll see the grade, though.
But I have to say, seeing each play performed really helped put each play in my memory as opposed to just reading them. I had pictures in my head of events, plot points, characterizations. This was the right way to learn Shakespeare. Or any theatre, really. Just reading a play is not as effective; they're good stories, sure, but they're meant to be seen and performed and unfold before an audience. That is when they are most interesting. I can see even the most ardent hater of Shakespeare enjoying such good performances as Richard III and Much Ado. The performance gives the words more meaning and brings everything to life.
So that is the end of the class. More reviews are to come, and more adventures because I still have a day left, and also am traveling throughout Europe with family until I return to the U.S. next Sunday. Even though the program is over, the adventures are not. Not quite yet.
28 July 2011
27 July 2011
Review: Much Ado About Nothing
Going back and writing reviews for the plays I wrote a bit about in entries but didn't fully review. Starting, of course, with the first one.
Much Ado About Nothing was the first play I saw in London, still a bit jet-lagged and therefore hoping it was REALLY good, otherwise I wouldn't stay awake. The theatre itself, the Wyndham, is located right next to Leicester Square, right outside the Tube station, basically where the crowds gather. I'm guessing they would want to put good shows in such a theatre, and Much Ado did not disappoint.
This particular version took place in the 1980's in a Mediterranean setting. There was rock and pop music. There was an updated version of a Shakespearean song (and accompanying dance) to end the play. Modern but a bit distant. A bit flashy. "Razz-ma-tazz" as our professor put it. And while some points of the play were interpreted in an over-the-top sort of way, this being a comedy, it didn't really take away from the story, and for the most part the play was really good.
Now, one thing I've learned on this trip is that the actors can really make or break a play. A director's interpretation can be really good (or bad, alternatively) but an actor has a lot of power over how everything is received. I would have to say that as the couple that spars constantly using wit, David Tennant and Catherine Tate were cast perfectly as Benedick and Beatrice. Tennant does wit rather well. Tate is a comedian already. And both have already worked together and bounce very well off each other, as they did in the production, which was fantastic to see.
Not only verbal comedy, but physical comedy as well. The scene where Benedick overhears his friends talking of Beatrice's "love" for him required Tennant to employ all manner of physical comedy, with a bucket of white paint, given that Benedick doesn't actually have many lines in this scene but is very much present the whole time. This was hilarious, made even more so by his following soliloquy in which he absorbs this information. Tate's scene required the same from her, but in this case the director's choice of how it was carried out made it less successful; she had to hang from a hook and swing in the air, which was one of the more over-the-top moments of the play that didn't quite work out.
Much Ado also requires a bit of dramatic acting from the two leads, given that an unsuccessful wedding affects Beatrice's cousin Hero badly, and she asks Benedick to prove his love by killing Hero's almost-husband Claudio. Tennant balanced the comedy and drama well, while Tate had a bit more trouble transitioning between the two. But those scenes didn't make up a majority of the play, so the trouble was no too noticeable. All in all, Tennant and Tate were excellent.
Opposite Benedick and Beatrice are Hero and Claudio, the more standard couple who are in love with each other because, well, they love each other. Here, played by Sarah Macrae and Tom Bateman, they were a lot less interesting. It probably didn't help that both were less experienced actors in roles that were always up against roles being played by extremely experienced actors. But part of the reason Macrae and Bateman weren't remarkable was very likely because their characters don't have much to them, either.
On the whole, the acting was really good. Adam James worked well as Don Pedro, friend to Claudio. Alex Beckett was suitably unlikable as Borachio, as was Elliot Levey hatable as Don John, the villain of the play. And Jonathan Coy was a pretty amiable Leonato, father to Hero, up until he got very angry during the marriage scene.
I always think a production is good if I have the desire to see it again, and I would go see Much Ado About Nothing again if I could. Unfortunately for me, but fortunately for them, tickets are sold out for the rest of the run. Which is probably a good indicator that on the whole, the play has been a success.
Much Ado About Nothing was the first play I saw in London, still a bit jet-lagged and therefore hoping it was REALLY good, otherwise I wouldn't stay awake. The theatre itself, the Wyndham, is located right next to Leicester Square, right outside the Tube station, basically where the crowds gather. I'm guessing they would want to put good shows in such a theatre, and Much Ado did not disappoint.
This particular version took place in the 1980's in a Mediterranean setting. There was rock and pop music. There was an updated version of a Shakespearean song (and accompanying dance) to end the play. Modern but a bit distant. A bit flashy. "Razz-ma-tazz" as our professor put it. And while some points of the play were interpreted in an over-the-top sort of way, this being a comedy, it didn't really take away from the story, and for the most part the play was really good.
Now, one thing I've learned on this trip is that the actors can really make or break a play. A director's interpretation can be really good (or bad, alternatively) but an actor has a lot of power over how everything is received. I would have to say that as the couple that spars constantly using wit, David Tennant and Catherine Tate were cast perfectly as Benedick and Beatrice. Tennant does wit rather well. Tate is a comedian already. And both have already worked together and bounce very well off each other, as they did in the production, which was fantastic to see.
Not only verbal comedy, but physical comedy as well. The scene where Benedick overhears his friends talking of Beatrice's "love" for him required Tennant to employ all manner of physical comedy, with a bucket of white paint, given that Benedick doesn't actually have many lines in this scene but is very much present the whole time. This was hilarious, made even more so by his following soliloquy in which he absorbs this information. Tate's scene required the same from her, but in this case the director's choice of how it was carried out made it less successful; she had to hang from a hook and swing in the air, which was one of the more over-the-top moments of the play that didn't quite work out.
Much Ado also requires a bit of dramatic acting from the two leads, given that an unsuccessful wedding affects Beatrice's cousin Hero badly, and she asks Benedick to prove his love by killing Hero's almost-husband Claudio. Tennant balanced the comedy and drama well, while Tate had a bit more trouble transitioning between the two. But those scenes didn't make up a majority of the play, so the trouble was no too noticeable. All in all, Tennant and Tate were excellent.
Opposite Benedick and Beatrice are Hero and Claudio, the more standard couple who are in love with each other because, well, they love each other. Here, played by Sarah Macrae and Tom Bateman, they were a lot less interesting. It probably didn't help that both were less experienced actors in roles that were always up against roles being played by extremely experienced actors. But part of the reason Macrae and Bateman weren't remarkable was very likely because their characters don't have much to them, either.
On the whole, the acting was really good. Adam James worked well as Don Pedro, friend to Claudio. Alex Beckett was suitably unlikable as Borachio, as was Elliot Levey hatable as Don John, the villain of the play. And Jonathan Coy was a pretty amiable Leonato, father to Hero, up until he got very angry during the marriage scene.
I always think a production is good if I have the desire to see it again, and I would go see Much Ado About Nothing again if I could. Unfortunately for me, but fortunately for them, tickets are sold out for the rest of the run. Which is probably a good indicator that on the whole, the play has been a success.
24 July 2011
The Last of London
I had to cancel a trip to Dublin due to our last play, As You Like It, being shown the night I was supposed to leave. Instead I took two day-trips to London on Friday and Saturday to get in some things I hadn't been able to do in the first three weeks, and the time spent was well worth it.
Friday I decided to go to the Camden Locks Market, which I had heard many good things about from other people on my program but I hadn't gotten the chance to go there myself. I'm really glad I did. Camden is a part of London that is extremely unique, a trait which is reflected in the market, where you can find anything. Handmade clothing, vintage, a lot of hookah, instruments exotic and standard, masks, leather-bound journals, a LOT of food. I entered through the Stable Market which is situated in an actual old stable. Market stalls are in old horse stalls, and the place has a really cool atmosphere because of this. It leads directly into Camden Lock Market, situated on the canal that runs through Camden, hence the 'lock' part of the name. It was nice to see the canal and the locks, and the market that had sprung up beside it, full of people of all different sorts selling many cool things. I got plenty of food and a lovely red leather journal to write in. There were many other tempting things to buy but I managed to beat the temptation.
This not spending more money didn't last too long. Next on my list of things to do was to walk the River Thames South Bank, where I had been two years ago. The area just before the London Eye is an extremely fun place, but this time around I missed it, so I decided to try and explore the area again aftr Camden. I got off the train at London Bridge and got lost in the best way possible--by stumbling into Borough Market, a food market where one could find anything from cider and fruit juice to fresh meat and fish, to bread and desserts. There was no shortage of mouth watering possibilities and I may have picked up some items to eat. Purchases well worth the money.
I did eventually find my way to the river's walkway after a detour due to construction on Blackfriar's Bridge. The walk, which passes by the National Theatre and leads towards the London Eye, has all sorts of fun things going for it. Towards the beginning two men were making sand sculptures on the bank of the Thames, which looked more like a beach than the side of a river. Past that there was the South Bank Book Market, which had all sorts of books, not in any particular order, which made it particularly fun to wander through. I was surprised at some of the books I saw. There were some old editions of Agatha Christie and Charles Dickens stories, and more recent books as well.
Past the book market were trees. It seems that an area like a boardwalk, complete with sand, has been placed for a distance of this walkway at the waterside to make everything seem more beachy, which is a really cool addition to the walkway. There were street performers closer the the Eye, a lot of food venders (I got ice cream), and a LOT of tourists. There was plenty to look at.
I made my way past the Eye and crossed the bridge to Parliament, Big Ben, and Westminster Abbey. I didn't linger long, and walked back up Regent Street to see some of the shops there, before taking the train from Picadilly Circus to Paddington, from where (after a two hour wait) I journeyed back to Oxford.
The next day I did quite a bit less, having been exhausted by the first day. I wandered around Leicester Square and Picadilly Circus a bit. I walked into the Torcadero mall, curious since it's in the middle of everything, only to be met with limited options and even some closed stores and a surprisingly empty mall. It was actually a bit creepy rather in the same way a closed down amusement park is creepy. I spent a majority of my time in Covent Garden, where there is a piazza, the London Transport Museum (I only went into the store because the museum had a fee) and an indoor market in what looks like an older train terminal. I did not buy anything except for a good lunch and dessert, but I was happy to wander the stores and venders.
I also got a cinnamon bun from Cinnabon before going back. It was my dinner and a very good conclusion to my last visit to London on this trip.
21 July 2011
The Play That Shakespeare Probably Didn't Write (Also How Gregory Doran Is Awesome)
Adding to what is sure to be a more review-oriented blog now that the touring activities of this trip have been scaled down and the focus has turned more towards the plays...
The Royal Shakespeare Company is making an interesting move putting on Cardenio, a "lost" play of Shakespeare's that many people aren't even sure (or convinced) that Shakespeare wrote. It is also an incomplete play, which gives anyone producing it the challenge of not only interpreting the play in a unique way, but filling in the gaps as well to make a coherent story out of something unfinished. And to take all that and make it good. It is hard work.
Put up to the task is director Gregory Doran, who previously directed the RSC production of Hamlet with David Tennant and Patrick Stewart, and did it extremely well. So I had faith going in that this production would likely be fairly good, but there was still a bit of doubt that it could go wrong. Luckily, it did not.
Doran created an atmosphere with costumes, music, and lighting, as well as with the set design (mostly making use of a mirror in the back--he likes mirrors--and a gate) appropriate to the Spanish setting and completely absorbing. He made another good move by casting talented actors, some in their first professional production, including the lead of Cardenio himself, which worked to the play's advantage. After all, a well interpreted production can still fail if the actors are not good.
But although the play itself was a conventional comedy in plotline, with Cardenio and Fernando fighting over the same woman, some jaunts into a forest, and marriages, if not all happy, in the end. The play reflects several others of Shakespeare's: the lines "love passing well" are also used in Hamlet, Luscinda collapsing at her marriage is like Hero's pretending to die at hers during Much Ado About Nothing, the somewhat forced marriage between Fernando and Dorotea at the end is like the not-so-happy ending of All's Well That Ends Well, a scene where Fernando professes his love to Dorotea from below her balcony seems like a (funnier) version of Romeo & Juliet, amongst others. These similarities are easier to notice during the performance of the play than while simply reading it. Indeed, while watching it seemed the play was written by someone heavily influenced by Shakespeare and his plays, rather than by Shakespeare himself.
Despite all this the production manages to keep the audience entertained and intrigued with actors who flesh the characters out, and who are made to use most of the set. There is music to set the tone. There is a dance number at the end, as is fitting for a comedy, but that is extremely well choreographed to be more than just a romp around the stage, but rather an excellently crafted, intense dance done in what seems like a Spanish style.
Overall, Cardenio is worth watching. Gregory Doran, yet again, turned out another fine production. In fact, it is even more worth watching than the RSC's main-stage production of Macbeth that my class saw last week.
Tomorrow: As You Like It by the Globe Theatre's touring company.
The Royal Shakespeare Company is making an interesting move putting on Cardenio, a "lost" play of Shakespeare's that many people aren't even sure (or convinced) that Shakespeare wrote. It is also an incomplete play, which gives anyone producing it the challenge of not only interpreting the play in a unique way, but filling in the gaps as well to make a coherent story out of something unfinished. And to take all that and make it good. It is hard work.
Put up to the task is director Gregory Doran, who previously directed the RSC production of Hamlet with David Tennant and Patrick Stewart, and did it extremely well. So I had faith going in that this production would likely be fairly good, but there was still a bit of doubt that it could go wrong. Luckily, it did not.
Doran created an atmosphere with costumes, music, and lighting, as well as with the set design (mostly making use of a mirror in the back--he likes mirrors--and a gate) appropriate to the Spanish setting and completely absorbing. He made another good move by casting talented actors, some in their first professional production, including the lead of Cardenio himself, which worked to the play's advantage. After all, a well interpreted production can still fail if the actors are not good.
But although the play itself was a conventional comedy in plotline, with Cardenio and Fernando fighting over the same woman, some jaunts into a forest, and marriages, if not all happy, in the end. The play reflects several others of Shakespeare's: the lines "love passing well" are also used in Hamlet, Luscinda collapsing at her marriage is like Hero's pretending to die at hers during Much Ado About Nothing, the somewhat forced marriage between Fernando and Dorotea at the end is like the not-so-happy ending of All's Well That Ends Well, a scene where Fernando professes his love to Dorotea from below her balcony seems like a (funnier) version of Romeo & Juliet, amongst others. These similarities are easier to notice during the performance of the play than while simply reading it. Indeed, while watching it seemed the play was written by someone heavily influenced by Shakespeare and his plays, rather than by Shakespeare himself.
Despite all this the production manages to keep the audience entertained and intrigued with actors who flesh the characters out, and who are made to use most of the set. There is music to set the tone. There is a dance number at the end, as is fitting for a comedy, but that is extremely well choreographed to be more than just a romp around the stage, but rather an excellently crafted, intense dance done in what seems like a Spanish style.
Overall, Cardenio is worth watching. Gregory Doran, yet again, turned out another fine production. In fact, it is even more worth watching than the RSC's main-stage production of Macbeth that my class saw last week.
Tomorrow: As You Like It by the Globe Theatre's touring company.
20 July 2011
The Deathly Hallows (A Commentary on the Final Harry Potter Story)
I am a Harry Potter fan. I've read all the books and seen all the movies. In fact, it was Harry Potter that got me into reading in the first place by showing me that books can completely take you into a new and fantastic world, and teach you a few things on the journey. That said, I hadn't read the seventh book in a long time, and certainly not right before the movies came out. I remembered enough to know what happened but not the minute details that people tend to get caught up in. And now, I feel like I've started to learn the difficulties of translating a book to a movie when they are such different mediums. (If anything proves that I am of this opinion it will be that Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite of the movies.) In many cases, changes need to be made to make a book work for the screen, and one can't expect everything from the book to make it. In that respect, I think that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 was extremely well done. More so than most of the other Harry Potter movies.
What Deathly Hallows does so well is create an atmosphere of dark uneasiness, and a constant sense of drawing towards an end. Everything is gray and dark. Hogwarts no longer seems a magical place. In fact, the movie is a stark contrast to the first movie where everything about the wizarding world seemed magical. Now it is a weary and war torn place, the life having been sucked out of it by Voldemort.
Part 2 is better than Part 1 and most of the other movies in that it gets to the point quickly, which is a great benefit of there being two parts to Deathly Hallows. The action starts up from the beginning, with the breaking into Bellatrix's vault to get a horcrux, and then leading into the war building at Hogwarts castle, which resembles of refugee camp more than a school.
And the actors all do pretty good work as well, but the most impressive, despite not having enough screen time, perhaps, is Alan Rickman as Snape. Snape has the most interesting story of anyone in Deathly Hallows aside from Voldemort, Harry, and Dumbledore, and it is a terribly tragic one. Rickman portrays Snape with the perfect balance of the harsh man Harry sees him as and a man who could love Lily Potter so much that he would swear to protect her son despite his hatred of Lily's husband, and despite the danger involved in doing so. The Snape scenes were the best to watch, by far.
The intensity of the movie was mostly constant and came out strongly during many of the fighting scenes. There is also the matter of Snape's death scene, handled in the most brutal way possible, which was actually a good move. It was harsh and intense and didn't hold back. And that is what made it stand out among the many deaths.
Certain scenes were awkward or felt unnecessary, and some were overdramatic, such as the Elder Wand flying in slow-motion towards Harry's hand. But these moments, found in pretty much all of the Harry Potter films in order to make everything more intense, did not stand out so much as to ruin the rest of the film. For the most part Deathly Hallows Part 2 was entertaining for the full time, and even heartbreaking in places. And not just because it was the last story in the series, but because the film actually managed to show the tragedy of certain characters as a result of the war between Voldemort and Harry, in and of itself. Rather like the book did. And what matters is that the movie kept the spirit of the book and told the story well in the best way that it could be told on screen.
What Deathly Hallows does so well is create an atmosphere of dark uneasiness, and a constant sense of drawing towards an end. Everything is gray and dark. Hogwarts no longer seems a magical place. In fact, the movie is a stark contrast to the first movie where everything about the wizarding world seemed magical. Now it is a weary and war torn place, the life having been sucked out of it by Voldemort.
Part 2 is better than Part 1 and most of the other movies in that it gets to the point quickly, which is a great benefit of there being two parts to Deathly Hallows. The action starts up from the beginning, with the breaking into Bellatrix's vault to get a horcrux, and then leading into the war building at Hogwarts castle, which resembles of refugee camp more than a school.
And the actors all do pretty good work as well, but the most impressive, despite not having enough screen time, perhaps, is Alan Rickman as Snape. Snape has the most interesting story of anyone in Deathly Hallows aside from Voldemort, Harry, and Dumbledore, and it is a terribly tragic one. Rickman portrays Snape with the perfect balance of the harsh man Harry sees him as and a man who could love Lily Potter so much that he would swear to protect her son despite his hatred of Lily's husband, and despite the danger involved in doing so. The Snape scenes were the best to watch, by far.
The intensity of the movie was mostly constant and came out strongly during many of the fighting scenes. There is also the matter of Snape's death scene, handled in the most brutal way possible, which was actually a good move. It was harsh and intense and didn't hold back. And that is what made it stand out among the many deaths.
Certain scenes were awkward or felt unnecessary, and some were overdramatic, such as the Elder Wand flying in slow-motion towards Harry's hand. But these moments, found in pretty much all of the Harry Potter films in order to make everything more intense, did not stand out so much as to ruin the rest of the film. For the most part Deathly Hallows Part 2 was entertaining for the full time, and even heartbreaking in places. And not just because it was the last story in the series, but because the film actually managed to show the tragedy of certain characters as a result of the war between Voldemort and Harry, in and of itself. Rather like the book did. And what matters is that the movie kept the spirit of the book and told the story well in the best way that it could be told on screen.
19 July 2011
Macbeth Part II
On this trip I've been given the opportunity to see many productions of Shakespeare, and in particular while in Oxford, two different versions of the same production. I find it interesting to see how different directors interpret one play, in this case Macbeth. The Royal Shakespeare Company, whose production I saw last week, and the Oxford Theatre Guild, whose Macbeth I saw last night, both interpreted Macbeth in wildly different ways. And while neither had a particularly amazing (or even good, in the case of the second) production, there were interesting and contrasting choices made by the directors of both.
I will start off by saying that even though I've seen two productions of Macbeth, they are the only two I've seen, and since both were not what I would consider conventional in that neither stuck very close to the text, I would say that in watching both I felt a bit like I'd lost an opportunity. I wanted to see a Macbeth as I've heard of Macbeth, with three witches, a lot of blood and murder, and the general creepiness which accompanies the play in general.
The RSC's production was extremely creepy and unsettling, and if they did one thing well it was creating an atmosphere that was meant to make the audience uneasy and make one feel almost as if in a nightmare. The sets were dark, there was a lot of blood staining pale skin and white costumes. The witches were replaced with children who came down from the ceiling on meathooks and eerily pronounced Macbeth's future before running away, laughing. They cut such famous lines as 'something wicked this way comes.' The porter, a comical character, was made to double as the porter to hell, leading away the dead characters through a door. There was excellent music made by three women in full view playing cellos, and although a lot of the play lacked in good acting and made some interesting decisions regarding religious imagery that didn't quite work, the ending of the play was extremely striking to watch. As the cello music swelled, filling the theatre with foreboding music, a once dead Macbeth rose from the floor and stared towards a door filled with black, to which the Porter beckoned him, and as he took his first steps forward the lights darkened and the theatre fell silent.
Now, the Oxford Macbeth was given a similar ending, but with only recorded music and at the mercy of the setting sun, being outdoors, they weren't quite able to make the performance area pitch black, or fill the audience with the same sense of unease because they couldn't create the atmosphere in which to do so. I wondered if they were aware of the ending of the RSC production and had tried to replicate it, or if this is how Macbeths usually end. A huge difference between this and the RSC production was that this time there were witches--9 of them, to be exact, and not all of them women. Barely any of their lines were cut and indeed the part of the witches was made larger, with at least one witch on stage for most of the play, giving the impression that they were influencing largely the events of the play, making the story less about Macbeth's own ambition leading to his downfall and instead putting all events in the hands of fate. This perhaps could have been done just as well with just three witches.
Both productions had, well, not-so-good acting and, in the Oxford production, not-so-good anything else aside from interesting interpretation of events. But it was really fascinating to see how this one play was interpreted in completely opposite ways by two different theatre companies. With the RSC there were no witches, just the ghosts of children, which left the fault to Macbeth more than anyone else. With the Oxford production the witches had control of everything, and so Macbeth was relieved of his responsibility for his actions. This shows how important the role of the director is in putting on a play, and also perhaps why Shakespeare's plays never lose their appeal: each director who puts it on has a different way of conveying the story to the audience. Just watch any two productions of Hamlet and it becomes clear that two different versions of this same play could almost seem like two different plays, just as the two different productions of Macbeth came across.
I may post more detailed reviews of the other plays, or just talk about them in general, since on this program I've seen a lot of interesting interpretations of Shakespeare in general. Many I haven't been detailed about because I've had to review them for class. But after some time I probably will be able to write about them in a shorter than 10 page blog.
I will start off by saying that even though I've seen two productions of Macbeth, they are the only two I've seen, and since both were not what I would consider conventional in that neither stuck very close to the text, I would say that in watching both I felt a bit like I'd lost an opportunity. I wanted to see a Macbeth as I've heard of Macbeth, with three witches, a lot of blood and murder, and the general creepiness which accompanies the play in general.
The RSC's production was extremely creepy and unsettling, and if they did one thing well it was creating an atmosphere that was meant to make the audience uneasy and make one feel almost as if in a nightmare. The sets were dark, there was a lot of blood staining pale skin and white costumes. The witches were replaced with children who came down from the ceiling on meathooks and eerily pronounced Macbeth's future before running away, laughing. They cut such famous lines as 'something wicked this way comes.' The porter, a comical character, was made to double as the porter to hell, leading away the dead characters through a door. There was excellent music made by three women in full view playing cellos, and although a lot of the play lacked in good acting and made some interesting decisions regarding religious imagery that didn't quite work, the ending of the play was extremely striking to watch. As the cello music swelled, filling the theatre with foreboding music, a once dead Macbeth rose from the floor and stared towards a door filled with black, to which the Porter beckoned him, and as he took his first steps forward the lights darkened and the theatre fell silent.
Now, the Oxford Macbeth was given a similar ending, but with only recorded music and at the mercy of the setting sun, being outdoors, they weren't quite able to make the performance area pitch black, or fill the audience with the same sense of unease because they couldn't create the atmosphere in which to do so. I wondered if they were aware of the ending of the RSC production and had tried to replicate it, or if this is how Macbeths usually end. A huge difference between this and the RSC production was that this time there were witches--9 of them, to be exact, and not all of them women. Barely any of their lines were cut and indeed the part of the witches was made larger, with at least one witch on stage for most of the play, giving the impression that they were influencing largely the events of the play, making the story less about Macbeth's own ambition leading to his downfall and instead putting all events in the hands of fate. This perhaps could have been done just as well with just three witches.
Both productions had, well, not-so-good acting and, in the Oxford production, not-so-good anything else aside from interesting interpretation of events. But it was really fascinating to see how this one play was interpreted in completely opposite ways by two different theatre companies. With the RSC there were no witches, just the ghosts of children, which left the fault to Macbeth more than anyone else. With the Oxford production the witches had control of everything, and so Macbeth was relieved of his responsibility for his actions. This shows how important the role of the director is in putting on a play, and also perhaps why Shakespeare's plays never lose their appeal: each director who puts it on has a different way of conveying the story to the audience. Just watch any two productions of Hamlet and it becomes clear that two different versions of this same play could almost seem like two different plays, just as the two different productions of Macbeth came across.
I may post more detailed reviews of the other plays, or just talk about them in general, since on this program I've seen a lot of interesting interpretations of Shakespeare in general. Many I haven't been detailed about because I've had to review them for class. But after some time I probably will be able to write about them in a shorter than 10 page blog.
18 July 2011
Edinburgh Part 2
The above are just a sampling of the scenes that Edinburgh had to offer. The second day I checked out of the place I was staying and once again went forth, with all my belongings, to explore. I actually poked around the University of Edinburgh, which is just as beautiful as the rest of the city, though a lot of it, including the main quad of the Old College building, was under construction.
Later I decided to walk along Leith Walk to see if I could find the coast. 3 miles later I was exhausted, and the area around the coast was confusing and not particularly interesting. It was also starting to rain, so I took a bus back into the main part of the city to see what I could find there.
What I did find was the Scottish National Museum, which told the history of the Scottish people from way back in the early days of Scotland to the present day, chronicling things such as development of cities, inventions, Scottish culture, immigration, and concerns of people today in Scotland. It was extremely interesting, and definitely offered a lot to learn about Scotland.
Afterwards I sat in a restaurant for two hours and when I came out it looked ready to rain again. Actually, there was a thunder storm coming in. At one point there was a huge bang of thunder and people in the streets cheered. And then it rained. Again.
I also purchased a lovely coat, which I left on the second bus coming back, because having been on buses for 8 hours and having been cold and kept mostly awake, I apparently wasn't in the right mindset to take all my things with me. Hopefully I can get it back: that coat was beautiful and I will be very upset if it doesn't turn up. I might be forced to order it again--it was that good of a coat!
Next weekend I may just take a trip to London and hang around Oxford. No one seems to have definite plans, as is always the case, so I'm left trying to figure out what is good to do alone.
*I would also like to make a special mention about fried Mars Bars, which chip shops in Scotland like to make, in addition to frying pretty much anything else. Fried Mars Bars are GOOD.
16 July 2011
Edinburgh Part 1
In the case of Edinburgh pictures would be a better way of described with pictures. However, blogger can only take so much and, more to the point, I can't upload my pictures until Sunday.
I arrived after an interesting overnight bus trip (during which I nearly didn't get to my second bus, having gotten off at the wrong place on the first because they don't tell you where they're dropping you off) around 8:30am, at which point there wasn't much going on. I couldn't check into my hotel place until 3pm. So I decided to wander.
Apparently I'm a pretty fortunate wanderer. After heading to Princes Street, at the center of the city, I walked up towards where the higher part of the city was, near the castle. The castle which, by the way, is on its own cliff above most of the city. The street I wandered down happened to lead straight into the Royal Mile, a mile of a bunch of shops and cafes down a cobblestone road lined with old buildings. In fact, fantastic architecture and old buildings that look really cool are everywhere. At the end of the Royal Mile is a castle and a park with cliffs to climb, so with nothing better to do, I climbed one of the cliffs overlooking the city. And what a view I had, the whole of Edinburgh and the beginnings of the ocean spread out before me. It was amazing. I sat down near the edge for awhile, ate some chocolate, and read some Fellowship of the Rings in the coolest possible reading setting I could think of.
Then I wandered back down to ground level and met with some friends. We went to lunch at the Elephant Cafe, where JK Rowling wrote the first Harry Potter book. The food was good; I got a 'jacket' potato with chicken tikka. Interesting combination but a good one. We headed over to the older part of town, in a completely different area near the Botanical Gardens. The houses here were pretty as well, and I got to see what is claimed to be Edinburgh's prettiest street, Anne Street. And with wonderful houses and lined with trees and flowers, with a cobblestone road, it certainly was beautiful.
Later, we headed out to the Royal Oak, a tiny pub in which folk music entertained the guests. We stayed for a few hours, just taking in the excellent singing and guitar playing of both actual folk songs and covers of some old artists done in acoustic style. A few songs directed at the U.S. were sung as well, which was amusing and also nice.
So now I'm exhausted and ready for my next full day in Edinburgh, which will involve me carrying all my stuff around again. And to end it all: catch a bus at 10pm that will arrive in some town at 5:30am, catch another bus at 6:30am and arrive in Oxford at 8am. Not that much sleep. Not much comfort at all. But so worth it.
I arrived after an interesting overnight bus trip (during which I nearly didn't get to my second bus, having gotten off at the wrong place on the first because they don't tell you where they're dropping you off) around 8:30am, at which point there wasn't much going on. I couldn't check into my hotel place until 3pm. So I decided to wander.
Apparently I'm a pretty fortunate wanderer. After heading to Princes Street, at the center of the city, I walked up towards where the higher part of the city was, near the castle. The castle which, by the way, is on its own cliff above most of the city. The street I wandered down happened to lead straight into the Royal Mile, a mile of a bunch of shops and cafes down a cobblestone road lined with old buildings. In fact, fantastic architecture and old buildings that look really cool are everywhere. At the end of the Royal Mile is a castle and a park with cliffs to climb, so with nothing better to do, I climbed one of the cliffs overlooking the city. And what a view I had, the whole of Edinburgh and the beginnings of the ocean spread out before me. It was amazing. I sat down near the edge for awhile, ate some chocolate, and read some Fellowship of the Rings in the coolest possible reading setting I could think of.
Then I wandered back down to ground level and met with some friends. We went to lunch at the Elephant Cafe, where JK Rowling wrote the first Harry Potter book. The food was good; I got a 'jacket' potato with chicken tikka. Interesting combination but a good one. We headed over to the older part of town, in a completely different area near the Botanical Gardens. The houses here were pretty as well, and I got to see what is claimed to be Edinburgh's prettiest street, Anne Street. And with wonderful houses and lined with trees and flowers, with a cobblestone road, it certainly was beautiful.
Later, we headed out to the Royal Oak, a tiny pub in which folk music entertained the guests. We stayed for a few hours, just taking in the excellent singing and guitar playing of both actual folk songs and covers of some old artists done in acoustic style. A few songs directed at the U.S. were sung as well, which was amusing and also nice.
So now I'm exhausted and ready for my next full day in Edinburgh, which will involve me carrying all my stuff around again. And to end it all: catch a bus at 10pm that will arrive in some town at 5:30am, catch another bus at 6:30am and arrive in Oxford at 8am. Not that much sleep. Not much comfort at all. But so worth it.
14 July 2011
Lots of Shakespeare
As part of our lesson plan involving seeing many of Shakespeare's plays performed, our class took a trip to Stratford-Upon Avon to see Shakespeare's birthplace, where he lived, and to see the Royal Shakespeare Company put on Macbeth.
Stratford is just over an hour's bus ride from Oxford, so we departed right after class and ended up at Shakespeare's birthplace. Then we walked over to the house next to the house where Shakespeare used to live (his actual house was torn down; archeologists have been digging up the foundation) and then to the house of his doctor friend. Due to the RSC being around, there were also a lot of props from Shakespeare's productions over the years with many references to the actors who have played in the RSC plays, such as David Tennant (As You Like It, Hamlet, among many others), Patrick Stewart (Macbeth, Hamlet, among many others), and Ian McKellen (King Lear, probably among others). There was also the awesome Shakespeare's First Folio, open to display Henry V.
We visited the site where Shakespeare was buried, located inside a very old church from the 1200's. It was a very pretty church, and Shakespeare was buried next to his family and friends, which was nice. (I won't go into the whole R & G Are Dead thing about being dead in a box...)
I had been looking forward to seeing a production put on by the Royal Shakespeare Company, though I was a little disappointed at their Macbeth--apparently they can be very hit or miss. There were no witches, just ghostly children, so some of the more famous scenes and lines were cut. There was a LOT of religious imagery. The actors were not particularly good. And yet...the lighting and music gave the play a wonderfully creepy atmosphere. Particularly the music, supplied by three cellos, which was creepy and beautifully haunting at the same time, especially during the ending sequence after Macbeth's death where he rises, a ghost, and walks into the darkness, with nothing but the cellos playing in the background. So, a bit disappointing but with some great directorial choices.
I'm excited for the next RSC production we see, Cardenio. It's directed by Gregory Doran, who directed the Hamlet with David Tennant and did some excellent work with the story. So I have faith that this should be very good.
Then we got home, not too late because the bus driver apparently drove really fast, and today I head off the Edinburgh on an overnight bus trip. Should be...interesting, to say the least.
Stratford is just over an hour's bus ride from Oxford, so we departed right after class and ended up at Shakespeare's birthplace. Then we walked over to the house next to the house where Shakespeare used to live (his actual house was torn down; archeologists have been digging up the foundation) and then to the house of his doctor friend. Due to the RSC being around, there were also a lot of props from Shakespeare's productions over the years with many references to the actors who have played in the RSC plays, such as David Tennant (As You Like It, Hamlet, among many others), Patrick Stewart (Macbeth, Hamlet, among many others), and Ian McKellen (King Lear, probably among others). There was also the awesome Shakespeare's First Folio, open to display Henry V.
We visited the site where Shakespeare was buried, located inside a very old church from the 1200's. It was a very pretty church, and Shakespeare was buried next to his family and friends, which was nice. (I won't go into the whole R & G Are Dead thing about being dead in a box...)
I had been looking forward to seeing a production put on by the Royal Shakespeare Company, though I was a little disappointed at their Macbeth--apparently they can be very hit or miss. There were no witches, just ghostly children, so some of the more famous scenes and lines were cut. There was a LOT of religious imagery. The actors were not particularly good. And yet...the lighting and music gave the play a wonderfully creepy atmosphere. Particularly the music, supplied by three cellos, which was creepy and beautifully haunting at the same time, especially during the ending sequence after Macbeth's death where he rises, a ghost, and walks into the darkness, with nothing but the cellos playing in the background. So, a bit disappointing but with some great directorial choices.
I'm excited for the next RSC production we see, Cardenio. It's directed by Gregory Doran, who directed the Hamlet with David Tennant and did some excellent work with the story. So I have faith that this should be very good.
Then we got home, not too late because the bus driver apparently drove really fast, and today I head off the Edinburgh on an overnight bus trip. Should be...interesting, to say the least.
12 July 2011
Oxford vs London
In other words, I didn't really do anything and my need to pass time has gotten unbearable. Well, not really, but I'm bored enough to write a blog about something that I otherwise probably wouldn't have written about. The blog being--Reasons Why Oxford Is Different From London
-Single room. With a sink in it. The wireless internet is crap, though, so ethernet is required. Also there are MAIDS. Who clean the rooms every day (except weekends, I think). I mean....that is unheard of! Except for in hotels. I was shocked when I came back from class yesterday to find my bedsheets neatly made up. Which is one good thing, because like London all my belongings are scattered carelessly around the room. I'm not much of an unpacker when I'm staying somewhere for less than a long time. And three weeks is apparently not long enough.
-Less walking, though more walking everywhere, since Oxford does not have the option of a train system. So even when it rains, walking is still required. There is the bus. But buses are hard to work out.
-Not as much take-away food. And not as much food open after 5pm. Especially on Sundays. If you want food you're better off eating out, but I don't like to eat in restaurants alone. That's weird.
-HOWEVER served breakfast and lunches in Oxford St. Edmund College dining hall (which my room is conveniently right next to). Breakfast is a buffet and lunch has actual waitresses serve us. It feels odd, like being a wealthy person instead of now-broke college students. And the food...is good. Lunch is always a very filling meal.
-Better architecture. Now, I love the way London looks. It's old in a much better way than, say, New York City is old. But Oxford just looks beautiful, with the gothic style golden buildings. Although I will say they look a lot less pleasant and much more intimidating when it rains.
-Tourists are more concentrated. Therefore more frustrating.
-London does not have a lack of food options until after 11pm. Oxford...has a lack of food options.
-Oxford also doesn't do good with wireless. At least not in my building.
-Oxford makes one feel smarter and more motivated to work and also live a generally healthy life. London makes one want to do...other things.
-Single room. With a sink in it. The wireless internet is crap, though, so ethernet is required. Also there are MAIDS. Who clean the rooms every day (except weekends, I think). I mean....that is unheard of! Except for in hotels. I was shocked when I came back from class yesterday to find my bedsheets neatly made up. Which is one good thing, because like London all my belongings are scattered carelessly around the room. I'm not much of an unpacker when I'm staying somewhere for less than a long time. And three weeks is apparently not long enough.
-Less walking, though more walking everywhere, since Oxford does not have the option of a train system. So even when it rains, walking is still required. There is the bus. But buses are hard to work out.
-Not as much take-away food. And not as much food open after 5pm. Especially on Sundays. If you want food you're better off eating out, but I don't like to eat in restaurants alone. That's weird.
-HOWEVER served breakfast and lunches in Oxford St. Edmund College dining hall (which my room is conveniently right next to). Breakfast is a buffet and lunch has actual waitresses serve us. It feels odd, like being a wealthy person instead of now-broke college students. And the food...is good. Lunch is always a very filling meal.
-Better architecture. Now, I love the way London looks. It's old in a much better way than, say, New York City is old. But Oxford just looks beautiful, with the gothic style golden buildings. Although I will say they look a lot less pleasant and much more intimidating when it rains.
-Tourists are more concentrated. Therefore more frustrating.
-London does not have a lack of food options until after 11pm. Oxford...has a lack of food options.
-Oxford also doesn't do good with wireless. At least not in my building.
-Oxford makes one feel smarter and more motivated to work and also live a generally healthy life. London makes one want to do...other things.
11 July 2011
London and Oxford
Well, I haven't written in while because I've made a transition! Friday morning our group checked out of our London flats, headed over to Paddington Station, and took the train to Oxford. I may have to do a separate blog for cool Oxford pictures but for now this blog will be purely narration. There will also need to be another food porn blog, but that comes later.
My last day in London it rained, and there wasn't much going on, hence why I didn't write. During the evening we went to see our last London play, Richard III starring Kevin Spacey. The performance was so booked that our professor could only get us restricted view seats, so we had to lean over a railing from our sort of standing seats at the very top level of the theatre, off to the side, to be able to see 3/4th of the stage. Regardless of this, watching the over 3 hour play from such an uncomfortable position was completely worth it. Spacey was fantastic as Richard, and everything in the play from the set to the music to the acting came together to tell the already interesting story of Richard III in a captivating way. I can see why it's sold out for its run.
The next day most of us made it to the train to Oxford, though a few got onto the platform right as the train pulled away and as a result had to take the next one. Our program takes place in St. Edmund College, one of the smaller of Oxford's colleges but one in which everyone knows my professor (who was a student and teacher at Oxford and has been doing this particular program for years) and in which he knows everyone. He gave us an extensive and very informative tour of Oxford, and later that night a few friends and I went to the pub where C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien went to discuss their writing. As it turns out, my professor was tutored by the first and taught by the second while at Oxford, which makes him infinitely more awesome.
Saturday was Cardiff, a 2 hour train ride to Cardiff Central Station, from where we went to Cardiff Bay. The area is recognizable from Doctor Who and Torchwood, particularly Roahld Dahl Plas, which has been used extensively in Torchwood and a few memorable times in Doctor Who. So much so that there was a memorial to Ianto Jones, the most recent Torchwood member to die.
But more importantly, there was a food festival for local foods, and I managed to try, among other things, a Belgian chocolate tart and a toffee brownie. Which I may include above just because food porn is awesome. I also got to take a boat ride around Cardiff Bay and see Cardiff Castle before heading back to Oxford for a meal and then bed.
Sunday was uninteresting for the most part, made up of wandering about town and trying to push through the many (what seemed like thousands) of tourists who crowded the streets and sidewalks with their amazing ability to take up space. Not much was open for dinner, so I had to go with fast food.
Same story today. After classes and some excellent Oxford food for breakfast and lunch (they provide us with those two meals 4 days a week) I could not find a decent take-away dinner, since I was alone and don't like eating at places alone. So my dinner consisted of Pringles and Cadbury Chocolate spread, which is SO GOOD. But that was it.
Mainly this week will be reading Shakespeare and seeing his plays, so I'll probably have more time to post stuff. This weekend and next will be traveling: Edinburgh and Dublin respectively. I'm excited!
06 July 2011
Tired But Accomplished Post
Short day today due to my only getting 3 hours of sleep last night. Such is a combination of a bad sleep schedule and 4th of July celebrations, even if I didn't take part in them. I'm actually not sure how I went to sleep as late as I did.
Today I ventured over to the British Library in which they had the Magna Carta (not pictured, they wouldn't let you), Shakespeare's folios, and other really old and cool scripts and documents of various sorts. It was interesting to look at the incredibly old writing as it was before publication. Also present was some of Leonardo Da Vinci's work, including mathematical/physics sketches and figures. The library also had an exhibit educating people on science fiction, which included a LOT of books and a TARDIS. Running up the center of the main part of the library is what is called 'The King's Library', which is full of old and very likely very valuable books encased in glass and protected by a door. It makes for a great center piece to the library, as well as is rather intriguing. I think it would be amazing to do some sort of research in that library--they certainly have the resources.
Then I walked into the beautiful St. Pancras International Train Station, simply because I like train stations, especially beautiful ones like this one, whose outside resembles a castle and the inside of which is made of sleek glass and is very open and airy (both are pictured). Last time in London I had been to St. Pancras as a passenger to Paris, but this time I got to walk around and really appreciate the beauty of the station and how awesome it is to be able to step off a train, arriving in London perhaps for the first time, and be greeted with such a grand train station. And it was HUGE.
Then I crossed the street to King's Cross, which serves the London Underground as well as the above ground national rail services. King's Cross is being renovated, rather like St. Pancras was, and is supposed to look amazing once it's finished, but for now it looked like old and decay and a lot of construction, crowds, and confusion. I didn't spend nearly as much time there.
I nearly got lost on the way back (in the unpredicted rain), thinking I had to turn down Farringdon Road as I walked east. However, Farringdon did not come up and I had the feeling that once I passed a sign telling me I had entered Islington, the area just to the east of the one I am staying in, I figured I needed to start heading down any street. I chose to go a block back from where I came from and turned down the street--King's Cross Street, only to find that it turned into Farringdon. Which was lucky. The renaming of the same street several times in London is one thing that I'm not so happy about. It makes finding places confusing.
But I made it, safe and sound and with Belgian (liege) waffles I found at Tescos, which I can have with Nutella! Tomorrow I get to see and review (and later present said review) the Globe's production of Hamlet. Hopefully it won't rain like the forecast says it will.
Today I ventured over to the British Library in which they had the Magna Carta (not pictured, they wouldn't let you), Shakespeare's folios, and other really old and cool scripts and documents of various sorts. It was interesting to look at the incredibly old writing as it was before publication. Also present was some of Leonardo Da Vinci's work, including mathematical/physics sketches and figures. The library also had an exhibit educating people on science fiction, which included a LOT of books and a TARDIS. Running up the center of the main part of the library is what is called 'The King's Library', which is full of old and very likely very valuable books encased in glass and protected by a door. It makes for a great center piece to the library, as well as is rather intriguing. I think it would be amazing to do some sort of research in that library--they certainly have the resources.
Then I walked into the beautiful St. Pancras International Train Station, simply because I like train stations, especially beautiful ones like this one, whose outside resembles a castle and the inside of which is made of sleek glass and is very open and airy (both are pictured). Last time in London I had been to St. Pancras as a passenger to Paris, but this time I got to walk around and really appreciate the beauty of the station and how awesome it is to be able to step off a train, arriving in London perhaps for the first time, and be greeted with such a grand train station. And it was HUGE.
Then I crossed the street to King's Cross, which serves the London Underground as well as the above ground national rail services. King's Cross is being renovated, rather like St. Pancras was, and is supposed to look amazing once it's finished, but for now it looked like old and decay and a lot of construction, crowds, and confusion. I didn't spend nearly as much time there.
I nearly got lost on the way back (in the unpredicted rain), thinking I had to turn down Farringdon Road as I walked east. However, Farringdon did not come up and I had the feeling that once I passed a sign telling me I had entered Islington, the area just to the east of the one I am staying in, I figured I needed to start heading down any street. I chose to go a block back from where I came from and turned down the street--King's Cross Street, only to find that it turned into Farringdon. Which was lucky. The renaming of the same street several times in London is one thing that I'm not so happy about. It makes finding places confusing.
But I made it, safe and sound and with Belgian (liege) waffles I found at Tescos, which I can have with Nutella! Tomorrow I get to see and review (and later present said review) the Globe's production of Hamlet. Hopefully it won't rain like the forecast says it will.
05 July 2011
4th of July In London (Eternity is a terrible staircase)
How else does a U.S. citizen celebrate the 4th of July abroad in London than by getting a free burrito for lunch, going to see a cathedral and then going to see a play and meeting it's actors? Well, I don't know about the drunk masses of Americans that I did not quite see today, but the aforementioned activities are how I spent my Independence Day. Does that sound suitably patriotic? No? Well, it's not that easy trying to find ways to celebrate in a city that thinks it's an ordinary Monday.
This one Mexican place was giving out free burritos to American citizens to celebrate the occasion, so that is where most of our 30 person class went for lunch today. We got there 5 minutes before the place opened and probably overwhelmed the employees, half of which were from the United States themselves. But we all got our free food in the end. Think about it: the burritos usually cost £5 which is $8 about. So we got $8 burritos (really expensive, by the way) for free.
Then we went to St. Paul's Cathedral, where we took a tour and learned such interesting facts as that the second cathedral on the site (the first having been burnt down in London's Great Fire after taking 200 years to build) was built by a physicist and mathematician. Who made sure the structure was scientifically and mathematically sound. And it worked, because St. Paul's current structure, which took only 35 years to build, is a lot stronger than it's predecessor. It has withstood bombs falling on it, which is usually a good indicator of strength.
After the tour we climbed to the top of the dome, which took a lot of steps. A bit exhausting but not too bad until later when you realize your legs are shaking from the effort put upon them earlier. The view is worth it. You can see London stretching out before you on all sides, and on a clear day like the one we had it is magnificent. It costs less than the Eye (by only a few pounds, but still) for pretty much just as good a view of London, and a whole interesting cathedral (with crypts! and free tours) inside to make your money worthwhile. So I'd say skip the Eye and go with St. Paul's.
Later we went to see Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, this time for free, and it was just as good, if not better, the second time around. Samuel Barnett (Rosencrantz) and Jamie Parker (Guildenstern) really outdo themselves both in being hilarious and working so well off each other. They not only work up the funny moments but make sure the audience knows they're friends. At one point Rosencrantz, scared, runs up to Guildenstern, grabs him and pleads "Don't leave me!" (In another similar scene he grips Guildenstern in a tight hug.) And of course, when either character becomes melancholy the other tries to make him happy. And the two of them working so well together, despite having different personality traits, helps emphasize the fact that they are supposed to be two sides of the same coin, essentially. And any actors playing those two parts need to work extremely well together, as in this production, or else the effect would be lost.
Afterwards a few friends and I met Barnett and Parker, both of whom were very nice, and got our programs signed and some pictures. We even told Parker what other shows we'd seen (he asked what was good on the theatre scene) and about our studies. There weren't a lot of people there so it was nice to be able to meet the actors in a more peaceful environment than, say, Wyndham's Theatre and to really be able to tell them how great and funny they were, and to even make conversation. All and all it was a good way to end the night.
The free burrito, which was SO GOOD.
The geometric staircase at St. Paul's.
View of London from the top of St. Paul's.
Millennium Bridge from above.
Met the actors playing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They were so nice!
This one Mexican place was giving out free burritos to American citizens to celebrate the occasion, so that is where most of our 30 person class went for lunch today. We got there 5 minutes before the place opened and probably overwhelmed the employees, half of which were from the United States themselves. But we all got our free food in the end. Think about it: the burritos usually cost £5 which is $8 about. So we got $8 burritos (really expensive, by the way) for free.
Then we went to St. Paul's Cathedral, where we took a tour and learned such interesting facts as that the second cathedral on the site (the first having been burnt down in London's Great Fire after taking 200 years to build) was built by a physicist and mathematician. Who made sure the structure was scientifically and mathematically sound. And it worked, because St. Paul's current structure, which took only 35 years to build, is a lot stronger than it's predecessor. It has withstood bombs falling on it, which is usually a good indicator of strength.
After the tour we climbed to the top of the dome, which took a lot of steps. A bit exhausting but not too bad until later when you realize your legs are shaking from the effort put upon them earlier. The view is worth it. You can see London stretching out before you on all sides, and on a clear day like the one we had it is magnificent. It costs less than the Eye (by only a few pounds, but still) for pretty much just as good a view of London, and a whole interesting cathedral (with crypts! and free tours) inside to make your money worthwhile. So I'd say skip the Eye and go with St. Paul's.
Later we went to see Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, this time for free, and it was just as good, if not better, the second time around. Samuel Barnett (Rosencrantz) and Jamie Parker (Guildenstern) really outdo themselves both in being hilarious and working so well off each other. They not only work up the funny moments but make sure the audience knows they're friends. At one point Rosencrantz, scared, runs up to Guildenstern, grabs him and pleads "Don't leave me!" (In another similar scene he grips Guildenstern in a tight hug.) And of course, when either character becomes melancholy the other tries to make him happy. And the two of them working so well together, despite having different personality traits, helps emphasize the fact that they are supposed to be two sides of the same coin, essentially. And any actors playing those two parts need to work extremely well together, as in this production, or else the effect would be lost.
Afterwards a few friends and I met Barnett and Parker, both of whom were very nice, and got our programs signed and some pictures. We even told Parker what other shows we'd seen (he asked what was good on the theatre scene) and about our studies. There weren't a lot of people there so it was nice to be able to meet the actors in a more peaceful environment than, say, Wyndham's Theatre and to really be able to tell them how great and funny they were, and to even make conversation. All and all it was a good way to end the night.
The free burrito, which was SO GOOD.
The geometric staircase at St. Paul's.
View of London from the top of St. Paul's.
Millennium Bridge from above.
Met the actors playing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They were so nice!
04 July 2011
A Lot of Puttering Around
Today I headed down to the National Gallery to look at some Monet and Van Gogh. I couldn't take pictures of their paintings or any of the impressionist paintings I saw, most of which were amazing, but I did buy post cards and take pictures. So those will be up. I also went to the British Museum to look at their watch and clock exhibit. The clocks and watches were so intricate and generally awesome looking. The most interesting one was a golden boat with a clock face tucked away on deck so that it was hard to tell that it was, in fact, a clock.
Then I went to the Thames to check out the Old Vic theatre and see if we could get Kevin Spacey's autograph; he's in Richard III there, which we're seeing Thursday night. The play is apparently 3 hours and 15 minutes long. The longest by far, so I hope it's good. Anyway, we did not get Spacey's autograph because he didn't come out tonight, but we might try again. I did, however, go through the graffiti tunnel where it's legal to do graffiti. It is a bit sketchy, being a poorly lit tunnel and all practically devoid of people underneath a train station, but it is also really cool.
02 July 2011
Epic Walk and Foodporn
Today I went to Portobello Market for the second time, alone because everyone did different things today, and got pictures. I also used the time alone to walk the 5 miles back to my flat afterwards. One picture will be of the route I took, and the rest a sampling of the food porn that took place.
01 July 2011
Harrods: Home of the Food Porn
Again, the pictures above shall be explained in detail down below. (I'm too lazy to actually format them INTO the posts.)
Today was a late start. Some of the flatmates had gone to a concert last night and so were exhausted enough to sleep past 1pm or 2pm. Some had gone out clubbing. For my part, I was kept awake by odd music blasting outside my window until 4:30am, and this combined with a bad sleep schedule meant I didn't go to bed until 5am, with the sun well risen. I did wake up at 11am, but we didn't really form a plan or leave the flat until 2:30pm.
We decided to spend the day in Kensington, the rich district of London (well, one of them, but I'm thinking it's the most well known one). First up was the Victoria and Albert museum, which contained an overwhelming array of sculpture, carvings, and even building design. The museum focuses on design and art in more practical uses, it seems like, such as in pottery or in architecture. There were literally huge columns, monuments, graves, gates, and whole sides/parts of buildings contained within the museum. The whole place was extremely interesting but overwhelming, so we didn't see the whole thing. As with the British Museum, we'll need to go back (even though we have only a week left); luckily the museums are free.
Then we decided to go to Harrods. Now, I've been to Harrods before, but it was with family, and there's something about going with a group of like-minded/like-aged people that makes a huge difference. This difference being, we focused on the food sections. Particularly the chocolate section. I may have spent some money. On chocolate. And baked goods. Which is not typically what one goes to Harrods for, but I must say that if you must buy something in Harrods, you should go for the desserts. Because they are GOOD. Think luxury cupcakes and rows of chocolate truffles in every flavor imaginable.
What people usually think of when they think of Harrods is their equally huge selection of clothing, bags, perfume, and shoes, all designer, because at heart Harrods is supposed to be a high-end department store, even if it has turned into a monument/museum to every sort of purchasable thing imaginable/restaurant/supermarket/overwhelming place of overwhelmingly nice things.
I say all that because THEN we went to the clothing/shoes section. And designer was right. Harrods was having a sale but the sale prices were such that I could buy a plane ticket to London AND back to New York with that money. But still, the dresses on display were gorgeous in quite a few cases, and the shoes were...well...shoe porn. And I don't say that lightly; I'm not much of a person for fashion, but this was fashion porn at it's best.
The strangest thing was seeing people, not tourists but actual shoppers dropping hundreds to thousands of pounds (not dollars, POUNDS) on these luxury items. Feeling amazed and awed and also out of place, we snuck back to the place where we belonged, with the food. And only because it, too, was on sale.
I also got to have my first Indian food experience for dinner. I had chicken tikki and garlic naan, all of which was surprisingly good. I will have to try more Indian food in the future.
Now people are going out. I'm staying in and staying up. It's been a long day and I'm not quite sure what we'll do tomorrow, but I feel like it'll involve a lot of walking. If there's one consistency in London it's that there is a LOT of walking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)