Dickinson College Humanities Program in Norwich

One thing that I appreciate about London is the accessibility to see theater without creating a dent in your pocket. Seeing shows on Broadway are the complete opposite, hence the reason why I’ve only been to a couple of Broadway shows although, my money has always been well spent. In London I haven’t spend more than thirty pounds to see a production, not to say that they’ve all blown me away. Les Miserables was my favorite and was similar to the style of production that I am used to seeing. Performance wise, everything was spot on- the acting, costumes, set, music, the list goes on. It took real skill for the actors to maneuver the rotating stage, which I’ve never seen before. The most unique experience for me would have to be at The Globe Theater seeing The Merry Wives of Windsor. Never in my life would I opt to standing for three hours to watch a play, except for in London of course. I’m not a fan of Shakespeare but I had some good laughs. The cast was very talented, and the transitions between scenes were very creative. I would say most of us liked the production, even though we all despised Professor Qualls for making us stand.

The funniest play would be The 39 Steps, in which there was never a dull moment. What I really loved about this play was their creativity and enthusiasm. This four- member cast created magic on stage, and engaged the entire audience. With limited crew and crops, they really encouraged viewers to use their imagination. While glancing at the audience during intermissions, I couldn’t help but notice how homogenous the crowds each play attracted. Being located in the West End could have been a reason for the very white audiences, however it’s not like ticket prices prevent anyone else from being able to see a show every now and then. Is theater going only prominent in white culture?  I also wonder if there is such a thing as the same show being better in the West End than it is on Broadway.  Somehow, I just can’t see it happening that way, probably vice versa (statement could also be very biased).  If its one thing, I wish I did set aside more of my time in London to see more theater.  I know this is something that I won’t to do when I get back to New York.  I find it ridiculous that now movie tickets are over twelve dollars each, which is the equivalent to a fifteen pound ticket to a play.  It is so unfair that Londoners have this choice!  I do hope to come back to London a couple times before my stay is over to further immerse myself in theater culture.

Probably Les Mis was my least satisfying theater going experience in London (and I did enjoy it: I enjoyed every play that I went to). It’s strange to say, because I had been wanting to see Les Mis for years.  And don’t get me wrong: everything about the play, from the acting to the lighting to the music was top notch. But somehow, the nearly perfect production left me unsatisfied.  My main problem with the play was that the plot was so full and neat that I had trouble being swept up in it.  So many important and often tragic events happened in so little time that I found myself lagging behind emotionally.  The ending was a little too neat to feel genuine; by the end mostly everyone is dead but the male and female leads (who of course end up together).  I left wanting something more, although I thoroughly enjoyed the music.

39 Steps, while probably not very innovative, and definitely not deep or reflective, felt full of energy in a way that Les Mis was not. I think that this was because I did not know what to expect going in, and the play was hilarious and unafraid to make fun of itself.  Probably the funniest moments in the entire production were those in which we were made very aware that we were watching a play: the use of windows an doors as props, and the scene on the train in which the actors responded physically to the train’s imagined movement.  More interesting and funny surprises were in the staging of the play than in the plot.  39 Steps was as much as a crowd pleaser as Les Mis, though in a different way, and it felt more alive to me.

I even found the Habit of Art more interesting than both in way, although it certainly did not hold my attention in the same way.  Risks were clearly taken, right down to the bright florescent lighting used throughout the play to create the feel of a rehearsal.  Although I had trouble sympathizing with the characters, and had a negative visceral reaction to some aspects (like the urination in the sink, and the apparent stench of the apartment), but I guess that even my negative reactions were an accomplishment on the part of the play, since they were clearly intended.  The Habit of Art stayed with me longer than the other plays we saw because it had me reflecting on why it was written as it was, and on the connection between the lives of the actor-characters and the lives of the two famous “artists” in the play within the play.  So although I was not amazed at the end of  The Habit of Art, I was definitely satisfied.

I am definitely glad that London is home to so much innovative theater, and that we had the opportunity to experience some of it.  I wish that I had time to see more plays in London, and I look forward to finding out what the theaters in Norwich have to offer.

In the last month, I have seen Merry Wives of Windsor, Bedlam, Les Miserables, 39 Steps, and The Habit of Art, which is significantly more theater in a very short time than I’ve been able to see in the US. So that being said, I have to get my initial gushing about how excited I am that I’ve had this great opportunity and how it’s really great that London makes its arts so cheap to attend and accessible to the public. I say this mostly because I’m genuinely thrilled. I really can’t get over how awesome it is that I get to see all this stuff as part of a class for really cheap. I think that although Kate Fox talks about the English egalitarian sentiment as a largely hypocritical façade for a very unequal class system, the English really do an amazing job of making beauty accessible to everyone – free museums, cheap theater, beautiful parks, etc. (I also say this because my mom keeps reading my Dickinson blog – hi Mom! – and it’s a super cranky blog because American Studies has trained me that when I analyze, I must be angry and critical of society). But anyway, everyone has already talked about the accessibility of beauty. So I’m going to do the other thing that American Studies has trained me for: talk about something inappropriate and pretend it’s academic.

Today’s topic is cross-dressing. Out of all the plays I’ve seen, Les Mis was the only one that did not contain a prominent cross dressing scene, and it’s not English in origin. Bedlam was so intent on having a cross-dressing scene that it didn’t even matter that there was no explanation for it in the plot. The Habit of Art was not even a comedy, and it still had a cross-dressing scene. What part of the English psyche demands a man in drag so intently that it has become a staple of theater? 

Kate Fox would probably say it’s the “importance of not being earnest,” the idea that one must never take oneself too seriously (62, 63). Serious plays must be offset by something self-deprecating and silly, and comedies must contain some form of low brow humor to offset the perception that the jokes are too high and pleased with themselves. (American Studies Jesse would at this point start discussing: 1. The sexism in the idea that a man in drag is funnier and more self-deprecating than a woman in drag because women are less valued in society. 2. The classism in the language of “high brow” and “low brow” and how it creates a humor hierarchy that perpetuates class stereotypes about intelligence and arrogance. But American Studies Jesse is going back into her angry-at-society box now, away from this discussion).

What Kate Fox does not address, is why the “importance of not being earnest” specifically manifests itself in the form of men in dresses and stockings. Sexism and classism are not exclusive to England, and they’re too easy an answer. One of my theories has to do with Liz’s favorite topic, Shakespeare. Shakespeare seems to be a huge point of national pride for the English, and his plays contained a lot of cross dressing for comedic purposes, plot purposes (i.e. The Twelfth Night), and for the practical purpose that only men used to act so they would have to play women’s parts. Maybe the influence of Shakespeare has seeped its way into modern theater in the form of cross dressing. I definitely think at least Leyshon felt some pressure to write some Shakespearean humor into Bedlam since it was performed at the Globe.

My other theory has to do with the absolute silliness of the men’s outfits that we saw in National Portrait Gallery. We look upon the tights, lacy and velvety frills and fabrics, codpieces, and otherwise ridiculous jewelry of the upper class men from the Tudor and Stewart line with the same out of context amusement that we see in the stupid haircuts of cool kids in our parents undoubtedly see in skinny jean leggings. Maybe the history men’s fashion, some of which is totally effeminate by today’s standards, has affected theater. Every time an English person see a man in a dress and suspenders maybe it hearkens back to the old days of the monarchy and the glory of the empire. (Fun fact: Vicky taught me yesterday that in England, suspenders are those little clasps that women use to hold their stockings up rather than straps that old people and people that enjoy ska music use to hold up their pants).

For more information on cross-dressing in theater, here is an article from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2007/sep/07/whatilikeaboutcrossdressin

I welcome any other ideas.

P.S. Mom, England is very fun and educational and full non drag queen related learning experiences.

This afternoon we saw a production of “39 Steps” at the Criterion in London.  I had enjoyed the other required play that we had attended (“Merry Wives of Windsor”), but having been in Shakespearean dialogue there were a few things I did not pick up on in the humor of the production.  Not to say the story was excellent and the acting even better, it just didn’t have my sides splitting like I had expected.  Today was a bit different.  I saw things today that I have seen in many aspects of American comedy that I appreciate: raunchy jokes, innapropriate references, slapstick humor, and the ability to laugh at oneself extensively.  The play was incredibly engaging; I thought the use of the stage was executed to a T.  There were all kinds of props flying in and out in a chaotic yet entertaining manner.  My two favorite examples of use of stage had to have been the lamppost/window interaction with Henney and the two “police officers”, as well as the villain’s character looking for a place to sit and having an easy chair whisked onto the stage without warning.

The thing that I want to comment about mostly in terms of comparing this production to British culture is the sheer goofyness of the performance.  It seems like for the most part, Brits are wildly proud of their ability to put on an epic classic play (think Les Miserables or Romeo and Juliet).  Of course there is a decent amount of humor embedded in these plays but not as much goofy physical comedy or simple joking about concerning the very idea of the play.  I came away from the play practically thinking I had watched the twisted offspring of Seinfeld and Dumb & Dumber rolled into one.  In a freshly written script, 39 steps took on a classic Hitchcock film, with a few tweaks.  Ridden with slapstick humor, absurd accents, and quick witted naughty dialogue, 39 Steps appeared to break what the norms of British comedy appear to be.  The actors had the ability to laugh at themselves and the very idea which they were portraying.  Several times in the play, actors would jokingly pause (as written, I’m sure) and correct what was going on around them, chastising the other players for something they didn’t like or something that was seemingly not a part of the production.

Overall, I heard some classmates utter comments like “I don’t want to be snobby, but it was a bit lacking”.  I feel like you have to understand what you are getting into and go in with an open mind when you see a play like this.  I haven’t had much experience with the theater, I admit, but I have to say this play left me both rolling on the floor and very satisfied with the way it was portrayed visually.  For me, this spoke a lot to me about the nature of theater.  You don’t have to put on a 3 hour long, epic performance to please the audience.  I have a brief background in writing comedic stories and brief film screenplays and I know that a joke can kill moreso than a great dramatic performance in some cases.  Just because it’s a small scale production that does not pose some kind of grand theory on life does not mean it was bad.  Take it for what it is: The Superbad of theater.

image from: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.artsjournal.com/aboutlastnight/39%2520STEPS%2520POSTER.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.artsjournal.com/aboutlastnight/2008/01/&usg=__mErr-YlHCSPMp19L0HxD_gjzT2g=&h=430&w=305&sz=50&hl=en&start=0&sig2=2VM3v22hun95IRCuJoqICg&zoom=1&tbnid=ar-TOtjAu96bmM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=86&ei=uPePTPbrKsaD4Qat9YGzDQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3D39%2Bsteps%2Bposter%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1200%26bih%3D620%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=227&vpy=174&dur=922&hovh=198&hovw=140&tx=98&ty=78&oei=uPePTPbrKsaD4Qat9YGzDQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

Going to watch a live performance is a passion of mine.  Music, dance, theater, to me it doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t matter how many times I’ve seen it done before, I think it is incredible to watch something take place in front of your eyes that has never happened that way before.  The performers may have rehearsed a piece a thousand times prior to the time I get to see it, but knowing that I am the among the only people who get to see this particular version (unless of course it is being taped) is a real thrill to me.  Sometimes things run exactly as they are planned, and other times because of circumstances, things change on stage.  These changes could be when an actor trips on stage (luckily this did not happen in any of the performances we saw in London) and watching as they improve through the scenario, other on stage changes happen when actors react to their surroundings.  For example when we saw “As You Like It” at the Globe Theater two of the actors in the cast in particular took note of individual audience members. I specifically remember when Jaques commented about schoolboys and made a motion to the students in their uniforms sitting on the side of the stage.

Another performance that I attended that included a large amount of audience interaction was when I saw the dance group StopGap performing at Watch This Space.  Especially recently I have seen a lot of contemporary/modern dance performances that involve audience participation/interaction.  StopGap did not look for participation, however they improved several times throughout the show.  They would randomly pick out members of the crowd and imitate their poses.  The dancers also randomly sat next to audience members, trying to get a reaction.  When I see pieces like this it makes you realize how much work goes into a performance. Not only are the dancers/actors/performers required to react to what is on stage and what they rehearsed, but additionally to their surroundings.

The other performances we saw primarily stuck to the script, mainly because it was not in the nature of “Arcadia” or the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra to improvise or react to the audience during performance.  But even still, we were fortunate enough to see all different styles of performances in an array of venues.  For me I think the venue of the performance can completely change everything.  StopGap performing inside the National Theater would not have had the same feeling, nor would the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra performing at the Watch This Space.  The large orchestra in the enormous and beautiful Royal Albert Hall really set a grand scene, something that very few halls could have done.

I briefly mentioned this in my previous post, but the Theater and Performing Arts Exhibit at the Victoria & Albert Museum included an entire segment on sets and venues.  It shows how important this aspect is to a performance, and sometimes one that I feel is overlooked. With the exception of StopGap (and I guess some might argue Shakespeare’s performances at the Globe) we saw very few site-specific pieces.  I think site-specific performances are extremely interesting, and although I enjoyed visiting the beautiful theaters across the city, I am also glad for Watch This Space, where I was able to see performances that were specifically designed for that area.

I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to see so many incredible (and sometimes not so incredible) performances, and I am already planning return trips into the city to see more performances, theaters, and site-specific performances.

A couple weekends ago, a fellow classmate informed me that William Shakespeare is the best author of all time. Though I disagreed wholeheartedly with him, it seems that I am in the minority on this point in London. Shakespeare hasn’t been alive for many years now but (as many people have noted before me) his presence is still incredibly pervasive in English life. The revised version of the Globe Theater is filled nightly with people clamoring to get a taste of the authentic Shakespeare experience. Right across the river, the National Theater makes sure to have a Shakespeare play in its rotation regularly- something that is always well attended. After watching an entertaining but incredibly over-the-top version of Troilus and Cressida, I was prepared to write a blog about how Shakespeare in England has turned into just another tourist attraction. I paid more attention to the audience at the National Theater’s presentation of All’s Well That Ends Well though and realized that I saw more people than those who toted fanny packs around the city all day (items that I’m happy to report I have seen only a small number of). The over one thousand seats that the theater has were filled with more than a few tourists but also many who actually knew what the correct response to ‘cheers’ is (something that I’m still trying to figure out). So what? Two major theaters are showing Shakespeare plays- is that so exciting? Maybe not. But walking along the streets, you are guaranteed to see big posters advertising for Jude Law in Hamlet, Judy Dench in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and other celebrities in lead roles in Shakespeare’s plays. Clearly, the man is still alive and well in London. Again, this might not seem that interesting considering he is known as such an infamous figure not only in the arts but in history in general. But the man has been gone for over 300 years now! Many other playwrights have produced excellent works (some that are arguably even better than anything Shakespeare has ever written) yet none of them have their shows playing in multiple theaters across the city or in annual festivals. I can’t accept that his popularity still hinges on the fact that he’s Shakespeare. Even the brightest star eventually fades away. I wonder the attraction and/or loyalty to the bard isn’t more a devotion to something else- a devotion to a desired ‘English’ identity that is found in the infamous Shakespeare. This may be a stretch but it could be an interesting point to consider.

While I was surprised to see so many London locals interested in seeing a Shakespeare play, the audience was not an incredibly diverse one at either show. The locals that were at the show were seemingly (by this untrained eye’s standards) predominantly middle-upper class, white, elderly people. There are exceptions to every rule, but this was the crowd that I most observed while there. This isn’t to say that the theaters were too pricey for the majority of Londoners. You can buy a ticket to stand in the Globe for five pounds and a ticket to sit in the National Theater for ten. While some might not have money to throw away to the theater, five pounds for entertainment is truly reasonable. Still, despite the reasonable prices, the crowd that was attracted to the show seemed to be of a certain stature. I think it’s also worth noting that neither of these shows is considered one of Shakespeare’s big hitters and yet each theater was filled as one might expect for a Hamlet or Macbeth production. Clearly it’s not the show that is so attractive but rather the playwright. And why? I would argue that Shakespeare represents an identity of old London. He represents a more homogeneous London. London today is anything but homogenous. It’s incredibly diverse and is only becoming more so with each day that passes. With the word of the trip being ‘juxtaposition’, this diversity and change is clear to even the eye of an outsider. Is holding onto Shakespeare as an image for the ‘good ol’ England a means of coping with these changes? England has had many famous icons throughout its history but few (that I’m aware of) have been so closely connected to their national pride/make-up. So while the Beatles might have brought fame to the country, Shakespeare painted a picture of what English society was like. It was a society that may have been full of class division but one that knew the Classics, was incredibly mannerly, and conversed in witty and intelligent ways. Is Shakespeare’s continued prevalence a means of keeping that identity in place? I’m not entirely certain. An argument could be made on either side. Maybe people truly never tire of his shows. I would suggest that after three hundred years, picking up some Tennessee Williams or Eugene O’Neill might be a good idea.