![\"\"](\"http:\/\/static.reelmovienews.com\/images\/gallery\/gandalf-glows.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Image from http:\/\/www.reelmovienews.com\/gallery\/gandalf-glows\/<\/a> and also from the audience of “The Habit of Art”<\/p>\n In our short time in London, I have gotten the opportunity to see a large sampling of what London\u2019s theatres have to offer. From standing in Globe Theatre to watch \u201cThe Merry Wives of Windsor\u201d (or, shudder, \u201cBedlam\u201d) to leaning right over the actors of \u201cAll my Sons\u201d from a box seat, I must say I have been quite impressed. The low cost of London\u2019s theatres is particularly amazing. I have yet to pay more than fifteen pounds for a ticket, including seeing two shows on the West End. Given my love of ranking things, I am going to discuss each show from my least to most favorite. After that, I will briefly discuss my observations concerning the differences between American and British theatre.<\/p>\n Worst: \u201cBedlam\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Wow. Truly, astonishingly, bad. To begin with, I find the Globe to be sort of a touristy gimmick. When inside the theatre, I feel less like I\u2019m in the era of Shakespeare and more like I\u2019m at the Renaissance Fair in Pennsylvania. This being said, a good production, like \u201cThe Merry Wives of Windsor,\u201d can still happen in a sub-par venue. However, a good production Bedlam is not. The actors seemed talented enough, but they clearly not invested in the show. No one was having a particularly good time on stage, and no one took their performance to the next level. Quite frankly I do not know if this would have been possible, as the script was terrible. You know something is bad when the entire audience groans at the climax of the play (On a side note, the audience seemed noticeably less touristy than the crowd at \u201cMerry Wives of Windsor,\u201d likely due to unfamiliarity of the show)<\/p>\n 5: \u201cMerry Wives of Windsor\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Now the quality of shows jumps up exponentially. \u201cMerry Wives\u201d is a sub-par Shakespeare comedy, but it was performed with enough conviction to make it quite an entertaining evening. The plot is quite convoluted, and the running length is far too great, but it was fun. I must ask, though: Why does the Globe insist on musical numbers between scenes? Are they trying to REALLY make it feel like the Renaissance Fair?<\/p>\n 4: \u201cThe Habit of Art\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n First of all, the National Theatre is an incredible venue. All three theatres were so meticulously thought out that there was not a bad seat anywhere. Unfortunately, \u201cThe Habit of Art\u201d doesn\u2019t belong on such a gargantuan stage as the one in the Lyttelton Theatre. I found the show to be a great two man drama hidden within a convoluted play-within-a-play series of gimmicks. While I appreciate Luke\u2019s point in an earlier blog that the show at least tried to achieve greatness, and hit on a lot of themes in interesting ways, I still think that the show was far too flawed to be considered a success. The saving grace was that the audience was very receptive to the inside theatre jokes, as it seemed to be compromised of experienced theatre goers\u2026and Sir Ian McKellen.<\/p>\n 3: \u201cThe 39 Steps\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n As Luke points out, and I think quite accurately, \u201cThe 39 Steps\u201d excels at its rather un-lofty goals. The show is simply meant to be pleasant, and that\u2019s what it delivers to a much more casual audience than the National Theatre. I still rank it above \u201cThe Habit of Art\u201d because it appealed to a whole lot of my interests. As a huge Hitchcock fan, it was fun to see all of the clever references. I enjoyed all of the puns, clever staging, and impressive comedic acting. Yes, it was about as deep as a puddle, and it was not funniest show I had ever seen. However, I enjoyed it quite a bit.<\/p>\n