HAND TO GOD, YOU'RE GOING TO LIKE THIS...

So, this was actually a Christmas present. That statement may well make you despair of my writing schedule – but I can assure you I am not that far behind. I just have very disorganized friends. They meant to take me to a play for Christmas you see. We ended up doing it in February. That is how well coordinated our schedules are. It’s honestly enough to make one want to throw the towel in completely…

I am glad we didn’t though. When we took our seats and caught our first, pre-show glimpse of the set one thing was clear. This was going to be either a “love” or a “hate” affair. The reviews seemed to agree. After we booked the tickets I coincidentally ran into some very well-known publications reviewing the play and honestly, they didn’t have enough derogatory terms to insult it with. One of my friends especially doesn’t go to the theatre that often so I was quite worried about poisoning her for life against the art form.

But the inevitable happened, the curtain came up and we entered the world of Tyrone, which happens to be in Texas. And incidentally Jason (Harry Melling – if the name is familiar it’s because you may know him better as Dudley Dursely from the Harry Potter franchise). Jason is going through a bit of a moment. His father has just passed away – which is hard enough on anyone. His mother is trying to cope by running a Christian hand puppet workshop. It only has two students (one the school bully who is there mainly by force) and naturally, Jason is roped in whether he wants to be there or not… The workshop isn’t going that well but there is nothing really out of the ordinary going on, well, except for one small matter the others aren’t aware of… Tyrone – Jason’s hand puppet - isn’t quite like the others… In fact, as far as Jason can tell he is completely sentient and out of control – and is about to take over Jason’s life if someone – anyone! – won’t do something fast…

Before we get to pondering and analyzing, I just want to get one statement, straight from the gut, out there. This was by far and away one of the funniest things – if not THE funniest thing – I have ever seen in my life. I howled with laughter, stamped on the floor and gave the play a standing ovation. On the other hand, do be warned. If you consider yourself a Christian (especially) or a believer in any way and if you are easily offended - steer well clear of this play. It bars no holds and packs a lot of punches, mostly aimed at the religious establishment and the social order we live in today. I saw one review (positive this time) describe the play as Sesame street crossed with The Exorcist. Cant’ think of a more accurate description.

Now, I need to stress one point. You may have gotten the rather mistaken impression that this is some kind of dry and slightly off the wall religious and political satire. No. It’s more like the kind of drunken rant you have when you have had several whiskeys too many and you are howling with rage against “the establishment”. It’s the kind of conversation you have at work dos and never quite get round to living down. But there is not where the inappropriate behavior stops. The “below the belt” stuff is… Way off the wall… I mean you need to be not shocked easily on many, many levels.

Harry Melling literally bowled me over with his performance in this show. It is not a great show of ventriloquism – as most reviews have already pointed out one can clearly see his lips moving throughout the show. The point of the show is not to dissimulate that Jason and Tyrone are one and the same. In fact, the more the play goes on the more obvious it is that the aim of the game is to explore the two sides of Jason’s personality. But I was absolutely blown away by the way Melling was able to portray the two opposing characters on stage at the same time, transitioning so smoothly from one to the other yet separating the two characters so well and so clearly. A feat in performance and acting technique, this much is for sure.

Hand to God is an uproarious step into the unknown. I want to gush on and on about it but really, a lot of the comedy comes from the element of surprise. And as this play burns the rulebook and bends over forward, backwards and sidewise to surprise and shock you it would be so very unfair to rat on it. It’s still playing at the Vaudeville theatre and cheap tickets are relatively easy to come by. I would say it’s well worth the jump – and the stiches you are about to get in your sides… 

MR ROBOT - THE FUTURE IS COMING...

I don’t know about your social circle, but in mine Mr. Robot is pretty much a phenomenon. Everyone seemed to watch it and categorically EVERYONE seemed to adore it. I do not “do” hype as you know but this was coming from so many normally sane and sensible people (ehm, well, relatively so anyway) that I had to give it a shot. So I did. Now, I am only half way through but it has become such a stable part of my life SO darn quickly that I absolutely HAD to talk to you about it. We cannot have anyone else missing out on this, this is big news peeps.

Meet Elliot (Rami Malek). He is a rather extraordinary man for many different reasons. Suffering from social anxiety disorder he finds it extremely difficult to make contact with human beings in real life. What he is good, nay, BRILLIANT at is computers. This talent guarantees him a career at least. 

What it also guarantees, however, is the opportunity to make a difference. It is the 21^st Century after all, we live our lives online, whether we are Joe Bloggs or a crime lord. Elliot is content making a difference in his own little way until he is recruited by the mysterious Mr. Robot (Christian Slater). He is the leader of a band of renegade hackers called fsociety and they are intent on planning a revolution and changing the world one line of code at a time.  The crazy thing is that the way they are going, they just might succeed…

It took me a minute to realize what this was and why it was so good. But when I did, I had to admire the pure genius of it. Ok, so from practically the opening lines, Elliot complains of the capitalist system. He talks about how money enslaves us without us even really being aware of it. The invisible ties of “want”, “need”, “debt”, “credit” that dictates pretty much our every move. Into this world led by “invisible” forces comes an anti-hero with a mentor who lands in a secret force, a group of very diverse people ( kudos on fsociety’s diversity by the way, two men, two women, one black, one middle eastern lady wearing a hijab) who are going to defeat the invisible powers that are ruling the world and free humanity from its enslavement. Yep. Yep you got it. It IS The Matrix all over again. Just in series form so there are more ratings and it makes more money, ingenious really.

Now seriously, if you haven’t seen the series brace yourself. Major spoiler alert. But there is of course a second film this series references. Fight Club. And I actually kicked myself when I realized that Mr Robot was… Well, Elliot. And the formula, here as well, is mirrored eerily. Society being brought to its knees, a group led by a charismatic and mentally unstable leader, the unreliable narrator and Darlene(Carly Charkin) who replaces Trinity in the Matrix scenario and Marla for the Fight Club scenario. She is a perfect combination of the two really - she looks for all the world like a 21st century version of Marla, she is like Trinity in the sense that she is a fighter and a real force to be reckoned with.  I need to say, this being a tv series, the big reveal, which in Fight Club creeps up on you slowly and yet in reality takes only a few minutes is eeked out pretty much over one episode.

It has had a severe revamp, there are none of Neo’s “magical powers” or the nervous, visceral energy of Fight Club that brings the world to its knees supposedly purely through the power of chaos. Here, we have actually thought out a plan that could, potentially, actually work. Pure, rational coding and hacking  is what we are dealing with– and to be honest what with everything that is actually possible on the internet these days hacking is as close to magic as you can get ! All the economic arguments Elliot and Mr Robot put forward are those of a disgruntled generation that are no longer happy with the “old fashioned” way of doing things and think the system is unfair, having got the short end of the stick compared to the boom years (i.e. mainly millennials.  I.e. the main targeted audience). The antagonist is Tyler Wellick (Martin Wallstrom) is cold, charismatic and so drop dead gorgeous that you quite frankly can’t help wanting him to win and lose at the same time. I see the reason for the upgrade from Agent Smith. He is representing capitalism after all, capitalism is slick, glossy and it wants you to buy it.   

Elliot is a lot less dark than Neo and our narrator from Fight Club though. I would say all the characters are. But he is a lot easier to sympathize with as well. His social anxiety makes him very much like us – all our shy, weird, insecure moments mirrored and multiplied, giving him a weak point exactly like us and making his “superpowers” instantly tolerable. He has a “best friend” – Angela (Portia Doubleday) that has always been a little more for him but neither has ever quite broached it – a common (not necessarily omnipresent, I am really not saying that) but common, and relatable issue of male – female friendships. What I am trying to say is Elliot is one of the most tangible and real anti-heroes I have seen on screen. That coupled with Rami Malek’s clear talent and brilliant performance put him squarely in the hall of fame of immortal television characters.  In this respect he gets the better of our narrator in Fight Club as well. Our narrator, though a lot more real than Neo, is still a man of extremes between his attendance of self-help groups as a means of making connection and later on, his emergence as a charismatic, one-man-band leader. Elliot is a leader too – but it’s almost in spite of himself. His “non-leader” persona is a lot closer to us than the narrator ever was.

Now please don’t get me wrong. I am not saying any of this is bad, that Mr Robot is simply a cheap knock-off or something. I am just saying “this is how it was put together”. Mr. Robot is fascinating and fun. I laugh and cry as I watch it and drool over Martin Walstrom. I finished the series and am officially heartbroken – I have no idea how to wait until the second series!  All have to remember though peeps, those glossy things we buy, eat, watch, listen to and – by and large – live are actually cleverly constructed by some marketing and sales people somewhere… The Matrix is out there folks… Hmm… I think I am more heavily influenced by this series than I initially thought… 

ARE YOU READY TO BECOME SOMETHING NEW... "THE LOBSTER"

I saw the trailer for The Lobster some time ago. I thought it was categorically the funniest thing I have seen in years. I then, like a muppet, missed in the cinema. I was overjoyed when it came out in VOD and I actually watched it absolutely ages ago, practically on the day it came out. Its director Yorgos Lanthimos is not a household name yet – but he is getting there. And those who HAVE heard of him tend to give a knee jerk YES! Or NO! response. If you haven’t tried him out yet, you really should give his work a whirl – see which camp you end up in!

The Lobster takes place in a dystopian near future. There (as in quite a few places here, as a matter of fact), being a couple is categorically the most important thing you have to achieve in your life. However fewer invitations to dinners and awkward conversations are the least the singletons of this universe have to worry about. If you find you are single, you have 45 days to find a partner. If you fail, you are transformed into an animal of your choice and released into the wild. Now, of course the process in monitored, the moment you report you have become single to the authorities you are transported to a special facility with other singletons where you have to endeavour to find a partner. Our tale follows David (Colin Farrel) who is recently divorced. He has just started his stay in the facility and has a whole world of new characters to meet, make friends with and hopefully date. Oh the whole place looks like a slightly eccentric holiday village, but David is under no illusions. The real question is whether he will survive – and if he does, in what form…

Yorgos Lanthimos is one of those –black and white – kind of directors. You either adore him and, like me, think he is the best thing since moving images on a screen, or think he is crass, extreme and all together hard to watch. His films are definitely not for the faint of heart. In my particular case I found watching Dogtooth (the first film I ever watched by Lanthimos) a weirdly sado-masochistic experience. Yes, definitely hard to watch. Harder than a lot of things I have ever seen in fact. But also weirdly pleasurable… And why? I guess because he has the rather dubious talent of being able to give you the kind of shock the goriest slashers do, only without the gore and blood and in a very innocuous looking setting. And let’s be honest here – it is rare to find the kind of film that gets that kind of visceral response out of you in the day to day cinematic market. I don’t necessarily think it’s a matter of shocking to get publicity and bums on seats. It actually is the job of all art to make you feel things. To make you react. To make you think. There is a little too much playing it safe, a little too much staying within your comfort zone when it comes to films these days I feel. That is sort of why Hollywood films are less of my day to day consumption and more of an occasional treat. I need the films that I watch actually do something to me – and if you are of the same tribe as me I can promise you that The Lobster will smack you around the head  several times and leave you spinning like a top…

Like all of his other films, this universe of Yorgos Lanthimos is unforgiving. The rules are as harsh as they are eccentric and disobedience is really not an option. Well. I say that, but in this universe – as in, I strongly suspect, most others – as long as you give the illusion of going by the rules, you can get away with, well, a certain amount… This, in the film has hilarious results that I will not be discussing here today as a lot of the film counts on the element of surprise to make it work. The film does, however, become a Kafaesque dance where our characters have to apply an endless set of rules to the most intimate areas of their lives. And what makes the film even funnier is the fact that most of us – without being aware of it – do this anyway. You know those little things called social norms we are all so attached to. Yeah… I am willing to bet you any money that you will be giving them a hefty amount of thought after you have watched this little number.

Of course the brilliance of the actors only adds to the success of the dance – Colin Farrel is the perfect slightly bumbling everyman helping us understand this universe as we try to figure it out ourselves. Ably assisted by the likes of John C. Reily, Ben Whishaw and Rachel Weisz who all participate in this straight faced – in fact deadly serious – dance with conviction and gusto that will have you cringing and crying out for them as the story takes its twists and turns…

In short, the first thing Lanthimos does when he takes you into a universe is tear up the rule book, the second is to throw you into the ring at a no-holds-barred cage fight. It is something you definitely need to decide on for yourself – but if you survive the fight, well, the benefits are absolutely glorious…

ON WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON WITH MY BLOGGING...

Um well... I think I owe you guys an explanation. No really, I do. I want to make it short - you are not here to read my life stroy after all - but do bear with me because I want to make it honest.

I work as a waitress as a lot of you know by now. It means I keep unsocial hours, unsocial hours that I need to balance out with some vestiges of a social life and training to become an actress some day. It is exhausting but by and large I love my life and with slightly less sleep than the average gal, I even find time for some movie reviewing on the side.

Now, January and Febuary is always a very, very dry season for events. There aren't any. So for us freelancers there is no work.No work, unless you take some even more unsociable hours, locations and other stuff you would not usually prefer when figuring out your work. When making a living became a bona fide struggle in my own place of work I have had to branch out. This has meant shifts starting at 07.00 in the morning which means me getting up at around 4.30 (I live in a rather uncommutable bit of town). I am getting an averyage of about 3 hours of sleep a night (and another 2 - 3 hour nap during the day) and my body clock is on its head as a result. I will not be able to keep this up ad infinitum, but I am ok for now. The problem is of course that the rest of my life continues to be as busy as ever! I am learning to function on much less sleep but it IS a struggle. Especially when it comes to both acting and writing which need a high level of core energy and alertness as you can do neither on auto-pilot. I have been channeling what core energy I have left into my acting (I have several performances in the offing that need my attention) and the writing has suffered. And I am sorry about that. Not least because on a personal level I miss it terribly...

I am trying to get back into an update a week. But I have a feeling I may well slip up. Please accept my humble appologies, keep a weather eye on Twitter where I will at least try and give some clue as to whether I will be able to put anything up this week and have a lovely weekend.

Thank you for sticking with me!
Essie

ALL HAIL MACBETH THAT SHALT BE KING HEREAFTER...

So, as you guys may have noticed, I have finally popped my Shakespeare review cherry with my look at Henry IV parts 1 and 2. Moving up to a review of one of the greats – or at least one of the great stories – only seems appropriate. Macbeth is actually the kind of story I adore. You know I have a soft spot for gangster films and the like. You know I have a soft spot for psychological films. Well he we have a man who murders about a dozen innocent people to fulfill his own political ambition and is driven slowly mad with remorse…  In essence, the granddaddy of all the stories I adore - I absolutely HAD to watch it – and the fact that I loved the story is, in essence, no surprise.

Even if you do not know the story of Macbeth per se, you will, without a doubt, recognize it. Macbeth (Michael Fassbender) is a Scottish clan chief who is loyal to the King of Scotland during a time of civil war. He has just won a decisive victory in battle for his liege when he is accosted by three witches who prophecy that he will first be made the chieftain of another clan and then King of Scotland. Macbeth is inclined to laugh it off, but then,  news arrives that the King has made him the chieftain of the selfsame clan the witches had prophesied as a reward to his services. From this moment on Macbeth, first egged on by his wife (Marion Cotillard) and later on by his own crumbling sanity and insatiable ambition will set off a string of murders Macbeth feels he absolutely must commit – or have committed – to secure his place, his throne, his lineage, with tragic consequences. After a while it becomes a matter of whether the Macbeths can get a handle on the violence they have unleashed or whether Macbeths already crumbling sanity will give way completely first…

Now there have been more adaptations of this tale than anyone could hope to count. This, to my way of thinking, makes every single new adaptation of the play a little trickier. After that long of a lineage standing out is hard, seeing as a lot of intelligent and creative people have been thinking about it a lot and have had a lot of good ideas about it. There are some strong films out there. It’s a big competition. And it has to be said, this particular adaptation has a lot of good things going for it. First of all, the aesthetics. The film is categorically one of the most visually stunning things I have recently seen. It is a fittingly cold, bleak, unforgiving and stunning visual aesthetic that runs through every aspect of the film from the backdrops to the scenery. I honestly felt as if I could stop the film at a million different random points and just hang the scene up on your wall.

It goes without saying that this choice and aesthetic bleeds into the choice of actors. The choice of Michael Fassbender as Macbeth created a lot of ripples and excitement among the fans. Having seen him perform… Well I can see why he was picked but I am not sure I have seen the best rendition of Macbeth ever performed… Visually Fassbender fits the bill perfectly. Handsome, rugged, a sense of lurking danger under the surface… There is a lot of good stuff in there. I just thought that Macbeth should have been a bit more emotional than the one Fassbender portrayed him. Until the middle of the film I found him almost inscrutable (which is sad really because I would have liked some turmoil as Macbeth struggles with himself before killing Duncan). When his sanity begins to crumble it’s a bit better, there is flickers of some strong stuff there but there was, for my way of thinking, a lot of scope to push the boat right the way out there. This, I felt, was a stark contrast to Marion Cotillard who absolutely glowed as Lady Macbeth – from her initial greed right down to the bitter end when her sanity collapses as well. I have always had a bit of girl-crush on Cotillard. And I devoutly hope her work in this film will be recognized too. Now, before Shakespeare experts jump down my throat, yes, I am aware there is artistic merit in all of this. Pitting the more silent and sullen (talking about his acting style, not necessarily his role in this film) Fassbender against the lively and absolutely electric Cotillard may have been a choice. It is, after all, Lady Macbeth who pushes Macbeth into action and to fulfill his true potential as a king (and, to call a spade a spade, a serial killer). And after all at the beginning of the play Lady Macbeth prays to be unsexed (less like a woman) and before Duncan so much as sets foot in her household she is ready  (or would be ready – were she a man) to kill him herself, with her bare hands. This choice – these choices – set the roles of the two characters off. Lady Macbeth must really push Macbeth to catalyze him and get him to act. Macbeth has to drag himself and his own convictions, as if he and they were made of lead before he can muster up the mental strength to act. I get all that. My point is that the lid seems to have fallen off the jar of sullen Fassbender was using. There is more subtlety there than he is not moving – oh wait now he is. It does not come across in this performance.

So I see why this production of Macbeth garnered so much criticism, especially from the diehard Shakespeare fans. But then again we must be charitable. Every adaptation between mediums (even though in this instance it is from one performance art to the other) loses some of the initial magic by definition. And Kurzels Macbeth has a lot of good things going for it. I would watch it if I were you. I just wouldn’t expect it to change my world… 

NOT SO MUCH A "LEGEND" AS A CHANCE MISSED...

I approached this film about the infamous Kray twins with a lot of caution. Reviews about it has been mixed at best. Still I entered the film armed with a love of gangster movies and a deep appreciation of Tom Hardy’s acting talent. It cannot be that bad, I thought, probably a bit too violent or something. I love true stories – and it doesn’t come much gorier than the Krays – so all in all it should be a good watch. It very soon turned out that Tom Hardys acting was literally the only thing that was going to get me through to the end of the film. I have been flipping through some reviews of the film and it turns out that I (along with the film as it turns out) suffer a great deal from lack of knowledge of the Kray story. Well it just goes to show doesn’t it, if you don’t have a really good story, all the rest of the talent involved can only get the film so far…

Basically the film tells the story of notorious London gangsters and identical twins Ronnie and Reggie Kray. Told from the perspective of Frances, the wife of Reggie, the story charts the rise to power of the twins and their ultimate fall from it – the latter due in no small part to Ronnie Krays mental health issues…

Now, like I said I only know bits and pieces about the Kray story. But I do have a sense of why people would say that. Because watching the film, from a completely outside perspective as it were, I could feel bits and pieces missing although I did not know what they were. I mean, to put it in a nutshell, the film does give some small detail of the twins dealings with other gangs, their ownership of various nightclubs and casinos and hints at dealings with the police but in all honesty it shows absolutely and categorically nothing that would warrant them being accuse of having a criminal empire. I mean wheeler dealers yes. Not an empire though. Don’t get me wrong, when the time comes the film doesn’t shirk from showing violence. In fact the violence contains, in my humble opinion, some of the best bits of the film (I am the type of girl who a day later is still smiling at the line – I have a joke for you. Paranoid schizophrenic walks into a pub…- ).  Instead, the film centralizes by and large on (what else) the relationship between Reggie and Frances with Ronnie as something cross between comic relief and the impending doom that will ultimately be the undoing of them all (ultimately he is both). Again, this is a sensible choice in a way – Reggie was the more charismatic twin who was better at… Well better at being alive to be honest. But he wasn’t exactly boy scout of the year either. It enhances his struggle with his increasingly unhinged brother to have a positive light shone on him through the eyes of Frances. It harks back to that age old story of the gangster, trying to be good but ultimately being unable to avoid his past. Which would be all very well and good if we had a clearer, more grim and dire picture of what this evil empire the twins lived in was all about. Cue the complaints about how unfaithful to actual events the film is. I can sense what they left out. A couple of hinted talks with American mafia bosses and a few drunken brawls really don’t cut it.

And if the real Kray twins are left underdeveloped by the script, poor Frances definitely is. She is slightly reduced as your typical Mol. Your typical East End girl. There is clearly more to her than that, which is evident by how her story ends, but the film doesn’t do a very good job into going into detail about her. She mainly seems to exist to cast the positive light of love onto Reggie Kray. Now Reggie Kray is also, to be fair, a bit of an offshoot of a certain type – or at least in this film he is portrayed as such. He is the lovable rogue with street smarts and a flair for business. Every other British gangster film has one of them in it. The difference here of course is that Tom Hardy plays him perfectly, to an absolute T. What every other British gangster film doesn’t have, it needs to be said, is Ronnie Kray. Ronnie Kray is a paranoid schizophrenic who is left at the head of the family business when Reggie has to go into jail to serve out the tail end of a sentence. Already both eccentric and highly suspicious (all this despite medication, which he takes sporadically) I will leave you to discover how Ronnie unravels and how he brings the downfall of most if not all around him. Hardy portrays both twins with fluidity and conviction, so much so that you positively cringe at Ronnie’s antics for Reggie’s sake, completely forgetting that they are in actual fact the same person. Boy is this film a showcase of acting talent!

Violence is a strange one isn’t it… I honestly think at the end of the day it’s about striking a balance. I mean if you check out my review of The Revenant on Film Debate, you will find me complaining there was far too much violence. Now I have sort of ended up saying there is not enough. I think the problem here is that the story is in fact a well-known story of two very violent gangsters. They are almost part of the fabric of London. Turning their story into one they could have been cut out of and replaced with any gangster type from any British gangster film anywhere really, really takes something essential and important away from the films potential. We are left to the talent of Hardy, who uses these two characters a lot better in delivering the lines given to him and giving us a hint of what the film could have been… 

AN EXERCISE IN STRENGTH AND BEAUTY... THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY

This is definitely one of those ones you feel rather than understand. It’s one you watch with your gut as well as your eyes. And boy does director Peter Strickland make himself at home there. Re-watching the rather dreamlike and mesmerizing  trailer I have a feeling that this will be divisive. Some people will probably find it pretentious and a little too arty. But others will note its sheer beauty and be drawn in – like the proverbial moth to the flame – and hopefully, be in store for as pleasant a surprise as I was…

The Duke of Burgundy definitely doesn’t have straightforward storyline and the storyline that does exist is only half the story. Cynthia (Sidse Babet Knudsen) and Evelyn (Chiara d’Anna) are lovers. Cynthia is a scientist –or rather an academic -  she studies moths and butterflies. On the surface they are a couple like any other – albeit the fact they are lesbians does raise eyebrows in the older members of the little town they live in. However, Cynthia and Evelyn aren’t quite your average couple. This is a sado-masochistic relationship, complete with all manner of punishments you can (or can’t) imagine… And yet, love is love and relationships are relationships. They all suffer from the same hiccups and doubts. And as the two women explore the limits of their relationship, it becomes more and more questionable whether their love will survive at all…

If you are starting The Duke of Burgundy with the hope it’s some rather highbrow version of porn, I would strongly suggest you back up right now. Yes, the film is by its nature intensely sexual. But it is also both beautiful and heavily psychological. And when I say beautiful I most definitely do NOT mean  just the actresses. I also mean the film itself and its visual qualities. The cinematography is flawless, the photography is stunning and the whole film sustains the mesmerizing, dreamlike quality throughout and the whole mood sticks with you for quite a while after watching it.

As for the film itself, well there is so much to say… I will, sadly, stray into the realm of spoilers for a little but please bear with me. When the film first begins we are confronted with the typical dominant – submissive scenario. For a full half hour this is the reality we watch on screen. But then, slowly, we realize that even in the world of the film and this relationship these are precisely what these are – scenarios. As the story unfolds it becomes less and less clear who really “dominates” the relationship and who really is wearing the proverbial pants.

Because as we all know, it never is that simple, is it… No relationship ever is. Be it romantic, familial or friendly, bonds between human beings are never set in stone. They are fluid, they change with the people that form them they grow they expand, they contract… I don’t want to give too much away but as we (and the two ladies) get deeper and deeper into this story, this exploration, the film does a very good job of showing us how changeable these seas truly are. I especially loved the way Cynthia ends up celebrating Evelyn’s birthday… If there ever was a scene where the worm truly turned… But I should really let you discover that one for yourself.

You will really need to just stop and figure out what just hit you once you finish watching The Duke of Burgundy. You will reevaluate your own relationships, have a quiet cup of something or other and if you are anything like me be unable to watch another “serious” film that day. It’s definitely not for the faint hearted and rest assured I do not just mean sexually, although the film does not shy away from the physicality of a sado-masochistic relationship for one moment (although, kudos to Peter Strickland the director, it doesn’t for one minute fall into the trap of making the women overly sexualized or “cheapened” in any way). It will, however, make you go to some interesting places in your own head. If you can overcome the strength of the story and the in places abstract story telling that is… This one is in short, a bit of hard work but definitely worth the effort…   

CHRISTMAS COMES BUT ONCE A YEAR...

I'm not going to say I'm disappointed with the Sherlock Christmas Special. Come on, it's Sherlock. I liked it by definition.

My point is... Well it's not what I hoped it would be. A bit like most venues on New Years Eve - you go out dressed to the nines and full of expectations but come the venue, on the night, you most often end up with nothing like the photos on the website and bill that is far too large.

But then again, it is Christmas. This could just be a tolerable blip like Christmas jumpers, crackers and other seasonal stuff that would make no sense outside of the Christmas season... Only time will tell...

happy viewing,
Essie

THE LEGEND HAS LANDED... "SHERLOCK – THE ABOMNIBAL BRIDE"

Well, it’s finally here. And oh boy, where we waiting for it. It has been a whole three years since the last “proper” season of Sherlock after all so like all the fans I pounced on the show the day it emerged blinking onto the TV screen. Oh it was fun. It was exciting and challenging and all the good things we like about the Sherlock shows… So was I content then, did I give it a full thumbs up? Um well… Not quite…

So let’s start at the beginning. The Abominable Bride  seems to be set, for all intents and purposes, in an alternative universe to our modern friend. A sort “how would it go if they were actually Victorian” type deal. And it is a story tinged with a bit of horror no less – supposedly the story of a bride who comes back from the dead to kill, first her own husband but then men who mistreat their wives pretty much everywhere. Naturally, even in Victorian times Holmes is not about to fall for the whole “ghost bride” deal, even if Watson himself is on the verge (but ehem, not quite)of believing the supernatural. But the whole supernatural aspect notwithstanding, there is a lot more to this case than first meets the eye… It may even – God help us – even tax our favourite television detective a tiny bit…

As you all know, I am as bigger fan as the next person of complicated storylines. I have often thrown my toys out of the pram when the story is too simple. But there can be a little too much of a good thing. Especially complications. Now, the storyline set in Victorian times itself, I have no trouble with. Nor do I have issues with the implied supernatural element.  After all  I am a bit of a horror fan (or have become so over the years – psychologists, weigh in lol) and I need to say this episode of Holmes has some quite strong chill credentials. By no means prohibitive for sensitive souls but notable. In a good way.      That’s what we like about the Sherlock series – completely logical and real, yet tooth-grindingly fiendish and very hard to solve without being Holmes (or, you know, a member of the cast with an actual script to hand). Besides if you are watching a whodunit, there needs to be a degree of challenge in answering the question otherwise there really is no point – take it from someone who spends an embarrassingly large chunk of her life on whodunits.

Ok, herein begin to lie spoilers so take head. Moving on, I could even buy the whole “first level” of tying in with the modern Sherlock. You know, it was all a mental exercise all along. And the whole episode ends with some very interesting crumbs dropped about the coming season so you know, good job on whetting our whistles. The bit where it does not work for me is when Holmes basically suddenly becomes able to travel into his “mind palace” at will, have long and entertaining chats with himself. In fact, his subconscious mind is so complicated and so developed that it can set him puzzles his conscious mind has trouble solving. Though of course logic sort of dictates that he SHOULD be able to solve it by definition – it is after all a puzzle he himself created. It’s a very interesting case of split personality if he couldn’t. It sort of mirrors the film Inception. And at a push it could have been argued away by saying “Oh well, you always knew his mind was different”. And I will concede to the fact that it basically is a prolongation of lucid dreaming. But I don’t know… I almost feel as if they have tried to show us how the goose that lays the golden eggs works. But in (proverbially) cutting Holmes open, they have slightly undone themselves…

I think part of the appeal of Sherlock has always been that it ultimately makes sense. You know it may well be nigh on impossible to actually happen but it sort of could. It’s not “magic”. Nor is it “mumbo jumbo computery stuff that sounds clever but actually means nothing”. It was always ever, quite simply, an almost completely (but not quite) unbelievable mind. And I am not saying that you should leave everything to faith to be oh so mysterious – especially not in our modern times. My argument is that IF you are going to try to explain any key concept of a series to death, you need to have a solid game plan going for you. Especially when talking about concepts like logic and the mind – because if you don’t get those arguments to make sense, there is a danger that you, ironically enough, seem to be unable to make sense of what is basically heightened common sense. There was absolutely no need for complicated party tricks methinks. We could just as well have left it to be inexplicable. In its current state, it have worked better.

Hopefully this was just a party trick for Christmas and we won’t have prolonged stays in Holmes’ mind palace in the upcoming season. I have a feeling we will be back to business as usual when the time comes though. After all, this is sort of what the first of January is all about no… A sort of netherworld between the new year and the old one when you sort of loll around on the couch, try and get your act together and mentally prepare for the year to come. I’m sure they will do better on the “real thing”.

BORN AGAIN SHAKESPEARE FAN

Oh I know. I should have gone with my original plan and gone with my review of the Sherlock Christmas special. The review is actually written and ready but at the last minute I backed out and clung to this.

Let me make one thing clear, I was never a "fan" of Shakespeare. I respected him from a distance and always knew I had to learn more about him but never went into raptures or anything. I was astounded at how much of a convert I had become in the matter of just 2 performances.

I know this tiny little review won't exactly rock the world. But maybe a couple of you who are indifferent like I was will decide to get off the fence and give it a look. I will consider my mission accomplished if you give it just a second look...

Incidentally - for those who are wondering - we will go back to regular film and tv reviews for a while now. Just in case if you were wondering if I was becoming a theatre critic or something - I'm not. I'm multitasking. Incidentally, I have also resumed my semi-regular spot at Film Debate - head on over for my review of In the Heart of the Sea!

best,
Essie

WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S HENRY IV (part 1 and 2) (RSC performance) - OR A STORY OF CONVERSION...

I have always been slightly cautious about writing about “the big guns”. Many reasons for this, not the least the fact that I am not, in this particular case, exactly an expert on Shakespeare. Whatever else I have learned (I grew up in French institutions so it was largely French literature) I had to work my way over to The Immortal Bard myself. I must say, I did not do a god job. Until I watched these two plays I had a healthy appreciation of Shakespeare. I could even say (heck, I SHOULD say) I respected him. But this time… This was different.

I don’t quite know what changed. Beginning to train as an actor has undoubtedly changed my perspective on such things. It has made me undoubtedly more sensitive to any performance I approach. Having seen it at a mature age would have contributed (the first of the two previous actual theatre performances of Shakespeare I have seen was age 14). Seeing it performed in its original blank verse would also have added (the second, age twenty-something, was in Turkish. An admirable performance –but not blank verse). Seeing it performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company was undoubtedly one of the deciding factors – it is after all their area of expertise – and even though I have seen the RSC perform other plays before (Death of a Salesman was one that still sticks in my mind) I had never see them “do” Shakespeare. And, of course, Shakespeare has many different kinds of plays, you may not particularly adore the comedies for example but might fall head over heels for the historical plays like me. It was probably a combination of a lot of factors. But this performance just hit me like a freight train. I’m hooked. Kudos to the RSC, you have probably gained a disciple for life!

This is how I want you to approach the review. I am not some hoity-toity expert who is going to correct your pronunciation or disapprove of your lack of love for quinoa. I am just  a very average person who has just started on the path to actor training and who thought it was high time she figured out “what the whole deal was” about Shakespeare. I expected to learn something from the performance I went to. I never expected to adore it the way I did. The aim of this review is to explain how and why this happened – and maybe encourage you uninitiated to take a second look at The Bard. I kid you not, you might actually be surprised.

So, ok, down to business. What the heck am I actually talking about? Well, Henry the IV is basically made up of two plays. Imaginatively named part 1 and part 2, the play is based on the reign of King Henry IV. It is part of a tetralogy – a series of four plays in this particular case Richard II, Henry IV parts 1 and 2 and Henry V – and serves not only as a history of the actual events of this period but is also a sometimes heart-stopping tale of some of the larger than life characters and their very human lives. It is, in effect, a precursor to television series like Game of Thrones. Only differences are there is a lot less sex and nudity and it is a lot easier to pick up in the middle. That’s a good point actually – I hadn’t seen Richard II but was able to follow the story with a lot of ease, so don’t let not knowing what came before put you off going. Anyway, so at the beginning of Henry IV we have King Henry IV on the throne. He has just overthrown his cousin Richard II and taken over the throne so feelings of guilt combine with accusations from around him to create an uneasy atmosphere. Henry would like more than anything to set out to the Holy Lands to in part redeem himself. But rebellions on various fronts within the country keep him in England and will culminate with the battle of Shrewsbury (a real life battle that took place in 1403). On the other hand we have Henry Jr (let’s call him Hal for the purposes of differentiation, the play is absolutely lousy with Henrys) who is the eldest of the princes and the heir to the throne. Hal is, by and large, slumming it. He spends time with drunkards and thieves (in particularly a dastardly old knight by the name of Falstaff) and shows absolutely no promise at all of becoming the kind of person a monarch should be. The play follows these two strands, the historical battles and the rebellion led by the hotheaded Henry Hotspur (I did warn you), Hal’s personal journey becoming a monarch (and preparing him for his title part in the last part of the tetralogy, Henry V) and the comic relief, a band of dastardly villains (and Hal’s entourage) led by Falstaff. For those history buffs among you, we start with the events leading to the battle of Shrewsbury and end with Hal’s coronation as king Henry V.   

Now, I have likened these historical plays to Game of Thrones earlier in the review – here’s where it begins to differ. As you may or may not know (funnily enough I did) Elizabethan theatre does not use décor and uses very little in the way of props. This production of the RSC has opted for a striking and minimal décor with light effects to give the allusion of different spaces and atmosphere. Thus there is nothing for the actors to hide behind – the entire emotion of the play has to come from their performance… And oh what a performance it is. Anthony Sher is absolutely wonderful as Falstaff – the main comic character counterbalancing the war and sadness in the other strands of the play and practically got a laugh a minute from the audience. Alex Hassel was engaging and fun to watch as Hal . So much so I nearly (not quite but nearly) impulse bought the last remaining rather highly priced stalls ticket for the last standalone performance the next day. Had it not been just after Christmas and the end of the month, I would almost certainly have bought it, and this purely because I was so attached to the character I was desperate to find out what happens to him next, and could not imagine ANY other actor portraying him. (I ultimately went for a more moderately priced version of Henry V, the 1989 film starring Kenneth Branagh. He was great too of course but that’s another discussion and he wasn’t Alex Hassel ehm ). Another favourite of mine was Matthew Needham whose Hotspur is as hot-headed as his name with almost manic energy that of course in the course of the story goes completely misdirected and ends up ruining him. I heard older members of the audience muttering about him being OTT but I honestly do not think that was the case. I think it sets off Hotspurs almost manic pursuit of a “job” against the attitude of Hal who is a shoo-in for but does not really care about the job. This in turn is the reason the old king Henry IV is worried – being a heir apparent is well and good but as King Henry knows only too well thrones can be easily lost, even when one is virtually sitting on them.

And this, of course is one of the reasons Shakespeare’s plays have such timeless appeal. The way the themes – even though the circumstances change – echo down the ages. That and, in this particular case, the fact that multiple genres – an almost vaudeville type comedy, a war epic and a tragedy are so skilfully mixed.  It’s just wonderful storytelling. It’s what we love in films when they come off right – blending genre conventions, creating larger than life characters (and yes the characters were actually real but the skill of the writer and actor combined is in making them look real in a performance) and above all telling a compelling story. Sound familiar? I bet we could apply that one to every single one of your favourite films. Well folks, this is where it began. This is why you need to learn more about Shakespeare. And this is why I am watching Shakespeare screen adaptations at a practically obsessive rate. 

So put aside your preconceptions. If you think you’ll struggle with the blank verse do what I did and read up on the topic first (and by that I mean I checked the synopsis on my phone on the way to the theatre). Just pick a decent performance and see what the fuss is about. Believe you me; I first got the tickets purely because my Middle Eastern side can’t resist a decent bargain on Timeout Offers. I ended up having my life changed for ever…

Curious ? Then head on over to www.kingandcountry.org.uk to find out more! There isn't much in the way of indiviual performances left I am afraid but you can actually see the whole tetralogy over a few days and get "the whole deal!