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!