![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magidLast night I hosted potluck on the Common.
There were plenty of people who were able to go down early and make sure we had good seats; I thank them for their time and dedication.
I got there a bit later, laden with paper goods, food, extra clothes, and a backjack, all crammed into the suitcase I wore on my back, to find that the crew was working on the lights, so we weren't allowed into the front area where our blankets were for a while.
Slowly people gathered, and food was started. I brought the big loaf of bread (glad it hadn't gotten shmushed in the suitcase), and barley-chickpea-veg salad. Apparently some people thought I might forget paper goods: there was an overabundance of supplies (which meant, of course, that there was that much more for me to carry back...). It was good to see people, though I think in general that having this sort of potluck means less movement of people, so fewer cross-conversations.
I was surprised how quickly curtain time came.
The production of Henry V was the first historical Shakespeare I've seen, I think. I felt that it was a rather prettified version of history, more an English schoolchild's textbook version of what might have happened, rather than the more ambiguities of "grown-up" history.
The director decided to set it in its correct era, except that the times the narrator was speaking, which were in a bombed London Tube station during the Blitz. The air raid sirens were very hard for me to listen to, though they weren't exactly the same length as the ones for the Gulf War.
The (more) permanent part of the set was Tube station, and there were different cloth panels strung up at other times to indicate other period parts. The costumes were nicely done, the occasional crossover modern soldier fight ing in Harry's war.
There were some fighting scenes, carefully choreographed (as we saw from the practice done before the play started). I particularly liked how they portrayed longbows.
I thought that the actors playing the smaller comedic roles were very nicely done, getting lots of laughs, but the guy in the title role was far from stellar. His posture was all wrong for the part, his knees moving in ways that suggested he might be parodying a rock singer. His lips moved a bit oddly, too, and his scenes where he was rallying his men to battle were just not at all charismatic. I could see the play feeling rather different if the right person had been in that part.
Still, I was glad to have gone, despite my utter exhaustion (I almost fell asleep once or twice)(Bitty, it didn't finish until 11:30; perhaps another day will fit in your schedule better...).
[Addenda: they also used a really huge map at one point, with a toy castle and ships placed on it. Cute, yet very effective. I liked it, and for those who are not geographically inclined, it helped.
OTOH, there was enough French in the production (more than one scene) that I'd think those with no French at all would be irritated.]
There were plenty of people who were able to go down early and make sure we had good seats; I thank them for their time and dedication.
I got there a bit later, laden with paper goods, food, extra clothes, and a backjack, all crammed into the suitcase I wore on my back, to find that the crew was working on the lights, so we weren't allowed into the front area where our blankets were for a while.
Slowly people gathered, and food was started. I brought the big loaf of bread (glad it hadn't gotten shmushed in the suitcase), and barley-chickpea-veg salad. Apparently some people thought I might forget paper goods: there was an overabundance of supplies (which meant, of course, that there was that much more for me to carry back...). It was good to see people, though I think in general that having this sort of potluck means less movement of people, so fewer cross-conversations.
I was surprised how quickly curtain time came.
The production of Henry V was the first historical Shakespeare I've seen, I think. I felt that it was a rather prettified version of history, more an English schoolchild's textbook version of what might have happened, rather than the more ambiguities of "grown-up" history.
The director decided to set it in its correct era, except that the times the narrator was speaking, which were in a bombed London Tube station during the Blitz. The air raid sirens were very hard for me to listen to, though they weren't exactly the same length as the ones for the Gulf War.
The (more) permanent part of the set was Tube station, and there were different cloth panels strung up at other times to indicate other period parts. The costumes were nicely done, the occasional crossover modern soldier fight ing in Harry's war.
There were some fighting scenes, carefully choreographed (as we saw from the practice done before the play started). I particularly liked how they portrayed longbows.
I thought that the actors playing the smaller comedic roles were very nicely done, getting lots of laughs, but the guy in the title role was far from stellar. His posture was all wrong for the part, his knees moving in ways that suggested he might be parodying a rock singer. His lips moved a bit oddly, too, and his scenes where he was rallying his men to battle were just not at all charismatic. I could see the play feeling rather different if the right person had been in that part.
Still, I was glad to have gone, despite my utter exhaustion (I almost fell asleep once or twice)(Bitty, it didn't finish until 11:30; perhaps another day will fit in your schedule better...).
[Addenda: they also used a really huge map at one point, with a toy castle and ships placed on it. Cute, yet very effective. I liked it, and for those who are not geographically inclined, it helped.
OTOH, there was enough French in the production (more than one scene) that I'd think those with no French at all would be irritated.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-07-26 07:46 am (UTC)It's important to remember that Shakespeare's history plays were as much political statements as history. (In ways similar to how Robert Altman's M*A*S*H is really about the then-current Viet Nam war despite being set in Korea.)
A very good book for getting more of the background of Shakespeare's plays (without being a complete chore to wade through, as a bonus) is Asimov's Guide to Shakespare. Rather than provide literary criticism, which the Good Doctor admits he's ill-trained to do, he instead focuses on filling you in on all the stuff that the Bard's Elizabethan audience would have been familiar with that modern American readers would not.
Glad you had a good time! *HUG*
Love,
-R
Shakespearean history
Date: 2002-07-26 08:08 am (UTC)I know that originally there was to have been a different play this summer (Macbeth?), but with the political situation as it was, they changed it to this, to be more "topical." I'm not sure they succeeded, though: this didn't feel connected to American politics today (aka after 9/11), though it did link fairly well with the Blitz imagery they included.
Re: Shakespearean history
Date: 2002-07-26 08:25 am (UTC)Well, it's a little less surprising when you remember that Shakespeare's acting company was the Lord Chamberlain's Men at the time Henry V was written in 1599. (In 1603, they were renamed The King's Men). Old Bill was VERY aware of who was buttering his bread. (Speaking of MacBeth, that whole scene about the witches claiming that Banquo's decendents founding a long line of kings was a purposeful bit of propaganda suggesting the legitimacy of James VI, who had very recently become James I of England as well.)
-R