My Thoughts on Frankenstein (Spoiler Version)

I wanted to share some more thoughts I had after watching Frankenstein last night, but they ruin some pretty big moments in the show. So if you're thinking of going, don't read this yet.


The start of the show is incredible; it starts with the genesis of the Creature as he is birthed on to the floor with a plop, and spends the next 10-15 minutes alone onstage, discovering how his limbs work. As Cumberbatch said in the pre-show interview, he has a full-grown human brain, and learns super-quick. Which is probably part of his downfall; as a child's brain develops, it layers different kinds of understanding and builds on its knowledge. An adult instead tries to smash the puzzle pieces together to make everything fit.

Anyway, it was an incredibly mesmerizing scene to watch. I would challenge any actor who doesn't bother to study any type of movement to create a scene that requires such nuance and stamina. I have one complaint, though; Frankenstein comes in, sees his creature, rejects him, and quickly disappears. I would have liked for them to hold on to that moment just a little bit longer; to see some kind of admission from the doctor that he was completely unprepared for his experiment to actually work.

--------

One of my favorite scenes was of the female creature (Andreea Padurariu), which the Creature has begged his master to make him. You could really see the crazy/inspiration in Miller's eyes as he began to imagine the improvements he could make in his next experiment. Now this is going to sound a little weird, but stick with me. I've always been fascinated by things that should be beautiful, but are marred or twisted in some way (like the dilapidated theater in my icon). The actress playing the Female Creature is an absolute paragon of female physical beauty--Frankenstein trots her out only partially re-animated and wearing only a small loincloth so you can see her perfect curves and angles, accentuated by neat rows of stitch marks along her pallid, dead flesh.

Frankenstein shows the Creature his bride, and asks him what love feels like. "My lungs are on fire, and I feel like I can do anything!" is his reply, and by the angry, haunted look on Frankenstein's face, you can tell that he has no idea what that feels like.

What happens next is that the doctor distracts his creature long enough to destroy his bride--Frankenstein himself is supposed to be getting married. His fiance Elizabeth is lovely, warm and vivacious, and he feels nothing for her. This thing he created understands what it is to experience life better than he does, so Frankenstein denies him the love he cannot feel himself. I found the bride's death oddly beautiful as well, created in silhouette behind the womb-like membrane we saw the Creature born from earlier, which then rotates to show the aftermath of his destruction.

Photo by Catherine Ashmore- The National Theatre.

The scene near the end where the Creature seeks revenge on Frankenstein by attacking Elizabeth (Naomie Harris) on their wedding surprised the hell out of me--the Creature was hiding in their bed and I had no idea he was there. It's hard to do a jump-scare on stage, because you have to get out there without anyone seeing you and stay hidden. They did it really well.

And at the end of the show, en route the the North Pole, I felt so bad for Jonny Lee Miller. He shaved his head, and was obviously dripping under his hot wig and frock coat, and then he has to put on this seal fur coat! Poor guy must've been dying.

Well I'm sure I'll have a million more thoughts about this show throughout the day, but I wanted to get these ones written down while they were still in my head. How wonderful to see a show that sticks with you so much!

I Have Seen the National Theatre's Frankenstein, and It Was Awesome

I went to see this last night at Graumann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, and I'm so glad I did. It was such a great production; well-acted, with some great pieces of stagecraft, and interesting transitions that made the movement of the show flow really well.

The play took the interesting perspective of following the story from the Creature's point of view (the book follows Frankenstein, and then the Creature has a chapter of "this is what I was doing that whole time"), which will be a huge change for people who are only familiar with the classic film.

Also, the Creature's ability to learn and speak may come as a surprise to some viewers, as well. The play contains several riveting scenes of intelligent discussions of morality, the nature of the human soul, and love, to name a few.

The show started with few behind-the-scenes clips and interviews (apparently a documentary is being made; I'll definitely be wanting that when it comes out). The actors said some really interesting things about how they created their characters; Cumberbatch studied stroke victims and people learning to re-use limbs, Miller watched his two-year-old child.

One thing that was a bit odd was that we got the opposite cast from the one we were expecting: Benedict Cumberbatch played the Creature that night, and Jonny Lee Miller was Victor Frankenstein. That was fine with me, I was absolutely thrilled with the performance I saw. I was just expecting it to be the other way around, so I was a little confused for a minute.

Most theaters have added additional showings, and the screening of the reverse cast is coming next week, so find out if its playing near you. You'll be glad you caught it.

The Steam Train- one of the brilliant bits of stagecraft in Frankenstein (all images credited to the National Theatre of London)

The Creature is born flailing into the world to discover alone how his mind and body works.

A note about going to Graumann's Chinese Theatre- this was my first time seeing a movie there, actually. I usually try to avoid that area due to the tourist crowding and creepy costumed street people. I discovered it's not a good idea to wear high heels there; that's where the handprints in the cement are, and I kept falling in the holes!

To Be Beautiful and Upsetting

So this isn't exactly the most timely post, but I was feeling particularly inspired this morning. My very thoughtful and intelligent parents noticed my post on Mark Morris's The Hard Nut and bought me the DVD for Christmas.

There's a great little documentary in the bonus features, and my favorite part come when Morris is talking about his inspiration, and why he wanted to work with comic artist Charles Burns, and he describes his work as "beautiful and upsetting." I heard that and thought, how marvelous! I would love to create something beautiful and upsetting. I think that's a fantastic goal for an artist.

As I expected, there were things I understood and appreciated about the show that I didn't pick up on when I was younger. For example, I was excited and amused when I realized, as a child, that the maid/nurse is played by a man (on pointe, no less). Now coming at it as an adult, I realized that there's tons of roles in the show that are played by the opposite sex, such as Fritz and Mrs. Stahlbaum/the Queen. Also, the snow and flower ensembles are completely mixed gender because, to quote Morris, "Nature means everyone". That makes a ton of sense to me!

The reason that I was inspired today is I was reading this New York Times article about the book "Apollo's Angels", and the following quote jumped out at me:

"My own main alarm about ballet...is that its dependence on pointwork for women and partnering by men proposes a dichotomizing view of the sexes that is at best outmoded and at worst repellently sexist."

And that blew my mind, because it's exactly the thing that I realized I was noticing for the first time about The Hard Nut. It's incredibly equal-opportunity: men partner men, whole groups partner each other, and the men are on pointe as often as the women are. Morris makes the choice which is most appropriate for the music or the character, whether that's using an "ugly" step instead of a more graceful one, or putting a man in pointe shoes.

One thing that always bothered me about traditional versions of The Nutcracker is that the second act doesn't have a plot. They go to the Land of Sweets and party. Instead, The Hard Nut takes the opportunity to actually use the original Hoffman story, and explain how Drosselmeier's nephew came to be transformed into a nutcracker. This also gives more stage time to Drosselmeier, who is my favorite character in the show. On the DVD he's played by Rob Besserer, who I discovered has worked with the Metropolitan Opera lately in silent character/pantomime roles. As it happens, this spring he'll be appearing in Le Comte Ory, which I was planning to see anyway, so that's an added bonus.

Speaking of the Met's live transmissions, I wonder if this would be an effective tool for ballet, as well? Thoughts?

Probably The Best Thing I Ever Saw- Christmas Edition

I grew up in a small suburb to the Northwest of Boston, and every couple of years around Christmas there would be a trip to see a holiday show. The North Shore Music Theatre in Beverly was very close by, so we would often go see their production of A Christmas Carol.

I always loved this production. The North Shore Music Theatre is a theater in the round, so you would think that sets would have to be very minimal, but they managed to do so much by flying in set elements from the overhead grid, or with changes to the stage lifts and revolve (I swear that stage does something different every time I go there, between revolving and sliding platforms, lifts, stairs, etc) and of course strong lighting and costuming.

There's a couple of things that I think really work about the production: the excellent use of music, including both traditional Christmas carols, and incidental music written for the show. The entrance of the jovial Ghost of Christmas Present (on stilts) singing "The Boar's Head Carol" is always a huge thrill.

Josh Tower as the Ghost of Christmas Present. Photo by Paul Lyden
Although recently they've gone in the direction of the traditional looming, robed figure, the Ghost of Christmas Future used to appear as an ominous version of Young Scrooge, with a creepy slow-motion walk.

Christmas future from the 2007 Production:



Jeff Edgerton as The Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come. Photo by Paul Lyden.

Their Jacob Marley was also super creepy/cool:

Tom Staggs as Jacob Marley. Photo by Paul Lyden

One of the interesting things about seeing this show multiple times over the years was experiencing the changes they made. For example, Marley used to emerge from a trap door in the floor of the stage, surrounded by creepy green light and smoke. Then I saw it again years later, and the trap door opened up and the smoke poured out--and he flew in screaming from the rafters! It was a well-crafted bit of misdirection which absolutely scared the hell out of me.

But this is a blog about my relationship with theatre. And this went from being a show I enjoyed to a show I loved my senior year of high school. I'd been working really hard all fall (no senioritis for me), and had finished applying to colleges and had just been through a really frustrating round of auditions for university drama programs. I was feeling burnt-out and discouraged.

And then my mom won a pair of tickets to A Christmas Carol at a church auction as a surprise for me! I was looking forward to seeing the show, but I really couldn't anticipate the feelings it would stir inside me. We had excellent seats (although there are few bad seats in that house), so I could easily see the actors' expressions, and the detail on the costumes. The show was completely transporting, and I remember this very clearly: it was almost the end of the first act, and Young Scrooge's fiance Belle was tearfully breaking up with him, and I thought to myself:

 "Oh, yes. This is why I want to do this".

I Did Not Come Up With This, But It Is Fantastic

And also true.