Showing posts with label play. Show all posts
Showing posts with label play. Show all posts

Friday, March 7, 2014

Pride and Prejudice Performed

It's a balmy 45 degrees Fahrenheit outside today - and sunny! :-P It was so warm that, even though I still wore my warm coat, I rolled down the windows in the car while driving.

Spring is COMING, even after this crazy polar vortex. Have hope! My heart is about to burst.

On a completely different note, my homeschool group's theater company is putting on a performance of Pride and Prejudice!

Thin Ice Pride & Prejudice flyer_100989.indd



I am in it, but I am only a random person at the ball, so that is of little matter. 
The more important thing is that it is a rather excellent production, and that if you happen to be around the Chicago area, you should come see it! :-) 

And whether or not you are from 'round here, you should still stop by to the website and "like" the Facebook page:
On the site, you can see the trailer (which is awesome) and purchase advance tickets (though they will be available at the door as well).

My sister is playing a fantastically chatty Mrs. Bennet. Here is her cast photo. See, she will cry if you don't come!

Photo: You don't want to miss this young lady as Mrs. Bennet in Pride and Prejudice!




Thursday, February 27, 2014

Dickens on Stage

You may remember that I did a readalong for Tale of Two Cities back in December.
Well, my favorite ever theater company - Lifeline Theatre - did an adaptation of it, and I went to see it last Friday! It was my mother's birthday present for me... :-)

Firstly, let me mention how similar Darnay and Carton looked. They found some excellent actors who actually could be mistaken for each other, if you didn't look close. Check it out:

(Darnay, Lucie, and Carton, in that order.)













(Carton on the left, and Darnay on the right, out for a drink.)
The actors were all spectacular, as always, but I'd like to make special mention of two.
First, the fellow who played Dr. Manette:


Father and child.

He played the doctor so well, both in his difficult times, and his stronger moments. And his relationship with Lucie was perfect.

Secondly, this guy:

An interesting individual

Because there are so many things in Tale of Two Cities that cannot be incorporated into a 2 hour production, they clearly had to make some changes (more like omissions - they never really change from the original book). And one of their most interesting things they did was make the character of Jerry Cruncher into a sort of narrator/omnipresent viewer that guided the audience along back and forth between London to Paris, and took on minor character roles. The adaptor gave him (whom they called the Resurrection Man) many of Dickens' beautiful descriptive passages, that would otherwise have been lost in a theatrical adaptation. A wonderful choice. (And the fellow playing him was spectacular in his oratorical skills - he opened the play with the famous "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." passage, and managed to deliver it, in his cockney accent, with a strange elegance.)

Another change that they made was that they completely omitted Mr. Lorry! I suppose that there just wasn't enough time for him, but I would have loved to see him portrayed. The entire bank where he works, with Dickens' fantastic description, was nonexistent. Oh well - you can only hope for so much.

But apart from that, the adaptation left nothing to be desired. I adored Miss Pross (performed, in a strange reversal of roles, by the same actress who played Milady in The Three Musketeers). And Carton's final speech put tears in my eyes. 
Okay, whom am I kidding - I was straight out sobbing. 

Now I am even MORE excited about their production of Monstrous Regiment this summer! Yippee!

~Sophia

P.S. Today is John Steinbeck's birthday! Unfortunately, he won't get an entire post devoted to him like Hugo did yesterday, because I really haven't read any of his works and know nothing about him. But I am planning on reading him at some point - he's too classic to skip!
An interesting fact: today, he will be 112 years old - exactly 100 years younger than Hugo! :-)
And check out the cool Google Doodle in his honor.





Friday, January 17, 2014

Monstrous Regment by Terry Pratchett // Funny Fantasy




Okay, gonna keep this nice and short, because I'm rather swamped with schoolwork and other responsibilities.

I read Monstrous Regiment in two days while on vacation. I'd almost forgotten how good it felt to read a book in less than a week. The past few months have been filled with squeezing in reading time in between schoolwork, and it was good to just - read. (Though I have a sad feeling that I'm about to go back to that limited-reading-time sort of life now.)

Anyway, you may remember that my introduction to Pratchett occurred some months ago, and I really enjoyed it. Monstrous Regiment was equally spectacular.

It's really hard not to give spoilers, but I really enjoyed how the story kept giving me more and more surprises as it went along. Just marvelous.

Pratchett's worldbuilding is also marvelous. It's a fantasy world - with overtones of the real world. Somehow, there are a thousand comments on our society and rules. Consider Nuggan's Abominations in Monstrous Regiment. Nuggan is a god who is just a creation to suppress the people. Rocks are an Abomination unto Nuggan? Now, I am a Christian, and I believe in God (and don't think God is at all like Nuggan), but it is an interesting view in religion in general, and how religion can be used to oppress and suppress the people. It makes me think of the Church in the Middle Ages.
It also makes me wonder if Pratchett was at all religious. 

Update: If anyone else was wondering, after some slight research I have discovered that Pratchett is an atheist.

Continuing on, Pratchett is always astounding me with his amazing insights into life. His little comments on life veiled in humor prove that Pratchett spends a lot of time watching people. Everyone talks about how George R. R. Martin is so excellent at writing female characters. Personally, I don't completely agree. But Pratchett? His women are pretty spot-on, I'd say. Monstrous Regiment is a fantastic example of that, and there are a variety of different female characters portrayed.

This is getting to be a longer post that I thought it would! I'd like to end it with this note:
Lifeline Theater (my ABSOLUTE FAVORITE theater company) is doing an adaptation of Monstrous Regiment. I'm really looking forward to seeing how the book is going to transfer to the stage. Shows are in June and July, so I'll have to wait a bit, but it's worth waiting for!





Have you read Monstrous Regiment or any other Terry Pratchett? Did you like it? If you've read Pratchett before - which of his books do you recommend I read next?

~Sophia



Tuesday, June 25, 2013

All for one...!

Lifeline Theater is by far my favorite venue for straight plays. They always perform with the highest quality, and do most of their adaptations themselves. They have done many adaptations of my favorite books, and done them excellently, too. Some that come to mind are A Cricket in Times Square, Johnny Tremain, Treasure Island, Pride and Prejudice, The Count of Monte Cristo, and The Mark of Zorro (though I haven't read the book that corresponds with the latter).
On Friday, my family and I went to see their latest production of The Three Musketeers. (You may remember my mentioning rereading the book.) What can I say? It was excellent, as always.
(If you're wondering, its d'Artagnan, Aramis, Porthos, and Athos, from left to right)

I must say that I highly commend the writers of this play for incorporating practically the entire book into two hours. Apparently this is one of the first versions of The Three Musketeers that does this. Others have only focused on parts of the story.

The actors were spectacular, as always. I couldn't have wished for a better d'Artagnan. He was headstrong, clever, a good swordsman, and yet had that innocent quality about him that sets him apart from the Three Inseparables. (And it didn't hurt that he was the most attractive guy on stage. No, of course I didn't notice when he took his shirt off, twice. Why would I?)
When I was younger, it was one of my dreams to play Constance Bonacieux onstage next to a handsome d'Artagnan. I now realize that my calling is not that of an actress, so the next best thing is to see an excellent, and most adorable lady as Constance next to an equally excellent and adorable d'Artagnan.
Aren't they so cute together?



You may realize that d'Artagnan is wearing a t-shirt. Not very period, is it?

It worked though, and marvelously. The white is to distinguish d'Artagnan as a King's Guard. The King's Musketeers had blue t-shirts (and bullet-proof vests) and the Cardinal's Guards had red t-shirts. They all had weaponry suited to the time period, though, and the t-shirts had an ornate design of fleur-des-lis. The ladies in the cast had simple, tunic-like dresses that fit nicely. Queen Anne of Austria had her share of bling, but it was tempered bling.
Here is a photo from a scene where they are defending a garrison alone (just four of them!). They made a bet that they could defend it for an hour. It was Athos's way of getting them some time alone to eat and to talk privately. Not my idea of a pleasant lunch and chat!



Lifeline, with its characteristic simplicity, had a set made of metal poles and beams. This set, with the movement of a few chairs and benches, became, over the course of the play, d'Artagnan's apartment, the place of M. de Treville, the King's castle, a roadside tavern, a fort, and various other locations. The actors slid down poles, climbed out of trap doors, and swung on monkey-bars. It didn't at all distract from the play - in fact, it enhanced it.

Milady - Lady deWinter - was not what I envisioned the character as, but she made it work. Milady is described as blonde, blue-eyed, and stunningly beautiful. The actress playing her was dark haired, dark-eyed, and attractive - though not stunningly so. But she made up for that with her sensuality and her portrayal of downright villainy. It just made me hate Milady even more - that's a complement to the actress!

There was a poster in the lobby that provided more information on the time period and on Dumas' life.
Fun fact: did you know that Dumas' paternal grandmother was black? His father was the first black general in French history! How cool. Dumas Sr. was born in Saint-Domingue, which is now a part of Haiti, and his mother was a native there.
I love fun literary facts like that.

Nadar - Alexander Dumas père (1802-1870) - Google Art Project 2.jpg
Dumas Jr.

Alexandre Dumas (1762-1806).JPG
Dumas Sr.


If you have the time, I highly recommend that you go see the show. Even if you haven't read the book, you will love it. But you should read the book - you'll love that, too!
(though you should get the translation by Richard Pevear)

~Sophia



Sunday, May 19, 2013

Sherlock Holmes on the Stage!

I have a big post coming about Sherlock Holmes soon... stay tuned.
But before I finish that, I thought I'd let you know about the play I saw today, since it's rather related.
It was A Study in Scarlet, performed by Promethean Theatre Ensemble, and quite excellent.

NEXT AT PROMETHEAN...
written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
directed by Paul Edwards
MAY 3 - JUN 1, 2013
Thursday - Saturday 8pm
Sunday 2pm
Opening Night
FRI MAY 3, 2013 at 8pm
www.prometheantheatre.org

















If you don't know, A Study in Scarlet is the first of the Sherlock Holmes stories, where he and Dr. Watson are introduced to each other. It is the first of their adventures as a team, and the reader's first glimpse into the depths of the remarkable character that is Holmes. I have read the entire collection of stories twice, some more than that, so as you may guess, I was very excited.

I must say, it truly surpassed my expectations. I had not read the book in a while (because I was busy rereading the The Three Musketeers, as we are going to see a play of that in June). However, I had a decent memory of the plot, and as I watched the play, I remembered more. As far as I can tell, they did more than justice to Doyle's work.

The actual theatre helped a lot. I always say that straight plays are better done in intimate theatres, as opposed to musicals or operas, which require a large stage for the ensembles. This theatre was excellent in that there were only 80 seats, so we were able to see everything, down to the expressions on the actors' faces.

One thing that I highly commend the theatre company for is their disregard for the stereotypes of the characters of Watson and Holmes, and their loyalty to Doyle's original description. I highly dislike the bumbling portrayals of Watson in the Basil Rathbone films. Watson is not an idiot. He's a highly trained doctor. Watson is not clumsy. And Watson is not old. At all. Both Holmes and Watson are actually in their twenties in the first book. And this production respected that. The actors who played Holmes and Watson were young, possibly in their late twenties, early thirties. And the fellow playing Watson was actually taller than Holmes, handsome, and not a bit fat or bumbling. Quite elegant. It was all very refreshing.

The actor playing Holmes was excellent as well - observant, astute, rather full of himself, and somewhat hyper and high strung. Perfect! Lestrade and Gregson (the Scotland Yard detectives) were spectacular as well - especially Gregson, who was more full of himself than Holmes, if that's possible.

All in all, it was a spectacular production. If you can, you should go see it - you will enjoy it tremendously.

In the meantime, stay tuned for my next post on Holmes. It should be coming no later than Tuesday.

~Sophia