Showing posts with label Karl Marx. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Karl Marx. Show all posts

Sunday, March 4, 2012

How Meeting Patrick Stewart Sent Me to (Gay) Heaven


As soon as Nic ‘heard’ that I was in a funk a couple of days ago, he dropped what he was doing and insisted that I call him right away—he’s so wonderful! We spent some time chatting, and while we were doing so he was determined to find something that might cheer me up: he succeeded.

Nic found out that the incomparable Sir Patrick Stewart—favored by me particularly for his portrayal of Captain Jean-Luc Picard—was starring in a play called Bingo not far from me! And, doubly fortunate, there was one open seat available for last night’s (3 March) performance. Within moments, I had a ticket for said-seat.

NB: This is not my photo!

 So, last night I found myself headed to the Young Vic, sister-theatre to the famous Old Vic. Not surprisingly, I got there about an hour early (I prefer to be early rather than late), leaving me a bit of time to wander around and enjoy a glass of wine, since the theatre itself is attached to a pub. 

That’s when it happened…

I had just received my wine and was standing off to the side of the bar (people-watching), when a door to my right whispered open and out stepped a bald man, sporting a thick but well-manicured white beard, in blue jeans and a casual yellow-and-green-checked shirt.

No way, I thought, that can’t be him!

The man moved to the bar and proceeded to order two drinks: ‘Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.’ (By the way, can I just note how amused I am that there's a YouTube compilation of that?)

At any rate, I didn’t actually hear the man order ala Picard—and at this point I still wasn’t sure that it was even really him, because no one else in the entire place seemed to notice him except for me—but the man was given two carry-out cups of some hot liquid, which he paid for out of his own pocket just like an ordinary customer (and not like a knighted star-performer who surely has minions for dealing with such tasks). 

Having paid, the man took his two cups of (hopefully) Earl Grey tea and turned once more toward the door from whence he had first emerged. As he walked by me, our eyes met—for the briefest flicker of a moment—and I knew in an instant that it really was Patrick Stewart standing less than three feet away from me! 

Holy Lwaxana Troi! 

Fortunately, I had enough of my wits about me in that moment that I didn’t just fall to the floor and start begging him to do the ‘Engage’-flick-of-the-wrist-gesture, or ask him if I could polish either the Enterprise or his sexy-ass 71 year-old dome. 

Instead, I offered him a coy smile that simply said, ‘Yes, I know who you are—I recognized you at once—and I’ll be right here after the show if you’re looking for someone who’ll do all of those things that Beverly refuses to.

Alas, he did not smile back—he’s probably already got an army of equally sexy Will Wheaton-types making that offer on a daily basis—but, damn it, our eyes met and in that moment we were soulmates (even if he doesn’t know it).

But enough about my ‘encounter at farpoint’ with the sexiest (male) septuagenarian I can think of. Let’s get on with the show itself…

NB: This is not my photo!

 [NB: I’m going to talk about the show in three parts: the story, the set, and the acting—I think this is the easiest way for me to describe the whys and hows some aspects of the show were wonderful and others were decidedly less-so.]

Bingo was written in the 1970s by a playwright with Marxist leanings named Edward Bond. As such, on top of being a tale about William Shakespeare’s later years and death, Bingo also contains a cautionary—or, at the very least, a disapproving—note about the wickedness of greed and class disparity. 

Sadly, Bingo could have been so much more than what it actually turned out to be. (This is especially true when viewed in the context of our current, global socioeconomic situation, and especially when paired with something like the Occupy movement.) Instead, it seems as if Bond doesn’t know what he wanted the show to really be about: is it a play about the frustrations of a popular artist? is it about greed? is it about mental illness? is it all of these things and, if so, wasn’t there a better way to weave them all together? 

In fact, the Shakespeare character himself—though onstage for almost every moment—is given so little to do and say that it wasn’t until halfway through the second act that I realized Bond was portraying him as a villain, and not someone (as I had been led to believe through earlier words, gestures, and staging) who was trying to thwart ‘the man’ from within.

As regards the set and staging, they did a really good job. Like Les Mis, Bingo uses a revolving stage. Throughout the course of the show, the stage goes from being a garden, to a public square, to a pub, to a snow-covered hilltop, and finally to Shakespeare’s bedroom. 

The usage of color and simple signifier props was very aesthetically pleasing in the outdoor scenes (e.g., in the hilltop scene, the only decoration(?) is the freshly fallen ‘snow’ and an all-black background—and I don’t know what they used to make the snow, but Patrick Stewart and another actor were able to pack it into something that looked and eventually ‘exploded’ like a legitimate snowball). 

Shakespeare with his daughter. [NB: This photo is not mine!]

 On the other hand, the interior sets were all heavily paneled, and had that air of controlled clutter that we tend to think of when we imagine interiors from the Elizabethan era. They were equally appealing in their lack of simplicity!

As wonderful as all of the sets were—the hilltop and the pub being especially well-executed (I swear I’ve been in that exact pub before!)—my favorite setting was the public square.

Before I can say why, however, it is necessary to provide a bit of exposition. In the first scene we are introduced to the character of a nameless young woman whose family has just died, and who is in search of food or money. She’s trying to make her way to another town where, she explains, she has an aunt who will take her in. Shakespeare immediately agrees to give the young woman both food and money—this is one of the first things that confused me about his ‘true’ feelings—but before he can help her, a series of events leads to her capture by Combe, the town magistrate (and the most clear-cut villain of the piece). Combe has the woman brutally whipped and beaten—to the point where she is left physically and mentally handicapped. In revenge, she begins setting fire to buildings around the town. Eventually, Combe recaptures her (after Shakespeare once again tries—and fails, thanks to his obnoxious daughter—to help), and she is publicly executed.

So, the public square set consists of the actress—whose appearance has been made-up to look like someone who’s been dead for some time—hung upon a gibbet near the back of the stage, approximately 12’ above the other actors. Though the actress never speaks—her character’s already dead—she is the undeniable focal point of the set. Even from the balcony (where I was sitting) one cannot help but escape her lifeless gaze, and the impact of its attendant commentary on issues of class, gender, and societal controls.

Finally, we come to my thoughts on the acting...

In some cases—such as with the men who portrayed Combe and Son—I’ve borne witness to better acting in high school plays. They were awful! That being said, Patrick Stewart and JohnMcEnery were phenomenal!

McEnery—who also played Mercutio in the famous 1968 film-version of Romeo & Juliet (among other things)—plays the role of Shakespeare’s gardener. His wife speaks highly of their time together before he was abducted by a press gang. At some point during that period, the gardener tried to help someone who was about to be executed, and was struck in the head with the blunt end of an ax. As a result, he has been left with (what his wife describes repeatedly as) ‘the needs of a man and mind of a child.’ The effect is a character that is often portrayed as mischievous and fun. 

In fact, one of the funniest scenes within Bingo takes place as a drunken Shakespeare is crossing the snow-covered hilltop described earlier, delivering the start of a heavy monologue, when suddenly a snowball thrown by the gardener pelts him hard in the back. What ensues is a ‘snowball fight’ between the show’s best actors—which Shakespeare inevitably loses because (much like Nic) the gardener’s ‘score’ is increased exponentially every time he announces it.

Sadly, however, McEnery’s character doesn’t fare any better in Bingo than he did in Romeo & Juliet, and by the end of the hilltop scene he is dead.

The Gardener and Unnamed Woman [NB: This is not my photo!]

Finally we come to Sir Stewart’s performance. In some ways, this is like me trying to describe my longing to be with Nic again—it seems a ‘futile’ endeavor.

He’s Patrick Stewart, and he’s amazing as always. The only problem is that he is so severely underutilized. True, he’s onstage at almost every moment, and through his gesturing and facial expressions he ensures that the audience never forgets him despite those long moments wherein we don’t hear him speak—but he nonetheless seemed constrained by a convoluted script.

But when he is allowed to speak, it’s phenomenal! During the third scene (the one in the public square), he yells at the gardener’s wife about people’s seemingly limitless ability to inflict pain upon others. As part of this powerful monologue, he describes the vile ‘sport’ of bear-baiting that was so popular at the time. For almost five minutes, Stewart rails in highly descriptive detail about the bears being blinded, chained down, stabbed, and set-upon by vicious dogs that tore at their throats—all the while throwing in approximations of the sound a whip makes (‘lash! lash!’) and violent gestures for emphasis—all of this going on, Stewart's Shakespeare laments, whilst the crowd cheered and ‘The Virgin [Queen Elizabeth I] cheered them on in shrill Latin!’ 

The Patrick Stewart in this scene—and in the hilltop scene, once the gardener leaves and he’s allowed to finish the monologue he started—is the one that I am so in love with. This is the Patrick Stewart that agonizingly refused to see five lights when there were only four!

Shakespeare in the Snow [NB: This is not my photo!]

 And so, after 2 ½ hours in this legendary man’s presence, it was time to go. I waited by the stage door for a bit after the show (hoping for an autograph), and though I saw everyone else come out, apparently Patrick left by means of a different back door. Oh, well—that doesn’t change in the least what an awesome experience it was to see him performing live!

One final note before I go: since I was already in the Soho area, and since I was still feeling the need to be around people, I went out again last night. The original plan was to meet TvH et al., but they wound up not being able to make it at the last minute. So, it was just me. At any rate, I went to Heaven, where I spent a few hours just dancing and enjoying being around so many other people.

[NB: This is not my photo!]

Nonetheless, being the shy, self-conscious introvert and crowd-phobic that I am, I never made it too far on to the dancefloor, preferring instead to stand near an escape route at all times. However, in terms of what I was talking about the other day about desiring benign human contact, it worked out perfectly! I kept getting (politely) jostled and bumped aside by people going to and from the bar, and instead of being annoyed in the slightest, it was wonderful! I left feeling quite recharged!

Oh, also: this place is even more like my old stomping grounds than KuBar (which is the comparison I made here)! 

Okay, this one wound up being quite a bit longer than expected, so I’ll close now. Ciao for now!

PS: I'm now quasi-officially 'one' degree away from Her Majesty! YES!

NB: This is not my photo!

Saturday, January 28, 2012

The Classes...


Happy weekend, everyone!

Well, classes started for me this week. Since that’s the main reason I’m in London, I should probably say something about it, don’t you think? So, below I’ll provide an initial glimpse into each of the modules (courses) I’m taking. No other updates in this post—I'll create a separate post for that stuff in a bit. 

In the meantime:

“Cultural Politics: Power and Social Change” (Thursdays; 9:00 AM-12:00 PM GMT): This module is one of the ones I was required to take—it’s the equivalent of a first-year, post-introductory course. Co-taught by SM and DS,

“[t]he aim of this module is to introduce key ways of understanding power and the technologies through which it is expressed and distributed, and then to put these theoretical ideas into practice by analyzing contemporary instances of cultural politics.

Our interest throughout will be with the question of cultural change, and the possibilities for resistance.

How does change take place and what is the role of technologies in social change? Who has power in our cultures and how does it work?

At the end of the module you will be expected to have an understanding of the different ways in which key theorists in Cultural Studies have understood power and its origins, and be able to undertake different kinds of analysis of cultural politics.” ~ module guide (a.k.a. syllabus). 

As I noted above, it’s fairly similar to a first-year course, and there are the obligatory readings form Gramsci, Althusser, Foucault (YAY!), and Marx...

I love Michel Foucault!
______

Now, let me digress (read: rant) for just a moment about that reading list:

I loathe—positively detest; hate; venomously dislike; would rather have a root-canal—reading Marx! Don’t get me wrong; I don’t have a problem per se with what he’s saying. I just hate READING his work (well, the English translations at least).

In some ways, Marx is almost like Tolkien, in that he takes four or five pages to spit out an idea that could have been said in one very short, very concise blurb. And, what’s worse, whereas Tolkien was at least describing ostensibly epic scenery—something to spark the imagination—over those many, many pages, Marx goes on-and-on about labor and value and commodity. Since such matters are already something I’m not overly interested in analyzing personally, the excessive page-counts that are part-and-parcel of Marx-related readings does not make me like him any more. (NB: I'm not saying the issues Marx raises aren't important issues to be explored—they're just beyond my ability to analyze.)

And, finally, I just have to say that, personally, the readings during the first two or three weeks of Cultural Studies-related classes are always my least favorite. Why? C’mon, surely you’ve guessed by now—it’s because they’re always related to Marx! As much as I love and respect my CS instructors, I think there’s a stipulation in the contracts they sign—both in the US and the UK, apparently—that they must all devote the first few weeks to my German foe. (Not that I wish to see him eliminated from the curriculum altogether, of course—it’s just that, if I had my druthers, someone more exciting, like Foucault, would come first.)

Alas, it appears I've taken a page from one of his manuscripts, and written too much. Let me put it this way: this is what my brain feels like after reading Marx...


End rant…

______

My second class:

“Culture, Power and Resistance in the Twenty-First Century” (Thursdays; 1:00 PM – 4:00 PM GMT): This is the only class I’m taking that wasn’t required by Columbia’s agreement with UEL. Taught by JG and DS,

“[i]n this module we will look at some of the most important trends and processes which are shaping the world today, and useful ways of understanding them.

In particular we will pay attention to new forms of power, as well as asking what radical culture and politics might look like in the postmodern age of global neoliberal hegemony.

In many ways the current era is one which problematizes older ideas about where political divisions lie: the old conflicts between capitalism and socialism, between liberalism and conservatism, between traditionalism and modernism have been replaced by a complex set of antagonism which are still unfamiliar in many ways.

Here we will try to get a sense of just what is at stake in these momentous shifts. We will pay particular attention to the effects of the neoliberal program on global—and particularly British—society and culture, and at the potential for resistance to this program in the years to come.” ~ module guide

Barack Obama (D) Barack Obama (nL)

It all sounds very interesting. From what I gather, this is the equivalent of something between Columbia’s “Methods of Inquiry” and “Capstone” classes. While there is a heavy focus on neoliberalism in this class, there also seems to be a focus on gender-issues (e.g., one of the prompts for our final work is “Has neoliberalism impacted men and women differently?")—this fact should help immensely with my Women & Gender Studies minor.
_____

Please pardon the interruption as I offer-up another side-note:

It appears that the only graded assignments for our classes over here are two papers in each class—one that is the equivalent of a midterm essay, and the other a final essay. No weekly reading checks, no tests—just two papers. (Which is both exciting and a bit scary.)

End interruption.

______

Now we come to the final class:

“Realism, Fantasy & Utopia” (Fridays; 9:00 AM-12:00 PM GMT): This is the other required class I’m taking—and I’m glad I am! It sounds fascinating! Also taught by DS,

“[t]he aim of this module is to provide an introduction to concepts of realism and test them against what are generally thought of as 'unreality' or 'fantasy'.

We will be questioning what counts as 'truth' and 'knowledge' and exploring the role of utopian fictions in cultural critique.

The main objective of the module is to encourage and enable students to develop a critical understanding of the political interests underscoring historical and contemporary debates about the ‘representation of the real’ in diverse social and cultural practices.” ~ module guide

Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

Based on the first session of each module alone, I think this will wind up being my favorite. As a sample: DS started off by showing us this three-minute video:

"The Cave: An Adaptation of Plato's Allegory in Clay"



After watching the above, DS split us into groups of two and posed the following questions:

1)    What kinds of thoughts will the prisoners be having about the one how has ‘seen the light’?
2)    How will they react to him after he has failed to convince them of his experiences?

Suffice to say, it lead to some interesting and thought-provoking discussion. 

(If you're interested, my response was that, according to the parable as it was told, the prisoners were incapable of truly seeing or hearing their friend, so they wouldn’t have had a reaction—he was no more than a continuation of the shadowy tapestry they see day-in-and-out. But, if they, in fact, COULD understand what he was saying, then they would either have resented his taunting them with images of an outside world they would never see, or they would have simply ignored him because they couldn’t possibly grasp what he was describing anyway.)

What do you think, dear readers? Comment away….

Other topics to be covered during the module (both separately and together): feminism, gender, and sci-fi. Hellz yeah!


One of my favorite villains ever! And Patrick Stewart. Yummy!

Well, that’s the scoop with my modules. I’ll be back in a bit with another update—one about the non-academic stuff.

Oh, oh, oh! But, before I go, another culture shock moment: they don’t use (American-sized) printing paper at UEL. Nope, it’s all 11.7 x 8.3 in. Somewhat problematic in terms of my organizational methods—how the heck is that gonna fit nicely in my notebook?

Sunday, January 22, 2012

The Euro Crashes and Socialism's Father Rests

This weekend’s been somewhat of a wash, so there’s really not too much to say. In other words: this will be short.

Most of yesterday was spent writing (draft) essays for various scholarships I’m applying to for the 2012/13 school year, and when I wasn’t doing that, I was helping Nic run lines for his show that opens in about two hours (8PM Central)—break a leg, baby! Later in the evening, however, I joined KG & MM  for "EuroCrash! The Musical," which was written by their landlord. The synopsis is as follows:

Meet Mark and Gilda—the Hansel and Gretel of Euroland—as they discover the fantasy world of the single currency. Meet Papa Kohl and Madame Mitterrand, the charming couple who hold it all together; meet the Snake, a clanky prototype; Jean-Claude Trichet, the last great eurocrat; the PIIGS, paying for past profligacy; the dark eminence of the mighty Bundesbank; and the wild, exotic currencies of central Europe. All this packed into a pantomime. Vicious rhymes, great music. From the creators of last year’s sell-out Broke Britannia! ~ "EuroCrash! The Musical" Official Website

 

 

Image Courtesy of "EuroCrash! The Musical" Website

 


Now, I know what you’re thinking: that sounds…interesting. And you would be correct. It was actually quite amusing for the most part, and I walked away with a much better understanding of the euro’s history than I ever had before. The acting was good, and the lyrics to the songs were very cute! Who knew an economic downturn could be so much fun?

Following the show, I joined KG & MM at The Sun Inn for dinner and drinks (the second round; the first being at the show). The food was excellent, as was the atmosphere, but the company and conversation are what put it over the top as wonderful!


The Sun Inn / Image Courtesy of their Website


Somehow, today was even less productive than yesterday. Once again, I helped Nic run lines for a good portion of the day. Then, this evening, K&M went to her cousin’s house for a bit, so I went out for some British Chinese take-out at Xiong Mao. Instead of the stereotypical fortune cookie, however, I received two chicken wings. And no chopsticks. I was confused—either the hostess really, really liked me (hence the wings), or she hated me (hence the lack of a cookie and chopsticks)—so, of course, I took to the Facebook-program-store to state as much. Fortunately, a more worldly friend clarified that the fortune cookies are an American thing, and that the wings were probably because it’s Chinese New Year’s Eve, and then another friend, who lives in Cornwall, said that he’s never known Chinese take-away over here to come with chopsticks. Ah, cultural adjustments… Seriously, these are the types of tidbits that should be in one of those London: From A to Zed books!

At any rate, at home with my take-out, I turned on the telly, and what should I find: “Come Dine with Me.” I swear, that show is like crack and I’m a filthy junky! After noshing away and enjoying this week's batch of participants, I chatted with Nic and the folks for a bit, and then retired to watch BBC iPlayer in bed—which is currently streaming “Doubt,” an AMAZING movie if you haven’t seen it yet!

Well, that’s enough for now. Not sure what’s on the schedule for tomorrow yet—the hunt for housing resumes, and laundry happens. Those two things are definites. Beyond that, though, I may do the Westminster Abbey tour tomorrow.

P.S. to Cultural Studies and Queer Lit friends: I just found out that Karl Marx and Radclyffe Hall are buried in the SAME cemetery, and that it’s not far from here. Who’s going to be a creepy graveyard stalker? This guy!

Karl Marx Memorial (NB: This photo is NOT mine!)



Radclyffe Hall's Memorial (NB: This photo is NOT mine!)