Friday, May 2, 2025
Blog Page 1464

Review: Measure For Measure

0

★★★☆☆
Three Stars

Having never encountered Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure before, it was testament to the acting of the Union Theatre’s production that I understood most of the plot. Phil Willmott’s direction turns a play about power, purity and marriage into a lively performance complete with ad-libbing chorus of prostitutes and cabaret songs, although this vividness is often not enough to redeem some of the production’s shortcomings.

Philip Lindley’s design turns the black box interior of the Union Theatre, first into a sultry whorehouse sectioned off by mesh walls and later into a courtroom, prison and nightclub. The vaguely modern atmosphere seems to lift it out of Elizabethan stuffiness, such as the Madmen suits and whisky, but adds little else to the production and often nears the gimmicky.

The show starts with a lascivious Pompeia (Natalie Harman) welcoming the audience into the promenade-style first scene; in case anyone is confused as to the setting, ‘Whore’ is lit up in large red letters. Colloquial one-liners and cockney jibes bring a charming liveliness to the stage, indeed, the boisterous and saucy chorus of prostitutes were almost the life and soul of the performance, providing comic vocal backdrop to various scenes like a band of beautiful, scantily-clad pirates.

However, the real heart of the play is Paul Critoph’s Angelo. Critoph gives a Javert-like tortured conscience to the figure whose morals are tested and teased. His tense scene with Daisy Ward’s Isabella is a standout moment, her quietly fierce propriety coming up against his pitiful lechery in a grippingly uncomfortable encounter.

Unfortunately, their respective struggles with principles take a back seat in the second half, where Nicholas Osmond’s Duke/Friar leads the action in a sluggish resolution of the conflict which had proved much more captivating in the previous half. Osmond’s performance begins promisingly with a Don Draper swagger that suits the Duke, but fails to take advantage of the part his character would go on to play in an inexplicably complicated and roundabout resolution.

Either something of the fiercely virtuous or of the Machiavellian lacks in his performance, but he seemed to coast throughout, satisfying but never quite captivating the audience. It is his performance that could make the resolution more fascinating than the inevitable slog towards a happily ever after ending, led by a dodgy Scottish accent.

Slurred lines occasionally make for tedious and downright confusing viewing, while miscasting or lack of props does little to suggest visual resemblance between certain characters, which turns out to be key to the plot. Tighter and more explorative direction could raise other performances to the level of Critoph and Ward’s encounters; however, it remains an appealing production with some vivid acting in a space which is imaginatively filled. 

Measure for Measure will be at the Union Theatre, London until the 27th July. Tickets are available here.

Review: Macbeth at the National

0

★★★☆☆
Three Stars

Life, according to Macbeth, is “full of sound and fury/Signifying nothing”. Kenneth Branagh and Rob Ashford’s production is full of balls-to-the-wall aggression and bombast, but ultimately falls short of the significance achieved by Olivier, McKellen or Sher.

I experienced the sound and the fury of Macbeth in the slightly incongruous setting of my local Cineworld. The nationwide broadcast of the closing night from a decrepit and deconsecrated Mancunian church made excellent use of the various angles permitted by the play’s staging in traverse.

This deft camerawork is in evidence during the play’s chaotic opening scene. As she kneels cowled in prayer, Alex Kingston’s Lady Macbeth is cast into shadow by a flickering crescent of candles. This momentary stillness is shattered by the sounds of war; martial drums echoe as sprinting warriors clash, bleed and die on the churned mud which covers the stage. The rapid progression of shots make it easier to accept the staged violence as real, lingering for no more than a couple of seconds on any one struggle.

Later, though, the converse proves true. The suspension of disbelief required from the theatrical audience proves harder to achieve in a popcorn-stickied cinema seat. The unforgiving camera reminds us constantly that dead men were still breathing and that swords were not being swung with true menace.

The staging does not always help here either, for example when Macbeth gazes in fear at a dagger ludicrously and obviously suspended from wires. “Is this a dagger I see before me?” Yes, Kenneth, and we can all see it dangling from a piece of string. (Other challenges were better met – the writhing bodies which formed the demons in Macbeth’s second visit to the witches formed a spectacle impressive enough for any motion picture)

Individual performances, on the other hand, mostly benefit from the closer focus of the camera. The three witches are superb, forming a wriggling mass of insane sexuality which was drawn inexorably toward murder and mayhem as the production wears on.

Ray Fearon as Macduff is a triumph, a man of colossal stature whose colossal grief upon learning on the death of his son explodes with seismic intensity through the church. However, upon Macduff’s (somewhat anti-climatic) defeat of the usurper Macbeth, it seems slightly absurd to accept Alexander Vlahos’ underwhelming and somewhat vapid Malcolm as the rightful heir.

There is far more regal gravitas in Fearon’s character and also in Jimmy Yuill’s stentorian Banquo, both prior to his demise and in the ghost scene where he forged an effectively sinister connection with Branagh.

This is what stopped Branagh’s convincing and accomplished Macbeth from being amongst the great performances of the role. He was excellent in communion with other actors but seemed to lack a final drive into madness following the death of his wife (save for the “tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow” soliloquy, delivered with flawless grief and nihilism).

He and Kingston are a fascinating, complex and sexually-charged pair  a tartan-clad Bonnie and Clyde  but this focus on their intimacy left their individual characterisation lacking in depth. Kingston’s sleep-walking scene, for example, has the air of overwrought amateur dramatics, while her scenes with her husband are alive with nuance and murderous ambition.

The play does not lack originality, particularly in its focus on the sometimes-neglected Macbeth and his Lady. More could be made of Branagh and Kingston’s personal journeys into insanity, but at its best this production is an unnerving portrait of a far-off time all too familiar in its naked ambition.

The National Theatre broadcast this production of Macbeth to cinemas around the world on 20th July 2013 as part of the Manchester International Festival  more information may be found here.

Unto Us is Born a Son

0

A child was born earlier this week, to two very proud and, I assume, very tired parents. The circumstances of this birth mean that this child (without a name as I write) will grow up with almost unavoidable media attention, total security, and, crucially, his future job already set out for him. He will, all circumstances permitting, rule over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (not to mention the remnants of the empire). From the images on the BBC, you would think that entire nation is joyful, frolicking in the streets to welcome their future king. However, there exists a band of professional party poopers, known as republicans, who feel rather differently about the whole thing.

However, exactly what we republicans think about the royal birth has been much misrepresented. There are two main misconceptions (excuse the pun) about republican attitudes to the royal child. The first is that we all hate him. Not so, I’m afraid. I no more hate the kid than I hate any other. Frankly, it is not through any fault of his that he was born into an institution with which I find fault, therefore, I don’t have any personal problems with the Prince.

The other misconception, perhaps spurred on by the Guardian, with their option to censor their website to remove all royal content, is that republicans think too much fuss is being made out of this issue. This is nonsense. If anything, republicans feel as if too little fuss has been made. However, we feel as if the attention has been directed towards the wrong thing. Rather than obsessing over the very personal details of the birth in a worryingly voyeuristic manner, we ought to be reflecting on the very public and far-reaching implications of the peculiarity of this particular birth. Republicans do not demand that we treat this child like any other, we demand that the difference between this child and any other is taken and examined seriously.

This difference could not be any greater. This child, unlike the vast majority born to British parents, will come to rule Britain. However, this is no just deserts. It is only by the virtue of his parentage that the royal child will come to take this position. This is a serious constitutional point that should not and, indeed, cannot be ignored. Those who tell republicans, in varying levels of civility, to shut up and grin along, are merely ignoring the opportunity for a great and important national soul searching. Instead, they treat the birth of the royal child as a solely personal affair, whilst revelling in it in a very public manner. The public treatment of the entire occasion has been more reminiscent of celebrity, rather than political culture.

In fact it is precisely this dichotomy between the celebrity and the political which divides the public attitude towards the modern royalty. The royal family are treated much like many other celebrities, with constant media attention, prying photographers and a public desperate for any insight into their lives, no matter how invasive. We treat them first and foremost as people for whom the majority of the nation has great affection and great interest. However, this means that, whenever there is any (legitimate) political criticism of the royal family, the response is often to either attack the critic on an ad hominem basis (in response to a perceived personal attack on that beloved family) or to deny that there is any political content to the royal family – to deny that their position is up for discussion.

However, when it suits the royalist public, the royal family are anything but apolitical. They are the symbol of Britishness, of what it means to be a part of our society and a grand tradition that ought to be protected. If something is allowed to stand as shorthand for a nation, or to define a society, that is very definitely political. We need to be sure that every aspect of that institution is a desirable and appropriate representation of everything for which we want our nation to stand. That requires political argument, and thus requires royalists to engage with the republican case, rather than accusing them of ruining everyone else’s fun.

Perhaps the most obvious symbolic element of the royalty is the fact that we have a sole ruler. We are not citizens of a society which has any control over its head of state. In fact we are not citizens in any proper sense at all. We are subjects, subjects to the wishes of our monarch. Anyone with a shred of liberalism in their soul will surely be unable to stomach this constitutional stratification of society into those with inherent power and those without, far less those with any sense of the importance of the ideal of equality.

Furthermore, this sole ruler is not selected according to any process considering merit or worth, only heredity. This is not a process that can be conceived of as just under any definition. We do not accept this principle in any of our private institutions, nor even in our oldest and most public institutions (it has been a long time since anyone has looked favourably on hereditary peers), so it is a mystery why we should choose to accept it here and only here, much less let it represent our country. If we are serious about becoming a country where hard work is rewarded, rather than parentage, as many of us seem to think is only fair, then we should start by questioning whether we can legitimately have a head of state who is selected by the single least meritocratic process possible, and whether that is the face we want to present to the world.

Finally, and perhaps of little interest to most, there is the fact that our monarch is also the head of the established religion of our country. Or rather one of our countries – it is an absurdity that Scotland, Ireland and Wales are ruled over by the leader of the Church of England, and even more absurd that we continue to preach secular democracy in Northern Africa and the Middle East (particularly to Iran) when our country is run by the head of a religious institution who pray during communion that they should “may faithfully serve, honour and humbly obey her”. This is not to criticise the Church of England or its beliefs, incidentally, it is to criticise the connection between the head of state and the head of a particular church and the hypocrisy we commit when we exhort others to shun religious political leaders.

Setting aside the justification that is offered on the basis of tradition (which, although beloved of conservatives, would justify many atrocities, such as female circumcision, institutionalised anti-Semitism and hanging, and so cannot be admitted as a guiding principle), the only real justification of the continued existence of this institution is that it preserves stability and national cohesion in the face of the populism and capriciousness of unfettered democracy. Whilst America may face dramatic swings between Democratic and Republican (no relation) presidents, we have a reigning monarch who provides a degree of continuity to our nation’s face to the world. This relies on the fact that the royal family is apolitical in effect, if not in symbolism. Their continued inaction and impartiality, and, consequently, removal from the policy-making process, is essential to maintaining the justification for their existence.

This is, however, a much overstated case. Firstly, as the late Christopher Hitchens correctly observed, the same people who claim that the monarchy is a force for something also have to claim that they have no power to force anything at all. This is not an easy circle to square and requires a great deal of credulity rather than reason. Secondly, the monarchy does in fact possess a great deal of power, and political power at that. They can, by exercise of the Royal Prerogative, make orders in council, declare war, make peace, recognise foreign governments, sign and ratify treaties, grant pardons, grant charters, confer honours, confer patronage and establish commissions. These are hardly the powers of an impotent head of state. Royalists will counter that, although the royal family are entitled by law to do all of the above, they rarely do. This too is a poor replacement for an argument. We should be concerned about what our constitution allows, rather than exactly how it is currently used, in case any future monarch, including perhaps the Prince Cambridge, should prove to be more of an activist than our current Queen.

Additionally, there is the question of whether our current royal family is actually as apolitical as it claims to be. Recently, the Guardian newspaper tried to access notes, known as the “black spider memos”, written from the Prince of Wales to government ministers in order to influence policy. This attempt has been unsuccessful, as the attorney general vetoed the release of the memos, and three high court judges ruled that the memos were not in the public interest. Apparently, the release of the letters would lead to the public no longer perceiving Prince Charles as neutral. The attorney general said that “any such perception would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne he cannot easily recover it when he is king.” If that doesn’t sound like the royal family influencing policy, I don’t know what does. If that is the case, then the monarchy is just as political as republicans have feared it could be, and does not fulfil the criteria drawn up by its own supporters.

But let us set aside the points of constitutional principle. Let us set aside the power of an unelected head of state over their subjects and all that that entails. Instead, let us turn to money. The royal family provide incredibly poor value for money, require millions in upkeep from the taxpayer at the best of times. Whenever there is some kind of party to be had, whether for an anniversary or a wedding, the taxpayer foots the bill for an opulent ceremony. In an age of austerity, when the general public are facing increased pressure to pay down debts, unable to secure credit for themselves and are having benefits and other government spending cut, it seems ridiculous to ask them to pay what is essentially a transfer payment from the taxpayer to the biggest landowners in the world (they can’t exactly be hard up). The scale and direction of this transfer is simply one of the greatest self-inflicted injustices being done to the British people.

Self-inflicted, unfortunately, because the majority of people in this country will disagree with most of what I have written above. The vast majority of us are royalists, content to have the Windsor family as our rulers and our superiors. International opinion, however, is something quite different. Whilst the majority of Britons may think that a monarchy is the best form of rule, the fact that only 45 countries in the world have a monarch as head of state (among them Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Monaco and the Vatican City – salubrious company) speaks volumes. To the rest of them, the British monarchy is not a grand old tradition, but just another obnoxious eccentricity. If we cannot recognise the way the tide has turned since the days of feudalism, if we can’t embrace a vision of society as a group of equal citizens, if we can’t throw the last vestiges of our imperial past into the dustbin of history, then we cannot be anything more than an interesting and decaying relic on the international stage.

In short, the birth of the boy who will one day become king should not prompt unbounded joy in us, but instead should start a serious and far-reaching examination of what it means to be a monarchy in the modern age and whether our current constitutional position is tenable. It is my contention that it is not and never can be.

Cherwell Guide to the Edinburgh Fringe 2013

0

The annual pilgrimage to the Edinburgh Fringe is a must for any self-respecting culture vulture. But with quite literally thousands of shows, a plethora of bizarrely named venues (the Gilded Balloon anyone?) and the promise of leaving each trip down the Royal Mile with about a tonne of flyers, how does one choose where to go and what to see? Well fear not confused artistes, thesps and hipsters – Cherwell is here to help.

 

For serious drama types:

The big tip-off this year is an adaptation of The Shawshank Redemption at the Assembly Rooms, starring comedian and actor Omid Djalili. As per usual, there is a wealth of Shakespeare, and per usual at least one of these is fighting heteronormativity.

If gender-bending versions of theatrical staples sounds like your thing, check out the Smooth Faced Gentlemen’s all-female Titus Andronicus at the Bedlam Theatre. Don’t forget Oxford’s dramatic offerings in the form of the OUDS tour of Alice in Wonderland, and original writing Life Sentence. In general, theatre lovers should look out for groups on the mile who hand out flyers by standing in abstract, motionless formations. 

 

For comedy lovers:

The Fringe is like Mecca for comedians. If you’ve got the money, you can pretty much catch any of your favourite big-name, satirical TV panel show comedians during your visit. If you’re counting the pennies, make the most of Free Fringe comedy. Looking out for Laughing Horse@ various venues is a good place to start, though free shows from aspiring funny-men will not be hard to find. The likelihood is you’ll end up laughing at the comedian rather than with them, but with a few friends and a few pints, that in itself can be hilarious.

You could even be the first to stumble across the next big thing in British comedy, and we all know “liking them before they were famous” is a must for any true hipster. Sketch comedy is also a favourite at the Fringe – check out groups like Four Screws Loose and the Cambridge Footlights, or even our very own home-grown The Oxford Imps and The Oxford Revue.

 

For musical theatre enthusiasts:

Every year the Fringe plays host to numerous amateur recreations of West End favourites. For the most part these are actually quite good. This year’s productions include Avenue Q from the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, Spring Awakening and a minimum of two productions of the schools’ edition of Les Misérables.

The Fringe also suffers from an infestation of the ‘Insert Concept Here: The Musical’ brand. The Oxford offering is A Theory of Justice: The Musical, affectionately referred by the acronym ATOJ:TM, which will be storming Edinburgh with a full run, straight off the back of its sell out success at the Keble O’Reilly. Other prefixes to The Musical this year include Adam and Eve, Gobsmell (“A new family musical spaghetti western”) and Snakes – and yes, that is as in ‘on a plane’.

For something a bit different, give one of the Fringe’s improvised musicals a try. Doing pretty much what it says on the tin, troupes like Showstoppers and Baby Wants Candy take audience suggestions and create a musical around them. A favourite title of mine from last year went something along the lines of ‘Dinosaur Zombie Apocalypse: A Love Story’.

 

For those who aren’t yet bored of a cappella:

It may come as a surprise to Oxfordians, but most other cities in the UK aren’t saturated with a cappella, and for this reason there are people out there who do not simply tolerate it, but actively like it. If you’re a dedicated a cappella fan then the Fringe is the place for you (and if you abhor the stuff, I strongly advise avoiding the Royal Mile at all costs – it’s worse than Cornmarket in the run up to an Out of the Blue gig). The Oxford groups dominate the Fringe both in terms of number and quality; you’ll be able to catch The Alternotives, Out of the Blue, In the Pink and The Gargoyles.

If you fancy sampling something different, good groups to look out for are The Alleycats from St Andrew’s, All the Kings Men from KCL and Voice Festival 2013 winners, Vive. If you really can’t get enough of your ‘ba-dap’s and ‘shoo-wap’s then head along to All the King’s Men Presents on the 12th and 14th of August for what they’re calling, and it pains me to say it, an ‘aca-awesome’ night.

 

For those who want something alternative:

Puppetry looks set to be big at the Fringe this year – keep an eye out for Paper Finch Theatre’s productions of Beauty and the Beast and The Steadfast Tin Soldier. Also tipped for excellence is Ménage à trois, a collaboration with the National Theatre of Scotland that explores the relationship between a performer and her crutches through the mediums of dance, video projection and puppetry.

Circa’s Wunderkamma, which describes itself as an ‘exquisite cabaret of the senses’, will also appeal to those looking for something visually exciting and a bit different.

…and the downright odd:

A Fringe staple and highlight for many is the bizarre yet piss-yourself hilarious Shit-Faced Shakespeare. A small group of actors put on a Shakespeare classic, with an added twist of one of the performers being, as the title suggests, shit-faced drunk. It might not sound like much, but with a few friends and a little intoxication it makes for one of Edinburgh’s most entertaining evenings.

Another bemusing but highly recommended Fringe spectacle this year is Airnadette, ‘the biggest airband in the galaxy’. Although I can give no personal recommendation for this show, how can one argue with a group whose fame apparently transcends the boundaries of the earth? And, last but not least, I leave you with Jimmy Savile: The Punch and Judy Show.

 

For more information on these shows and more, visit www.edfringe.com 

If you are interested in reviewing Oxford-based shows at the Fringe for Cherwell, please email [email protected] or tweet us @CherwellStage

Review: Latitude 2013

0

Latitude has a reputation for being the hipster-infested, middle class-dominated corner of the British festival season and, sure, there was a packed poetry tent and more indie bands than you could shake a pair of ironic Ray Bans at – but the stereotype is not at all fair.

In wonderful, mud-free conditions, Thursday led us into a six music-infused weekend with a six music-infused bang, Craig Charles playing a thrilling, albeit overcrowded, funk and soul set deep in the woods on site, and musically the festival only climbed higher from there.

Glaswegian bounce-merchants Chvrches brought the intimate iArena to a state of sweaty afternoon ecstasy, for example, followed by indie mainstays The Maccabees and an excellent headline set from Bloc Party.

Kele Okereke led a hit-filled set through to one of the best encores I’ve ever seen, using the chorus of Rihanna’s ‘We Found Love’ to build up to ‘Flux’, followed by ‘Helicopter’ (mosh pits opened up everywhere you looked) and finally an emotional ‘This Modern Love’.

Saturday provided the musical highlights for me: the showmanship of Karen Ough (Yeah Yeah Yeahs) was only bettered by the incredible Hot Chip. They more than any act at the festival managed to work the daytime crowd into an absolute frenzy, finishing with a note perfect first performance of new single ‘Dark and Stormy’.

Kraftwerk were, astonishingly, a letdown. I, unlike many, like their albums, but their obvious lack of stage presence added nothing live whilst the 3D light show and graphics only very occasionally reached the point of real entertainment. I left to catch the end of Alt-J.

It’s not fair to just talk about the music, though. The comedy tent was unmatched by any other festival: Dylan Moran, Eddie Izard and Richard Herring were all highlights; a literary tent boasted mathematical nerds and authors galore; as many rappers and international beat boxers as published poets filled the poetry tent; what’s more, there was an incredible outdoor theatre, a late night water screen and the world famous painted sheep.

The line-up was varied and as part of this variety was a real understanding of how to keep several thousand attendees, ranging from mid-teens to large families, happy and entertained. You could wake up horrendously hung over and, as I luckily did, chance upon a chilled-out Norwegian singer-songwriter (Thomas Dybdahl, check him out) or roll over to a classical trumpeter or pianist, set against the back drop of the gondolier taxis.

We were presented constantly with clashes between a world-famous comedian and a rising electro sound, or between two parallel genres of music (Grizzly Bear vs. Disclosure a particularly tough one). Of all the many festival friends we made, not one of them has any complaints of boredom or of a dud act.

It seems strange to say that an event as famous as Latitude is a rising star of the festival world but year-on-year their line up keep improving and the planning is truly excellent. If you can, seriously consider making the difficult journey deep into Suffolk in July 2014.

Review: Truck Festival 2013

0

If the unbearable heat of the British summer was making life unpleasant for us ordinarily-dressed folk at Truck Festival, I can only imagine how the mini-hipsters were feeling in their jeans so tight that they looked like leggings, their immaculately unruffled shirts and their variously decorated lavish waistcoats. But despite the efforts of that most mysterious of deities, the Heat Wave, Oxford’s beloved Truck Festival was once again a resounding success. Small Oxford band Candy Says kicked off the festival in style on the Market Stage, accompanied by their mascot Candy, a manikin wearing a lei and holding a maraca. With the Velvet Underground-esque sound that one would expect from the band name, they charmed and intrigued all those Truckers who had arrived for the start of the day’s music.

The site itself was charming; Truck had paid close attention to their themed tents. From the outrageously Wild West saloon to the Caribbean themed bar to the large haystack filled farm-themed tent which was full for most of Friday as people sheltered from the sun, no detail had been spared. Furthermore, they kept true to their promise of a family-friendly environment, with pantomime shows for the kids. Tents from the Oxford Playhouse and a few other dramatic groups kept things interesting for everyone, while all the food was locally sourced.

Friday’s musical highlights came at the end of the day on the Market Stage, where Patrick Wolf performed a typically eclectic set. His 30 minutes included him forgetting some of the words, his harp failing to work and an extended discourse on Russia’s recent ‘gay propaganda’ legislation. A medley of ‘Bermondsey Street’ and ‘Magic Position’ was, he said, a song that was now about the situation in Russia, a place where “it’s now illegal for [him] to be [himself]”. Dry the River followed with a headline set filled with their usual poignant tragedy and elemental energy. Peter Liddle’s eyes glistened with hidden sadness and crazed genius but Scott Miller, who dubbed himself “the sweaty one”, got most of the crowd’s adoration. It was immediately obvious that the band’s new material, only heard previously at intimate shows in the Berkshire area, held all of the same trembling beauty as their debut album Shallow Bed, and we await the upcoming sophomore effort with eager anticipation.

The next day, welcome clouds covered the oppressive sun, and it was finally safe for even the palest of us to spend some time outside. Oxford’s own Marvellous Medicine played a frenetic set at the start of the day, and had many Truckers pulling out some of their most adventurous dance moves with the ska/reggae stylings that have become familiar to many Oxford students from balls and gigs at Cellar. The rest of the festival, however, was stolen by shoegaze. Up-and-coming psychedelic rockers Toy played to a packed-out Market Stage, whose audience included festival headliners The Horrors, standing right in front of us. The tenebrous rock giants have often been quoted naming Toy as their favourite band, and clearly they just couldn’t stay away from Tom Dougall’s gothic soundscapes.

Later on, as night gathered around the Truck main stage, the time was finally here. The Horrors played a show-stopping, weekend-stealing set full of their usual dark, enigmatic mystery. Lead singer Faris Badwan gazed down from the high stage, leaning on his microphone and looking like a dying Edwardian vampire as he veered between classics like ‘Sea Within A Sea’ and ‘Who Can Say’ and unsurprisingly impressive new material. After time out from touring, the band clearly relished being back on stage, and Badwan made it known that he was glad to be back before the melding chords of ‘Still Life’ signalled a heart-stopping end to a magnificent Truck Festival 2013.

Interview: Christoph Prégardien

0

Christoph Prégardien is warmly recounting his first encounter with pianist Menahem Pressler, at last year’s Verbier Festival for classical music.  “I was really stunned by his humility: even with his wide experience, an 89-year-old man, he approached me and said, ‘Oh Mr Prégardien, I am so happy that we are playing Winterreise: I learned so much from you.’  I nearly had tears in my eyes that this wonderful old musician was willing to learn.  I think this is a very good approach, in every field of life, that Man is able to learn until he is dying.”

This almost epistemic humility that Prégardien admires in Pressler, with whom he will be performing Schubert’s Winterreise in Oxford this August, strikes me on numerous occasions during the course of our interview.  Winterreise is a work he has performed countless times, yet remains one he is readily exploring and learning about: his recordings of it include a version with accordian and wind quintet, and a ‘composed re-interpretation’ of the work by Hans Zender.  He explains, “Each time you sing a piece, [with] different pianists [and] different ensembles, you learn more about yourself, your possibilities, your abilities on stage.”

Indeed, as he talks about these different performances, one gets a sense of continued musical development and discovery.  “I started to learn about Winterreise quite early.  But I think you learn the whole psychological and emotional content of that piece by getting older, by having experiences, by having losses.  You have to fall in love and then to lose your lover– you have to really have this experience, to feel what is happening to you, with your soul, with your brain, with your body, in that situation.”

It is a sobering thought that a musician of Prégardien’s standing, who has performed in the world’s top concert halls, with the likes of the Berlin Philharmonic, Staatskapelle Dresden, and conductor Nikolaus Harnoncourt, has such a desire to learn and develop further.  His recordings, with major labels such as EMI and Deutsche Grammophon, and numbering over 130 titles, have been received to great critical acclaim, winning international awards, such as MIDEM Record and Vocal Recital of the Year.

I wonder how Prégardien manages this vast repertoire, that spans the likes of Bach, Schubert, Britten, and Rihm. “I try to handle all composers equally,” he explains. “I try to hear the music, to find out what emotion the composer wants to bring over.  What is very important for me is that I get an emotional impact from the music and the text.  If I am not touched by them, it is very difficult for me to go on – but this is rare.”

The relationship between words and music is one of great importance for Prégardien, who uses both to find inspiration.  “Singers are very lucky, because we have the text. Other musicians don’t have this; we have poetry.” It is noticeable how often he refers to the ‘poetry’ of music, the ‘musical text’; for him, the two are deeply combined.  “To really understand music, it is necessary to understand the words.”  Winterreise comprises a set of poems by Wilhelm Müller, that were then set to music by Schubert.  When Prégardien considers the work, these two aspects hold equal weight.  “If you look at Schubert’s music, you find many hints for how to colour your voice and attitude, in order to give so many different approaches to the emotional content [of the text].”

Not that Müller’s text is emotionally straightforward either. “You have 24 songs, in the same depressing attitude — you have to find the real colours, to find possibilites… there is not only sadness, there is also anger, there is despair… the real challenge is to find a logical way for yourself through these 24 songs, to show character and development during just three days… for in three days you cannot go through a whole love.”

Emotion is at the core of Prégardien’s music-making, partly thanks to one of his early teachers, Hartmut Höll, accompanist to Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau.  “He didn’t care about our technical problems — he just said, ‘No, forget about that.  Look at the text, at the music — let pictures and imaginings come, and try to find the right sound and the right expression for them.'” 

A dedicated music educator himself, teaching at German Hochschule music academies, as well as international masterclasses, and having produced several musical publications, it is this emotional side of a musician that Prégardien is most interested in fostering.  “I want to see a very personal approach to the music.  I don’t want to hear a very well-trained voice, who has studied this song and brings it over in a beautiful manner.  That can be good, but I like to find real musical and emotional personality.”

It was his personal ideas about ‘not just my part… but how the passions, the dramatic impulses of the whole should be’ that last year prompted Prégardien to take up the conductor’s baton, leading a tour with the Ensemble Le Concert Lorrain.  Singer, turned teacher, turned conductor; one can’t help but think of what Prégardien said of Menahem Pressler earlier: “If you want to learn, you can learn.”

Christoph Prégardien will be leading a Lied masterclass at St Hilda’s and performing Winterreise with Menahem Pressler at the Sheldonian Theatre on 5 August.

Preview: Alice in Wonderland

0

In one of the boathouses on the Isis, a group of Oxford students are pretending to be animals: a duck, a lorry bird, a mouse, an eaglet, a dodo. The assembled are quacking, squeaking, flapping their wings, and stomping their feet. This is a rehearsal of a scene from Alice in Wonderland in which a group of animals are trying to dry themselves after a swim. For once, the path by the river is not dominated by the sound of coxes shouting and oars slicing through the water. Today, the sound of folly prevails.

The team are preparing for their performances in Christ Church Meadow, starting 20 July, followed by a stint in London. After that, they are spending almost all of August at the Edinburgh Fringe, where they will perform Oxford’s favourite tale of bizarre nonsense a total of 36 times.

As far as impersonating strange and extinct animals goes, the scenes I am shown are promising and truly funny. The actors have already been rehearsing for a couple of weeks; a lack of academic obligations over the summer means that they have been working on Alice from 10am to 5pm every day. The group’s cohesion makes for an energetic performance: the cast and crew have fun as they perform and are open to improvisation.

Director Josie Mitchell says at first the play was largely improv-based: people created roles in an open-ended and playful way. From there, they chose the parts that worked best. The animal behaviour I witnessed had been skilfully developed, with the movements, voices, and facial expressions well-matched to each species. At one point, the duck (Johnny Purkiss) approached the audience (me) and stared sideways with an unblinking eye, just as a truly insolent Oxford duck would. Well observed.

Mitchell says it was exciting to create so many characters: Wonderland is a populous place, and each actor is playing multiple roles. “How would a dodo talk?” and “How is a rabbit going to move?” were interesting questions to answer. Still, Alice in Wonderland is designed to be more than just strange and silly physical theatre. Matt Parvin says that in adapting Carroll’s original text, he tried to make it “more of a play, rather than just put all the nonsense on stage”. While striving to retain as much of the novel as possible, Parvin has focussed on dialogue to drive the plot forward.

Mitchell speaks of a key contrast in the play, between wonder and social realism. There is Wonderland, which is going to be “expansive”, full of “strange, wondrous things”. Then there is the rather less wonderful world of Victorian England; the play will allude to “suffragettes, the Industrial Revolution, and child workers”. The production is travelling to a variety of venues, and so needs to cater to diverse audiences. The scale and vibrancy of Wonderland should appeal to children, while adults will appreciate the political undertones of the work.

When I ask why they chose this story, producer James Fennemore says the team are “taking an Oxford story around the country”. The text is deeply rooted in Oxford, and so it seems apt to begin in Christ Church Meadow – one of Lewis Carroll’s main haunts – and to take the play from there to London and finally to Edinburgh. For the Oxford performances, the crew promise beanbags, couches, and rugs, and the audience are welcome to bring picnics along. Plus, with the Natural History Museum still closed for renovations, it might be your only chance to spot a dodo in Oxford this summer.

Alice in Wonderland will be playing on Christ Church Meadows (20-23 July), London’s Arcola Theatre (26-27 July) and at Edinburgh’s C Nova (31 July-26 August). Tickets are available here

Review: Othello

0
★★★★★
Five Stars
 
Nicholas Hytner’s latest production at the National Theatre deserves all the plaudits it has received. The acting is never short of breathtaking, setting and scene changes are cunning, and not a single word of the brilliant script is wasted.

Most strikingly, the play feels like a contemporary drama. Shakespeare manages to iterate ageless emotions in beautifully subtle ways, but so often actors seem to be reciting pretty poetry rather than genuinely engaging with the script. However, this cast makes the words sound effortless, dropping off the tongue like modern speech.

No one achieves this nore convincingly than Rory Kinnear, whose Iago feels more like a cockney wheeler-dealer than a traditional Shakespearean foe. Iago is intensely jealous of Othello and hatches a shrewd plan to destroy him, ultimately leading to tragedy. Kinnear spits out the character’s envious views with a cold resentment and the audience is hit by every foul look. However, Iago’s cruelty and aggression are tempered by a charming wit. Especially in his manipulation of the feckless sidekick, Roderigo (Tom Robertson), Kinnear draws the audience in, making his later crimes all the more appalling.

Many other phenomenal performances stand out. Adrian Lester (Othello) is particularly impressive, his charismatic aura at the beginning of the play giving way to confusion and grief as Iago destroys his life (through false accusations of his newlywed’s fidelity). Lester is extremely believable as Othello, in command of the tremendous emotions which the character pours out as the play progresses. The tragedy hits even harder thanks to Lyndsey Marshal’s heartfelt performance as Emilia, Iago’s wife who unknowingly contributes to his evil plan. 

 
The production is set in a modern war zone much like one would imagine a military base in Afghanistan. Though not an original idea, this complements the contemporary feel and makes the Shakespearean tongue even less noticeable. The walls of the barracks are shifted by troops in between scenes, keeping up the pace with very slick transitions – important for a production lasting over three hours. Each room in the barracks is very simple, providing no distraction from the audience’s focus on the characters.
 
This Othello is one of the finest peaces of theatre I have ever seen, if not the best. Lester and Kinnear are two of the greatest actors of their generation, and the whole cast is fully deserving of the numerous standing ovations they have received. I could not recommend a play more.
 
Othello will be at the National Theatre, London, until the 5th of October. Tickets range from £12 to £48 and are available here.

Oxford Professor reveals JK Rowling’s pseudonym

0

An Oxford Univeristy Professor has helped expose JK Rowling’s secret identity as debut crime writer Robert Galbraith.

Hertford Professor Peter Millican, an expert in computer linguistics, uncovered the truth behind the pseudonym of crime novel The Cuckoo’s Calling by developing software to analyse and compare texts.

Prof Millican was approached by the Sunday Times last Friday, after they recieved information suggesting that Galbraith was actually Rowling in disguise.

The tip off came as a member of legal firm Russell’s, Chris Gossage, divulged Rowling’s secret to her best friend, Judith Callegari. Callegari then allegedly revealed Galbraith’s true identity to a Sunday Times journalist via Twitter.

Prof Millican told the BBC, “I was given some text by The Sunday Times – I had two known texts by JK Rowling, two by Ruth Rendell, two by PD James and two by Val McDermid.

“What I did was clean up the texts, put them into my software and do a battery of tests to see what similarities there were. I was testing things like word length, sentence length, paragraph length, frequency of particular words and the pattern of punctuation.

“What was striking about the tests was how often The Cuckoo’s Calling came closest to the texts by JK Rowling and it was closer to those than to any other crime novels.”

Prof Millican similarly received public interest in 2008 when he was asked by a Republican to prove that President Barack Obama was not the actua author of his autobiography Dreams From My Father, concluding “I found it was most unlikely he did write it because there were significant differences in his use of language.”