An unpolished "Southwark Fair"

My Saturday evening theatregoing was not a total success, but it did lend a sort of organic unity to the day as a whole. After my wanderings round the Barbican, I headed south. Traveling was no simple matter this weekend, since about half of central London's Underground was down for scheduled track maintenance, 600,000 people were in town for EuroPride, the heat wave continued (even intensified), and England lost that very day in the World Cup.

At any rate, I returned to the National Theatre, this time to the tiny Cottesloe, to see "Southwark Fair," by Samuel Adamson. I had seen Adamson's adaptation of "Pillars of the Community" over the winter, and had qualifiedly enjoyed it (that play is marred by its final act, which is a precipitous charge through a series of false endings and near tragedies). This, on the other hand, was structurally ambitious (it follows several groups of people through the same day twice, each time from a different point of view), but the development of this structure is half-baked and the pacing of the scenes is off-kilter. The complex premise seems gimmicky rather than having that peculiar combination of inevitability and revelation that films like "Memento" and plays like Stoppard's time-benders possess. The script certainly needed a few more drafts and a few new actors - the principals are strong, but the peripheral characters are often surprisingly slapsticky. At one time or another, everyone seems to be pushing at the characters too too hard.

I saw the author before the show, in an odd turn, and this reminded me of a biographical connection that is worth noting: Adamson once taught at the well-worn nemesis of my beloved alma mater. Drawing on his experience in the States, Adamson has several of his characters visiting or returning to London from their home in Durham, North Carolina. It felt a bit like a nostalgic ambush to encounter NC (my home for several years) at this unexpected point in my travels.

The characters that populate the play are indeed an international gathering, featuring an Australian, a Canadian, and an American as well as Brits. I have to wonder what temptation continually leads British playwrights and directors into this folly of foreignness. I have no authoritative way of judging how accurate the details of American attempts on British accents are, but with very few exceptions (I'm looking at you, Hugh Laurie) British actors' attempts at American and Canadian accents are excruciating (Never, coincidentally, worse than when they attempt Arthur Miller, whose work settles out into "Aw shucks" sentimentality in the process). The more dialect coaching is done, the more the character is lost beneath a series of garish, cartoonish voice-masks. The poor actor who plays a Canadian in "Southwark Fair" is caught in this quicksand of accent, unable to make any line sound as if it were spoken by an actual human being.

If the author's ties to that iniquitous seat of Blue Devilry in Durham created a sort of symmetry in my summer travels (I have just returned from a lovely wedding in western NC), this play managed to surprise me with ties to all my Saturday activities. The driving point behind the plot of "Southwark Fair" was a possibly pedophiliac fumble backstage at a student performance of none other than "A Midsummer Night's Dream." The play was filled with a sort of weary post-Puckishness (and the inevitable puns about "being a great Puck") that was totally at odds with the endless exuberance of the matinee performance. The final puzzle piece dropped into place when the Clytemnestra of the play avenges herself on her inane, philandering husband by flinging all his belongings into the River. Ah, I thought, ... ritual offerings.

Grisly interlude

Brief visit between matinee and evening theatre on Saturday to the renovated Museum of London, which has substituted a bright accessibility for its former mild eccentricity in many of its exhibits. This has long been one of my favorites, often visited with my grandfather over the last 19 years, although our boundless enthusiasm for the early exhibits (anything up to and including the Tudors, that is) always leaves us too exhausted for the modern artifacts.

Today my particular focus was the renovated pre-Roman and Roman gallery, where hundreds of grisly artifacts are illuminated by a soothing, antiseptic blue glow. Which is not to say that the mystery has been completely drained from these spearheads, bones, iron collars, and horned helmets (I'll admit I thought these last were a bit of Wagnerian folly, but there they are, the gigantic horns representing, unsurprisingly, "ferocity and virility" and "enhancing aggression").

Why, we have to ask ourselves, are there so very many human skulls being dredged out of the Thames? Why am I relieved that these heads date from the Roman colony, as if historical distance made the deaths less gory? The exhibit notes that the heads were originally thought to have been the result of Boudica's massacres (about which I desperately want to learn more) but it also introduces the possibility (or even probability) that they were deliberate offerings to the river. Shudder. The river must be mightily disatisfied with its trashy diet of the last 100 years.

Midsummer Madness

I must admit that I have a minor passion for seeing Shakespeare staged in foreign languages (you have probably already guessed at this fixation from my review of "Throne of Blood" - however, my real infatuation is for theatrical foreign Bard, not filmic). It is not a passion I get to take up often, and I probably could pursue it with more consistency and zeal. So far my repetoire is limited to:

-a testosterone-saturated avant-garde Polish "Hamlet" seen in Amsterdam. I had the hubris to believe it would be easy to follow along, although the surtitles were in Dutch, because I knew the play like the back of my hand, but unfortunately the order of the scenes had been juggled, and somes scenes even commingled, in a disorientingly cinematic effect. As far as I could tell, Hamlet was driven to madness by a masochistic sexual passion for his dead father, which leads him to rape Ophelia and ensnare the love of Rosencrantz (but not Guildenstern, although it may have been the other way around. Both Ros and Guil, by the way, were women in this production).

-a Kabuki "Comedy of Errors" performed, in a truly dizzying collapse of historical frames, in the wooden "O" of the reconstructed Globe on London's South Bank.

-and, a Lithuanian "Romeo and Juliet" set in rival pizza parlors. Who could imagine from that description how brilliant this production was? Further description will probably make it sound even more absurd, but the effect is actually quite macabre - not at all cheesy (for God's sake, excuse that abysmal pun). The duels were conducted with outraged flingings of flour, which hung in the air with a strange persistence. This gave the stage an otherworldly air, as if the entire world of the play were saturated with grave dust. When a character died s/he was covered in flour, pale with dusty death, and these floury ghosts showed the same persistence as the powder that hung in the air, lurking onstage and watching the events that followed their deaths.

From this latter production I observed one of the many curiosities of seeing (as an English speaker) Shakespeare's work, the most ubiquitous part of our literary canon, performed in a foreign language -- the text, the poetry, goes from the highest place of importance to the lowest. Lines which would be indispensable in English are often found to be superfluous and cut in translation. The interest of these adaptations often rests in different approaches to characterization and innovations of plot interpretation.

On Saturday afternoon I went to the Barbican Theatre to see the Yohangza Theatre Company from Korea perform "A Midsummer Night's Dream," directed by Jung-Ung Yang. How did Yohangza innovate "Midsummer"? Well, for the most part they didn't. The decentering of language in favor of a gestural, physicalized characterization was there, but it is so often evident in the comedy of the original "Midsummer" as to make it both the natural and the obvious choice; it fits very well, but doesn't open up a lot of new possibilities.

Yohangza did make one interesting change to Shakespeare's plot, however, which speaks to a puzzling aspect of the original: here it is the Titania figure (Dot, the chief of the puckish Dokkebi) who lures her Oberon (the unrepetently womanizing Gabi) into a frenzy of misguided lust for a (literally) pigheaded old woman. This of course set me thinking about the problems of the original play's structure: why is it that Titania has to be disciplined (sexually and with practical jokery)? What has she done besides claiming her right to withold her ward from Oberon? Why, furthermore, is the plotline of the human lovers (Hermia, Helena, Lysander and Demetrius) all about domesticating the men in some sense, bringing them in line with who they should REALLY love rather than who they want to love (with the standard set by stronger, more completely characterized women), while the other two love-plotlines are about the domestication and even humiliation of wives (Theseus and his conquered Amazonian wife, Hippolyta, as well as Oberon and the magically misguided Titania)? What is the purpose of this almost chiasmic structure? I am sure there are interesting answers in the text, and I would be glad to hear any ideas....