Bluets started out as fringe theatre and I can understand its quick rise here in London. The concept of this show is something I have quite literally not seen before nor ever thought of. 

When you walk into the theatre and find your seat, you glance at the stage/set and it almost looks unfinished or like someone forgot to clear the stage before the show. There’s three stations of organized desks with various props on them. In front of them, three cameras (one at each station) and behind them, three tv screens. Then there was a big screen behind all of that. You weren’t sure where you should turn your attention to when the show begins.

Then, out come three actors and they each take their stations and house lights come down. This play was live tv. They were filming scenes in real time and editing them together in real time while speaking all of the written dialogue. It was unreal. So theatrical but also not? My mind was truly blown at the talent everyone in this cast and crew possessed. 

Now let’s talk about the script itself. Blue is about a characters ‘obsession’ with the color blue, a metaphor for their constant battle with depression and various other mental health disorders. The language was unlike anything I’ve heard. All of the lines were so poetic and each word has so much intention behind it. You didn’t hear much back and forth spoken dialogue amongst characters, it was a story. 

All in all, this was a beautiful experience and it deserves the fast recognition and praise that it has received. It was likely a big risk to start out as fringe theatre with such a nuanced ideal, but the minds behind it are reaping the benefits of hard work and dedication to a passion project.

Today we had the pleasure of visiting The Victoria and Albert Museum. My mother told it was a great Museum and of course it was free so it was a given! Unfortunately, we informed that this the second year in a row where the theatre section of the theater was blocked off. What a bummer. I have no idea what the theater section would’ve had to offer but I’m sure it would’ve been very cool. It didn’t ruin the experience at the end of the day. We saw some of the history of fashion which I found super neat.

This is an example of mens wardrobe from 1840-1860. According to the Museum, as women’s dress became more elaborate, mens dress became duller and more plain. Although if a man wanted to show his fashionable side, he could wear a brightly patterned waistcoat. Personally, I’m not too sure if I’d be able to pull this off but I think I’d like to try it on one day. M

After we checked out some of the other exhibits, we learned about the Natural History Museum. I wondered if it would be another museum with old artifacts but then I learned a very important fact. There were dinosaurs. My ears perked when I heard this and I knew exactly what we needed to do. I rallied a group together as soon as I could so that we could go and it was so worth. It was my favorite Museum that we’ve visited yet as a matter of fact. I’m a sucker for prehistoric animals, especially when they’re upwards of 10 feet tall. It fascinates me like nothing else. My childhood memory kicked in and I begin imagined what the “Land Before Time” was like. Not only did they have dinos, but they also have prehistoric fossils of the first ever human beings which was amazing to learn about.

Fringe theatre: unique and knowing no boundaries. Hidden in the corners of London’s theatre scene, Fringe theatre takes a little more digging to find.

On May 31st, I watched a jukebox musical called, “The Choir of Man.” Although, I don’t know if I would classify it as a musical, or more of a concert/talent show. It was interesting stepping into the theater because the set was an interactive pub, where audience members could grab a beer and chat with the cast before the production. This set the tone for what the next 90 minutes would be: friendly, upbeat interaction.

The show narrated the men’s lives inside the pub, detailing their struggles and characteristics. Interestingly enough, the characters were actually playing themselves and telling their own life stories. More importantly, this show celebrated London and the community of pub culture. There wasn’t necessarily a storyline.

I both liked and disliked the fact that it was a jukebox. Some of the songs were quite fun– like their ensemble rendition of “Escape (The Pina Colada Song),” but others just felt slightly out of place for me, like one of the men’s covers of “Chandelier,” by SIA, when narrating his struggles to find love as a gay man.

A common theme throughout the show was the men finding people to call onto stage and sing to. This was fun, but I found that the people they were calling up were entirely white, blonde middle-aged women. While this was entertaining, it made the intended audience for the show glaringly clear and wasn’t as appealing to others in the crowd.

All in all, it was a fun time, but I wouldn’t spend the money to see it again. If you’re in the mood for an upbeat concert, this is a good one, but if you are looking for something more emotionally/intellectually potent, “The Choir of Man,” is not the show for you.

Last night, we watched “Bluets,” as a group and although I planned to write my blog post on the previous Fringe show I saw, I can’t help but feel the need to talk about this one as well. Awaiting lights up, I was immediately curious about the production because of the stage setup. In front of a large blue screen lay three different TV monitors, cameras and tables. I had an inkling that film was going to be incorporated into this production and I was thrilled because I have never experienced that before.

“Bluets” is easily the most fascinating play I’ve ever seen. Adapted from Maggie Nelson’s 2009 book by the same name, this play tells the story of a woman, shattered by heartbreak after losing a romantic relationship and after a close friend gets in a dangerous car wreck. Plagued with depression, the woman becomes obsessed with the color blue– collecting blue things and seeking it everywhere she goes. Margaret Perry, playwright, and Katie Mitchell, director, brought this prose poetry to life on stage by exploring the narrator’s relationship to this color through 3 actors and film.

In a frenzy of complex design and technical elements, this show captures raw emotion on stage and translates it to a giant film screen in the form of live moviemaking.

Heartbreaking, disturbing, and captivating, this play manipulates several entertainment mediums to craft an expository piece of the psyche of a grief-stricken woman.

I think that this production requires multiple viewings, to take it all in. With live theatre and film happening cohesively, it is difficult to discern where to point your attention at times. I found myself confused about where to focus and got caught up in how they were making the parts work, rather than the substance of the poetry.

On to the next!

xoxo Gossip Girl

At the Lyric Hammersmith Theatre, I saw one of the first productions of Wedding Band. In a few words, this play will never make it to the West End without returning the story to the drawing boards. The potential is certain, but the story had so many places to go and fell flat. There was no climax or falling action to the story. The story drove in a straight line without twists, turns, hills, or valleys. It was an emotional argument that lasted for three hours. Where suspense, despair, moments of passion, drama, or anything mildly interesting in storytelling nature went is beyond me.

It started with so much buildup that made me so excited for the first thirty minutes. A rich woman who mysteriously rents a house in a neighborhood below her means? Yes, please. She accidentally lets slip she is seeing someone? More questions to be answered, yes please!! But then we meet the man. He is without any charm or context that allows me to believe their romance. I didn’t understand the nature of it at all. Even just one scene of genuine connection would have sold me of why they fight so damn hard for each other. Instead, my fellow audience members and I were left to fill in gaps with our imaginations to an unreasonable degree. 

The production needed a backstory. I see a trope of friends to lovers or rivals to lovers that would have added spunk to the plot. It was just so static for such a fight for freedom and love. We as the audience were lost in a beige-lighted stage where characters argued and threw obscenities at each other for hours. There was only one scene that invested me in a moment, a lyric of the scene. One line that caught my attention and grace went something like “Holding her feels like holding the warmth of a Carolina summer. Her kisses are of the sweet nectar of blackberries.”. Wow. Beautiful and full of life, but this was the only line that we had that sounded like this and put the other lines out of place. If the play carried a little more of the rest of this kind of energy, I think it would have been so triumphant. For a play that focuses on love as such a major theme, the romantics were spread far and focused on how the woman could serve her man. And for being SO in love, so much so that they would risk everything else in their lives, they didn’t support each other enough. She came to see him and take care of him when he was sick, and he gave her some money. That was it. They were separated so much during the production even when he was well, and chemistry was lost.

The set consisted of a few gates, windows, and fences that lowered and shifted about to mimic the walls of this particular Black neighborhood of the 20s. It was minimalist and extremely industrial, which actually reminded me a bit of Hadestown. I think one scene or two of something resembling organic growth or life would have served to give this scene a little life. I could see the desolate and desperate imagery that (perhaps) they were going for, but it felt forced and blended into the scene for lack of action. 

The acting was fine. Fine is the best way I can put it. Because it’s not like the actors had anywhere to go with the static emotion and energy (which is the fault of the writing), but no one stood out to me. It felt like something like a high school cafetorium production. I didn’t have any sense of true sense of feeling. It felt like they knew their lines but didn’t know how to say them. Some of the actors had completely contradictory behaviors, and that made them plot devices instead of people.

Today we saw a fringe theater show called Bluets. It was an interesting show that I am still unsure if I liked or not. At first it started off weird talking about a person who wants to sleep with the color blue, but the second part was an interesting dialogue describing what blue represents to this person and how the recent events have affected them. The third part however returned to the obsession over the color blue and was pretty boring. It really reminded me of the Zima Blue episode of “Love Death and Robots” especially the way it wasn’t a living story but more of a person narrating their life with dark tones and shaded imagery. The production overall was quite the experience as it was essentially watching a short form movie being acted, edited, and produced all at once. The choreography was very well practiced between actors and stage hands which made for a seamless viewing experience. I will say that after a while the on stage screen showing the “movie” did get a little repetitive and I found myself being distracted by the operations and movements occurring on stage. The story overall was a mix bag of interesting and compelling and boring and weird. While I do think it was an interesting piece and experience I dont think it would be something I would watch again as it’s just not to my taste. I can’t point out any major flaws within the show. I just didn’t care for it overall. I am very thankful that it was rather short being just over 70 minutes. While I suppose I could see the appeal in fringe theater such as this I will say that I do prefer the more spectacle theater such as hairspray or hamilton. I could recommend it for someone to see as it doesn’t take long and there is merit to it but I just didn’t care for it overall.

Since I was super sick when the group went to Hampton Court palace I will be writing my blog post about Romeo and Juliet.

I dont know how to describe this show, it was the craziest thing I have ever seen on stage in my whole life.

No set, no curtains, no costumes. I’ve seen Shakespeare done in a couple different ways but NEVER have I seen something quite like this.

I would say that one of the most bizzare parts of this production was the use of cameramen and projections of what they were recording. The actors would say entire monologues straight into the lense of a camera and IT WORKED. I thought it would draw me out but no, it made it so much more amazing. You could see every pore, every bead of sweat, every wrinkle; there were times I felt as if I were intruding.

Tom Holland of course was amazing. The entire production had so much more calmness and ease to it than the script entends. There were moments of loud in your face moments that were executed well but for the most part it was very soft and it felt like we were watching a movie. Tom was so good. He brought such a loving spirit to Romeo, when normally he is seen to be kind of a prick.

Another thing that was crazy was how little was happening on stage but for some reason still worked. For example, there was no props or anything, whenever they would “do” something, the only way we know that their character is doing it is through the language.

Also the death scene, UGH. To die for. They just sat on the apron of the stage very calmly and took off their mics when they died, how genuis.

I could go on and on about this show but I will leave it here for now.

But yes it was life changing.

I NEVER PUBLISHED THIS ONE UGHHHH I HAD IT WRITTEN I PROMISE

“Long Days Journey Into Night” overall was a great show.

Yes, although it was long, I think it is crazy to deny the talent and dedication that went into this production. I want to applaud the cast and crew of this show because as a theatre “goer” I think that it was great.

In terms of if I would recommend it to someone who is not an avid theatre person, I would probably say no. Considering some theatre people didn’t even like it, I would find it hard to think that someone who does not appreciate theatre like we do would find it super enjoyable. Which honestly makes me sad because yes it was a long show but like, isn’t that the point?? I think if it was rushed it wouldn’t feel real and the plot would be less powerful in my opinion. I agree at times it dragged on a little but even in those moments I had to remind myself of the reality of their situation.

In terms of the acting, I thought Brain was amazing, as expected. He was the only one who I was fully drawn into the entire time and forgot that he was putting something on. Petricia was very good as well, however, at the beginning, I was having trouble buying her performance. I’m not sure if it was the accent or if it was completely intentional on her part but it just felt very choppy and mono for some reason, but that went away as her character started to get worse. Overall so impressed by her. What a hard role.

I thought Edmund was also really good, kind of the same thing as Mary I had a little trouble at the beginning buying his acting but by the end I was very impressed. Jamie (sorry) I just couldn’t buy into him I tried SO HARD. His accent just sounded fake to me and I felt like I was watching an actor.

Overall I think it was hyped up just a little too much but not at all did I think it was bad or didn’t enjoy my time. Great production and the story was absolutely amazing and heartbreaking all at the same time

Our trip to Hampton Court Palace was a charming getaway that fulfilled my Pride and Prejudice fantasies. The atmosphere was relaxing and the environment was beautiful. While unassuming at the start, Hampton Court soon became my favorite excursion in our journey thus far. 

Walking through the Great Kitchen, the scent from the wood burning stove made me want to make homemade bread. It was interesting to see how expansive the space was and how much of it is preserved today. When King Henry was staying in the palace, the kitchen workers would cook to feed 800 people, explaining the need for the six fireplaces. At first, the Great Kitchen was used to cook meats but was later expanded to include charcoal stoves to cook break. Next to the kitchens was the wine cellar, where barrels upon barrels of wine reflect the lavishness of Henry VIII’s collection which he used to entertain guests. Jungle juice didn’t come about until later, I suppose. 

The Great Hall, redesigned in 1532, encapsulates the grandeur of the palace with its high, “hammerbeam” roof and hung deer heads. I thought the white walls mixed with the wood carvings of the ceiling, with hangings reflecting a Tudor style, created a warm, welcoming aura while maintaining a sumptuous look. The Chapel Royal also embodied a luxurious Tudor architectural style with impeccable vault ceilings with the richest blue paint. This Chapel was obviously intended to be a place for royalty to worship. 

Christopher Wren, the architect who designed St. Paul’s, not the wacky man in Agatha Christie’s The Mousetrap, created an addition to the palace with extra bedrooms for royalty. He made the building have access to the Privy Garden from the bedrooms for the King. This was my favorite garden because I loved the cone-shaped bushes and the fountain. Wren’s new design was my favorite and was in Baroque style, contrasting the palace’s previous Tudor additions. 

One thing I found particularly lovely about this building was the King’s Staircase for the King’s State Apartments, designed by an artist named Antonio Verrio. The expansive walls have beautiful mythical paintings, and the staircase had intricately designed iron railings. The King’s state bedchamber was filled with red accents, including a ceiling-high red bed canopy that closed completely, allowing maximum privacy for its inhabitants. I think if I slept in there with the curtains closed, I would never wake up. 

I would personally love to be a courtier, mostly because I would get my own personal bedroom in the palaces, which are much larger and more fancy than my apartment in Fayetteville. Although it would feel stressful to try and remain in the monarch’s good spirits, I would like to reap the benefits of what wealth and societal standing can bring. Walking on eggshells around an easily irritated King is nothing a people-pleaser like me can’t face. 

Being in William and Mary’s court would mean I could pay a visit to the Chocolate Kitchen and probably be served the world’s most delicious and luxury dessert. I am a sweet tooth, so this would be a huge motive for me. 

This day was so enjoyable and gave me a royal experience I can never replace. Somehow Mother Nature knew we would be walking outside, so she also blessed us with gorgeous weather, which made walking along the garden just that extra bit sweeter. 

I think that in another lifetime, I was meant to be sipping tea, eating tea cakes, in a big, fancy dress, while walking along a garden. Being at Hampton Court Palace allowed me to live my period-piece dream and reminded me that there is no place like home (London).

xoxo,

Gossip Girl