Watching “King Lear” in Ukrainian was an interesting experience.  We read King Lear for class so I was very familiar with the script which did help me during the show.  However, there were many changes to the story that made it difficult to understand.  I was under the impression that this would be a normal production of “King Lear” but instead this was a unique script.  There were only 5 characters: King Lear, the Jester, Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia.  It seems that a lot of the action with other characters was either cut or it happened off-screen and was explained sometime on screen.  I was able to follow some parts.  I could follow the opening easily and I also understood when Lear was kicked out by his daughters and when he was monologuing about his mistakes.  Overall, I believe that I was roughly able to follow the story however if I had not read and studied the script I definitely would have no idea what was happening.  I think they captured the overall essence of the play but I still didn’t enjoy it.  While I do appreciate the thought put into it and admire the hard work of everyone involved, the fact is that I do not speak Ukrainian.  The point of art is to convey a message and how can I receive that message if it’s in a language I can’t understand.  Many art forms like painting, dance, and performance art are universal languages able to be understood by anyone but something text focused like theatre isn’t.  The themes can be universal but the language isn’t.  I found myself only really enjoying when the jester would do slapstick humor.  I support what the show is trying to raise awareness for and I’m definitely glad that I did try this; however, in the future I would like to have subtitles when I experience a piece of art in a foreign language.

This is a Chanel suit from the Victoria and Albert Museum and this relates to the show “Guys and Dolls”.  The Chanel suit was introduced in 1925; however, it became extremely popular in 1954 which matches the 1950’s setting of “Guys and Dolls”.  Since 1954 the Chanel suit has been a staple in fashion and is very often replicated or is the source of inspiration for other pieces.  It became a symbol of femininity, elegance, and the working woman with many high class women wearing them around to boost their popularity.  It is also an important fashion piece in feminism; the looser silhouette is meant to be a sharp turn from the popularity of corsets at the time of its creation.  It was a step towards more functional clothing for women which is why it was so popular.  While “Guys and Dolls” is definitely not very feminist, the Chanel suit and symbol of the working woman.  The uniforms for the women of the save our souls groups had the same silhouette.  Chanel suit inspiration also appeared in some of the outfits that female ensemble members wore.  Following WW2 more and more women were entering the workforce and women’s fashion at the time did not support that so the more functional design of Chanel suits became an icon for women in the workforce and a source of inspiration for work uniforms for women.  There were many other important pieces of fashion history that appeared in “Guys and Dolls” like Christian Dior’s “New Look” which could be seen being replicated in some of the dresses the women were wearing.  I am a really big fan of fashion and fashion history so seeing these pieces of fashion history in the Victoria and Albert museums and also seeing fashion history portrayed well in shows is amazing to me.

If you were to give me a year to live in London, completely on my own and with the freedom to do anything and everything I wanted to, I would come back wishing I had more time. With how quickly these days and weeks have gone by, it’s honestly hard to believe that a month has already passed. Now at the end of our journey, I find myself reflecting in Shakespeare’s birthplace, Stratford-Upon-Avon.

Stratford itself is a beautiful, small town, with its slower pace and obsession with the Bard creating a perfect place to end our study abroad experience. I loved seeing and walking through locations like Shakespeare’s birthplace or Anne Hathaway’s cottage, and the town’s mixture of architectural styles made it amazing to walk through. Wandering through the streets at night, no other soul in sight, felt tranquil and almost magical compared to the bustle and unnatural brightness of nights in London. The experience of Stratford felt no more yielding than a dream, with its seemingly daily farmer’s markets stretching across plazas before vanishing at 5:00, its historical sites nestled between antique stores and candy shops, and the tourism depending almost entirely upon Shakespeare’s mere existence. Whether it was watching theatre in languages I did not understand or having afternoon tea in a cafe populated with cats named after Shakespeare characters or even just wandering the quiet streets in the dead of night, I adored every minute that I spent in this place. 

All in all, my time in London has felt like a strange dream, as if I have but slumber’d here, while these visions did appear. Visions of an expansive urban setting, with buildings sprouting into the sky, and so many shops packed so tightly together that you could get anything you ever need within a five minute walk. Of a place so casually old you see people park their cars next to ancient Roman walls or over the graves of long dead kings (that has actually happened before. Twice). Of a city so large and sprawling and yet feeling so incredibly small and local. Of a public transit system where it feels like you step off into a completely different city from where you started at, even if you are just a stop away.

This trip taught me many things I never would have known about London without going. I learned about the many rich and expansive markets throughout the city, home to many different stores and restaurants (and barbershops) for almost anything you could ever want. I found my way through the surprisingly easy to understand tube system, which I first thought would be incredibly confusing and something I may not use often, but ended up taking casually every day. I became engrossed in the collections and stories of museums and galleries and even the small antique shops on the corners. I ate foods and tasted things that I had never seen before or just assumed would be vaguely gross, like a meat pie. I saw so many different shows and equally as many different ways of doing theatre, taking in what decisions and choices I thought worked and what did not to help me in my own sound design work this upcoming semester. 

Overall, London has been an immensely powerful and incredibly educational trip to go on, and an experience I would not trade for anything else. While I feel like I left a part of myself in London (and, as I am an honest Ben, I would have to say I legitimately did. I left behind my mouse’s USB in the hotel room, after all), I feel like London has left me with a part of itself as well. Whether it is the souvenirs that I take home in my near bursting suitcase, or the stories that will unfurl off my tongue at any social gathering for the next five years, or the lessons I wish to put to practice and the recipes I wish to try etched into my brain, I have been changed by my experiences in London. I wish to return some day, if I have unearned luck, and do and see more than what I have already, but for now I think it would be better to rest at home. 

Now to ‘scape the serpent’s tongue, I will make amends ere long, and say goodbye to a little place called London.

For my Fringe Theatre post I will be writing about “Bluets”.  “Bluets” was an incredibly unique show.  There were 3 actors and they played A, B, and C.  The actors each had their own stand on the stage.  Bluets was more like slam poetry than a theatre show.  There was a story but it was essentially one long poem that was read off by three people switching off lines.  It also used something that I never seen before in theatre which is the use of cameras and screens.  There was a big screen above the actors and that was the show really.  Each actor had a camera and they would make what was being shown on the screen live.  There was a TV behind each actor to make backgrounds and also a table that had another camera on it.  As one actor read out their lines, the other actors would stand near the TV to look like they were driving or on the tube.  They would also use the table to make it look like they were holding someone’s hand in the hospital.  There were many other things the actors acted out but those were the most common.  These aren’t my own words but my friend Killian referred to it as a live film and I totally agree with that.  The show was what was on the screen with the lines being narration to what was happening.  I had truly never seen anything like this; however, I do believe Romeo and Juliet with Tom Holland also uses a screen so I know this has been done before but this is the first time I’ve seen it and it blew me away.  As for the story, I thought it was pretty good.  The show is about depression and since I don’t have depression I can’t really comment on the accuracy but the show did have this melancholic mood that conveyed the feelings of the main character very well.  The show had a lot of blue in it and the main character had an obsession with the color.  The color blue is also something that I am very interested in and seeing all the different ways the color was used and the themes it conveyed was very enjoyable.  Overall I really enjoyed Bluets and it is definitely the most unique show I have ever seen in my life.

When I learned that were going to Hampton Court Palace I was interested but as a person that isn’t a fan of monarchies I wasn’t incredibly excited and while that definitely did lower my opinion just because I don’t find seeing the way royalty lived very interesting that doesn’t mean I wasn’t able to admire the beauty of the palace.  After the very fun trip to Bath I was excited for another day trip to Hampton.  The first place I walked through was the kitchen which was bigger than most restaurant kitchens.  It was interesting to see what they ate because spices and new world crops had not reached Europe.  After that I saw a fountain that used to be a fountain of wine, sadly it was not functional anymore.  Walking through the palace I saw tons of art and I also noticed the difference in architecture within the building.  The palace had been expanded upon over time.  The palace was built in the Tudor style but later expanded in the Baroque style.  Eventually I went into a room with a set of games that would have been played at the time the palace was used and I must say those games sucked.  There was a board game and I played both sides to see how it would play. The first roll landed on an empty square, the second roll landed on a space that made you move the same number of spaces again.  I kept landing on that until I reached the end so that game only lasted two turns.  The other games I didn’t play but I read the rules and one was essentially just war and the other was incredibly boring.  The last place I went to was the gardens and they were massive. The first part was mostly open with incredibly well kept up grass, but then I went to the more garden-like area.  The gardens were absolutely amazing and just kept on going on.  I was amazed at how the gardens were kept up.  It was filled with beautiful flowers and statues all arranged very well.  I sadly wasn’t able to see all of the gardens but I got to see a large portion.  While I still am not a Royalist and seeing places like Hampton Court Palace does kind of anger me seeing how royalty lived in contrast to how peasants lived; however, the beauty of Hampton Court Palace is undeniable and the history of it was very interesting to learn.

The production of “Long Day’s Journey into Night” at the Wyndham theatre was interesting to say the least.  “Long Day’s Journey into Night” was one of the three plays we read before coming to London.  The script is great and was my favorite out of the three that we had read, so I was very excited to see it especially considering that Brian Cox would also be in the production we were seeing.  Seeing it live was incredible; however, I had some issues with it.  My issues are with the tech.  My first issue is the set, in the script the room the play takes place in is filled with stuff but in this production the room was empty.  The set wasn’t minimalistic because it was a complete unit, but it was also empty.  I understand that the set was meant to look like the house had no soul but instead the set just seemed boring to me.  The sound design was also very weird, there was this prerecorded music that played at the beginning and intermission which I didn’t really get but it was fine.  However, a short melody would play when something important happened during the play and I hated that.  It almost felt insulting, as if I as the viewer couldn’t understand the story or its themes.  Lastly, the lighting felt awkward.  The play takes place in one room at different parts of the day, so the setting never changed.  Throughout the play lights are turned off and on so there are lights that mimic the lights in that house and the placement of these lights are so weird.  They are not realistic to where actual lights would be in a house like that.  They were at awkward positions and created strange lighting.  Also at the end when the mom entered all the lights turned on suddenly and it completely blinded me.  While the tech elements weren’t that great I must say the acting was incredible.  Every actor gave a stellar performance and did incredible justice to the script.

It felt incredible to see a show in the Globe Theatre.  It didn’t really hit me in the gift shop, but once I walked into the actual theatre it immediately hit me just how amazing it was to be in this historic theatre.  I had seen pictures so nothing surprised me about the theatre itself but it was interesting to see the size of the crowd.  I had been debating with myself over if the globe would be packed or not because on the one hand it is the globe but on the other hand since they only do Shakespeare plays they will do the same show multiple times so maybe people wouldn’t go as much.  The place wasn’t completely packed, especially near the sides, but there was definitely a sizable crowd.  As for the show the first thing that caught my eye was the set which was very minimalistic.  There was a giant orange tree along the wall, two temporary railings on the pillars, and baskets of oranges around the pillars.  To say the performance exceeded my expectations would be understatement.  The actors were absolutely hilarious and made the Shakespearean text so clear.  The minimalist set worked so well because the actors used the space so well; however, I did expect that.  One thing I didn’t expect was the amount of crowd work.  There were tons of entrances and exits with the groundlings area along with many crowd interactions throughout the play.  This play very much differed from a contemporary production in America with the theatre and the set.  It also differed from how it would have been performed in Shakespeare’s day with the set and also the actors actually got into character instead of just saying the lines like they would have in Shakespeare’s day.  While there was a set it was very small which is similar to how there wouldn’t have been any set in Shakespeare’s day, another element that was similar was how the actors would talk to the audience during their soliloquies instead of just lookin out and up like most actors do now.

I really enjoyed the trip to Bath.  I found the architecture to be very interesting and the technology of the baths was incredible.  There were many places in the bath house that caught my eye like the sauna room and the collection of Roman coins.  I also found it interesting that the bath water was believed to have medicinal properties.  The thing that interested me most was that the bath house was not divided by class at all.  I didn’t expect that at all, I had expected the bath house to have multiple rooms for different classes or just not have let poor people in when it was used as a bathhouse.  I’m curious as to why it wasn’t divided by class at that time.  I didn’t get to see much of Bath so I can’t speak for the entire town but I could tell it was different from London.  The biggest difference was the size, Bath is so much smaller than London.  One thing I noticed about the architecture was that a lot of the buildings looked very similar, some buildings stood out but many looked the same and most were tan with grey roofs.  Besides seeing the Roman Baths we also got afternoon tea at the pump room which is definitely one of my favorite things that we have done.  I don’t like tea so I was mainly in it for the food but the tea was surprisingly good.  I ordered Darjeeling tea and while I still had to add milk and sugar I didn’t have to add a ton like I usually would have to make coffee or tea drinkable for me.  Onto the food, it was incredible.  I started with these little sandwiches that had salmon in one, egg in another, and the last one I can’t remember.  Next was this little pancake with something and a bit of caviar and another that I had no idea what it was but it was really good.  Next was scones with clotted cream and jam, and while they were good I didn’t think they were any better than Shawn’s homemade scones with clotted cream and jam.  Last was the desserts, there was a pistachio and blueberries tart thing, a raspberry cake, and a chocolate something.  To be perfectly honest nothing by itself was 10/10 perfect in every way the best thing was probably an 8.5/10, but all together it was amazing and as an experience it was unforgettable.

I had been to London before, a few years ago, and one of my favorite places when I went was Borough Market.  I loved all the different food there and even went back multiple times.  Visiting London again excited me because I was so happy to visit Borough Market, but said it disappointed me.  The Borough Market I remember was a lot of food stalls making meals; however, now it’s most market stands selling food to cook.  It was a market to get a meal, but now it’s more like a farmer’s market.  , and I went there several times to try more food.  Coming back now one of the things I was most excited for was going back to Borough and getting to have the food again.  Sadly though, Borough market has changed a lot since I was last here.  Before, Borough market was similar to 7 dials market with a ton of places to buy meals but now it’s more like a farmer’s market with most of the places being to buy cheese or vegetables.  There are still places there selling ready to eat food like the pie stand or the Turkish Delight place but there are also several cheese shops and vegetable stands.  While in Borough market I had a pain au chocolat from a pastry stand, ice cream from an ice cream stand, and I had Turkish Delight for the first time which was really good and made me completely understand why the kid in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe would betray everyone for it.  While there I also tried some of the cheeses and one of the cheese places and it was incredible.  I tried this seasoning cheese meant for salads and pasta and it was incredibly flavorful.  Overall, while Borough Market is still really cool I think Borough Market is more suited for locals now because of all the non-ready to eat food now sold there.

Something I’ve enjoyed the most about watching theatre in London, is seeing the magnificent costumes. How they tell a story, or tell the audience something about the characters. The costumes I have seen in most of the shows I’ve been to in London, are so impressive. When I watched Guys and Dolls at the Theatre, I was so close to the actors. It was a perfect chance to see their costumes up close. The detail in West end shows is incredible, and the designs are always spectacular.

Which is why I was so excited to see the Theatre & Performance Collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum. According to their official website, the collection includes over 3,500 stage costumes and accessories that date back from the mid 18th century. The collection includes pieces of various types of performances including opera, pantomime, film, rock, and circus. Unfortunately, the collection was closed. While the fashion collection was open, it was small and with less variety. A fourth of the collection was also blocked off because of renovations, so it was an even smaller array of pieces to look at. With that said, I was still able to admire some pieces of clothing and learn more about its history.

Pictured above are some of my favorite pieces from the Fashion collection.

The last one is the “Robe à La Française”, which would have been called a “sack” in Britain. This piece was said to be made in France or Switzerland in the 1760’s. 

Another piece that caught my attention was the Blue Dress above. I was immediately reminded of the Royal courts Theatre production of Bluets. It was almost the exact shade of blue used for the costumes. I felt like the dress would have been a perfect addition to this show, if it were set a a different period. The 1850s to be exact. This style of dress came about after the invention of the light framed steel that replaced heavy layers of petticoats. It made the dress lighter, and also more voluminous.

This shade of blue came about from development in the chemical industry, that eventually led to artificial dyes. What I found even more interesting, was that some of those dyes were found to be dangerous. In 1869, The British Medical Journal warned the dangers of arsenic in magenta dyes, that it could leak from washing or even rain. Somehow when I read that, I connected a few more dots with Bluets. In the production, the color blue swallows the narrator whole, damaging its perception of reality. The obsession with the color blue was harmful. When I read the artificial dye fact at the museum, it was too much of a coincidence. How color can be harmful. Isn’t that kind of crazy?

I continued to look at the rest of the exhibits. I was on a mission to find anything that related to the theatre. Right as I left the fashion collection, I was immediately drawn to a headdress The name read, “Theatrical Headdress”. I got really excited! It turns out, that this piece most likely would have been worn by an actor impersonating the king of celestial beings in the 1800s. The shape and high quality of the piece resembled that of crowns worn by the royals or minor deities during the Konbaung period.

The production I immediately thought of when I saw this headdress was King Lear. When King Lear starts losing his mind in the play, the taking away of his crown (both figuratively and physically) is a really important symbol in the play. They are not just taking away his dignity but also his power. The headdress was so well preserved, it looked like it could make anyone look powerful. For it to be a theatrical headdress, the detail and shape of it was magnificent. I thought “I guess if your gonna portray a king, you need to be able to portray power”.

Well that is it for now friends!

Farewell!

PS: Some of us went to the Natural History Museum afterwards, and these are some pictures of really cool stuff we found!