Here it is: the end of the road. It’s our last day in Stratford-Upon-Avon. Tomorrow morning we’ll be packing all of our things onto a bus and heading back to Heathrow. It doesn’t feel real. I don’t know when it will. That seems overdramatic, but this trip has genuinely been one of the best things to happen to me. The number of new experiences, new determinations I have, and the new friends I’ve made or at least become closer with… it’s overwhelming to think that all of that has been in the span of a month.

We aren’t here to reminisce yet, though, so I’ll pull myself together. Today I’m going to talk about Stratford, and what I think of being here.

My first impression is that it’s very small. While we were driving away from London, I got the pressing feeling that everything I’d done in the past month was so small; it was so confined. Within fifteen minutes of being in the bus, I couldn’t see anything I recognized, even though I’ve spent the past month exploring the city. I saw the names of overground stations I’d never visited before, but had seen at the end of lines. I understood for the first time since being here how truly small London itself was in the grand scheme of things. It can seem so vast when you’re in the middle of it, but leaving it, you realize your life was confined to ten square blocks or less in any given direction.

What I didn’t anticipate is precisely how much smaller Stratford is. If not for the tourism Shakespeare brings in, it truly is just another rural town. Everything in town closes before seven if it isn’t a theatre, a pub, or McDonald’s. Nothing opens before ten. It’s utterly quiet.

I’m not used to leaving our lodgings so late. In London, we were able to leave between 8:30 and 10 at latest. Everything was always open. Here, we’ve departed to do things at 10 at the earliest, and today we left at 11:30. It’s started to feel like noon is already the end of the day in London, but in Stratford the day is only starting. I enjoy being able to get up at 6 and have the city be awake; I don’t know what to do with myself here. There’s only so far I can walk before I go in a circle or leave the town–in London I can walk for miles.

I don’t know that I’m ready to go back to living out of London. Even Stratford, while I’m still across the ocean, feels just like home, and not in a way that I’m enjoying fully. The buildings are different, and much older. The shops are English, not American. The feeling is the same, though. I like to hear the birds again. I miss real, sprawling parks that go for more than a block. I miss the tube. I miss Oliver’s Falafel. I miss getting coffee at Bloomsbury Coffee from the man who doesn’t know that we won’t be coming back on Monday. I miss the little life I made for myself there, in the time between activities.

I’ve found it difficult to be excited about being here when the end is so near. We’ve seen Shakespeare’s birthplace, and the place where he and his family lie in Trinity Church. We’ve seen the New Place, where he lived. We went to see Anne Hathaway’s cottage today, and tonight is dinner at the Windmill Pub. With all of these things being such appealing attractions, I thought I would be excited, but with no London on the other side, it all feels slightly lackluster.

I’m not entirely put out about being here; I really have found it interesting. I am just a person who needs things to do. And we have done things: we went to a cat cafe yesterday, and had afternoon tea there; we did all of the aforementioned Shakespeare tourism; we have learned the inside of the Stratford-Upon-Avon McDonald’s very well. I just miss the rush of the city. I think I will forever, even if I do come back, because it won’t be the same. Places that move this quickly never are.

CW

The last stop on our tour is Stratford-upon-Avon. This charming little city is very different from London, and I can definitely tell I’m not in the big city. Stratford-upon-Avon is a lot smaller and quieter than London. There are hardly any police sirens, which is really nice. There isn’t really any car honking either. There’s also a LOT less people and it isn’t very touristy. There aren’t really any big and/or tall buildings. I think I could walk through all of Stratford in just a day or even an afternoon. Of course that’s just a walk, not stopping to visit any of the historical sites. It also feels like I’m closer to the countryside.

I am grateful for modern transportation. In today’s time, the journey between London and Stratford-upon-Avon only takes two and a half hours, but back in Shakespeare’s day it would have taken him three days to travel between his two homes. Because of the time it took to travel from one place to another, Shakespeare would often stay at the place he had traveled to for long periods of time, usually years.

It was so cool looking around and exploring where Shakespeare was born and where he lived as well as learning about his earlier years. Before our trip here I had no idea that his father was a glove maker and William could have been one as well if he hadn’t married Anne. I didn’t know that William Shakespeare had kids or that he had married only at the age of 18. I also didn’t know where he lived or where he was born. I enjoyed visiting the houses Shakespeare had lived in, and I loved exploring the different gardens at each house, especially the garden at the house Shakespeare shared with Anne and their children. It was a lot bigger than I would have thought with a large open lawn at the end of the garden. I also loved walking through the arched trellis walkway. It was covered in greenery and some of the vines even had fruit on them.

Unfortunately, our trip to England is coming to a close with our trip to Stratford-upon-Avon. I was not sure that I wanted to leave the safety of my comfort zone to travel across the ocean for four weeks without my family, but I survived and had a great time while I was here. I saw many different theater productions, found a Ukrainian vegan pastry cafe, made some friends, and saw so many interesting museums and artifacts. I loved visiting the different palaces and seeing the crown jewels. I liked going to the parks and I enjoyed going everywhere we went as a group. I liked most of the shows we went to see as a group and the show I went to see by myself. I’m glad I had the opportunity to see and do everything I’ve done during my study abroad adventure.

We saw Shakespeare’s King Lear performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford-upon-Avon at The Other Place. Unlike the other performances that we have seen, this was performed in Ukrainian without subtitles. This was not the first time I’ve watched something in a different language, but it was the first time I’ve had to do it without subtitles. The way the actors spoke and acted strongly reminded me of a German show I’ve watched. Because I don’t understand Ukrainian, I thought it might be difficult to understand the play, but I was able to tell who each character was and what was happening based on age, costumes, shoes, makeup, lighting, and other context clues. It also helped a lot that we had discussed it in class.

The biggest indicators between the characters were their age and gender but there were many other clues that helped me determine who each actor was. When the actors first came on stage they weren’t in their costumes and instead were wearing either gray, nude, or white under clothes that fit to their bodies, which I thought might just be some modern costume design choice. King Lear was an older man dressed in nude colors. Goneril and Regan were also dressed in nude colors. Cordelia was dressed in white to show her youth, innocence, and good nature. The jester had dark gray clothes and mild clown makeup.

Once the actors put their costumes on it became more obvious who each person was. King Lear had the largest crown. Goneril, the oldest daughter, had the second largest crown and was wearing the most decorated dress. Regan, the middle daughter, had the smallest crown and was wearing a less decorated dress. Cordelia, the youngest daughter, was wearing a plain white dress and didn’t really have a crown but instead was wearing more of a braided cloth wreath.

I was able to figure out the mood and where the scene was taking place with the help of the lighting on the gauze covered background and sounds. For example, when we see Goneril kicking her father out of the castle the gauze was lit with red. When King Lear and the jester were outside, the gauze was lit with a light blue, and you could hear bees buzzing and a dog barking. During the war scene there were war drums being played but I also heard a jaw harp. I wondered if this small detail was because it was Ukrainian.

The director cut a lot from the story, and I actually questioned multiple times if I remembered King Lear correctly or if I was mixing two different plays together. After the show I thought about how much was cut and I decided it was about half. I then realized this made sense because the show was only an hour and a half long, half the length of a regular show. In addition to scenes and plot lines, the director cut important characters. Of the usual ten important characters there were only five in this performance, King Lear, Cordelia, Regan, Goneril, and the jester.  This also made the play easier to understand.

I think my favorite character was the jester because of the funny way she moved and spoke. All the actors did a really good job. I wasn’t expecting this because I thought our group leader said they weren’t necessarily actors. Overall, I really enjoyed this performance and did not really have any difficulty understanding what was going on, despite the language barrier.

Greetings again, all!! Today I am back to talk about the last show of our trip.😭Last night, we saw an abbreviated production of King Lear at The Other Place, and it was a very interesting experience. The show was performed entirely in Ukrainian and was put on by a group of non-professional actors who were forced to flee their regions of Ukraine after the Russian invasion. Despite all they went through, this group stayed in their home country and decided to make art that could impact and help people. They could have done any number of things with their grief, but they used it to tell an important story, which connects to their current situation. They provided people with entertainment during a terrifying time while still telling a story about war and its consequences, and I think that is beautiful. 

As someone who does not speak Ukrainian, I was very curious to see how I would respond to this performance and if I would be able to enjoy it, understand it, or be impacted by it. I was excited by the experience but was also, admittedly, a little hesitant. Sitting through and hour and half of Shakespeare in a Language you don’t know sounds a little daunting and exhausting. (And I say that as someone who loves Shakespeare. The words are just so important to his plays that it is difficult to imagine watching his plays when you can’t understand said words.) However, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the production. I have my qualms with it, which I will discuss in a moment, but I was not as lost as I thought I might be, and I enjoyed some of the performances a great deal. It takes a lot of work to make a character compelling and understandable to an audience that doesn’t speak the language of the character, but the Fool managed to draw me in throughout the show.

Before discussing the Fool’s wonderful performance, I want to address the things I struggled with because I’d rather end with the good stuff. 

Some of the acting was a little hard to follow throughout the show. This was obviously in part due to the language gap, but the Fool proved that it is possible to convey the general meaning and intent behind the words across languages, and some of the other actors struggled to do this. For untrained, non-professionals, they were spectacular, but there were a lot of unnecessary, dramatic pauses that dragged the performance on for about 10-15 minutes longer than the planned 90 minute show. The pauses took me out because all the empty air made it hard to stay engaged and feel the importance of each moment. Some of the performances also felt a little two dimensional. The older sisters were, at times, putting on a persona of “mean girl” instead of playing action with clear motivation, and that made them feel less human and more like a caricature. I struggled to understand their desires or feelings past the surface level, and that made it difficult for me to take an interest in their part in the story. However, I will say that the caricature-ness of the performance kind of helps the audience to understand who they are to the story since we couldn’t understand the language. It can also be difficult to add the nuances to the characters when doing such an abbreviated version of the play, so I was not as hung up on the acting as I might have been in another show. 

My only other big qualms with this production were the lighting and sound design. I have such conflicting feelings about these elements because there were times when they were both highly effective, but there were also moments when they made it difficult to watch the show. The lighting and sound were very evocative, and they did a great job in conveying environment, differentiating between location, and creating a tone for the piece. However, during the storm and war sequences, the lighting was flashing for far too long. I liked the strobe element at first because it created a very cool visual effect with the fabric being moved on stage, but it kept flashing once the actors started speaking. This made it very difficult to see and focus on them, and with the show being in another language, seeing actors’ body language is more important than ever. It also went on long enough that it started messing with my eyes, and I was on the verge of getting a headache from it. I loved the concept, and I think the strobe sequences can still work in the show, but the length of time they went on made it very difficult to enjoy those scenes. I lost a lot of important moments because of that.

Likewise, the sound design during these moments was very loud. While that is arguably a great choice during the transition, as it envelops the audience in the sounds of the storms and war, the sound did not fade out enough once the actors began speaking again, so it was difficult to hear them. While I would not understand the language either way, I think I would have understood and kept up with parts of the story more if I had been able to better hear the actors’ inflection and voice changes. This was also an issue during some of the more mundane scenes as well. I loved the forest sounds during outdoor scenes and the sound of the flute when they were at court. They added ambiance, and they helped with differentiating location. However, when you make a decision to have sound underscoring a whole scene, it needs to be at a low enough volume level that it is not distracting and does not cover the actors’ voices, and this production had the sound going a little too loudly the whole time. 

I know that was a lot, but I do want to emphasize that the production was still so cool to watch. While I lost the impact of some moments due to the issues mentioned above, there were still scenes that had great emotional impact. The Fool did an incredible job, especially considering they were not a trained actor, and despite the flashy lights and loud sound, those design elements did help set the scene well throughout the show. I think the reason I enjoyed the Fool’s character so much is that the actor used physical comedy and body language very well. As I previously mentioned, when you don’t understand the language someone is speaking, the way they carry themselves becomes so much more important to understanding what is happening and what they are feeling. The Fool seemed to have a great understanding of that, and they leaned into the physical elements as a result. They always stole the spotlight in every scene, they had the best pacing, and they were the most fun and compelling character to watch. The Fool was also the main reason I could follow the show as well as I did because they did a good job in setting the tone of each scene, and they had the clearest relationships with each character. 

When it comes to capturing the essence of King Lear, I would say this production did a relatively good job. There were definitely moments of confusion regarding what was happening and how I or the characters were supposed to be feeling in response to the events. However, some of the stage pictures, particularly of King Lear and Cordelia, were beautiful and clearly conveyed tones of love, loss, tragedy, and the terrors of war. Whether I fully understood and loved the production or not, I could not help but be affected by what this theatre company is doing. They took their pain and tragedy and turned it into art, with the hopes of helping others. And they still brought stories of war into the light so people might understand a taste of the devastation they have faced. The actors were clearly grateful to be up on stage performing, and they had something to say. That alone made this production stand out among others I have seen, and I am glad I got to experience theatre in a new way. 

What’s up, strangers? The clock grows ever closer to midnight, which means that soon enough you’ll have to hear the stories from this trip from my mouth and not just my blogs. Scary, right? Soon enough I’ll be on the 4000 mile journey to turn back into a pumpkin.

Until then, there’s still plenty to do in Stratford-Upon-Avon. Well, that’s disingenuous; there’s some things to do in Stratford, and I am going to do all of them because there really isn’t much to do here. It is a very quiet, small town, which is somewhat refreshing, but I miss the city more than I could ever convey. I’ve already had enough of small towns in my life; I’ve found that I like to live life in the fast lane. But for now, we’re taking it slow. Winding down.

Last night, we saw King Lear which is currently running at the Royal Shakespeare Company’s The Other Place theatre. The twist: the entire thing was put on in somewhere over 90 minutes, in Ukrainian, without surtitling. The most context for the story that the average theatregoer has is the description of the story on the back of the free program, which is skillfully pared down from the original script. Considering that nobody on the trip speaks a lick of Ukrainian, this show was a trip. It’s pretty startling when the only words you can understand in a play are the words “yes,” “crown,” and your legal name.

It was very interesting to see, and I think that seeing this show is a testament to how much proper acting matters. Usually the words of a script can speak for themselves, and give the audience some idea of what a character is. When that is done away with, the audience is left only with the action of the characters to understand what is going on, which becomes difficult with non-professional actors. An interesting and important part of this show is that none of the people acting in it were professionals–this show was a passion project by people who previously had almost nothing to do with theatre. This lends itself to the heartfelt nature of the piece, but does take away from understanding in the English audience, which is, decidedly, the target audience for a show put on in the UK. I could be wrong, but I assume that the majority, if not all, of the people in that audience could not understand the dialogue. This puts much more pressure on the actors to be practiced and know how to portray their characters in an effective manner.

The production was not given surtitles due to a want to present the story in the most authentic way possible, meaning that it was performed in its original condition. While I respect this idea, I do not think that it was necessarily an effective choice. Movement pieces are very often effective ways of telling a story, but they rely heavily on the confidence that the actors can convey what is going on solely in their actions; the actors in this production were very clearly playing character rather than action, which made it difficult to follow a lot of the time. The actress who played the Fool was the only one I could follow a majority of the time. Despite having read the Shakespearean version of the script, and having discussed it in class, I was constantly questioning what part of the plot we were in at the moment.

As it was, I spent the entire time feeling like I was in a listening test in a language class for a chapter I didn’t study for. After the show, Shawn asked me to describe the show in one word. I asked if I could potentially have more words, because as someone can probably see, I have a lot of words to say about this piece. But he gave me one. The word I used to describe this piece was “overwhelming;” and it was overwhelming in more than one way. The emotional content and context of it within the modern world is heavy alone. But that combined with the amateur and confusing acting, alongside the overall too-loud sound design and many occurrences of strobing lights gave me a headache within the first third of the play. The show did not have the emotional resonance with me that it should have, and I think that a lot of that is due to the lack of dialogical context.

Even if I did not enjoy the production, I think that it was a valuable experience. Like I’ve said before, seeing theatre in any context, good or bad, is useful to the theatremaker. It teaches you what you like and what you don’t like; it shows you what works and what doesn’t.

One more post to go!

CW

We got the incredible opportunity to see King Lear performed in Ukrainian. In Stratford-Upon-Avon at “The Other Place” theatre, created and performed by Ukrainians displaced in the war. Apparently director Vyacheslav Yehorov saw parallels between the experience of the Ukrainian refugees and the themes of King Lear. We were told it would not be just classic Shakespeare King Lear performed in another language, but a looser interpretation that was a bit more like a performance art piece. The story was definitely different, with a cast of only five playing Lear, the fool, Cordelia, Goneril, and Regan. The rest of the characters—Gloucester, Edmund, Kent, all the husbands—were all omitted. So already the storyline is vastly changed. It also was in a language I cannot understand, save for a few words like their names and “King”. I knew the original story, but this one being changed I did not understand what was happening the whole time. I loved their performances, the Fool was my absolute favorite. The way she moved—crouched down, arms floating—was so interesting to see and worked perfectly for the role of the fool. I also really loved their headpiece, I want to wear it I loved their costume. They did a really great job conveying it even to non-Ukrainian speakers such as myself with the music and their acting. But either way it did not really matter. TI loved it, not because of the plot itself so much as the emotion you could feel coming from these actors. What the have been through and what so many others are being forced to go through is something I cannot imagine. The context of their circumstances and their reason for creating this show is what really powered this experience for me. Not to discredit their acting in any way, of course, I felt they all gave incredible performances. And they are not even trained actors, they were all in other professions in Ukraine I believe. But you would never know, they delivered it with such strength and passion it was so moving. What really got me though, and made me have to internally process for a while after, was not even the show itself. Once they were done and the cast and crew all came together for final bow, they seemed so grateful to the audience. They seemed to be clapping for us as we clapped for them and their performance. Seeing their faces and their reaction to us being there was so heartrending. While I can’t imagine their experiences that have brought them to this point, I am so grateful to have been able to experience that and share that with them. I hope that even though they have been through such a terrible and heartbreaking ordeal, and being separated from their country and people, theatre has helped them in some way to share their grievances and enlighten others like myself. I teared up at the end seeing them react to us. The actor who played Lear was particularly moved it seemed and he kept motioning out to the crowd, clapping for us and calling us to stand. Unnecessary in any performance, as we are there for them and their talent, but particularly given these circumstances it was something you couldn’t help but feel for them and their experiences these last few years. I am so grateful to them for creating this and sharing this with us, and I am so lucky to have been able to experience these one of only two shows they are putting on here. I feel so lucky to have been on this trip and see all these incredible shows!

We were able to see so many amazing shows this trip I can’t believe it. From Wicked and Hamilton to smaller Fringe Theatre shows like Bluets and Two Strangers (Carry A Cake Across New York). There genuinely was not a show I didn’t like, and while I’ve somewhat managed to compile a ranking of the 15 shows I watched, I loved even #15. We watched Bluets on Wed, Jun 12 and Two Strangers on Thurs, Jun 13. Bluets was a short performance, only a cast of three, and based of a book of the same name by Maggie Nelson. The play was a performative reading of the book, sort of like slam poetry, and aided with visual affects like TVs. It was really such an interesting and effective way of putting those words into actions. The book itself, and the play in turn, are about a person’s obsession with blue as a manifestation of their depression. There’s a lot more to it of course, but honestly as much as I enjoyed the experience I don’t know how to talk about it or describe it that well. It was incredibly moving and the cast and crew were all so amazing with both acting and the strict coordination of the performance . Two Strangers on the other hand was a rom-com. It also had a very small cast, only two, and my god they were incredible. This show was one of my very favorites because you just can’t go wrong with a good rom-com. It was such a great story, and we had such great seats that I could see the actors faces and expressions so clearly and they probably saw me grinning like a fool almost the whole time. I just loved them and their relationships so much. I laughed, I cried, and I really did sit there with a smile of giddiness at their chemistry, it was just so beautiful. The male lead, Sam Tutty, was such a sweet guy you couldn’t help but love and root for him the entire time. Dujonna Gift, the female lead, was so compelling and you really felt for her and her troubles even when you didn’t know hat they were yet. From their very first meeting you knew their dynamic was going to be something special, and it really was. I could feel the characters love for each other and the conflicts in their way just broke your heart. During a scene where they argue, I was so invested in their relationship that I just wanted to anything I could to help them work it out. A classic rom-com with a original and extremely well-done storyline, with two incredible actors that brought the characters and their love to life, a fun and interesting set that worked perfectly for their performance, and some perfect seating made this #1 on my ranked list. It’s so hard to sort out the order given the absolutely insane shows and acting we have seen and my love for all of them, but I just don’t think I can argue with the fact I sat upright in my seat with a smile like the Cheshire Cat the whole time. We were able to meet Sam and Dujonna after and got pictures with both. There were so nice and I was so honored to be able to meet them. We told them how amazing they did and how this has been one of our favorite shows collectively, which is really saying something given the selection we’ve had this past month. As I write this we have already seen our last performance and I cannot believe the trip is coming to a close. It was truly an incredible experience I will remember and cherish forever.

The inherent concept of a two person musical seemed strange to me when I first walked into the theater to see Two Strangers (Carry A Cake Across New York). After all, usually when you think of musicals, especially romantic comedy musicals such as this one, big dance numbers and charming side characters with their own big solos are the first elements that come to mind. So to have all of the charm and wow of a standard musical comedy in a two person show seems borderline impossible. This show serves as a prime example that it isn’t impossible.

Walking in and looking at the set for the show, I could instantly tell that it was going to be a fun time at the very least. It was a really unique set design, with two large stacks of suitcases of varying sizes (which throughout the show would be opened or used in some way to represent the different scenes, ranging from a Chinese Restaurant to a bedroom at The Plaza). These two piles sat in the middle of a small turntable set into a larger one, which I recently learned is called a “donut,” and on the outer ring of the turntables, an actual, steel suitcase was sitting, spinning around on the stage like an airport baggage claim. Now, this set had me excited from the start, as I always love a good turntable set, especially in musicals, creating opportunities for very cool and interesting choreography.

Speaking of the choreography and the performance of the show in general, it was all remarkable, and really helped to make the show what it was. The dances and actions felt very smooth, never seeming overly flashy or “musical number”-y, and having a natural progression to them that fit the natures and behaviors of the characters on stage. The actors for Dougal and Robin did fantastic, giving the characters great and realistic personalities in all of their different mannerisms. I think one bit where that especially shined for me was the top of act 2, with the contrast between Robin’s and Dougal’s reactions to waking up in the Plaza. Robins anxiety and manic energy throughout the song combined with Dougal’s relaxed, victorious, and in-the-moment attitude towards the whole situation clashed really nicely and started the second act on a very high note. As well, for what was primarily a comedy, both of the actors did a phenomenal job at being able to naturally transition into and out of a more serious tone and manner throughout the story, with the moments of heartbreak, anger, and anxiety playing off very genuinely rather than awkwardly amongst a greater sea of laughs.

The lighting for the show overall was very nice, with a lot of good variety and energy for the songs while constantly keeping the actor’s well-lit. The sound design similarly was well done, and the live band provided a fantastic performance in their own right for the show (I also find it kind of funny that the band had more members than the cast did).Overall, Two Strangers (Carry A Cake Across New York) was a fantastic show to watch, and with its story of a foreign tourist on a trip that could change his life forever, is, thematically speaking, the best show we could have seen to finish off our time in London.