I wanted to take a moment to give a round of applause to some of the fantastic works of theatre I have had the honor to see here in London. Thankfully, The Glass Menagerie has been the only performance I have ended up disappointed in.

            We went to the National Theatre and saw The Father and the Assassin. This was a story about the man who assassinated Gandhi. It was written from his perspective, and he talks to the audience and tries to convince us that he was justified in his actions and tells us that we will in fact be on his side by the end. I thought this narrative was excellently written and poignant in today’s political climate. By the end, I wasn’t in support of his cause and his actions, but I did come to understand his perspective. By creating a character that we can relate to and understand, we were able to look at the hatred and prejudice he ended up coming to and see it from a completely human point of view. The ending speech he crafted was about how the people who are different than us are sitting next to us, and we must eliminate them before they come for us. By turning it back on the audience it forced us to think about the narrative in terms of modern times, and it was very familiar and reminiscent of the hatred and discrimination taking place in the divided political climate of today. I bought a copy of the script so I can go back and more closely analyze this writing that intrigued and inspired me.

            The set and the stage were what really drew me into this show. The stage was sectioned off into three different moving parts, one of them a raised ramp that allowed characters to climb and run up and down to communicate travel and movement. It was fantastically blocked so that ensemble moments were strikingly realistic and partner scenes were intimate and several scenes could be happening at once without creating a gap in understanding. I thought the way the stage was crafted was mind-blowingly cool, and I really enjoyed watching the way they played with movement. There were several impactful moments, such as the flags falling from the ceiling to represent the death of the characters, and the ensemble celebration of the separation of the nation. I felt really pulled into the moment, like I was there with these characters.

            Another show we saw as a group was House of Shades. This show absolutely changed my life, for good. The writing was fantastic. Beth Steele was able to develop relatable characters, and a family that felt real and representative of life. It was filled with tragedy after tragedy, but it was expertly intermixed with the dark humor and bonds between these characters, so it didn’t feel set out of realism. In fact, this was the truest to life show I’ve ever seen. The acting was phenomenal. I really can’t emphasize enough how impressed I was by everyone’s performance. I had to remind myself several times that these people were merely actors and were telling a story. It felt so real, the most immersive on-stage story I’ve ever had the privilege to be intertwined in. My heart was broken time and time again.

            Each character was represented as three different versions of themselves as time progressed in the show: the younger version, the mid-life version, and the older version. I typically don’t enjoy when shows try to jump big time gaps, but this one was executed perfectly; a testament to the writing, acting, and directing. I really loved the way that it was cast so that the children of some of these characters ended up being played by the same actor who represented their father earlier in the show as they aged. It was very realistic this way, and a true challenge to the actors who had to continually jump roles, sometimes playing their own daughter just moments after they played the mother.

            There was a moment after the father of the family dies where he opens up a trap door in the stage and walks down into a light coming from the bottom of the stage, representing his death. Then the actress who played his young daughter comes out and the older version of her watches as her childhood self follows her father into the depths of the stage. It was heart wrenching. I immediately began to cry as this woman watched her inner child die with her father. After the show I immediately called my dad and had a really good conversation with him.
            Isn’t that the dream?! To create theatre that impactful? We all left in some sort of emotional turmoil and shock. Several of us chose to call our fathers that night. Three days after we had seen the show, we were all still desperate to talk about it! That is the kind of work I want to create, where the impact is immediate, long lasting, and clear. There were so many layers to this show that it would be impossible to unpack them all. By melding politics, deep metaphors about life and death, life changing events, aging and family Steele was able to write a play that can simply be described as about life itself. That is incredible, and something I’ve never seen before. I’ve been thinking in complex and deep terms about what life is and our purpose in it ever since. One of the most complex and expertly crafted shows I’ve ever seen. Especially because it was written by a female it did a great job of representing the female perspective in an ever-changing world. I’d like to meet this playwright and get a view into her mind and how she created this masterpiece.

            The set was expertly created so that you were immersed in this family home, but it was also flexible to represent other places and time periods. The sound design was incredible. The music was very impactful, and it hit heavy when we would hear things like the heart monitor flat lining, the booming rumble of the house being destroyed, or the final cry of a dying baby in a bucket. It was bone chilling. Then to hear the singing and watch this beautifully talented woman’s dreams die in front of her aging eyes. I could go on forever about this show. I loved it!

            I went to go see The Phantom of the Opera on my own time. I have seen this show before, so I had high expectations and they were magnificently exceeded. I splurged and got second row tickets and I am so glad I did. This show was packed to the brim with unspeakable talent. I’ve never heard singing like that in my lifetime. The soundtrack seems lackluster in comparison to the live performance of these fantastic actors. Being that close to all the action had me elated, mouth open in the biggest smile and tears streaming down my face for most of the performance. I’m going to cry just writing about it! As soon as the familiar rhythms and melodies that form the iconic music of this show begun reverberating throughout the theatre I was absolutely entranced and overtaken with emotion. Watching the chandelier rise and then crash back to the ground in this beautiful, tall theatre was so mind-blowing. We were so close when they used the fire effect where the flames burst up from the stage it was hot on my skin and felt like it was burning my face! I could see every little detail and hear every breath from the characters. It was intimate and emotionally impactful. This performance made Phantom of the Opera my favorite musical. I’m not sure I will ever get to witness such iconic vocal talent ever again. Music of the Night must be one of the most beautifully written musical theatre songs, the lyricism and composition are unforgettable. All I Ask of You is now my all-time favorite love song. This performance was so much more impressive than the one I saw in New York, in every way. Being that close to the orchestra was beautiful, and the magic of the effects and set of this show will forever blow my mind. The moving set pieces, the candles and fog that created the magical ambience of the lake scene, the costumes—everything! At the end the Phantom sits on a throne and places his cape over himself to hide from the approaching enemies. When they arrive and lift his cape he had disappeared, leaving only his mask behind. It was a hard hitting and picturesque moment and I still can’t figure out how they managed to pull that off.

            After Phantom, Austin and I were on the train back to the hotel. Russel Square had been closed for the past couple of days, so our plan was to get off at Holborn – the station before. However, the conductor didn’t announce that Russel Square was closed, so we agreed to risk it and see if the train would stop at a station closer to the hotel. The train was packed with people, and so we stood over the seats. The train pulled up to Holborn and right before the doors were about to close the conductor finally announced that Russel Square was indeed closed. This meant we had to get off. Austin moved to the left and I moved to the right. Despite my best efforts of pushing and shoving through the crowded train car, I could not get off. I resigned myself to the next station, but when I looked back Austin was gone. He waved from the platform as the train took off towards the next station. The people around me commiserated with me and checked to make sure I’d be okay on my own and that they didn’t need to stop the train for me. I told them I’d be alright, and this struck up a conversation with the two older women sitting in front of me. One of them asked about my bag of phantom merch I had accumulated and asked if I had enjoyed the show. I raved about it and showed them all my merch. As the train pulled up to my stop, the older woman in front of confessed that she been in Phantom before! She listed several cities where she’d performed, places like Vienna! Then the woman next to her who had been quietly listening chuckled and pulled out her ID badge and said, “I was going to say, I work Phantom!” It was a universally placed moment. Everything happens for a reason, even missing your train stop!

            I had seen Les Misérables during a matinee before Phantom and was incredibly impressed. It quickly became another one of my favorites. The production was also expertly crafted. The way they were able to play with dark lighting to hide characters in the background was amazing! This quickly became a new favorite musical as I cried my way through all of the numbers. The vocal performance again trumped any recording available online. I heard several people saying that the London version was much better than the Broadway version, which seems to be a common theme here. The woman sitting next to me struck up a conversation with me and told me this was her 7^th time seeing it! I understand why!

            Life of Pi was the first musical that I branched out and saw on my own and I was very emotionally impacted by this show. The puppetry was so cool, there aren’t words to describe it. Each animal was represented by a puppet operated by one or several actors. There were so many animals, I was shocked when the final bow only included a handful of actors! The lighting was magical, vibrant and colorful. I thought this live production was even more spectacular than the movie. This show would be the first thing I recommend to anyone visiting London. There was a line at the end where Pi asks the interviewer, “Which story did you like better, the one with animals or the ones without?” and he answers, “the one with animals.” Pi responds, “And so it is with God.” I was brought to tears and reminded of my own spiritual connection to my story and the universe. I’ve been thinking about it ever since.

            I also saw Cinderella. The writing of this one wasn’t my favorite, not surprising since Andrew Lloyd Webber is not talented with script writing. He really should’ve just quit while he was ahead with Phantom. I’m comfortable saying this about the famous artist because of his behavior at the closing performance. I talked to an older woman in line for the bathroom, (this seems to happen to me a lot) and she told me that the show had increased in popularity because it was about to close and move to a traveling tour and Broadway. We didn’t know that we had grabbed onto one of the last two chances to see this show in London. The vocal talent was amazing, and I enjoyed the concept of the show. The ensemble was fantastic, and I enjoyed the diversity and inclusion in the cast. However, two days after we saw it on it’s closing night the characters were preparing to take their final bows. Andrew Lloyd Webber didn’t even bother to show up, and instead sent a poorly written (not surprising) letter for one of his staff members to read! With the whole cast and crew standing on stage he referred to the show as a ‘costly mistake’ in his letter. The audience booed him, as he well deserved. I was shocked and immediately felt so bad for the cast. They were immensely talented, and he obviously didn’t deserve them. Someone needs to deflate this man’s ego, how embarrassing! It was really interesting to watch this all unfold two days after I had seen it—I felt like I was a part of it and I was ultimately glad I went to see it.

            I can’t talk about the shows I’ve seen here without mentioning Six. I really didn’t expect to like this one, but ten seconds in I was blown away. The production value was incredible. The writing was fantastic. The vocal power of these ladies was extremely impressing. I really appreciated the diversity and body positivity of this show! What I really appreciated about it was the message it sent of female empowerment and reshaping of a narrative. They really emphasized that the only reason Henry the 8^th was so popular was because of them, and through this musical they had the opportunity to change the ending of their stories! That’s what art is! Giving people a voice and a chance to change the story. It was cool to get to see this show and then watch the writers win a Tony for best original score just a few days later! Two people who wrote this masterpiece in three days became the youngest female director on Broadway and the first non-binary person to win a Tony.

            Finally, we saw Girl on an Altar as a group last night. It joined the ranks, fighting for my favorite show that I’ve seen in London. It was beautifully written. Truly the most entrancing and elegant dialogue I’ve ever heard. There were several lines I tried to memorize just because I thought they were so magically worded that I wanted to hold onto them forever. I need to buy a copy of this book. The blocking and directing was fantastic. I loved the way they used simple lighting to their benefit in this one, it was very well executed, and I took note of how much I liked it several times. I would really like to learn from whoever their intimacy director was, the live sex scenes on stage were very well done and had the intended brunt force impact of shock. I was fascinated with how the actors were able to realistically pull this off. I have never seen a group of actors more dropped into their roles. I learned a LOT from watching this show. I was incredibly inspired by the writing and the acting. It reminded me of my own roles that I’ve played and made me want to go back and do them again with the things I’ve learned and gained while I’ve been in London. Watching these people perform made me desperately miss performing myself. I think that is a special kind of impact to be able to have. I loved how they were able to create entire scenes before my eyes just by describing them and miming certain things—like children! The way they made me think there was someone on the stage when there wasn’t just by indicating that there was! I was very moved and thought a lot about my own acting. I watched them and could clearly see them live in the moment, as their character, truthfully. I have never had a deeper understanding of what it means to drop in and I cannot wait to implement it in my own practice. I was even inspired to begin practicing it in my own daily life and to let that energy make me a better actor.

I really could write forever about all the fantastic theatre I’ve seen here. I’m doing my best to lock it into my memory until the end of my time.

Signing off from London,

Margaret

Fringe Theatre: Girl on an Altar

Our experiences with fringe theatre in London, thus far, have presented what I would consider a full spectrum of possible theatre experiences. House of Shades, at the Almeida Theatre, featured some of the best writing, acting, and partner work that I’ve seen on stage. I walked out of that show feeling disgusted, moved and validated all at the same time, which is a testament to how well it handled the complicated and layered themes of family, death, and politics. Lift, at the Southwark Playhouse, had admirable intentions, but I started and ended the play confused, and left frustrated because I could tell that the cast were really passionate about themselves and whatever they belted about for an hour, but I definitely didn’t know what it was.

With those short reviews on the table, I felt that Girl on an Altar fell somewhere between the two. The show claimed to be a modern retelling of the first part of Aeschylus’s trilogy Oresteia. The play centers on Clytemnestra, wife of Agamemnon, and her struggle to cope with the sacrificial death of her daughter Iphigenia at the hands of her husband, as an offering in exchange for a successful conquest of Troy and as a demonstration to Achilles the usurper of his power as figurehead of Greece. Girl on an Altar examines the fallout between Agamemnon and Clytemnestra after he returns from the ten-year conquest of Troy, expecting her to have put the death of Iphigenia behind her and welcome his triumphant return. The enduring bond between them still manifests in an intense sexual tension, even as her heart hardens toward him and his frustration with her mounts. This conflict of interest made for a couple interesting, if uncomfortable scenes, the best of which happened on the bed, the central point of action for most of the play (also symbolic of the altar which Iphigenia was sacrificed on). Agamemnon nearly convinces Clytemnestra to reunite with him physically for the first time in a decade, and she nearly gives in to the remnants of attraction she still has for him, but she cannot escape the memory of her daughter and ultimately forces him off, disgusted by her near submission. I thought the contrast between the physical intimacy that was happening on the surface and the emotional distance that was growing underneath made for a compelling scene that encapsulates fairly well what makes the story worth exploring.

However, I felt throughout that the direction in this staging consistently sabotaged itself. The cast was consistently impressive, very on-partner and demonstrating a real emotional connection to the actions of their characters. My biggest critique in this case is the choice to have the characters step out of the action and narrate sections of the plot directly to the audience, sometimes even mid-conversation. For me, this put the audience in a constant state of whiplash. There were multiple instances where the play was gaining immense momentum, especially in the cases where Agamemnon and Clytemnestra’s spite for each other began to boil over, and then the tension would be broken by an inward turn from one of them, reminding the audience what the source of the hate was, which we were already aware of in most cases. For me, this directorial choice undermined a cast that clearly had the chops to carry the story to new heights, and bring the audience with them. This left me feeling as if Girl on an Altar was an opportunity missed, as opposed to an ancient tale brought into the modern era.

[now playing: Love, Hate, Love – Alice in Chains]

A memory is something like a dream. A euphoric and ethereal remark on the world around us, crafted by the deepest and most unreachable corners of our minds. They send messages and signals, give advice and warnings, and remind us of lessons from the past. They can open up new worlds, make us see things in different ways, alter our emotions or even our beliefs. 

So, when you’re bringing a ‘memory play’ to life, it has the capability and the responsibility to do all of these things. Especially when you’re recreating the perspective of a widely admired and respected playwright like Tennessee Williams. 

That is why I am fully disappointed in the performance of The Glass Menagerie that our group went to see. It was less of a dream and more of a nightmare.

Trying not to let my own visions and expectations interrupt my genuine experience of this show, I really did give it the benefit of the doubt all the way through. I came from an optimistic viewpoint and tried to use my artistic brain to give this a more beautiful twist than it was able to give itself. However, at the end after speaking with my fellow students and seeing other plays since then that have crafted the idea of a memory much more expertly — I’m disappointed in The Glass Menagerie. 

Now I don’t want this to be a complete hate letter to this show. I did enjoy it, and seeing Amy Adams perform live was definitely a treat. However, I think this show relied too heavily on having a big name on the marquee, and everything else ended up being lazily done. 

The lighting is something I typically pay special attention to, and I did not enjoy the lighting choices made in this production. The red and blue light bars placed in the back corners of the stage did not make sense with the rest of the design and did not seem to add to the show at all. The projections were honestly just ugly. I understood their purpose, and I saw what they were trying to do, I just didn’t think it worked well at all. It was unrefined. The most interesting part of the lighting was when the power went out and the entire theatre went into blackout—even the emergency exit signs. It was extremely effective at drawing me in, but then they didn’t go anywhere with it, and they let the power of that moment fizzle and die.

The set was disappointing, I think it had so much potential and it fell short. It was unimaginative and read to me like whoever designed it didn’t really understand the show. The black landscape left so much room for interpretation, but we weren’t given anything to work with. It didn’t operate from the quality of a memory, and it again just came across as lazy. The most interesting part of the set was the glass case with all the animals in it, but it seemed really out of place, especially for a supposedly poor family’s apartment.

            The blocking was uninteresting and boring. I wondered if this show even had a director in certain moments, because it really seemed like they needed one to come in and do something! This play is about relationships, the give and take and the things that bring us together and separate us. There is so much room to play here! The most interesting moment was when Tom and Laura were sitting next to each other on the floor. I was heartbroken by the dancing scene, and not in a good way. The moment where Jim and Laura are dancing is such a beautiful moment, with room for lighting and sound to create a beautifully romantic visual effect; there was nothing. The blocking did not work well, it made everything seem awkward and stumbly, and not in the way it is meant to be. Then, when Jim breaks the unicorn – I cringed. It did NOT work well, it didn’t even look like he landed on the glass figure at all, and the actors themselves looked uncomfortable and unpracticed. This moment was not well executed, and it really took me out of the reality of the story. It is the most pivotal moment in the entire show where Tennessee Williams metaphor comes to life and you begin to understand the fragility he is trying to communicate in Laura. This moment was when I officially dropped my optimistic mindset and marked this show off as a mid-level production.

            I wouldn’t recommend it, outside of the chance to see Amy Adams perform. She was fantastic, and the man who played Jim was also very charismatic and believable. Other than that I was not impressed by the acting. I know this mostly falls on the director’s choices that were projected upon their performances, but I also think they were given a very difficult task of dropping into a reality that had been sloppily thrown together. Anyone is bound to drown in that scenario. Even the people in front of me remarked that Laura’s performance was indicative and not convincing, and they did not return for the second act of the show. Normally, I’m against this rude sort of behavior. This time, I couldn’t blame them.

            The Glass Menagerie is one of my favorite shows, and I was very upset that this it the way they chose to tell his story. I don’t think it did Tennessee Williams any justice or worked at all to communicate his message. I hope the audience didn’t let this particular production get in the way of their perception of Williams. I hope that no one ever does my work this sort of injustice after I’m gone. I bought the script so I could read it again and refresh my love for this show; I must get the taste of this West End production out of my mouth.

            To end on a happier note, this was my first expedition after escaping from the cold chains of quarantine in the Royal National Hotel. It was fantastic to see all my friends again, it was an instant cure-all to get back into the swing of things with them again.

            Singing off from London,

                                                Margaret

The Glass Menagerie

Widely considered one of Tennessee Williams’s best plays, The Glass Menagerie is a memory play, examining the complicated themes of family, responsibility, and generational trauma through the lens of the young man Tom Wingfield and his family in depression-era St. Louis. Tom is a factory worker, whose mother Amanda and sister Laura live at home. They were left by Tom’s father years before, and Tom is forced early-on to take a “man of the house” role and provide as best he can for the three of them. Amanda is a former southern belle type who constantly struggles with the changing state of the world around her. Laura is slightly older than Tom, but is subjected to a frustrating cripple in one of her legs, which forced her to wear a brace in her formative years. She no longer wears the brace, but displays a clear limp now that she is older. One of the central struggles of the play is Amanda’s desire to live vicariously through her daughter during this phase of her life, in which Amanda expects an array of “Gentleman Callers” to be constantly visiting them to court Laura.

A tension is introduced between them, because Laura is simply unable to look past her own flaws, which are magnified in her own eyes, to the point of not being able to view of herself as worthy of courting at all. She intentionally isolates herself, spending most of her time with a collection of delicate glass animals, constantly dusting them and admiring them in their case. Meanwhile, Tom feels suffocated by his responsibilities to his mother and sister, and goes “to the movies” at night to escape the claustrophobia and frustration caused by his home, torn between wanting to pursue his dreams but not wanting to repeat the sins of his father, which put them in this position in the first place. When he returns from his evenings at the cinema, he is often drunk, leading the audience and his mother to question the reliability of his accounts. There are clear parallels between the self-isolating methods of Laura and Tom, and here is where lots of the play’s effectiveness lies. The most important scene of the play comes when at his mother’s request, Tom brings a friend, Jim O’Connor over for dinner with the intention of setting him up with Laura. Tom is unaware that this is Laura’s high school crush. The evening goes unexpectedly well, with Jim being surprisingly sensitive to Laura’s insecurities; they even share a dance and a kiss before Jim ultimately lets her and her family down in the end, leaving them alone once more.

Clearly, there is a depth in subject matter here that has allowed the show to be mined time and time again for new angles. Tom’s unreliability is a narrator, combined with the show’s hazy memory feel, means that practically every time it gets a new staging, directors can find new things to emphasize and the audience could potentially be getting a fresh look at an old classic. With that said, this West End version, starring Amy Adams, fell flat and was ultimately disappointing.

I continually felt that the direction of this show was relying on the star power of Amy Adams to carry the show, and although she is amazing, that is an unfair thing to ask of anyone (especially when her character isn’t on stage for the most important scene of the play, and a good portion of Act II). The design of this show looked promising, with an empty stage surrounded by many great period set pieces and a variety of black scrims, which I expected to drop down and plunge sections of the stage into a haze, invoking memories. None of this happened, and the lighting did very little to invoke these effects as well, and we were just subjected to a show in which all the important action happened in a black void center stage, while the characters that weren’t immediately involved lurked in the well-designed wings. It’s totally inexplicable to me.

Furthermore, some of the play’s most important scenes were given essentially no weight. The central moment in the play, when Jim and Laura dance but stumble, and break her favorite glass animal, the unicorn, just before Jim reveals that he is in fact engaged and cannot pursue Laura in the ways he has implied. Earlier in the play, Tom also breaks one of her animals in a moment of anger as he storms out of the apartment. These moments hold immense weight as part of the metaphor for Laura’s trauma, but were handled clumsily in the play. Both times, the audience was meant to imagine the glass breaking, without even a sound effect to accompany the big moment. This is another inexplicable choice to me, for the director clearly had no problem with breaking props, as Tom’s actor throws a glass against the back wall of the stage nightly, in a fairly forced outburst towards his mother.

Because of the show’s depth in subject matter, there is a lot more to critique about this particular production, but suffice it to say that the cast, audience, and play itself deserve directorial choices that work with the text, rather than struggle against it at seemingly every turn. I wanted to like this one, but I couldn’t, and I ultimately attribute that to the direction.

[now playing: Let Down – Radiohead]

After reading The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams and discussing it during class, I was so thrilled that we were going to see it on the West End; especially because it was starring one of my favorite actors, Amy Adams. We had beautiful conversations about it being a memory play, the potential of the technical elements involved with the production, and the way we saw the complex lives of the characters living within this piece. I absolutely had an idea in my head regarding what the set should look like, the lighting, and all the other elements of theatre that we use as tools for story-telling. When we arrived and I saw the set, I was sure that the pieces of furniture and spaces in their home would be brought onstage, leaving us with a living set of the Wingfield home. I was shocked when I realized the director chose not to do that, and instead allowed the actors to move about a mostly bare, black stage surrounded by a realistic version of their apartment. During our discussion in the park, Shawn mentioned the idea that a memory seems fuzzy on the outsides, not the core, when he remembers things in his mind. I agree and that was the main reason why I was so disappointed by the choice to set the show in the way that they did. To me, not only did this choice not give the show its full dreamlike tone, but it limited the actors regarding their movement, spacial relationship to one another, and efficiency in viewing the show as a whole. It was widely due to my seat I’m sure, but most of the time I either couldn’t see what an actor was doing on the sides of the black center stage, or I had to move myself in order to view anything they were doing when they weren’t dead center. However, the set piece that felt the closest to what I had imaged was Laura’s glass menagerie. While I would’ve wanted to see it in more of a wooden cabinet and not something that resembled that of a glass museum case, it was still as sparkling, clean, and delicate as I pictured it. The lighting design was one of the strongest elements of the show to me solely due to the theatre wide blackout that occurred when their apartment’s power was cut, leaving Laura and Jim to have an intimate candlelit scene on the floor. That was my favorite scene in the entire show, other than when Amanda came out dressed in what could’ve been a fluffy wedding dress to show off how beautiful she was in Laura’s time. The show itself is semi-autobiographical for Tennessee Williams and the areas that I feel a British artist could lose contact with or have trouble connecting with is how intimate the piece is as a whole and his (plus Tom’s) overall disdain for the town of St. Louis. London is far larger of a city, therefore I could see how this growing hatred for being stuck within St. Louis’ city limits could be hard to grasp as an artist in such a large city. I know that is very specific an as actors/artists we must be able to pretend, but it could have affected the overall vision for the show in some way. 

When it comes to an American play being produced by remarkable British artists on the West End, I was left confused by the choices that were made. However, all of the other British theatre we have seen has left me speechless, inspired, and wanting more. As an American student currently studying acting under someone I consider the greatest instructor/mentor I have ever had, British theatre reminded me of all the lessons she has taught me, one of the greatest being to always go deeper. The growing understanding of the depth of humanity has been one of the biggest takeaways for me (among so many other techniques) and I have gratefully been able to view works full of British actors that more than understand that principal. With that principal also comes the physical embodiment of it and how it allows you to exist in whatever space you are in, something that I believe those involved in the West End/British theatre do in excellence. Regarding the Glass Menagerie, there were beautiful moments between characters in this way, but the overall vision Jeremy Herrin had for this classic Tennessee Williams piece left me puzzled. His credits are outstanding and I truly believe, as we said in class, all that left me confused was a choice, just not one I would make.

The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams is a memory play that centers on family and the complicated relationships associated with the word. Tennessee Williams is one of America’s most famous playwrights, so seeing a production in London was an interesting experience. Amy Adams stared as Amanda Wingfield, a mother of two adult children. Amy being American already set her up for success in terms of the dialect and knowledge of the region in which the play takes place. Seeing an American play in Britain is definitely a cool experienceas most of the actors in the play have to do American dialects. For the most part, the dialects in the show were phenomenal. As an American, it was easier to spot when actors would slip up, but the British audience probably wouldn’t have even noticed. For the British audience, this play gives insight to the culture of American city life and the effects of being raised in the south, as Amanda was raised in Mississippi which effects how she raised her children. Much like Americans watching British plays, British audiences must rely on context clues throughout the performance to understand the history behind the setting and actions of the play. It would be like and American going to see a play about England in the 1940s. I think that the basic human emotions found in the play can be related to by any nationality. The family dynamic found in the play and the constant fighting by Amanda and her children Tom and Laura could be found on any continent and in any time period.

The play we saw starring Amy Adams was honestly a disappointment. The acting was okay at best and I found myself rather bored throughout the show. The set wasn’t helping the actors any and hindered their performances. The set was a blank black stage surrounded by time period set pieces. I thought at some point the set would move in to fill the blank stage, but it never happened. The one cool thing I found about the set was the glass case that was revealed and held all of Laura’s glass pieces. Other than that, the set was too large a space for the actors to communicate the intimate setting of the play. The actors were more than likely directed in certain ways that caused their performance to be less than stunning. Amy Adams is an incredible actress and I feel that if the set had been different, the show would have been much more well received. The actors themselves seemed to be on different playing fields and even in completely different shows when it came to being onstage together. The one actor I felt impressed me was the actor who played Jim, the male caller for Laura in Act 2. He brought great energy and motivation behind his work and played off the other actors incredibly well. His performance was my favorite of the night.

All in all, I wanted more from the performance and left feeling like the show was missing something.

Glass Menagerie

Although I have never seen a Tennessee Williams play, I was pretty disappointed by this version of The Glass Menagerie. Part of my disappointment is probably because I’ve studied this play for years and have read it multiple times. It’s easy to build up an image in your head of what something should look like. I think that’s why movie adaptations of novels can be so disappointing as well. My other reservation against the criticisms I’m about to list is that I admittedly had a pretty bad seat. I couldn’t see a corner of the stage or any of the projections, although I heard that the projections didn’t really add anything to the drama. There were some points when Braedon shared his opera glasses and I got to see the action a bit closer though.

The set was a bit strange. The outside edges were filled with the detailed set and interesting prop pieces. However, the center where all the action took place was an opaque black that seemed to suck the dimension out of much of the show. I expected some haze to add the idea of memory. Instead, the designers chose this disappointing emptiness. There was no fire escape, which is the second most important symbol in the play. And the glass menagerie itself was arranged too stately and crisply for an apartment in depression-era St. Louis. I’m afraid that these choices were made just to make the show seem more contemporary and different, but they did it at such a great cost to the art.

Amanda is my favorite character of The Glass Menagerie and I was disappointed by how much Amy Adams seemed to be holding back. Amanda is the largest and most ridiculous character in the play and it felt like her stakes here too low throughout. In William’s script, she’s hilarious and very sad. However Adams’ acting made her just a bit feckless and unreminiscient. I wonder how many of the poor acting choices were due the direction, as Amy Adams is regarded as a phenomenal actress.

I was also disappointed about how certain moments worked at the end. They felt off-tone for the show. The most grievous offender was the dance and the unicorn breaking at the end. I expected something larger when that happened. That moment is the clear climax of the show and deserved at least a lighting change, but there was nothing. The dance itself was pretty awkward too, which is contrary to Williams’ intention. During the scene, Jim is supposed to empower and draw the joy out of Laura, but it felt like nothing changed.
It’s hard to watch The Glass Menagerie and not compare it to The Corn is Green. Both are reminiscent, semi-autobiographical memory plays. They’re modern classics as well. And both these adaptations added/divided an extra narrator/writer character who drove the story. These were the most interesting additions to these stories I could’ve imagined. Brilliant storytelling in both cases, but I think The Corn is Green worked better as an overall story. I think I identify with this play more and definitely plan to draw monologues from it. The set for The Corn is Green was much more interesting than the one for The Glass Menagerie too. It was so dynamic, being built as the show progressed. I’m of the opinion that every show should make an effort to include meaningful music. Emlyn Williams’ play made great use of music as well while Tennessee Williams’ play didn’t. However, in The Corn is Green, every actor knew what they wanted and how high the stakes were. This, as well as some scripting changes, made for an excellent play, and a brilliant memory play.

The Glass Menagerie is referred to as a “memory play” and was written and published by Tennessee Williams in 1944. This play centers around a family, Tom the son, Amanda the mom, Laura the daughter, and a “suitor” named Jim. There are two Toms present, the older narrator and the younger one we see acting out the scenes.

Overall, this was probably my least favorite play that we have seen. I feel that the director made odd choices and banked heavily on the fact that Amy Adams was in the show. While it is an American show in parts it did not feel as such. The lighting was not done well (subjectively), and the only thing that I thought was continuously lit well was the Glass Menagerie itself. The set was one that I personally would not design for this show, but it was not all bad. I felt like there were some missed opportunities where the surrounding pieces could have been brought onto the stage on stage. I also feel like there could’ve been some chairs or better seating options.

Since the show was performed in London, unless people have read the play, they might not have known where the characters were or where the mom was referencing. The only real context I was able to use was the accent that the mom and Laura had and even then, I could really only get vaguely South if anything. Typically plays set in the South can have a feeling or tone of being trapped and this does apply to the character Tom. Williams’s relationship with his own sister Rose has an effect on the play and is definitely shown. While Tennessee was attending the University of Iowa, his sister underwent a lobotomy. Williams felt a tremendous amount of guilt that we can all see in his work. While the details are different, The Glass Menagerie mirrors Williams’s relationship with his family.

I have adored going through all the cathedrals/churches during our stay. I had no idea the magnitude of their construction until we first toured St. Paul’s, so I was incredibly excited to tour Westminster. As soon as we entered the Abbey, I grew so appreciative of the opportunity to stand in one of the most notable religious & historical landmarks in London. I am so happy that we were able to be shown around by Molly, the best tour guide in the world. The way she spoke about the British traditions, coronations, burials, memorials, etc. made me appreciate the experience so much. She spoke of Westminster and its history so delicately and with such respect, which I felt made the tour as awe-inspiring as the building itself. 

I have already spoken briefly in earlier blogs about my fascination with the memorials/tombs we have been seeing all around London, but Westminster Abbey topped all that I had previously seen. The royal members that are buried there are encased in such gorgeous memorials and their grandiose structures were mind-boggling to me. What I found so cool, is that most of the royal burials included statues around them. I started to notice that most of the statues were crying, with what looked like a single tear rolling down their cheek. In some, the statues were covering their eyes with their hands or looked as though they were wiping tears from their face. 

Along with royals, there were so many other famous or significant people buried or memorialized there as well. Scientist’s corner was the most gorgeous to me, the altar on display in front of the main area was so beautiful. There we saw Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, and Stephen Hawking. It was around this time in the tour that I started to really grasp the importance of Westminster Abbey and started to feel surreal walking around while listening to Molly. 

The three notable memorials, among many others, that I saw were of Oscar Wilde, William Shakespeare, and Jane Austen. Oscar Wilde, while he is not buried there, had a glass window memorial that I thought was the prettiest stained glass in the area of the Abbey that we were in. Oscar Wilde was an Irish poet and playwright, who became popular in London around 1890. He is most known to me for his works The Picture of Dorian Gray and The Importance of Being Earnest, however he wrote 7 other plays and so much more poetry. Wilde passed from an early death due to meningitis at the age of 46 in November of 1900. Along with Wilde, William Shakespeare is also not buried in Westminster but had a more extravagant memorial. He was given a statue of himself, placed in the center of Poet’s Corner. I know I don’t have to say this, but he is known for writing over 30 plays, 150 sonnets, plus other pieces of literature. He is recognized as England’s National Poet, as well as regarded as the world’s greatest dramatists. His contributions to theatre have given him a legacy that has greatly outlived him and has influenced writers, actors, and theatre artists since his death in 1616. Lastly, Jane Austen was given a memorial plaque placed near the statue of Shakespeare. Her work includes famous novels that rely heavily on the dependance that women had on marriage in order to gain any kind of social and economic security. Austen wrote 9 novels, but is assumed to have also written 3,000 letters over the course of her life with only 161 of those surviving. 

The next time I am in London I will be coming back to Westminster Abbey for another glance at all the famous memorials and a closer look at all the royalty buried within its walls. Westminster is truly remarkable and having Molly as a guide made the experience so rich.

June 13th, 2022

For my fringe theatre experience, I -along with the rest of the group- watched Lift. Besides the plot of the musical, I was surprised by the environment, and how I interacted with the production itself. While I did not care for the plot much, I did appreciate the intimacy of the room, as it was black box production with not too many seats. With the seating in a U shape, I often found myself looking around to the audience on the sides to see their reactions to the musical. While I found it amusing at the moment, looking back, I would have appreciated being more locked into the production which might have worked better with different seating arrangements. 

For the plot itself, I stayed pretty confused throughout the entire production, as I questioned whether or not the narrator was real or imaginary. I also questioned if each of the characters knew one another, as each of them described people whose names were Sarah, Kate, and Gabriel. It became even more confusing when each of the personal stories included the same names, which left me questioning if they were the same hypothetical people or if they were different individuals who just so happened to have the same names. Even now, I genuinely have zero clues as to what the answer to that is. 

I also felt like a prude watching the musical. I was genuinely horrified at some of the scenes that were acted out in the production. I will not go into detail, as I still see myself as a prude, but I am pretty certain that my jaw hit the floor a time or two.

While the storyline confused me, I did appreciate the soundtrack. It honestly has stuck with me since I have watched Lift. Now, each time I enter an elevator in the underground I think “wow what if we all just broke out in song and dance right now.”

-Maggie Martin