Wednesday 5 December 2012

‘Constellations’ - Royal Court at the Duke of York’s Theatre - Tuesday 4th December 2012


(Rated 7/5 ) 

I had a real struggle with physics at school – if only there had been a play like Constellations to see then to help me understand quarks and strings and parallel universes and Schrodinger’s cat in a box and similar concepts. I might then have had a hope, and not assumed it had to be the opposite of what I worked out, because I found it so hard to solve and confusing, that I thought maybe the opposite was right. Ironic as maybe in another universe or along another string (hm yes I still don’t fully understand strings (!)) the opposite maybe/is, right! Unfortunately in this one it wasn’t and I had to re-take my exam! But all that is in the past and with an idea like Constellations that past could be subtly or completely different depending on how I play it. In this case, in the story of physicist Marianne (Sally Hawkins) and bee-keeper Roland (Rafe Spall), the subtleties of possible play-outs of the relationship between them, the ways they play it/ act it are beyond phenomenal – out of this universe! I was in a funny mood when I went into this one – having a kind of lapse in passion for performance somehow – oh goodness did these two cure me of that… and then some! Two masters showing us the best of a masterclass in acting – how to express a full range of emotions combined with possible relationship dynamics and switch them at the clang/chink/fizzle of lights going off and on in split seconds – and keep it all fully believable throughout. Empathy hit the moment they both started. And they kept this up for a full seventy minutes. For a performance by actors to be that good though, they can’t do it alone. Yes, this really was two actors, both of whom I love – she especially for Happy-Go-Lucky, and he as the hilarious psychopath from The Shadow Line, and almost equally amusing and very Rafe Spall-ish interpretation of William Shakespeare in Anonymous – at their sensational best and the genius who enabled that is writer Nick Payne. I can honestly say I have never been so blown away by the intricacies and cleverly structured flow of a piece of writing since Audrey Niffeneger’s The Time Traveller’s Wife. I adored that book so much it found its way into my top five all-time favourite novels immediately and I felt so sad when I’d finished it! Constellations also harks back to Ground-Hog Day in terms of repeats of the same situation, ways of dealing with it and possible outcomes, though in my opinion Constellations is far superior and more intelligently done. The actors were also supported by superb direction by Michael Longhurst.  

This is the best thing since – whatever the last best thing was for me – and gets my fullest mark accordingly J

Constellations  – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012



Twitter: @RestrictReview 

Monday 19 November 2012

‘Skyfall’ - Odeon Cinema, South Woodford - Sunday 18th November 2012


(Rated 4/5 )

A James Bond film carries a wealth of expectations for many people. I think it’s one of few franchises which brings people out to the cinema again, who may not have been in years. And this year being Bond’s 50th anniversary makes it an even bigger deal. Those who love the films also have a favourite Bond. Mine has always been Sean Connery BUT I have also been very impressed by Daniel Craig, who has given us a different and refreshing Bond – a more emotionally aware action man, arguably a fitter-looking action man (!), and a more sympathetic character with the insights into his past we have been given. We understand more why he became ‘cold’, or rather I’d like to say highly protective of his feelings. And this Bond is vulnerable. You believe he can crash out, make mistakes, hurt even die. For me it’s no longer set in stone that he is going to be okay, unscathed, in the arms of a beautiful Bond girl at the end of the film. Though I should say that Bond girls are no longer girls, but rather woman with more character and more respectable clothing ;) And of all of them, the best for me, Dame Judie Dench, ironically does share the traditional embrace with Bond towards the end of the film… on which I will say no more…
The acting is stellar! Daniel Craig is still extremely good, and I have to say, is now challenging Connery’s top spot for me. Judi Dench is totally utterly adorable – yes I absolutely unashamedly adore her! – and in the film so much more as M than we have come to expect – in fact the whole story centres around her and challenges M both personally and professionally, making the most use of her stunning talents in subtle and highly natural emoting. We get more insight into her relationship with Bond and her other secret agents. This outing Q is played by Ben Whishaw – turning the character into an absolutely gorgeously young nerdy techie version – gosh I’m sounding so luvvy this time! Ralph Fiennes joins them as Mallory – to whom M has to report and be accountable. Ralph looks very dapper and shines nicely. There is a beautiful new Bond girl in Naomie Harris who has to take a shot aimed near Bond… maybe killing him?! And Rory Kinnear as M’s right hand man. And then we have Javier Badem making one of the best Bond Villains ever for me, by being subtly psychopathic, with some verging on oedipal issues thrown in.
And this is a very good film. Sam Mendes superbly directs as we’d expect. And there are plenty of the traditional Bond touches of action and chases and impossible dare-evil feats, and humour… though less of the latter - and actually I’d say Daniel Craig doesn’t deliver it quite as well as Connery, Moore or even Brosnan - and more poignancy and feeling. This Bond makes you think and feel and so isn’t quite the full-on escapism we are used to from the classic Bond films. But we have the return of the Astin Martin and there’s Q’s gadgets… even though Bond doesn’t seem as pleased by them or him!
Are we quite so pleased? Well in all honesty, I think this Bond will appeal more to some and less to others. And that’s not me sitting on a very high fence over which I might tumble into a waterfall to my death if I decide one way or another!


Skyfall – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012


Twitter: @RestrictReview 

Saturday 10 November 2012

'The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time' is back.... Apollo Theatre, from March 2013


Curious Incident will be back at The Apollo Theatre from March 2013... highly recommended! See review below...

(Rated 7/5 )

Absolutely thrilled and delighted to give the National Theatre’s production of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time my top mark! I am sure Christopher, the hero of the piece, would query giving a better than perfect score, but I would then tell him it’s like an A*, but with an extra-special additional star added to that! 5=A, 6=A* and 7=A** J.

I read Mark Haddon’s book many years ago and absolutely loved it. Definitely one of my all time favourite novels. According to popular marketing of the novel, Christopher John Francis Boone has Asperger’s syndrome. I would say this is probably the closest it’s possible to get to ‘easily’ labelling him so that people can have some idea as to what to expect of him. However, I completely agree with Mark Haddon in his article in the theatre programme for this production – labelling people and putting them into boxes comes no way near to describing who and how they are and, in many cases, is completely unhelpful. Within all our peculiarities and syndromes, we are all individual, and on a kind of continuous scale of ‘abnormality’ – which of us is in fact normal?! It simply does not exist!
Christopher has difficulty reading and understanding other people’s emotions – his empathy is highly limited. He also struggles to allow people close to him physically – hugs are a nightmare and should be avoided – his way of coming close to someone, as shown in the play, is to slowly bring hands together, but at the point of touching, Christopher will withdraw. He loves and becomes absorbed my mathematical problems. He is very good indeed at proofs of theorems – there is a safety and security for him in the world of maths, in which you can prove things 100%. The outside world, or even the world in his own home, does not provide that safety, because nothing can be proved – it’s all a great, big confusion of people and their odd behaviours.
This becomes even more of a problem when he faced with a murder mystery to solve. Who killed Mrs. Shears’ dog, Wellington, with a garden fork? In the process of solving this mystery, Christopher goes detecting and also solves a much greater mystery of his own family and faces many of his demons along the way…

Luke Treadaway, who played the lead in the NT’s Warhorse also, continues to show his exceptional talent in performance as Christopher. This is a virtuoso study of a character, in which he uses voice as well as body language to take us along with him in understanding Christopher. We adore him! The poetry and movement of his internal world are delightful and so moving. We both fully get how hard it is for Christopher to appreciate the feelings and roller-coaster emotions of other humans with whom he has to deal, and also understand them and ourselves better in exploring with him. The beauty of his fantasies of being an astronaut comes across in a dance of lights, images and computer graphics, in which props, as well as fellow cast members are used to lift him aloft and help him fly weightlessly. The staging is complete brilliance, the biggest supporting role in exhibiting the fascinating workings of Christopher’s mind. Very well done to designer; Bunny Christie, lighting designer; Paule Constable, video designer; Finn Ross and movement directors; Scott Graham and Steven Hoggett. And of course also sound designer; Ian Dickinson, music maestro; Adrian Sutton, voice coach; Jeanette Nelson and fight director; Kate Waters. This is definitely an ensemble piece. And an ensemble stage also, which opens up at various points to reveal all sorts of secrets, devices and treasures, and on which Christopher builds a train set – which later comes to life, and draws the faces Siobhan teaches him to interpret people’s feelings. All parts of performance and staging contribute in equal measure in showing us who and how Christopher is and how his world and our world operate and come into conflict… and maybe harmony.

Niamh Cusack plays his teacher, Siobhan. Totally and utterly wonderful! As much as we adore Luke as Christopher, we love Niamh’s Siobhan too. She is so much more than his teacher. Through her narration of some parts of Christopher’s story, as well as voicing him in parts like a counsellor would with a client, we experience the intense empathy and support she gives Christopher. It also emphasizes his own voice at times when he is maybe struggling to express himself. She is so gentle and yet so strong. There are also some highly humorous moments when she tells us and Christopher what another character has said, and then they say it themselves in their own way; playing with similarity and contrast.

Luke’s father is played by Paul Ritter and mother by Nicola Walker - both very good indeed. Father, Ed is portrayed as hesitant yet honest when he feels appropriate and we feel his dilemma in trying to do the best practically for his son, whilst holding big secrets from him in attempts to save him – these have catastrophic consequences. This is a man who silently contains his emotions or in crisis lets them out with his fists or by seeking emotional consolation and rescuing from women. He shows us how hard it can be for men in our society, who are expected to be strong and brave and practical and show the stiff upper lip. It’s a huge load! Mother Judy also shows us how difficult it can be to be a fully-functioning feeling mother to a child who cannot appreciate and understand that. This will be poignant for any mother, any parent who truly cares for their child. Her story, disappointment in life and quest for an ideal, are a catalyst for events, yet whilst we may blame her for a while, we certainly do not condemn. How can we? The writing of Mark Haddon, adaptation by Simon Stephens, production and performances make us understand all the issues involved in a way that makes us truly interested and sympathetic to all involved. This story is rich in issues! Mark Haddon is a genius and I was pleased that so much of the original text was kept in the adaptation.

Other characters, voices, props etc are played by Una Stubbs, Sophie Duval, Nick Sidi, Matthew Barker, Rhiannon Harper-Rafferty and Howard Ward. They act as witnesses to Christopher by sitting on the sides of the stage and simply observing… and then support and empathy by being the characters with who  he interacts as well as literally supporting him in his journey. Ingeniously done and all really great! I’d also like to give a shout out to Toby, the rat, who put up with being swung around during Christopher’s hectic travels.

It is Siobhan who suggests Christopher convert the book of investigations into the ‘curious incident’ into a play, and that she and others will help him. And that is exactly what happens, with the book and play constantly referred to and included in the action. Fellow actors step into characters as required, with Christopher commenting on their suitability to take on the roles at times. And when he wants to explain a mathematical proof to the audience – which may delay the action, but which were of course included in Mark Haddon’s book – Siobhan suggests he does so in an appendix after the curtain call, which he does to perfection, with the glorious help of the full technological wizardry of graphics and stage.

Christopher recites the prime numbers in order when he feels frightened or uncomfortable. In essence, they are his best friends. When we came into the auditorium to take out seats, for a moment I thought my seat wouldn’t be next to my companion’s. There was a seat covered in white and with the number “173” on it. An envelope told me I was sitting in a prime seat! We wondered if that meant I was going to be called on to take part in the show. For that reason I withheld from opening my envelope. At the interval I realised in prime seats had opened theirs and so I did. Inside was more information on the number “173” and a little exercise to see if I was special. You add up the numbers associated with the letters on your name – A=1, B=2 etc. to 26 – and if they make a prime number, you win a prize. We tried various combinations of both out names, short and long forms, with and without middle names, and it turned out that I’m not special, but my companion is! We won a badge showing one of the faces Siobhan draws Christopher to help him understand people’s expressions. It's a smiley face as with eyebrows over the eyes as so... \ and /...

Let me know if you know what it means?! J

For me the second half lost a little. For a while I couldn’t work out what it was… and then I realised… we lost Christopher’s voice and expressiveness under the external pressure of the world around him and his retreat inside himself, leaving others to tell the story. Very powerful drama to lose him and for him to then return even stronger.

I have been to The Cottesloe before, but it was unrecognisable to me in the way it was transformed. Not quite as small as The Donmar, but still retaining a great sense of intimacy and connection between performers and audience. It is accessed from outside the main NT building, a little way along from the Stage Door. It’s my favourite of the NT theatres and easier for those with walking disabilities trying to get to their seats, of which there were a fair few of us that evening!

I highly recommend this production!

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012

Twitter: @RestrictReview 

Thursday 25 October 2012

Ginger and Rosa - Vue West 12 - 24th October 2012


(Rated 3/5 film/script... 4.5/5 performances.)

This is a beautiful little coming-of age story, by Sally Potter of Orlando-fame,  concerning the power of female friendship to bond two people and the power of love that can tear them apart. At the time of the Hiroshima bomb, Ginger's and Rosa's mothers (Christina Hendricks and Jodhi May) go into simultaneous labour and so begins a friendship literally from birth. Ginger (Elle Fanning) and Rosa (Alice Englert) share all their experiences, including kissing practice with each other and then one being present as the other moves on to a boy. They discuss deeply and join anti-bomb protests - attempting to put the world to rights. But whilst Ginger is genuinely wedded to important causes and intelligent thought - some of which she shares with her father (Alessandro Nivolla), Rosa is more wedded to herself and the growth of her femininity, which she also desires to share with Ginger's father. Will this betrayal of trust rip them apart?
The story is good in a nice simple way, and the film is beautifully shot - though at times feels disconnected. But it's the performances that make this piece. ALL  - including supporting players Timothy Spall and Annette Bening - are absolutely stunning. Elle Fanning is exceptional in a highly sensitive, understanding and emotionally intelligent performance. She needs no dialogue to convey precisely her feelings and thoughts to us and is gorgeous to watch.
Highly recommended as a feelings film interestingly of a similar vein to Song for Marion, but involving younger people.

Ginger and Rosa – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012

http://www.facebook.com/TheRestrictedReview
Twitter: @RestrictReview

Saturday 20 October 2012

Song for Marion - Premiere at the BFI London Film Festival - 19th October 2012


(Rated 3/5 film/script... 4.5/5 performances.)

I expected Song for Marion to be a comedy along the lines of Rock Choir for OAPs - resembling the level of comedy and song performances of the likes of The Full Monty. I had been entertained by the OAPZ - the choir of elderly people in the film - themselves, for about 5 hours,  as an extra on the film. They were absolutely brilliant in both comedy and musical performance. But the tone of the actual film is somewhat different. There is far more poignancy and somewhat less comedy.
The film follows grumpy pensioner Arthur (Terence Stamp) - addicted to not enjoying himself - and his relationships with his wife Marion (Venessa Redgrave), who is suffering from cancer, and their son James (Christopher Eccleston). Arthur and James are estranged - we are told Arthur was not a good father - whilst the love between Marion and her son is clear and warm. Marion enjoys singing as a member of the OAPZ, who are led by cheery conductor Elizabeth (Gemma Arterton). Arthur refuses to join in and is hostile towards Elizabeth and Marion's other choir friends, even in their support of his wife. The film goes on to explore Arthur's relationship with Elizabeth as she tries to help him 'de-grump' {my word} and find his voice and his heart.
That said Arthur, as played by Terence, clearly has a great heart - just keeps it safely closed, resembling the rock Marion describes him to be.
Vanessa Redgrave is outstanding as ever! She blows me away with her ease of emotional expression and natural ability in character inhabitation. Meanwhile Terence Stamp moved me to tears - both in what he was expressing and what he was holding back. I have never experienced a closed-off, cold character pull so much at my heart strings. I have to say he genuinely did too when I witnessed him singing for the film. My response as an extra was not forced at all! However it seems it ended up on the cutting-room floor. Christopher Eccleston is also very good indeed as a mirror to them both. He IS their son. Only slight flaw is he lost the accent now and then, but otherwise a beautifully reflective portrayal. Gemma Arterton also did very well with what she was given as a character. I did feel, though, her character was the one who most showed up the lacking in the script - it was a little basic compared to the power of the other three. 
Writer/Director Paul Andrew Williams has given us a lovely, sensitive film and I really felt it came from his heart inspired by his own grandparents. For me his writing and direction lack a little in clarity and impact - but his professional actors understood what he wanted to convey and did the job superbly. I just wish there had been a little more of the OAPZ to enjoy, but I will buy the soundtrack and DVD!

Song for Marion – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012


http://www.facebook.com/TheRestrictedReview
Twitter: @RestrictReview

Friday 5 October 2012

‘Twelfth Night’ - Shakespeare’s Globe - Thursday 4th October 2012



Twelfth Night – the name of this play is as familiar to me as A Midsummer Night’s Dream – and yet I hadn’t seen it before, at least I don’t think so – it is one of those, in seeing which, you get kind of a deja vue feeling. Here we have another that starts with a shipwreck and uses two of Shakespeare’s favourite comedy devices of mistaken identities and twins – well hey if you have a formula that works, it well bears repeating. That said I’m not sure many writers these days would get away with quite so much repeating ;)
This is a great fun romp - the main attractions in this case are Mark Rylance playing Countess Olivia and Stephen Fry as her steward Malvolio; both of whom romp to the max. The production marks Stephen Fry’s first return to the stage after his now famous disappearance from it 17 years ago during a performance of Cell Mates. He was said to have had a bad reaction to reviews – as he later and so movingly explained in his documentary The Secret Life of the Manic Depressive, he in fact had a bipolar depression. Since that coming out, Stephen seems to have coped with life and performance even better than before – he is on our screens in something almost every single week, as presenter, actor, comedian, quiz show host… he now also has his own production company, writes profusely, travels also profusely and is an all-round absolutely wonderful example of a highly creative human being. He’s been challenged on his kindness by Pamela Stephenson Connolly in one of her Shrink Wrap programmes – but as he said he just likes to be nice – and whyever not?! In my opinion he is the nicest celebrity of whom I’ve had any experience and I am the proud owner of a personal letter from him – that said, as are many others – he gives as much as he can to as many as he can. He also has my empathy and understanding because I have experience of a loved one with bipolar disorder. For that reason I’d decided this review would honour that empathy and be as kind as possible. BUT he has no need of that degree of kindness at all. His performance as Malvolio is absolutely excellent!! No excuses required – in fact so much the opposite. If I can be so bold I think that his coming out, and being so open and sharing, has enabled his expressiveness and now he can fully excel in who and how he is. Stephen lends the very best of Stephen Fry to this role and is absolutely adorable. (Okay, yes, as Shakespeare is a repeater of plot devices, so I am of superlatives and absolutelys ;))
I felt so anxious for him. Not knowing the play I didn’t know when he would first make an entrance. I was also eagerly awaiting Mark Rylance’s entrance. And, of my goodness, what an entrance that was! Countess Mark-Olivia tiptoes in and parades the stage as though on wheels – I still haven’t worked out how it is that men in Elizabethan dresses as woman look like they are being wheeled around but it’s very funny! Dressed in black – his character in mourning for her father and brother and swearing to avoid the company of men for 7 years; which doesn’t last much more than 7 minutes! – looking elegant, perfectly feminine, poised, lady-like and very slim! Such a far cry from the puffed-up strength and burliness of Rooster in Jerusalem. In fact you wouldn’t believe it was the same person, and yet, in Mark Rylance’s case you absolutely would! There is such an ease to his manner and embodiments that it all seems as natural as breathing – a turn of phrase, manner and attitude occurs seamlessly in a heart-beat. He gives us acting perfection, so real that it really is not an act. He is just being! He can be male or female and we believe him. And yet he can still work so delightfully with the incongruence and hence comedy of the fact that he is a man playing a woman. A man in drag?! Oh no! It’s like a gender in between, which is how he seems. So soft and sensitive – how can such a person convincingly give us Richard III – well he can and did – albeit with much more sensitivity and humanity; still the bitter, deformed tyrant. And so he processes the stage and takes us; the audience along with him – so much so that it took me some time to realise others had come along in with him – amongst those others Stephen-Malvolio. Before I was aware there the dear man was advising his mistress!! Stephen and I had somehow avoided the anxiety of his entrance in the entrancement of Mark-Olivia.
And maybe the entrancement by both of these is the reason why scenes without them seem almost banal and routine. You find yourself thinking “Okay, here’s a bit of Shakespeare filling, til the best bits come.” And actually that IS a shame. Twelfth Night is the story of young Viola - here played by Samuel Barnett – who survives the aforementioned shipwreck, in which she believes her twin brother Sebastian to have drowned, and takes on the disguise of a young man, calling herself Cesario, and enters the service of Duke Orsino (Liam Brennan). The latter is attempting to woe Countess Olivia and sends Cesario to do the job for him ;) Viola falls for Orsino and Olivia is bewitched with love for Cesario… and so the usual wonderful Shakespearian romantic comedy ensues. Samuel Barnett is a very worthy and talented young male actor – whom I liked very much indeed as Queen Elizabeth in Richard III by the same company. But here he drowns and Viola along with him – NOT because he is bad, but because his goods aren’t good enough to make him as visible as he needs to be to match the likes of Mark-Olivia, Stephen-Malvolio and also Paul Chahidi as Olivia’s gentlewoman Maria. One of the wonders of this play are Shakespeare’s musings – through his characters – on men and women in love and how they deal differently with love and that state of being. Samuel is a man, playing a woman, who then takes on the role of a man, and Shakespeare made the absolute most of this in the dialogue he provided for Viola and her interactions. Sadly this doesn’t make enough impression. The subplot involving the tricks played by Maria and others – including the lovely fool Feste (Peter Hamilton Dyer) – on Malvolio seem to become the main plot…
And OMG how delicious! Malvolio is convinced that Olivia is in love with him and that she delights in him wearing yellow stockings and cross-garters… he must smile profusely at her to show her that he returns her affection. And here is where we get the highlight between Mark-Olivia and Stephen-Malvolio as the latter delivers the famous line…
            “Some are born great, some become great and some have greatness thrust upon them…”
thrusting himself onto her!!! The entire audience laughed long and hard at this.
Where Stephen’s expressions of love as Malvolio are thrusting and blatant, Mark’s towards Cesario, and then Sebastian are charmingly subtle and faltering. Where Stephen strides across the stage and later dances deliberately and clumsily like a bouncing baboon, Mark glides along until startled when he trots along like a colt before rapidly regaining that graceful mare.
I’d happily see that baboon and horse together on Strictly Come Dancing… meanwhile they were stunningly entertaining in the finale dance on that beautiful replica Globe stage. 



Twelfth Night – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012     


Twitter: @RestrictReview

Monday 1 October 2012

Doctor Matt and The Ponds - a very mini review

Farewell Amy and Rory Pond... the Weeping Angels finally got yas...

(Rated 4/5... on a scale where I'd rate Doctor Chris and Rose at 6/5 and Doctor David and Donna as 7/5.)

This little snippetty review is really just to say something about the relationship developed between The Doctor (Matt Smith), Amy Pond (Karen Gillan) and Rory Williams (Arthur Darvill). For me, amidst all the excitement of monsters, aliens and Sci Fi, the interaction between the Doctor and his companions - how he influences them and vice versa, and each companions particular story - is the most interesting part. I have a big penchant - not nose or chin - for relationships!

I think writer Stephen Moffat has great storytelling skill - he is superb at that - and keeping you on your toes with excitement and Geronimo! ... here we go! But something lacks in emotion between characters and from them. The dialogue is genius and witty in the extreme... totally yowza! And the delivery of that dialogue from all three lacks nothing at all. Oh and have to mention Alex Kingston as River Song too and her contribution in chemistry with The Doctor - charged? yes - highly? no.

The acting is faultless. Every actor brings something different to The Good Doctor - the very best of themselves - and just as Chris Eccleston and David Tennant nailed that - so does Matt Smith. And wonderfully fantastically brilliantly they all look like they could be an alien and give us the majestic, strong yet traumatised doctor from the North, the all-round funny yet high EQ expressive doctor from North of the border and the professor, public school-boy doctor from somewhere a little bit posh ;)

BUT there is an emotional quality that Russell T. Davies and his Whovian team of actors - Billie Piper's Rose Tyler and Catherine Tate's Donna Noble in particular with their respective doctors - gave that, for me, never comes out in the Moffat-lead series. Russell's writing and their performances tore at my heart strings in ways these guys just can't somehow. I was addicted and couldn't get enough. Now I love it but can cope without.

So I do feel sad to see The Ponds go... but not as upset at the loss of Rose... or devastated at the loss of Donna.

The Eleventh Doctor and The Ponds – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012



Twitter: @RestrictReview

Dexter - a minireview - from DVDs of Series 1-6

(Rated 6/5 )

Hi RR viewers,

Sorry for my silence over the last few weeks. I have been even more restricted than usual, and in part Dexter was responsible - though he was more a help - and bizarre to say comfort - than a restriction and thankfully he didn't wrap me in cling-film! Then again I haven't taken up serial killing so he'd have no reason to.

I have adored this series ever since I finally gave it a chance at least a year after season 1 was gifted to me - more on that in a bit - but never reviewed it. I am reluctant to review in detail though as there are so many edge-of-your-seat surprises that to give any away would be to spoil it somewhat. It really is a HAVE-TO-SEE and all people I know who have, have become addicted. I now get the new season DVDs ASAP and then have a queue of pals who borrow him after Dexter and his colleagues have entertained me :)

The very basic premise - Dexter Morgan is a blood spatter analyst for the Homicide Department of Miami Metro Police. And on the side he happens to be a serial killer. So how on earth is it that anyone likes the character and/or has any empathy for him?! Why has he become such a massive hit on both sides of the Atlantic and round the world? I absolutely did not want to get involved in watching this show. In a maybe slightly daft way I felt like I might be supporting the cause of serial killers by doing so. I also feared I'd be disgusted, revolted, have nightmares or just simply find it unpleasant. In fact I couldn't understand why anyone might remotely and felt concerned about the person who had gifted it to me, even though I love her very much! ;) Several times she told me I'd find the psychology interesting. Oh yeah really?! Do I really want to know why someone becomes a serial killer?! However interested in psychology I may be?! Well even that is to put it far too simplistically. Dexter is a serial killer but his psychology is far, far more interesting than even that would imply. Yes he has a pretty major trauma to 'make him' go that way. But what is far more interesting is the arc of his character through the series. Can he turn from psychopath to human? And how can each series challenge him in new ways? Each time I think it can't possibly. And each time it does. The ante is continually upped if you like, in a way highly unusual for an ongoing series. Once you get even a little attached to him you cannot leave! You are dying to know what will happen next in his psychological and external life journey.

Michael C. Hall - of Six Feet Under fame - plays Dexter. And my goodness how impressively he does so. So believable! Sometimes voice-overs can sound lame and annoying, but personally I love Dexter voice-overs - they give us such important insight into his internal life - absolutely necessary - it's a bit hard for us to find out about him in confidences to other characters - how can he genuinely confide in real, healthy humans?! Or even highly loveable unhealthy ones?! The show is littered with supremely interesting and, to varying degrees and varieties, flawed characters. My favourite of whom is Debra Morgan - Dexter's sister - played excellently by Jennifer Carpenter - shown with Dexter below. She is tough yet vulnerable, sensitive yet needy and self-centred, totally beautiful and yet with very ugly language! And her relationship with Dexter is of great interest - even though for so much of the time it's packed with incongruence on both sides. There is a character to please everyone in the show: Lauren Velez as ambitious yet gorgeous power-house Lt. Maria LaGuerta, David Zayas as very cuddly Sgt Angel Batista and C.S. Lee as sex-obsessed yet starved Vince Masuka - I am highlighting character traits but there is so much more to each of them - these are not just 3D but 4D characters, and I am naming just a few.

The main antagonist serial killers include Trinity (John Lithgow); so named as he kills in 3s: woman in a bathtub, mother falling to her death and man bludgeoned with a hammer and The Ice-Truck Killer who bleeds his victims out before cutting them into pieces, which he leaves for the police to discover. Nice!

Let the avenging angel onto your TV screen - you won't be disappointed!

Dexter – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012



Twitter: @RestrictReview

Tuesday 4 September 2012

Accused: Tina's Story - BBC - Tuesday 4th September 2012


(Rated 4.5/5 )

I'm shaking and still horrified by the power, and again harsh reality, of this week's Accused. And yes - any questions from last week's end up clarified. Then again - maybe I was the only one who needed that clarity?! Or is hindsight a great thing? I mean now I know it's glaringly obvious! But perhaps it could be obvious in one way with still doubt in another. Haha now I'm being obscure!

For this one Jimmy McGovern is joined in writing by Isabelle Grey, and they write for Anna Maxwell Martin as prison officer Tina Dakin.
We meet her as she accompanies Stephen, from last week's story, on his journey into prison. Tina is normal, real, plain Jane, precise at her job, caring and compassionate but that's all appropriately hidden from fellow officers and inmates. She would not have fit amongst the cast of screws in Prisoner Cell Block H!! Tina has a young family, and a loving husband. What on earth could she have done wrong to be the accused?! We are kept guessing until the very end, though if you watch carefully there is a hint at the beginning - or should I say, at several times during the episode. But the skill here is it's hard to work out, and you really want to know, and don't want her to be punished any more for it. Because she does get 'punished' for doing the right thing - and a very severe punishment it ends up being! And again, this is where we are shocked - this kind of thing almost certainly could happen in our prisons. It's a dog eat dog environment, in which all cover their backs if they can - officers and prisoners alike. Whilst I felt Sheridan Smith attempted to play her role ambiguously, it was clear what Anna was doing - holding a whole lot in - to her cost - until she could no longer do so. John Bishop reprises his role as Stephen's father - and oh my goodness - I just had tingles down my spine as I said that. He was monumentally good in this episode. In fact the interaction between him and Anna brings out the best in them both for me.
Sam Hazeldine plays a  very lovely hubby to Tina. And Ewen Bremner impresses as quite a contrasting character!

Again leaves us thinking about a lot of issues. Great Job!


Accused: Tina's Story – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012


Twitter: @RestrictReview

Tuesday 28 August 2012

Accused: Stephen's Story - BBC1 - Tuesday 28th August 2012

(Rated 3/5 )

Disappointing, strange... confusing...
This episode by Danny Brocklehurst and Jimmy McGovern didn't quite hit the mark for me. Stephen (Robert Sheehan) is losing his m
other to a terminal illness. A nurse, Charlotte (Sheridan Smith) is brought in by Stephen's father Peter (John Bishop) to help relieve his wife's suffering - Stephen thinks she has relieved it too far and killed his mother to have his father for herself. And then...?!
I won't say what, as again that might give the game away, but this time sadly it's kind of boring and un-engaging and sort of obvious in plot, whilst leaving the real motivations and solution to the viewer to decide for themselves. I didn't really care. I felt it was difficult for the actors to get involved in their portrayals because each of them had to leave it unclear as to whether they were 'good' or bad'. Stephen was supposed to be sensitive with possible anxiety hints at other mental health conditions, but seemed more fascinated by Charlotte's tits than anything else, and I didn't feel connected to the other characters either. Sheridan is usually very good but flat in this. And motives behind the crimes, if they were crimes? Hm, well they didn't make any sense.

I would love to be told otherwise if others experienced this differently? Please let me know :)

Accused: Stephen's Story – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012


Twitter: @RestrictReview

Monday 27 August 2012

‘The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time’ - National Cottesloe Theatre - Saturday 25th August 2012


(Rated 7/5 )

Absolutely thrilled and delighted to give the National Theatre’s production of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time my top mark! I am sure Christopher, the hero of the piece, would query giving a better than perfect score, but I would then tell him it’s like an A*, but with an extra-special additional star added to that! 5=A, 6=A* and 7=A** J.

I read Mark Haddon’s book many years ago and absolutely loved it. Definitely one of my all time favourite novels. According to popular marketing of the novel, Christopher John Francis Boone has Asperger’s syndrome. I would say this is probably the closest it’s possible to get to ‘easily’ labelling him so that people can have some idea as to what to expect of him. However, I completely agree with Mark Haddon in his article in the theatre programme for this production – labelling people and putting them into boxes comes no way near to describing who and how they are and, in many cases, is completely unhelpful. Within all our peculiarities and syndromes, we are all individual, and on a kind of continuous scale of ‘abnormality’ – which of us is in fact normal?! It simply does not exist!
Christopher has difficulty reading and understanding other people’s emotions – his empathy is highly limited. He also struggles to allow people close to him physically – hugs are a nightmare and should be avoided – his way of coming close to someone, as shown in the play, is to slowly bring hands together, but at the point of touching, Christopher will withdraw. He loves and becomes absorbed my mathematical problems. He is very good indeed at proofs of theorems – there is a safety and security for him in the world of maths, in which you can prove things 100%. The outside world, or even the world in his own home, does not provide that safety, because nothing can be proved – it’s all a great, big confusion of people and their odd behaviours.
This becomes even more of a problem when he faced with a murder mystery to solve. Who killed Mrs. Shears’ dog, Wellington, with a garden fork? In the process of solving this mystery, Christopher goes detecting and also solves a much greater mystery of his own family and faces many of his demons along the way…

Luke Treadaway, who played the lead in the NT’s Warhorse also, continues to show his exceptional talent in performance as Christopher. This is a virtuoso study of a character, in which he uses voice as well as body language to take us along with him in understanding Christopher. We adore him! The poetry and movement of his internal world are delightful and so moving. We both fully get how hard it is for Christopher to appreciate the feelings and roller-coaster emotions of other humans with whom he has to deal, and also understand them and ourselves better in exploring with him. The beauty of his fantasies of being an astronaut comes across in a dance of lights, images and computer graphics, in which props, as well as fellow cast members are used to lift him aloft and help him fly weightlessly. The staging is complete brilliance, the biggest supporting role in exhibiting the fascinating workings of Christopher’s mind. Very well done to designer; Bunny Christie, lighting designer; Paule Constable, video designer; Finn Ross and movement directors; Scott Graham and Steven Hoggett. And of course also sound designer; Ian Dickinson, music maestro; Adrian Sutton, voice coach; Jeanette Nelson and fight director; Kate Waters. This is definitely an ensemble piece. And an ensemble stage also, which opens up at various points to reveal all sorts of secrets, devices and treasures, and on which Christopher builds a train set – which later comes to life, and draws the faces Siobhan teaches him to interpret people’s feelings. All parts of performance and staging contribute in equal measure in showing us who and how Christopher is and how his world and our world operate and come into conflict… and maybe harmony.

Niamh Cusack plays his teacher, Siobhan. Totally and utterly wonderful! As much as we adore Luke as Christopher, we love Niamh’s Siobhan too. She is so much more than his teacher. Through her narration of some parts of Christopher’s story, as well as voicing him in parts like a counsellor would with a client, we experience the intense empathy and support she gives Christopher. It also emphasizes his own voice at times when he is maybe struggling to express himself. She is so gentle and yet so strong. There are also some highly humorous moments when she tells us and Christopher what another character has said, and then they say it themselves in their own way; playing with similarity and contrast.

Luke’s father is played by Paul Ritter and mother by Nicola Walker - both very good indeed. Father, Ed is portrayed as hesitant yet honest when he feels appropriate and we feel his dilemma in trying to do the best practically for his son, whilst holding big secrets from him in attempts to save him – these have catastrophic consequences. This is a man who silently contains his emotions or in crisis lets them out with his fists or by seeking emotional consolation and rescuing from women. He shows us how hard it can be for men in our society, who are expected to be strong and brave and practical and show the stiff upper lip. It’s a huge load! Mother Judy also shows us how difficult it can be to be a fully-functioning feeling mother to a child who cannot appreciate and understand that. This will be poignant for any mother, any parent who truly cares for their child. Her story, disappointment in life and quest for an ideal, are a catalyst for events, yet whilst we may blame her for a while, we certainly do not condemn. How can we? The writing of Mark Haddon, adaptation by Simon Stephens, production and performances make us understand all the issues involved in a way that makes us truly interested and sympathetic to all involved. This story is rich in issues! Mark Haddon is a genius and I was pleased that so much of the original text was kept in the adaptation.

Other characters, voices, props etc are played by Una Stubbs, Sophie Duval, Nick Sidi, Matthew Barker, Rhiannon Harper-Rafferty and Howard Ward. They act as witnesses to Christopher by sitting on the sides of the stage and simply observing… and then support and empathy by being the characters with who  he interacts as well as literally supporting him in his journey. Ingeniously done and all really great! I’d also like to give a shout out to Toby, the rat, who put up with being swung around during Christopher’s hectic travels.

It is Siobhan who suggests Christopher convert the book of investigations into the ‘curious incident’ into a play, and that she and others will help him. And that is exactly what happens, with the book and play constantly referred to and included in the action. Fellow actors step into characters as required, with Christopher commenting on their suitability to take on the roles at times. And when he wants to explain a mathematical proof to the audience – which may delay the action, but which were of course included in Mark Haddon’s book – Siobhan suggests he does so in an appendix after the curtain call, which he does to perfection, with the glorious help of the full technological wizardry of graphics and stage.

Christopher recites the prime numbers in order when he feels frightened or uncomfortable. In essence, they are his best friends. When we came into the auditorium to take out seats, for a moment I thought my seat wouldn’t be next to my companion’s. There was a seat covered in white and with the number “173” on it. An envelope told me I was sitting in a prime seat! We wondered if that meant I was going to be called on to take part in the show. For that reason I withheld from opening my envelope. At the interval I realised in prime seats had opened theirs and so I did. Inside was more information on the number “173” and a little exercise to see if I was special. You add up the numbers associated with the letters on your name – A=1, B=2 etc. to 26 – and if they make a prime number, you win a prize. We tried various combinations of both out names, short and long forms, with and without middle names, and it turned out that I’m not special, but my companion is! We won a badge showing one of the faces Siobhan draws Christopher to help him understand people’s expressions. It's a smiley face as with eyebrows over the eyes as so... \ and /...

Let me know if you know what it means?! J

For me the second half lost a little. For a while I couldn’t work out what it was… and then I realised… we lost Christopher’s voice and expressiveness under the external pressure of the world around him and his retreat inside himself, leaving others to tell the story. Very powerful drama to lose him and for him to then return even stronger.

I have been to The Cottesloe before, but it was unrecognisable to me in the way it was transformed. Not quite as small as The Donmar, but still retaining a great sense of intimacy and connection between performers and audience. It is accessed from outside the main NT building, a little way along from the Stage Door. It’s my favourite of the NT theatres and easier for those with walking disabilities trying to get to their seats, of which there were a fair few of us that evening!

I highly recommend this production!

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012

Twitter: @RestrictReview 

Tuesday 21 August 2012

Accused: Mo's Story - BBC1 - Tuesday 21st August 2012

(Rated 5/5 )

Heart-rippingly powerful drama that had me bawling my eyes out at the intense pain of the situation created by genius writer Jimmy McGovern and co-writer Carol Cullington a
bout two mothers, played by Anne-Marie Duff (Mo) and Olivia Colman (Sue)... and their sons, living in the now depressingly common world of gangs and gun crime.

I foolishly gave last week's episode 5/5, giving myself no room for an improved score... on that basis this should be 7/5... Last week Sean Bean's performance really impressed, and the rest of the drama was good but not great... This week's performances were outstandingly and poignantly emotion-stirring and the twists and turns of the plot superb too. What is so shocking is this is real! This is happening in places around our whole country.

Such tight and well-constructed drama and several surprises, so it is hard and maybe a shame to say much about it. Anne-Marie Duff's and Olivia Colman's characters are very close friends, who work together in a hairdresser's and take a stand against bullying youths, who have dictated that shops be closed... and so the consequences...

Anne-Marie Duff is supremely sensitive in her acting. This small actor has an almost incongruently huge strength of expression and humanity. Olivia Colman, Ruth Sheen (Mo's mother) and Thomas Brodie Sangster are totally believable also - we feel their pain. And this is pain in abundance, but even within that there are some good laughs.

Outstanding to develop such compelling characters in just an hour such that we truly know and feel them. And a cleverly enmeshed plot to put them in the worst plight possible!

Accused: Mo's Story – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012


Twitter: @RestrictReview

Thursday 16 August 2012

Accused: Tracie's Story - BBC1 - Tuesday 14th August 2012

(Rated 5/5 )

Jimmy McGovern's drama series Accused, that tells the stories which lead up to the accused characters we see on trial, is back. And my goodness this is such high class T

V, though I hope Jimmy wouldn't mind me referring to it that way as someone who writes about those real, unprivileged people from lower classes, iin such challenging moral positions. Do we agree with the verdict both legally and morally? What would we do in their shoes? (Or in Sean Bean's case, would we wear those stilletos?!)

Sean Bean is exceptional both as the 'boring' English literature teacher Simon, and his transvestite alter-ego Tracie, in whose glittering frocks he/she comes alive. He is deliciously camp, smart and tough as Tracie, yet also so vulnerable, sensitive, understanding - counselling his bedfellows, emotionally intelligent and demands our empathy. This is the best I have ever seen Sean Bean. His Simon is nice and normal - un-colourful, and yet for me highly noticeable and compassion-inducing. The quotes he teaches from the classics fit so well with the story and drama!

Stephen Graham, as his lover, does an excellent job too.

The piece deals with homophobia and bigotry against transvestites, self-identity, sexual-identity, love of self and others, trying to be 'normal' when you are 'out of the ordinary', and really challenges us to think about all these issues in our own lives and perhaps contemplate our own sexualities.

Dealing with all that would be enough, but a murder occurs as a consequence of Sean's and Stephen's characters liason and it is that for which Simon finds himself in the dock.

As usual Jimmy's writing really delivers. The piece is crisp, sharp (no pun intended), real, natural and unafraid to take risks or shock. In a strange way, though, I think in the way Jimmy brings things out, even shocking things do not shock us. He helps us accept what is and challenge what is wrong in society and our lives.

Accused: Tracie's Story – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012


http://www.facebook.com/TheRestrictedReview
Twitter: @RestrictReview





Friday 27 July 2012

‘Melancholia’ - DVD watched… Thursday 26th July 2012


(Rated 4/5 )

Billed as a psychological disaster movie, this is the self-admitted melancholic Lars von Trier at his best. The visual imagery is stunningly beautiful and extraordinary. Really riveting! The film opens with a sequence of slow-motion snippets from the film, so powerful it’s hard to blink even! And hints at what we are to expect.

And then flows into normal motion and sequences of highly natural acting and direction. To me this felt like a documentary – really like the camera discovered scenes that mattered to best show us who and how these characters are, and how they interact with each other, and recorded them for us.

Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg play sisters, Justine and Claire, and the story is told in two parts; the first more from Justine’s POV and the second from Claire’s. The melancholic Justine is getting married and attempting to live a ‘normal’ life. Claire does her very best to try to make everything work for Justine, but in a way with all her fixing makes matters worse. We get an excellent insight into Justine’s psychology through witnessing her family’s behaviour at the wedding and how she responds to it. The camera sees into her soul via her eyes and body language.

Then, in a slightly bizarre twist we see how Claire and Justine handle the prospect of the planet Melancholia on a possible course towards an impact with earth. So much metaphor at work here! But also questions as to who is more able to handle real impending catastrophe – the sister with self-created anxieties and distress, or the more positive and apparently capable one.

A wealth of great names inhabit the characters in this film, but the core and heart of the acting and emotion come from Kirsten and Charlotte. They are superb and so revealing of their characters and the subtle twists and turns of the relationship between them. All so beautifully and artistically exhibited in the direction. Amazing and wonderful as well as truthfully insightful and disturbing.

Melancholia – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012


http://www.facebook.com/TheRestrictedReview
Twitter: @RestrictReview

Tuesday 24 July 2012

‘Richard III’- Part 2 - Shakespeare’s Globe - Thursday 19th July 2012


(Rated 4/5 )

As promised, I am revisiting my experience of this production of Richard III. I wanted to say more and didn't feel I had the time and energy to do so, so here it is now... part 2.

As I've said before, I personally don't find this play that interesting aside from the character of Richard himself - or perhaps that should be multiple-characters/personalities of him - and how he became as he did. Unfortunately I didn't see Anthony Sher's portrayal of him, but Sher wrote a book on his experience and acting process during that time; Year of the King. Sher and his then psychotherapist, Monty Berman, analyse Richard and conclude that it all has to do with the fact he wasn't loved by his mother! That does come through in the play. And that he is bitter about his disability and the world owes him. And perhaps like Dexter (of TV fame, played by Michael C. Hall), and other psychopaths, once he has started killing he can't stop. In fact some of his arguments, though crazy, seem almost reasonable. Again, like Dexter Morgan, Richard Plantagenet confides in his audience a great deal, so we get a fascinating insight into the workings of his mind and plans - then to see them carried out and we can enjoy even more the horror and humour of his manipulations. And yet it is difficult to sympathise with him on the mother front - unlike Dexter, Richard's mother wasn't murdered horribly right in front of his young child's eyes and he doesn't take out his compulsion to kill on bad people - Richard's victims are innocents; amongst them women and children. Also, most disabled people don't go round murdering others. In fact of those I know, disability rather gives them a heightened compassion towards others and a strength in dealing with life's struggles. It does seem to be a well-used dramatic ploy for villainy though - other examples including The Phantom of the Opera and a few Bond villains!

This production was in traditional Shakespearean costume. I think that also helps us believe the men as women, in their skirts right down to the ground - they glide instead of walk along the stage. The young princes, played by Shanu Hazzan and Dylan Standen, looked just like little men in their royal garb. Very cute and I was very impressed by their delivery of Shakespeare's language as though it was the most natural way to speak in the world. 

The new Globe is a very special theatre. It has been reproduced as accurately to the original as possible within available knowledge. It has such an amazing atmosphere and you feel transported back in time. For someone with disability problems it is a little difficult. You are sitting on hard wooden benches with no support for the back - though you can hire cushions and fold up 'chair-backs'. Well that is of course if you are sitting at all! Many stand where stalls would normally be - great view but tough for a typically 3-hour long play. Actors and audience alike are open to the elements - best to take layers of clothing in case. That said, with the insistence on air conditioning in many closed theatres, it is often warmer in The Globe. I was far too cold in the Donmar on my last visit.

Really great job, and will be a great experience for anyone going instead of, or as well as a trip to the Olympics. For foreign visitors this troupe make Shakespeare easily understandable. I look forward to them, with the addition of Stephen Fry doing Twelth Night...

Richard III – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012


Twitter: @RestrictReview

‘The Hollow Crown: Henry V’ - BBC2 - Saturday 21st July 2012


(Rated 6/5)

And this time...
Better than perfect!!
Glorious, Highly Sensitive, Beautifully Moving, Tingling, Exciting, Inspiring, Uplifting, Heart-Wrenching and Tragically Sad. In fact I am welling up with tears of emotion as I write this. It may seem over-the-top to give it all those adjectives but - here's another one coming up - it really was the most exquisite production of this play that I have seen. And I do think Brannagh and Olivier's versions were excellent.

Hiddleston was convincingly different as now King Harry and gave an electric, yet emotional performance. He hit the mark absolutely, showing us just how much his character was feeling and yet not too much so as not to allow us the empathy to go through it all with him. He really was a King in mind AND heart. 
I had goosebumps galore! Especially in his:-
"We few, we happy few, we merry band of brothers..." speech. I would have willingly fought alongside him and I'm hardly equipped to do so!
Someone close to me commented how hard it was for the kings of that time - expected to constantly go to war and conquer this, that and the other country... as Harry says...
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...
Cry God for Harry, England and Saint George!"
In some ways it does seem a little bonkers. Constant conquering does not make a great country - looking to the needs of that country and nation does. Isn't it enough to rule just one? And really focus on looking after the citizens of that nation? 
But still provoked by a load of tennis balls from the Dauphin - harking back to Hal and his playing around - what is a King to do but conquer France? 
Harry V also refers back to Harry IV and wanting to make things right for his father.

Sir Richard Eyre presided over Henry IV and did a very good job. Taking charge and great care this time was theatre director Thea Sharrock. I really don't want to come across as biased, but the understandings and sensitivities of a woman enhanced this production in the extreme. There is no doubt at all this is one of Shakespeare's best plays, but work still has to be done in the interpretation and Sharrock brought out the absolute best in her actors. It is also a truly beautiful film. 
John Hurt lent his voice to the Chorus and truly brought out what seems to be Shakespeare's own feelings triggered as he went through the research and writing of the piece. And there were no weak links at all in the performing armour.

For lovers of Shakespeare and history this is a MUST-SEE! :)

The Hollow Crown: Henry V – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012


Twitter: @RestrictReview

Friday 20 July 2012

‘Richard III’- Part 1 - Shakespeare’s Globe - Thursday 19th July 2012


(Rated 4/5 )

Ok, dear readers, no Shakespeare’s Richard III is NOT one of his 2-parters. However, my energy is restricted, such that I’m not sure I will be able to write all I want to say on Mark Rylance and The Globe company’s interpretation of this in one go. Yesterday involved a fair amount of moving around and it was all a bit too much for this body of mine. That plus the strange weather we’re having – just passably warmish then very cold wind and rain… lots of rain – it’s playing havoc with my ex-broken parts…
So enough moaning. We were very fortunate with the weather in the end last night. No rain and not too cold. So thankfully not Richard III within The Tempest!
And here I am complaining about my restricted body whilst Mark Rylance keeps putting his well-able body under the strain of being disabled – his Richard with a limp refreshingly different to the one he used for Jerusalem, and all hunched up and small compared to that other role for which he puffed himself up and became so famous and rightly highly-celebrated. And from the word go Mark injected his supreme talent into Richard. He was a funny Richard, even a strangely gentle psychopath, sensitive and gloriously charmingly manipulative, then dangerously brutal – making this a black comedy version, yet still dramatic and somehow not farcical. He was believable in his transitions from one way of being to the other, and had us really thinking about why and how this character – and I say character given the real Richard III had such bad press and was not a psychopath – became who and how he did.
As far as I recall I have only seen this play once before. That time it was Kevin Spacey playing an apparently far more serious and unsympathetic persona and I didn’t understand the plot, lost track of the Queens and felt bored. We were too high up to really see facial expressions though and when Kevin’s face loomed large on a screen it did get a lot more interesting and the charming psychopath was well visible. I looked up the plot before I went this time. In essence Richard kills lots of people to get the crown, and is then killed himself. The End. And when he is not on stage, for me it is a pretty boring play. What makes it interesting, or not, is how the actor chooses to embody Richard. And then how he interacts with the other characters…
In this production everyone is played by men, back to the tradition of Shakespeare’s time. And I was actually surprised that I was having to remind myself of that when the Queens – as in royal not gay; though they may be that too! – were performing. They were all superb, but particularly Samuel Barnett as Queen Elizabeth.
And once the play has ended and the epilogue has kindly informed us what happens next in the ‘real’ history, the original tradition of dancing and prancing around is also revived within the replica of Shakespeare’s own Globe Theatre and up gets Mark as himself and joins in. We are all reassured this was only a play and nobody is actually dead!

Richard III – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012


Twitter: @RestrictReview

Monday 16 July 2012

‘Blackout’ - BBC1 - Monday 16th July 2012


(Rated 3just/5)

I was hoping things would improve for the final episode but the hoped for complications and twists didn't materialise. Instead confusion reigns. Either what happened is very simple or I'm missing something. Again, this is a case of me longing to love something but feeling let down. I wanted to be on the edge of my seat. I wanted to feel with and for the characters. The actors acted their socks off with a script, which I do think contained some important concerns about the nature of government and mayoral office today - exploring lies we are told and how would it be if someone in that position of power was genuine and wanted to do good? All that is interesting and important and credit to the team for that. But wish we'd been shown more than told! It could have become a cult classic.

Oh and apparently the therapy (of which we had more) wasn't really therapy, which is a relief as it was full of cliches and far too quick recoveries and fixes. Reminds me of the nature of the most popular therapy used by the NHS today! Maybe again showing us a system that simply doesn't work. If that was deliberate then well done :)

I'm so sorry but for me too superficial to be very good and a poor relation to The Shadow Line.


Blackout – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012


Twitter: @RestrictReview

‘The Hollow Crown: Henry IV Part II’ - BBC2 - Saturday 14th July 2012


(Rated 4/5)

And this time...
Not quite perfectly excellent so I'm taking a mark off ;)!
Still great cast, great writer, great production! But perhaps in a strange way it can't quite match up in emotion and drama with its prequel. Reports on Shakespeare's own writing history differ; some say he planned the entire Hollow Crown series - in effect as the story of the legacy on Henry V of his father's gaining the thrown by killing Richard II, others that Henry IV Part 1 was so well received by the audience, that William wrote a sequel. And are sequels ever as good?! In my experience of current movie sequels usually not.

Still, this is powerful drama. What does it really mean to Henry IV to die and how is he coping with the guilt of the manner of his gaining the thrown? What is he feeling about the prospect of his errant son, Hal, becoming King? How do they resolve things between father and son if at all? And does Hal really banish "plump Jack" and his other non-Royal friends? Or instead does he favour them and honour them?

Life as a royal at the time of these Henrys, and even later in Shakespeare's time was so different to today. Watching Tom as Hal in Part I, I couldn't help thinking of our young Prince Harry and how he would face these issues? He is happily interacting with 'common people' but these days that is so encouraged! (Of course it is his brother William, who we expect to be in Hal's position, but I'm sure William will also not even consider banishing anyone or stopping his friendships with his more lowly subjects! The very idea may seem farcical to us now.) The pressure on them is so much less in that sense. They have been part of revolutionising the monarchy in any case. The crown is perhaps not such a heavy burden as it was. The responsibility and power less. But monarchs still a sacrifice of normal life and cope with being celebrated (or not!).

And so Hal fully becomes Henry V next Saturday...

The Hollow Crown: Henry IV Part II – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012

Twitter: @RestrictReview

Wednesday 11 July 2012

Dreams of a Life - DVD - watched 10th July 2012

(Rated 6/5)


The caption on the DVD label says:
"Joyce Vincent's skeleton was found in her London flat three years after she died. Nothing was known about her. A quest to discover who she was and why she became so forgotten" 
Just that sent shivers down my spine. How could it be that someone dies and is not discovered for such a long time?! How can it be that not a single person in her life wonders where she is? Does/Did she have anybody in her life? Do they not care? My immediate conclusion was that she was elderly, with no children and all her friends and acquaintances had passed before she did. That seemed the only rational, human, 'acceptable' reason for this to be possible. BUT no, Joyce was fairly young, had family living - sisters and nephews and nieces, had friends, even had people living near her... and nobody seemed to actively question why they hadn't seen her in all that time.
This is an extraordinary film - billed as a drama documentary, though no box seems to really fit - and about one person's life, yet about all our lives and society today. It is a real story. This happened to one lady, and could happen more and more. We have lost so much in terms of community values and care. It is possible to live a highly independent life, especially in London, to be amongst a crowd of people and yet not seen, make no impact and disappear with nobody batting an eyelid. The film involves interviews of those found who did actually knew Joyce. And in those interviews, and portrayal by Zawe Ashton, Joyce can be sen as a vibrant, beautiful, attractive woman, who would draw attention to her and make those around her feel special, warm and entertained. She was aspirational but gradually the story reveals traumas in childhood and how they had a profound impact on her emotional and psychological make-up and way of being in the world. As Zawe explains there are both light and depth/darkness in Joyce and comedy and tragedy reside together on a knife-edge. I personally think that is true for very many of us. We could all be Joyce, even though the precise circumstances and personalities may be different. We all know people like her. EVERYONE has a story but so many are unknown.
I often sit on London Underground tube trains, noticing the people around me and feeling certain I will NEVER see them again. I wonder what has happened in their lives, and what will happen. It can feel mind-blowing. You get used to being aware of people in your life, but going for days, weeks, maybe months without making contact with them. We may assume they are still in the world - somewhere in the world even if far away - but in a split second they may not be and how would we know?! In many cases we have lost that close connection. I check in with my friends and family by text or email - the replies may be immediate or take a long time - we've got used to that being 'normal'.
I'm terrified of dying alone, of being the last to go, yet I also value my independence. Many couples these days love each other but only manage to stay together by living apart so they can have their space. It's something I completely understand. I related to much in Joyce's life. Her dreams. Her difficulties in attachment. Bringing sunshine into a room - as I've been told - and yet feeling empty inside. Loving others but wanting to be alone.
The film, as Zawe and director Carol Morley note, is a celebration of her and her life and a way of fulfilling her aspirations - she would have loved to be famous they conclude. In the process of playing Joyce, Zawe found closed doors within her opening. She hopes they did for Joyce too. And perhaps for all of us so that we do not close those physical and psychological doors on hope, life and connection.
This is a tender, sensitive... absolutely gorgeously emotive film... that really makes the audience think and feel.


                               Dreams of a Life – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012