Theatrical – Amadeus, National Theatre, London

As I mentioned yesterday, I went to see Amadeus at the National Theatre in London this week.  I didn’t know much about the play beforehand, or what to expect – I’ve still not even seen the film – but I really enjoyed the play.

What’s really interesting in this production is the way that the musicians from Southbank Sinfonia appear on stage alongside the cast, becoming key parts of the entire thing.

It didn’t (in my opinion) start well, with the first scene being quite confusing, and – as it turned out – pretty irrelevant to the rest of the play. But once we’d got past that small hurdle, the rest of it was excellent. A fascinating story of a man (Salieri) who believes he’s done a deal with God to become a musical genius, then is faced with a true child prodigy (Mozart) with a foul mouth and worse attitude, whose works are infinitely better than Salieri’s pedestrian efforts. Exacerbated by Mozart’s middle name being Amadeus (‘loved by God’) and seeing how Mozart’s ‘first draft’ writing of scores is immediately perfect (because he’s composed it all in his head and knows how it’ll look) he decides to resign his deal, and instead to wreck God’s plans by becoming Mozart’s enemy, knocking him down at every turn.

In many ways, it’s a very dark play, focusing on obsessions, revenge, jealousy and the like. It’s also very powerful, and covers a huge scope on the stage – sometimes it’s hard to watch both Salieri talking at the front of the stage, and see what’s happening at the back with the musicians and other cast members. While your attention’s on Salieri, you suddenly realise that all the musicians have moved – and sometimes appeared – without you really noticing, and for the sheer number of people that involves, it’s pretty note-worthy. (In that way it reminded me very strongly of Ariel in the RSC production of the Tempest that I saw before Christmas)

All told, I was really impressed with the entire production (excepting that first scene) and found it a fascinating experience. Definitely one I’d go and see again, if the opportunity arose.

 


Birthday Weekend – Aliens

For the birthday weekend, once I’d done Le Manoir on Saturday, and Dinner for lunch on Sunday, it was time to make my way down to the Royal Albert Hall, which was showing Aliens on a big screen, accompanied by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra performing the soundtrack.

Aliens is one of my favourite films, and one I’ve seen far more times than I’d care to admit – both the original release and the Director’s Cut / Special Edition. But I hadn’t seen it on a big screen for a proper cinema-style presentation, and definitely never with a live soundtrack!

And it was great. I’d wondered how they’d do soundtrack/music from the orchestra while keeping the dialogue and other sound-effects, and there’s obviously been a fair amount of work involved in doing this. I assume that the music soundtrack is on a different channel (or whatever) from the other bits of audio, so it’s more a case of ‘not playing’ one track, but I don’t know.

Regardless, hearing the music live enabled me to notice bits I hadn’t appreciated before – subtle in the recorded version, obvious live – such as the drum roll that’s used for all the more militaristic scenes, and other small thematic pieces along the way.

I thoroughly enjoyed the entire thing – well, except for the seats, which were some of the most uncomfortable in Christendom – and now really want to see other films show in the same way. It’s bloody brilliant.


Birthday Weekend – Dinner

For the birthday weekend, once I’d done Le Manoir on Saturday, I was in London on Sunday for two things – the first of which was lunch at Heston Blumenthal’s “Dinner” restaurant at the Mandarin Oriental hotel.

I can’t claim to be a huge fan of Blumenthal, but Dinner is an interesting concept, resurrecting and reinventing meals from previous times/eras, ranging from the 1300s through to early 1940s.

It’s also one of the few places I’ve been to this year that doesn’t do a tasting menu, opting instead for three larger courses.

I had a great meal consisting of

  • Roast Scallops (c. 1830) – with cucumber ketchup, roasted cucumber, bergamot and borage
  • Chicken cooked with Lettuces (c. 1670) – Grilled onion emulsion, spiced celeriac sauce and oyster leaf, with a side of some of the best mashed potato ever (as recommended by the waiter)
  • Tipsy Cake (c. 1810) – fresh-made brioche on a beautiful sauce, with spit-roasted pineapple.
  • And finished off with Liquid-Nitrogen ice cream, made at the table, which was a great finale.

There’s also a lot more stuff on the menu that I now really want to try, so I’ll be aiming to return in 2017.


Birthday Weekend – Le Manoir

As I said earlier this week, for my actual birthday I took myself to Le Manoir aux Quat’Saisons for lunch, partly for birthday purposes, partly for the whole solo-dining project.

I grew up close to Le Manoir, and my parents are still close by, so I’ve never been able to justify going there (and particularly staying, which is the best way to book a table well ahead of time) but I did get lucky when it came to booking myself for lunch. They open the bookings for non-residents three months in advance, and I’d called them before lunchtime on August 5th. (That was more about lucky ‘why the hell not’ thoughts and decisions on that day, rather than anything I can claim to be planned)

So it’s fair to say I was looking forward to this one quite a bit. Happily, it lived up to the expectations.

Le Manoir is well known for its garden, where they grow a lot of their own vegetables, fruit and herbs. It’s an impressive setting, and guests are free to have a wander round the garden, either before or after their meal.

I had the November tasting menu, and it was bloody good. It included…

  • Roasted Pumpkin and Butternut Squash soup, with a biscotti loaded with pumpkin puree, cashew nuts and Cashel Blue cheese
  • Beetroot Terrine (which I’d been recommended to ask for, and managed to get as a complimentary extra course, because Birthday)
  • Confit Salmon with Lemon Verbena, Apple Pieces and Apple Puree
  • Free-range Hen’s Egg, watercress, ham and toasted hazelnuts
  • Quail, beetroot gratin, bulgur wheat and “leaves”
  • Comté Cheese, aged 12, 24 and 36 months
  • Ravioli of exotic fruits (a mix of exotic fruits under a shell of apricot) with a coconut foam/jus
  • Millionaire Shortbread to finish, a soft toffee with bitter chocolate on shortbread, and salted butter ice-cream

It was a fantastic meal, and one I thoroughly enjoyed.  Admittedly, it wasn’t in the top three meals I’ve had this year – but some of that is because I’ve massively spoiled myself this year with other places. In any normal year, it would definitely have been one of the best.

 


Swiss Army Man

Last night, I went to see Swiss Army Man – and it’s definitely the strangest film I’ve seen in a long time. I’m glad I got to see it, though.

The first five minutes tells you pretty much everything you need to know – Hank (Paul Dano) is a man alone on a deserted island, trying to commit suicide, and a corpse (Manny, played by Daniel Radcliffe) washes up on the beach. The corpse is loudly deflating, which disturbs his final moments, until he realises that he can use this farting corpse as an escape from the island, and rides him like a jet-ski out to sea.

And that’s just the start.

It’s worth pointing out that if you’re easily offended, just don’t even contemplate seeing this film.

But it’s not just gross-out fart jokes and weird stuff with a corpse. That would be too simple. There’s a *lot* more to this film. It’s strangely emotional, and says quite a bit about modern manners and squeamishness as well as about solitude, loneliness, and how people are.

In truth, I came out wondering what the hell I’d just seen – but also glad I’d seen it.  Even having seen as many films as I have, I really have no valid reference points for describing what it’s like.  And that’s an even harder task when also not giving anything away about the film.

I liked it, but I didn’t. I could see it again, and I’d come out just as confused as I currently am about it. There’s a lot of good stuff, and certain images will definitely last longer than they perhaps should.

I think it’s too much to call it ‘thought-provoking’, but it’s also not dumb, and there is stuff that keeps echoing back afterwards.

In short, I just don’t know about this film. I’m hard-pressed to recommend it, because it’s just *so* odd. But it’s also not bad, and if it weren’t so odd I’d say yes, go and see it.

A very Marmite “love it or hate it” film, I think.


Faustus

Earlier this year, I saw Faustus at the Duke of York’s Theatre in London, with Kit Harington playing the lead. (My thoughts on it are here, for reference)

Faustus image

The weekend just gone, I saw another version of Faustus, this time the RSC’s version at the Barbican Theatre.  It was a more traditional version of the play (for the most part) and really interesting to compare the two.

RSC Faustus

What I hadn’t realised (due to being pig-thick) is that it shares a lot of the cast with the RSC’s version of the Alchemist, which is showing at the same time – well, on the same days – and which I saw the previous weekend.

It starts with an interesting premise – the actors light a match each, and whoever’s match burns out first plays Faustus.

The rest of the play sticks closer to the original – or at least as I understand it, not having read it yet – than the Harington version, although it did also still have some very odd moments of dance, which I can’t quite explain. Still good, but slightly barmy.

The staging is quite minimalist (or at least appears that way) but is also quite complex in how things are done. I guess some of that is because of the requirements of running two plays with very little time between performances, so there can’t be anything too complex – but they’ve made the best of it, and it’s pretty inventive all round.

All told, I enjoyed it a lot – more than the Harington version, even with the barmy bits – and it’s certainly left more of an impression with/on me than that one did.


Filmage

I don’t normally bother writing about films – although maybe I should, it’d certainly provide a significant increase in posts here – but last week I saw two that I rated really highly, so there we go, some thoughts.

Hell or High Water

First of them was (as you may’ve guessed already) Hell or High Water, starring Chris Pine and Jeff Bridges. Honestly, I think it’s about the best film I’ve seen this year.

The story is basically two brothers who are robbing banks to raise money, and the old retiring Texas Ranger who’s trying to catch them. So far, so cliched. But it’s well written, the dialogue is excellent, there’s a dry humour through it, and there’s also larger motivations.

The film focuses a lot on debt, low income, Evil Banks and the like. Many of the shots show roadside ads and hoardings for loans, debt relief and so on. The pair are robbing the banks – all of which are branches of Evil Bank – for a reason, and in many ways it’s hard to see them as being “bad”.

Jeff Bridges as the soon-to-retire Texas Ranger is a crusty, grumpy joy, an old fat man who’s done his time, and sort of wants to leave, but worries about what he’ll become without his job.  The way he talks to his Ranger partner has to be heard/seen to be believed – but it is believable.

All told, I loved it – I’d happily see it many more times. There’s way more layers than you expect from the basic summary, and a moral ambiguity to it that I enjoyed – the “bad” people aren’t really bad (kind of doing bad things for good reasons) and the “good” people aren’t above playing with the lines and limits either.  Totally recommended.

Morgan

Morgan, on the other hand, is a very different film – except, in some ways, it’s not.  Where Hell or High Water is massively masculine, all the major characters in Morgan are women (which I think is nothing but a good thing)  At least two of those characters are pretty bloody terrifying in their single-mindedness.

Basically, Morgan is a genetically-engineered being, with the appearance of a late-teen/early-twenties woman. You’re never actually told what she’s been engineered for, but it becomes pretty clear.  But it also raises questions – if you’re going to create something with human-level intelligence, what happens when you keep that thing locked up? Answer – the development isn’t the same as a human. (File under “Sherlock, Shit, No”)

The other primary character is Lee, sent in by “The Company” to assess the risks around Morgan after a particular incident.

Needless to say, things don’t work out well.

It is, in parts, very violent , with a couple of scenes that are gory, but in context with what’s happened. At least one is surprising and shocking. But again, it makes sense in the context of the film.  It’s action, but with some thought and some big ideas hiding inside it.

Again, I loved it – although from seeing the reviews etc. afterwards, I appear to be in a minority. It hasn’t done well at cinemas, and only lasted the one week at my one.  Some of that is because it just hasn’t been promoted by the cinemas and studios, some of it is that a lot of people and reviewers didn’t like it.  I hope it sees a bigger audience on TV, Netflix, download, disc, whatever – because I think it should have done far, far better than the current figures are showing.

I love that it’s so women-led as a film, and I want to see more like that. It has its flaws, don’t get me wrong – I’d figured the final ‘twist’ by about the third scene, and there are holes and questions throughout. But those can be set aside (or could by me, anyway) until afterwards.  I thought it was dark, different, and brilliant.