Boom: All Of the Year's Important Movies, Reviewed In One Spotby Randi / February 18, 2015
It’s Oscar weekend! Yay! That means it’s high time for me to decide what I’m rooting for and what I think will win. More importantly, I will share what my list of ideal nominees would have looked like in each category. By ‘each’ I mean the main six categories because I am powerful sick and looking forward to taking Night Nurse (“AH AH AH Fighter of the Day Nurse!”), which is actually the name of a Nyquil sort of thing here in the UK. I think that’s hilarious. Anyway, back to the Oscars: Let me know if you agree, disagree, are hungry, bored, whatever, I’d prob be interested. I hope you plan on watching! Neil Patrick Harris is hosting, and if there’s any justice, he will begin with a great big flashy musical number that will bring joy to all viewers and let us forget the inanity of the bullshit that will inevitably follow.
My choices for what I want to win are in bold.
My choices for what I want to win are in bold.
BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR
|
Actual Nominees
|
Better Nominees
|
First things first: What the hell is up with Birdman’s title? It’s pretentious and I hate typing it. I’m not going to type it again.
Secondly. If I were in charge of things, my first order of business would be to change it back to five nominees, across the board, across all categories, across all award shows. The more nominees, the less it means. Also, the expansion in the Oscars was in response to the lack of room for movies like “The Dark Knight”, action movies that were just as good as artsy movies. But the expansion hasn’t reflected that, obviously, because “Interstellar” would be included. It’s only made room for more artsy stuff, or crap. And it means more to be not nominated for Best Picture than it does to actually be nominated because so many are in. And that’s just confusing to say!
So if we were back to 5 nominees, I would definitely include Boyhood, and I would definitely include Whiplash (which had zero flaws) from the original list. And then I would add one of my favorites, The Judge. But this is where it gets really difficult – so difficult that I can’t even decide and I’m putting two choices for two slots! But see, IT SHOULD BE DIFFICULT. You should not just fill a bunch of spots with all the movies that are sort of good. It should mean something! But anyway, the 7 above are the most deserving. I am rooting for Boyhood because it was so well done, so meaningful, and so unique. The Best Picture of the Year should go to something that in 50 years people can recall without the internet, or whatever we get information from in the future, and nod knowingly in recognition and respect. Boyhood is the one that actually chronicles people’s growth, emotionally and physically, over a huge chunk of their lives. Nothing else on this list has the necessary import to win.
Secondly. If I were in charge of things, my first order of business would be to change it back to five nominees, across the board, across all categories, across all award shows. The more nominees, the less it means. Also, the expansion in the Oscars was in response to the lack of room for movies like “The Dark Knight”, action movies that were just as good as artsy movies. But the expansion hasn’t reflected that, obviously, because “Interstellar” would be included. It’s only made room for more artsy stuff, or crap. And it means more to be not nominated for Best Picture than it does to actually be nominated because so many are in. And that’s just confusing to say!
So if we were back to 5 nominees, I would definitely include Boyhood, and I would definitely include Whiplash (which had zero flaws) from the original list. And then I would add one of my favorites, The Judge. But this is where it gets really difficult – so difficult that I can’t even decide and I’m putting two choices for two slots! But see, IT SHOULD BE DIFFICULT. You should not just fill a bunch of spots with all the movies that are sort of good. It should mean something! But anyway, the 7 above are the most deserving. I am rooting for Boyhood because it was so well done, so meaningful, and so unique. The Best Picture of the Year should go to something that in 50 years people can recall without the internet, or whatever we get information from in the future, and nod knowingly in recognition and respect. Boyhood is the one that actually chronicles people’s growth, emotionally and physically, over a huge chunk of their lives. Nothing else on this list has the necessary import to win.
ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTING
|
Actual Nominees
|
Better Nominees
|
Directing is where I definitely think Christopher Nolan should have been nominated. He does good work. I’m going to keep Imitation Game in here because a) it was very impeccably done and b) the director sounds like a scary Game of Thrones character so I don’t want to piss him off. Ava DuVernay definitely deserved to be nominated, not to make history, but because her work was outstanding. Wes Anderson is just amazing but I’m hoping TGBH will win for cinematography (I bet it loses to Birdman though for its shaky hand Blair-Witch-style camerawork!). Linklater deserves this!
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
|
Actual Nominees
|
Better Nominees
|
The absence of recognition for Jennifer Aniston’s superb work in Cake is a huge problem here. Her performance was stunning (she was not) and she deserved to be nominated. Now, instead of who, I’m not sure, because I didn’t get to see Marion’s movie. Considering Marion made Nine almost watchable, I would be willing to bet big that she was phenomenal. Felicity was truly wonderful and lovely too, but just not in a very Oscar-y role. So one of them has to go. They can decide on their own. If I were Felicity, I would want Marion to step down because she already has an Oscar. If I were Marion, I would want Felicity to step down because she’s 12 years old.
Rosamund, hot damn was she fantastic, frightening, f-ing nuts and just perfect perfect casting. Reese made Wild a decent movie and told a story with barely any words. But I’m hoping beyond hope that Julianne Moore will finally win an Oscar. She is the coolest. And her performance in Still Alice was breathtaking. That movie is also perfect Oscar bait. At the Q&A I went to with her a few weeks ago, the moderator (IDIOT) asked her if this year was any more exciting or if she’s used to the Oscar pomp and circumstance, as she is so often there as a nominee. Julianne clarified that she hasn’t been nominated for an Oscar in 13 years! Isn’t that crazy and terrible? Let’s have her win please. Deserves it.
Rosamund, hot damn was she fantastic, frightening, f-ing nuts and just perfect perfect casting. Reese made Wild a decent movie and told a story with barely any words. But I’m hoping beyond hope that Julianne Moore will finally win an Oscar. She is the coolest. And her performance in Still Alice was breathtaking. That movie is also perfect Oscar bait. At the Q&A I went to with her a few weeks ago, the moderator (IDIOT) asked her if this year was any more exciting or if she’s used to the Oscar pomp and circumstance, as she is so often there as a nominee. Julianne clarified that she hasn’t been nominated for an Oscar in 13 years! Isn’t that crazy and terrible? Let’s have her win please. Deserves it.
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
|
Actual Nominees
|
Better Nominees
|
Who knew Steve Carell was such a good dramatic actor? His unbelievable performance was the best thing about Foxcatcher. But he and Rosamund can win special ‘you haunt my nightmares’ awards while hopefully the lead Oscar winners win the ‘you portrayed disability and the degeneration of disease really well’ awards. That means I’m rooting for Redmayne, who really was spectacular as Stephen Hawking, both as a young, healthy college student and as the modern day scientist we know. I’m well aware of how Michael Keaton’s resurgence with Birdman is a huge deal and he was very good in it, but I wasn’t blown away by his playing himself, pretty much. If we’re nominating an older beloved actor in his first dramatic role in a while, then that slot should have gone to Bill Murray’s wonderful performance. Bandersnatch was great and will win in the future, so he can stay. Oyelowo was fantastic and it’s ludicrous that a solid performance of Martin Luther King isn’t a sure bet for an Oscar nom anymore. It’s like up is down.
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A
SUPPORTING ROLE
SUPPORTING ROLE
|
Actual Nominees
|
Better Nominees
|
Did you see on the BAFTAs when, in his monologue, Stephen Fry (supposedly a genius) referred to Patricia as ‘Rosanna Arquette’? That’s her sister! That’s turrburr. He didn’t correct himself ever either. I want her to win. She really was the heart of Boyhood and was wonderful. Also, judging her past wins this awards season, she seems to have a problem with public speaking, which I LOVE. Like, she’s a professional actress and she can’t do public speaking. That might be my favorite thing ever. She gives the most awkward, uncomfortable speeches but you really pull for her like she’s the little engine that could, or a puppy in a video of puppy fails and you are like just catch the damn ball you poor thing!
I was initially not a fan of Keira’s nomination, but the more I thought about it slash the more clips I saw of her specific scenes in the Imitation Game, the more I accepted her inclusion. When watching the movie, I thought she wasn’t anything special, but I think that was because all my focus was rightly on Bandersnatch. But Keira really was great and so I apologize for my past words. I love Laura Dern and thought she was really touching in her very small role in Wild, but, although I think her acclaim is deserved, I would include others ahead of her. Emma Stone was great, I know, but she just yelled a lot and smoked and that’s not very hard. It’s hard not to smoke; ask anyone who smoked. And her great scene was mostly due to the camera being positioned like under her chin and at a weird angle that made her Big Eyes-style big eyes even more alien-like and dramatic. Her time will come, she does no wrong.
My biggest surprise was that Chastain wasn’t nominated. Chastain is A BALLER. Even in crappy movies like A Most Violent Year, she still manages to awe you. She should have been nominated for that, or for the Eleanor Rigby movies, or for whatever. She’s the best actress of her generation.
While Meryl Streep was just having a ball as the Witch in Into The Woods and made us have a ball with her (except for when she made us cry, good job), I also would have included Emily Blunt, who I think was the very best part of that movie. She was perfection as the Baker’s Wife, and that’s the most difficult role in the show. I would also put her in supporting and not lead as the Golden Globes did, partly because all the roles in Into The Woods seem of equal weight and partly because there’s a strong chance anything the Globes does is very wrong and should not be repeated.
I was initially not a fan of Keira’s nomination, but the more I thought about it slash the more clips I saw of her specific scenes in the Imitation Game, the more I accepted her inclusion. When watching the movie, I thought she wasn’t anything special, but I think that was because all my focus was rightly on Bandersnatch. But Keira really was great and so I apologize for my past words. I love Laura Dern and thought she was really touching in her very small role in Wild, but, although I think her acclaim is deserved, I would include others ahead of her. Emma Stone was great, I know, but she just yelled a lot and smoked and that’s not very hard. It’s hard not to smoke; ask anyone who smoked. And her great scene was mostly due to the camera being positioned like under her chin and at a weird angle that made her Big Eyes-style big eyes even more alien-like and dramatic. Her time will come, she does no wrong.
My biggest surprise was that Chastain wasn’t nominated. Chastain is A BALLER. Even in crappy movies like A Most Violent Year, she still manages to awe you. She should have been nominated for that, or for the Eleanor Rigby movies, or for whatever. She’s the best actress of her generation.
While Meryl Streep was just having a ball as the Witch in Into The Woods and made us have a ball with her (except for when she made us cry, good job), I also would have included Emily Blunt, who I think was the very best part of that movie. She was perfection as the Baker’s Wife, and that’s the most difficult role in the show. I would also put her in supporting and not lead as the Golden Globes did, partly because all the roles in Into The Woods seem of equal weight and partly because there’s a strong chance anything the Globes does is very wrong and should not be repeated.
PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A
SUPPORTING ROLE
SUPPORTING ROLE
|
Actual Nominees
|
Better Nominees
|
Unless I’m having a super big brain fart right now, I think I’m actually happy with this category! Praise be! Everyone on this list was superb and gave a performance deserving of a win. I really loved Robert Duvall in The Judge and would have loved for him to win for his crotchetiness, but not this year. Ethan Hawke, despite his failure to age along with the rest of his cast, gave Boyhood its humor and a lot of its heart. Norton played himself and that’s dumb but he was just so darn good at it. His performance was the best part of Birdman or The Movie That Shan’t Be Named. Ruffalo, always great, brought so much depth to his smaller role in Foxcatcher. All these performances were top-notch and Oscary. But J.K. Simmons in Whiplash was THE SHITTTTTTTTT. One of my favorite things in the theatre world is the Drama League Award. These awards honor the season’s best play, best musical, best play revival, and best musical revival. BUT, they only honor ONE acting performance, across all the categories, men, women, supporting, lead, plays, musicals. That is a true honor, and that really means so much, especially when a supporting performance wins. I think that if Hollywood did something like this, Simmons would win this year. Or Julianne Moore. But maybe Simmons! Theatre is the best.
So that’s all I’m going to say before the Oscars! What do you think? Are you happy, sad, angry? Do you also have a party happening upstairs? Should I write about the telecast if I stay up for it? I’m pretty sure I’ll be okay with anyone winning as long as NPH reenacts some “Hedwig” style audience participation (car washes, making out with a man in the front row, &c.).
Related Posts
3 Great Productions You Probably Missed: HMS Pinafore, Once on this Island, Dogfight
It’s Theatre Thursday! We’re celebrating a FANTASTIC week of theatre-going by looking at not one, not two, but THREE great-to-fantastic shows…that all sadly closed on Saturday. However, they’re all established shows that we should see future productions of fairly soon.
H.M.S. Pinafore at Wilton’s Music Hall
Whenever a Gilbert & Sullivan classic comes to Wilton’s Music Hall, we’re there. Well, whenever anything comes to Wilton’s we’re there, because they’re our neighbors. Hey neighbors! But their G&S productions are without fail hysterical, in a way that really lets the comic masterpieces shine. Thanks to the Opera Della Luna company, the recent H.M.S. Pinafore continued the trend, with their game cast showing off their perfect comedic timing.
With an ensemble of just 8 players, many changing in and out of several roles, Opera Della Luna energetically tells the tale of the poor sailor in love with the captain’s daughter, the captain’s daughter who loves him back but is promised to an admiral, the absurdly funny captain who never (well, hardly ever) uses bad language, and all the confusion and hilarity that abounds aboard the ship.
For those of you unfamiliar with the 1878 comic opera, it takes place on a docked British warship. An older woman named Buttercup comes on board to sell some ‘wares’ which no matter what the context or show or painting always looks like a basket full of ribbon, which is like, not what I’d expect sailors to need on board. Ralph Rackstraw, a sailor in the fleet, comes on deck and pretends to buy from Buttercup and then doesn’t, which as someone who ran a vegan bakery stall on Brick Lane for six months I can tell you is really shitty behavior. Nothing more frustrating. Anyway Ralph is like ‘no I don’t need ribbon but I LOVEEEE JOSEPHINEEEE’ who is the captain’s lovely daughter (with the best voice in the cast). The other sailors are like ‘avast ye matey, she’s the captain’s daughter so she can’t be with you.’ And then the captain, Captain Corcoran, comes on deck and sings his famous song about how he ‘hardly ever’ does a bunch of stuff and is HILARIOUS and I wish that I could find the name of the actor from the ODL website but it’s incredibly confusing and I think only has the 2000-era cast lists for this show up because I googled the names and they don’t look like who I need the name of, guys, so please tell whoever plays Corcoran how great he is.
The captain talks to the old lady Buttercup and they def have some history or future or something going on, but there’s no time for that because the Admiral that Josephine’s set to marry comes aboard (never seen so much coming and going on a ship) with his sister, his cousin, and his aunt and he sings a forking hilarious song introducing himself and his sister, his cousin, and his aunt. The Admiral is a bumbling fool who despite being in a very high position in the Queen’s Navee knows nothing about the sea or sailing, like most men in power. He also thinks the Captain should say ‘if you please’ to his sailors whenever giving orders. The Admiral and the Captain are comedic gold and definitely the standouts here, although they do have the two best roles.
After the Admiral, Sir Joseph, sings about how British sailors are any man’s equal – except, of course, his own – Ralph is buoyed by the thought and confesses his love to Josephine. She loves him back, but knows her duty is to marry the goofy old man so JUST LIKE NIKKI K HIGH-KICKING IT DOWN AT THE MOULIN ROUGE, she pretends not to love Ralph back which is like RULE #1 of farcey romcoms and lies IN ORDER TO SAVE HIM. HURT HIM, TO SAVE HIM, as the wise and scary Jim Broadbent told Nikki K before she didn’t win the Oscar she should have won.
Ralph threatens to kill himself due to his broken heart and his shipmates are like ‘eh them’s the breaks matey’, surprisingly cool with the very bad plan, but the luckily Josephine enters again and sees him and is like NO DON’T I LOVE YOU, and while I’m sure there are examples of this very shitty plot device in older works, for now I’m going to blame Pinafore for giving weak misogynists this ploy in their arsenal, that if a pretty woman doesn’t love them they should threaten to kill themselves so they know it’s ‘their fault if they die’ which is SOME REAL MISOGYNIST GASLIGHTY BULLSHIT.
My only real complaint with the story though; the rest is so fun and ridiculous.
In Act II, Sir Joseph complains to the captain that Josephine hasn’t officially accepted his proposal yet and he’s like wahhhh just make your teenage daughter marry my old ass alreadyyyyy, and the Captain suggests that maybe she’s overwhelmed by his lofty rank and feels he’s too far above her. Sir Joseph says pish posh and sings a song arguing that love ‘levels all ranks’, which he doesn’t realize, of course, is arguing that Josephine and Ralph should be able to marry despite their different ranks. DRAMATIC IRONY.
Josephine and Ralph plan to leave the ship and elope but the Captain catches them and is unmoved by their protestations of love, saying – historically noteworthy because omg he said like the worst word ever uttered on stage at that time – “why damn, it’s too bad!” I KNOW! bad. Sir Joseph is horrified by the bad language and confines the Captain to his quarters. Sir Joseph asks the crew what happened to make the Captain CURSE SO BAD, Ralph spills the beans about him and Josephine, which Sir Joseph does NOT like, and so he orders Ralph to be loaded with chains and taken to the brig, which is shipcute for jail! We definitely need a completely random deus ex machina to save Ralph from this fate right about now guys! Oh good, here comes one in the form of a revelation from random lady Buttercup: She steps forward and reveals to the crew that many years ago, she practiced BABY FARMING, and she cared for two babies, one of low birth, one upper-class, and she mixed the babies up. OKAY IT SOUNDS LIKE A WAR CRIME, this baby farming, but what of this now? Well the two babies – are you ready – were RALPH AND THE CAPTAIN. So CLEARLY the big revelation is supposed to be ‘oh wow, Ralph is actually of noble birth and the Captain is the lowly one, so their troubles with the whole marriage issue are over if Ralph chooses!’ but the real revelation is HOT FUCK RALPH IS THE SAME AGE AS THE *FATHER* OF THE WOMAN HE LOVES OMG THAT IS GROSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. So Ralph is like 20 years older give or take the era-appropriate standard deviation than the girl he loves?? Blech. Josephine RUN/swim.
So instead of like taking a beat and realizing how stupid the whole idea of noble blood is and how they’ve lived in the ‘wrong’ lives long enough to prove that, instead RALPH AND THE CAPTAIN SWITCH POSITIONS. Ralph literally puts on Corcoran’s uniform, says “I’M THE CAPTAIN NOW”, and Corcoran becomes a lowly sailor. WAT. Didn’t the captain earn his captaincy? Like wtf. Obviously, Josephine, the daughter of a sailor, is now too low for the Admiral to marry, so she and Ralph are cleared for takeoff despite their truly gross age difference. And now, since Corcoran is a lowly sailor, he can up and marry…Buttercup! LIKE WTF. SHE JUST RUINED YOUR LIFE. And why did it take her so long to share? What an asshole!
Anyway it was amazing.
Dogfight and Once on this Island at the Southwark Playhouse
If anyone, for whatever bad reason, was worrying about the future talent pool in Britain, there’s no need to worry. The British Theatre Academy’s two fantastic youth productions that played the Southwark Theatre in August were both brimming with impressive young talent, up to the task of handling two challenging – and two of my all-time favorite – shows. We all know how overprotective I can be of things that are my faves, and how attached I am to past great productions. My review of the recent Broadway revivial of Once on this Island is pretty much me saying OMG OMG OMG THIS IS AMAZING OMG OMG OMG OMG I CAN’T BELIEVE HOW MAGICAL IT’S AMAZING MAGIC for like 4 pages.
But despite my high standards for my (not mine) truly beloved show, the BTA yoots blew me away. Despite the smaller space, budget, experience level, everything, the yoots put on a show that was just as magical and moving and TRIUMPHANT as I could have hoped. Lee Proud’s clever direction captured all the thrills that elevate the story, from the Ti Moune switch (which never fails to make me sob, even when I’m just listening to the cast recording and know it’s that part) to the charming representation of the chirping birds. His equally fantastic choreography brought to mind the greatest parts of Camille A. Brown’s work on Broadway (which should have won the Tony), with powerful and vigorous ensemble dance numbers the most compelling and exciting.
What was done with this small space and barely any props or set truly begs for another longer run, or a transfer. Since I saw the Broadway revival, I’ve read the infamous words of Brandon Victor Dixon condemning this show, and I was prepared to see what he meant regarding the issues in the story, now that I was enlightened. But such a lovely, blissful production made it hard to agree with him. And sure, as a white person I’m not the person to comment on whether the show’s attempt to comment on issues of race fail and it becomes itself racist. But the audience, filled with people of all backgrounds, all jumped to their feet at the end faster than I’ve ever seen, weeping and cheering. It’s hard to find fault with a show that does that.
And that ensemble, man alive, the talent on display was so uplifting. Everyone seemed to be having the time of their lives (especially my favorite boy ensemblist who was just SO young and SO happy, and I was just so happy for him) and that kind of joy was infectious. The standout performer for me, who as a casting agent I’d be keeping an eye on, was Aviva Tulley, who played the goddess of love Erzulie. Her natural ease and grace suggested a performer of much more experience. Others in the cast, like Ti Moune (the very talented Chrissie Bhime) and Euralie, will need to work on melting into their characters more and not obviously Acting, but for a youth ensemble they’re all ahead of where you’d expect.
We found it really interesting that both our Ti Moune and our Rose, in Dogfight, both frequently tended to speak the ends of sung lyrics for emphasis instead of acting through their singing, which is definitely one key technique to work on. But like our Ti Moune, our Rose (the roles are double cast and nowhere in the programme or theatre was our show’s cast listed, which is a shame, because I’d like to give her her due) was otherwise very impressive. She gave an added nerdy awkwardness to Rose’s self-consciousness that was different from any other production of Dogfight I’ve seen, and it worked. (It reminded both of us of Ben Platt’s Evan Hansen tics.) I was also greatly impressed by our Eddie. With Dogfight, no set is required (and as this one was in the Southwark’s “Little”, the black box room, there was none), but the story needs shrewd and careful direction to sing as it’s meant to. Dean Johnson’s direction definitely let the story land properly, as did the talent. It could be because we were all so close in that tiny room, but I was struck more than ever at how the soldiers’ reprise of their anthem was being sung out of heartbreaking desperation, a need to convince themselves that they were special and that what they were doing was guaranteed to garner them a homecoming parade, because if they stop thinking that for one second, they’ll realize they’re probably going to die. This was so well done, making you feel for the soldiers even though they’ve already established that they’re mostly bad people. And that’s the beauty of Dogfight, telling so effectively a character-driven story that lets you recognize the humanity in people that you might hate, and maybe their ability to change, which felt incredibly relevant in today’s culture.
Hopefully another production, or another run of these productions, will be coming to London again soon, because it was quite wonderful to see such strong work.
“Home, I’m Darling”: Hey Mama Welcome to the ‘50s, oh oh oh oh oh oh
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today we are talking about “Home, I’m Darling”, which ended its run on September 5 at London’s Dorfman Theatre.
In the opening scene of the wonderful new play “Home, I’m Darling”, you’re quickly transported to the 1950s, watching a “terribly happy”, no, “appallingly happy!” husband and wife go through their morning routine: the full-skirted wife in her brightly colored period-perfect kitchen dotes on her husband and serves him his perfectly toasted toast, his perfectly made tea, before bidding him farewell as he gathers his hat and briefcase and sets off for the office. It’s all very first-half-of-‘Pleasantville’, until the wife slumps into her chair and pulls out a silver MacBook from a drawer. With that flawless introduction, we know we have this couple not in the ‘50s, but living today, among us, who are actively choosing to live like they are stuck in the past. Why they would do this and how happy they could really be are the first questions that spring to mind, of many, and this play does a marvelous job of answering them.
In the opening scene of the wonderful new play “Home, I’m Darling”, you’re quickly transported to the 1950s, watching a “terribly happy”, no, “appallingly happy!” husband and wife go through their morning routine: the full-skirted wife in her brightly colored period-perfect kitchen dotes on her husband and serves him his perfectly toasted toast, his perfectly made tea, before bidding him farewell as he gathers his hat and briefcase and sets off for the office. It’s all very first-half-of-‘Pleasantville’, until the wife slumps into her chair and pulls out a silver MacBook from a drawer. With that flawless introduction, we know we have this couple not in the ‘50s, but living today, among us, who are actively choosing to live like they are stuck in the past. Why they would do this and how happy they could really be are the first questions that spring to mind, of many, and this play does a marvelous job of answering them.
With Laura Wade’s compelling script, tight and well edited yet large in scope, “Home, I’m Darling” seems like it will be a straightforward look at gender roles and whether feminism really does encompass the choice to be subordinate, but it develops into a complex deep-dive into what makes a marriage successful. When we meet Judy and Johnny, they’ve been doing this 1950s experiment for 3 years, after Judy was made redundant at her high-powered finance job (which we see in a truly great use of flexible and creative direction). Since the two of them love ‘50s fashion and old-timey cars, Judy suggests that they go all-in and she becomes a stereotypical ‘50s housewife, doing housework (with only era-appropriate appliances and cleaning methods, which she learns from her ‘bible’, a 1949 instruction book for housewives) and cooking (meat and potatoes and other suitably ‘50s meals) and baking up a storm and bringing her husband his slippers and a cocktail every day when he gets home from work. They turn their house and every aspect of their marriage into a flashback, not realizing that moving back in time will prevent them from growing together in their marriage.
Since the play is written and directed by women, I assumed like any good feminist that the woman would get sick and tired of being subordinate. But the situation’s a lot more nuanced than that. It unexpectedly becomes a stark look at the futility of trying to capture ‘the good old days’ when it’s really a means of hiding from your own problems. I was surprised that Johnny (Richard Harrington), waited on hand and foot, would ever get tired of the arrangement, assuming that it would be a dream for him and most men. But of course he did, because both people in a relationship have to take care of each other, and anything too one-sided is going to fail. Johnny also starts to lose respect for his wife, and a self-conscious embarrassment when outsiders see how they live soon takes over.
And Judy, who seems at first to be a straightforward housewife with some self-esteem issues, is much more complex too. Played by a fantastic Katherine Parkinson, Judy desperately clings to this lifestyle, even when faced with how many problems it’s causing, because it’s her way of feeling safe against the outside world. I was struck by Katherine’s too-calm tone in her delivery, like she was deliberately avoiding causing any kind of stir to upset not only her husband but the fragile world they created. When she finally confronts why she would want to live like this, Judy admits that she feels like when you’d be sick from school for a week, missing crucial lessons and feeling a little lost on those topics from that point forward, terrified that there will be a question on the exam about that. “That’s how I feel about the world”, she says. This bubble she wanted to create was the ultimate safe space for her, and if it doesn’t work, then she’ll have to deal with her own issues.
Including the backstory of Judy’s unconventional upbringing, which influenced her worldview as well, could have felt forced but instead it seemed earnest. Raised by an uber-feminist mother (a really fun Sian Thomas, in a role that could have easily been annoying but instead was cathartic) on a commune, Judy always felt a yearning for a traditional family life. Her mother, horrified by her daughter’s decision to live this way, is the only voice of reason, continually admonishing Judy and reminding her of how silly it all is with great lines like, “You can’t be nostalgic for the ‘50s – you weren’t there!” But rather than nostalgia, it’s more a dream of an escape, an avoidance of the real world, and she has transformed her feeling of being ill-equipped to handle the real world into a decision to stay safe and secure in this way.
Plenty of time is spent looking into their relationship with their best friends and into Johnny’s work life, which lets us see the fully formed universe of this story. Johnny’s deteriorating performance at work is linked to his unhappiness at home, as is his seemingly desperate and superficial attraction to his new young boss, something modern to tell himself he wants instead of dealing with problems. Their friends Fran and Marcus enjoy dressing up in period clothes sometimes and joining Judy and Johnny at something called Jivestock, an annual weekend event that sounds like my absolute nightmare. But their reticence to commit to playing unnatural parts feels like a personal injury to Judy, like yet another little poke at her bubble threatening to force her into an unwanted reckoning. When the man friend is in trouble at work for sexual harassment, it’s unclear whether Judy’s inclination to immediate side with him (against the more-and-more obviously right victim) is a result of her role-playing warping her brain or something she actually believes in, and the haze around this side plot is brilliantly formed.
Also brilliantly formed is the set, and honestly even if you weren’t into the story, you could happily spent the 2 ½ hours examining all the details of the two-story house they built. Each room was a different bright color with period-perfect décor, down to the pineapple-shaped ice bucket on their chic mid-century modern bar. Same for Judy’s gorgeous costumes, although the rest of the costumes left me cold. And I’ve never, ever seen any play that has such elaborate prop work, most of it food. SO MUCH FOOD! They eat breakfast, she makes his lunch, they eat dinner, she bakes, she cooks for guests, they eat dinner again – I can’t remember one 10 second snippet of this play that didn’t have food or cocktails involved. Honestly I don’t know how the actors or the crew keep track of all of that (and I hope they don’t waste all of it).
Aside from the scene breaks, in which two actors would dance to ‘50s music while the scene changed (it was hella awkward when they aren’t professional dancers), there’s not much I would change about this play. Although it seems like a straightforward story, the complicated issues of our protagonists are unexpected and profound, and the show reveals a lot more about the modern world and relationships than you’d think from the candy-colored look of it all.
INFORMATION
Yeah so I didn’t know I was seeing it on the last day! I am really hoping for a transfer of some sort because it deserves a longer run in a bigger theatre, especially to get more use out of that set!
I bought a Friday rush ticket (the National Theatre offers rush tickets for the following week’s performances across its theatres at noon every Friday) for 24 pounddollars, for a restricted view seat. My seat, P58, was on the stage right side of the mezzanine, which I really liked for one reason (the stage and stalls are actually below ground so my mezz seat was ground level (I don’t like being underground)) and disliked for most others (it was really restricted). There’s a big bar like RIGHT THERE so I had to do a lot of leaning over to see the living room at stage right. Even P59 would be a better option, even though it’s a more extreme angle, because the bar isn’t there. Just so you know for Dorfman bookings.
As is expected at every London play I see, the audience (and mostly the older men) laughed at WEIRD times. Like, when the friend admits that he’s on leave from work because he was inappropriate with his secretary, the old men in the audience LAUGHED. I imagine they were laughing in remembered commiseration like ‘ho boy do I know what that’s like!’ man alive.
Since the play is written and directed by women, I assumed like any good feminist that the woman would get sick and tired of being subordinate. But the situation’s a lot more nuanced than that. It unexpectedly becomes a stark look at the futility of trying to capture ‘the good old days’ when it’s really a means of hiding from your own problems. I was surprised that Johnny (Richard Harrington), waited on hand and foot, would ever get tired of the arrangement, assuming that it would be a dream for him and most men. But of course he did, because both people in a relationship have to take care of each other, and anything too one-sided is going to fail. Johnny also starts to lose respect for his wife, and a self-conscious embarrassment when outsiders see how they live soon takes over.
And Judy, who seems at first to be a straightforward housewife with some self-esteem issues, is much more complex too. Played by a fantastic Katherine Parkinson, Judy desperately clings to this lifestyle, even when faced with how many problems it’s causing, because it’s her way of feeling safe against the outside world. I was struck by Katherine’s too-calm tone in her delivery, like she was deliberately avoiding causing any kind of stir to upset not only her husband but the fragile world they created. When she finally confronts why she would want to live like this, Judy admits that she feels like when you’d be sick from school for a week, missing crucial lessons and feeling a little lost on those topics from that point forward, terrified that there will be a question on the exam about that. “That’s how I feel about the world”, she says. This bubble she wanted to create was the ultimate safe space for her, and if it doesn’t work, then she’ll have to deal with her own issues.
Including the backstory of Judy’s unconventional upbringing, which influenced her worldview as well, could have felt forced but instead it seemed earnest. Raised by an uber-feminist mother (a really fun Sian Thomas, in a role that could have easily been annoying but instead was cathartic) on a commune, Judy always felt a yearning for a traditional family life. Her mother, horrified by her daughter’s decision to live this way, is the only voice of reason, continually admonishing Judy and reminding her of how silly it all is with great lines like, “You can’t be nostalgic for the ‘50s – you weren’t there!” But rather than nostalgia, it’s more a dream of an escape, an avoidance of the real world, and she has transformed her feeling of being ill-equipped to handle the real world into a decision to stay safe and secure in this way.
Plenty of time is spent looking into their relationship with their best friends and into Johnny’s work life, which lets us see the fully formed universe of this story. Johnny’s deteriorating performance at work is linked to his unhappiness at home, as is his seemingly desperate and superficial attraction to his new young boss, something modern to tell himself he wants instead of dealing with problems. Their friends Fran and Marcus enjoy dressing up in period clothes sometimes and joining Judy and Johnny at something called Jivestock, an annual weekend event that sounds like my absolute nightmare. But their reticence to commit to playing unnatural parts feels like a personal injury to Judy, like yet another little poke at her bubble threatening to force her into an unwanted reckoning. When the man friend is in trouble at work for sexual harassment, it’s unclear whether Judy’s inclination to immediate side with him (against the more-and-more obviously right victim) is a result of her role-playing warping her brain or something she actually believes in, and the haze around this side plot is brilliantly formed.
Also brilliantly formed is the set, and honestly even if you weren’t into the story, you could happily spent the 2 ½ hours examining all the details of the two-story house they built. Each room was a different bright color with period-perfect décor, down to the pineapple-shaped ice bucket on their chic mid-century modern bar. Same for Judy’s gorgeous costumes, although the rest of the costumes left me cold. And I’ve never, ever seen any play that has such elaborate prop work, most of it food. SO MUCH FOOD! They eat breakfast, she makes his lunch, they eat dinner, she bakes, she cooks for guests, they eat dinner again – I can’t remember one 10 second snippet of this play that didn’t have food or cocktails involved. Honestly I don’t know how the actors or the crew keep track of all of that (and I hope they don’t waste all of it).
Aside from the scene breaks, in which two actors would dance to ‘50s music while the scene changed (it was hella awkward when they aren’t professional dancers), there’s not much I would change about this play. Although it seems like a straightforward story, the complicated issues of our protagonists are unexpected and profound, and the show reveals a lot more about the modern world and relationships than you’d think from the candy-colored look of it all.
INFORMATION
Yeah so I didn’t know I was seeing it on the last day! I am really hoping for a transfer of some sort because it deserves a longer run in a bigger theatre, especially to get more use out of that set!
I bought a Friday rush ticket (the National Theatre offers rush tickets for the following week’s performances across its theatres at noon every Friday) for 24 pounddollars, for a restricted view seat. My seat, P58, was on the stage right side of the mezzanine, which I really liked for one reason (the stage and stalls are actually below ground so my mezz seat was ground level (I don’t like being underground)) and disliked for most others (it was really restricted). There’s a big bar like RIGHT THERE so I had to do a lot of leaning over to see the living room at stage right. Even P59 would be a better option, even though it’s a more extreme angle, because the bar isn’t there. Just so you know for Dorfman bookings.
As is expected at every London play I see, the audience (and mostly the older men) laughed at WEIRD times. Like, when the friend admits that he’s on leave from work because he was inappropriate with his secretary, the old men in the audience LAUGHED. I imagine they were laughing in remembered commiseration like ‘ho boy do I know what that’s like!’ man alive.
