Jukebox Musical “& Juliet” Tailor Made for London’s Tipsy Millennialsby Randi / December 3, 2019It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is Ghost Quartet, playing at London’s new Boulevard Theatre until January 4.
About 10 seconds into our performance of Ghost Quartet, husbo and I smiled at each other giddily: It sounds like Dave. It is remarkable that a modern composer has so assuredly developed his own unique sound, that you immediately recognize as His (Dave’s not god’s) as soon as you hear it. There are maybe 4 working composers you can say that about. I am grateful for Dave Malloy’s weird and wacky and uncanny sound, what can I say.
As usual with his shows, Ghost Quartet is a challenging assortment of brilliant moments, beautiful music, and lovely abstract storytelling, plus some too-vague storytelling, songs that don’t fit, and moments that should have been cut. Going into a Malloy show, you know that the seeming lack of editing down to its best form is part of the package (common when one individual is writing the music, lyrics, and book (collaboration leads to tighter shows)) but that seems to be a key aspect: he forces you to reckon with what you might consider the fat. He mixes absolute gorgeousness with a lack of clarity, with ridiculous noise, sometimes boring bits, things that go on too long, &c. They sometimes feel like a dare, like he’s daring us to question what he decided to keep in order to understand the project more deeply. And sure I am again questioning what he decided to keep, but I almost kind of love the mixture of high and low, good and not so good.
Ghost Quartet in particular has an exceptionally vague ‘story’ being told through the song cycle sung by the four talented cast members, who announce the side and track number of this ‘album’ before each song. Okay so I just read the synopsis on Wikipedia and said ‘really? what?’ like 18 times. Like I said, the story is so unclear and is actually four interweaving stories told in chaotic order, which helps with the whole mystical tone but I did not get 90% of what the wiki says. It seems generally that there is a woman named Rose, who fell in love, but the guy chose her sister and Rose wanted to get revenge, and then Rose took a picture of her ghost, and then there was a young woman who bought a camera from a witchy lady who also had a sister named Rose who died and was this the camera that Rose used to take the ghost picture?? And then there was a family named Usher in the story (based on the Poe story apparently) and the woman lost her daughter, and then the daughter’s daughter too but I think that daughter was the one who became the starchild? and then the sister was also Rose’s lover in another incarnation and even though it seemed to take place a few 100 years ago someone got pushed on a train platform? When did trains start? ALSO at some point Rose meets The Bear, who wants to help her with her revenge maybe? So The Bear starts Rose (I think) off on a new scavenger hunt of four items to give the Into the Woods “the cow as white as milk, the cape as red as blood, the hair as yellow as corn, the slipper as pure as gold” list a run for its money: the bear requests 1) one pot of honey (naturally), 2) one piece of stardust (not suuure how to acquire that but okay) 3) one secret baptism (wat), and 4) a photo of a ghost (oh). It’s just the eensiest bit harder that Sondheim’s but you gotta hand it to the bear, that’s some f-ing list. (I remembered this because I loved its ridiculousness.) I actually cracked up at ‘one secret baptism’; I just wanted to shout ‘FUCK THAT IS SO DAVE. SO. DAVE.’
Oh and also there’s like a scene with Thelonius Monk, or maybe his ghost. Fork me I have no idea what was happening, but it doesn’t really matter what the details are, just that you feel the essence of it through the music, often haunting, sometimes fun, almost always interesting. And the cast of four definitely conveyed the desired eccentric, eerie, provoking essence beautifully. The two women, Carly Bawden and Maimuna Memon, carry the show with their incredible vocal talents and versatility, while the two men, Niccolo Curradi and Zubin Varla (the latter of whom is almost ready to join our list of Jenna Russell, Imelda Staunton, and Michael Ball for Actors Who Seem to be Cast in Everything (except he has actually been well cast whenever we’ve seen him)) provide strong support. All four have moments of brilliance and even hilarity, all while playing numerous instruments and ever-changing characters. They also hand out shaker eggs and serve several types of whiskey to most of the audience (though not to us; I don’t even drink and I was upset at not getting anything) and ask people to join them for the finale, which was cute but distracted from the power of it. The astonishingly gorgeous and moving a cappella quartet that I believe ends Side 3 should have been the finale.
So, whatever’s going on in this story is super confusing but that’s kind of the point; you shouldn’t have full clarity when talking about ghosts. It helped achieve the right vibe to be so nebulous, since the focus is and should be on what the music makes you feel. And they definitely succeed on that front.
INFORMATION
A pre-show informational email said the show was about 90 minutes with no interval but it was 100 minutes. Given that there were 4 ‘sides’ of the ‘album’ and not 2, this show really would have benefited from an interval. I realize it’s still short for an interval but it would really work here. Also it felt much longer, which is a disservice to the show. (ALSO – it should just be 3 sides. The audience expects there to be 2 sides, so much so that when they announced “Side 3, Track 1” there was a bit of a giggle. It totally flows with the whole Ghosty Weirdness to have 3 sides because that’s a little odd. The 4th side was so short anyway and like, too conventional since it completes the set. Don’t complete the set! Let it be weird!)
Sit in the front row if you want to be involved/get whiskey. Sit in our seats (B13 and B14) if you don’t want ANYTHING AT ALL. I’m not mad. (But I was hundo p that I had booked aisle seats, so I was shocked SHOCKED to find that our seats were smack dab in the center of a long row. Luckily, the ‘stalls’ in the round is only 3 rows, and there’s a big gap between B and C so I hopped over at the end to beat the rush to the bathroom because the toilets are FAR (downstairs and on the far side of the restaurant, which blows).
Aside from the toilet sitch, this new theatre is super lovely. I can’t wait to see more shows use this space in interesting ways. (Apparently the balcony section spins. INTO IT.)
Related Posts
Broadway’s A Doll’s House, Part 2: Here’s What Might Have Happened
Lucas Hnath was just your ordinary boy, spending his days writing about what happened to his favorite characters from various fiction universes after the original work ended. He started with the many Star Trek series, as most writers of fan fiction do, daydreaming scenarios that stayed true to the established canon but existed wholly outside of it. Yet the boy quickly felt that this focus on modern works was stifling his creativity. He tried his hand at the other popular fandoms, from Harry Potter to Game of Thrones, before realizing that his abilities would best be exercised by going back in time. “Hmm,” he thought, twirling his pen that was also a clock, “I wonder if anyone has fanficked up some old plays before.” He looked through the standards, Shaw, O’Neill, Joyce, Miller, before landing on the one that he felt a natural connection with, the Norwegian ‘father of realism’ Henrik Ibsen. Lucas felt particularly drawn to his famous early feminist play “A Doll’s House”, in which a housewife casts aside the suffocating trappings of her anti-feminist 19th century society. “I wonder what happened next,” Lucas thought, and busily got to work. And that’s how writing fanfic became the coolest way to get a play on Broadway.
Okay, I’m just joking about all that, but the critically acclaimed new play “A Doll’s House, Part 2” really is straight up fanfic and I loooooveeee it for that. Like what if that amazing story where Jess and Dean heal each other’s Rory-inflicted wounds by getting together themselves that I found on the Gilmore Girls subreddit was made into its own TV show, that’s kind of what is happening here. But it’s so much better because it’s on Broadway, and I jest but Hnath (I am fully saying the H and it sounds like I’m sneezing I don’t know if that’s right) did a fine job imagining what has become of Nora, the classic dramatic protagonist who first told housewives they didn’t need to be housewives, and Torvald, the husband who inspired a century of names proving that some parents hate their children.
It’s a good thing Ibsen has been dead for 111 years (I looked it up) because fanfic can infringe on an author’s copyright. But instead of getting sued, Hnath is getting rightfully lauded for his creative, engaging new play. Even if Ibsen were alive, I think he would have liked it. It takes place 15 years after the original work ends, when Nora famously decides she can no longer stand conforming to the strict rules for her gender and being treated like a doll so she leaves her husband and three children with a slam of the door. I saw Part 2 last week with my brother, who did not know the original work, while I’ve seen the original performed a bunch of times. And as soon as brother got over the excitement of seeing Frances McDormand and Joel Coen sitting across the way from us (just kidding he didn’t), he was fine, because honestly what I explained about the original plot in the previous sentence is all you need to know going in. I mean I don’t actually remember much else anyway so as long as you know ‘old timey gender roles, fed up wife, left her husband and children at the end,’ you’re good.
After that powerful ending of the original, what would bring Nora back to her family? How long would it take before she returned? As Part 2 opens, we repeatedly get the answer to the latter question – “Fifteen years!” the maid Anne Marie (Jayne Houdyshell, HILARIOUS all caps necessary) repeatedly shouts! “Fifteen years,” Nora (Laurie Metcalf) repeatedly repeats. The answer to the former question takes a little more prodding, as first Nora wants Anne Marie to gush over how good she looks, in her super expensive-looking gown and her all not-being-dead state, which is a surprise as the family, and the town, it turns out, believed she died because what woman could take care of herself?! Metcalf, who gave one of the best theatrical performances I ever saw in “Long Day’s Journey Into Night” several years back, is completely different here, loud and confident but with a certain unnaturalness in her tone and behavior that makes you a little uncomfortable, suggesting that Nora is not as comfortable and contented as she wants everyone to think. The subtle uneasiness could easily be ignored by audience members who want to believe that everything worked out for Nora, and could easily be seized upon for those who want her to have suffered. But Nora is very pleased with how her life turned out, because she became an author of famous books for women – under a pen name of course, lest she be ruined – criticizing the sexism of society and condemning the preposterousness (preposterity? preposterity! change approved!) of marriage. Her books have made a huge splash, garnering rabid fans and intense opposition, as enemies of her/fans of traditional society want to unmask the unknown author and destroy her to set an example.
Trying to prevent such destruction is what brings Nora back to this house. She needs a divorce from Torvald – they never got divorced in the 15 years! FIFTEEN YEARS! Anne Marie, who raised Nora and then raised Nora’s kids instead of her own, is incensed that after all this time (FIFTEEN YEARS!) Nora is only returning for selfish reasons, Nora who never actually said goodbye to the loyal Anne Marie. Houdyshell, always good, manages to make the audience absolutely fall over themselves laughing in the first part of the show, which is just Anne Marie and Nora laying out the facts. It’s a good way to easy into the serious dialogue to come, the debate over right and wrong and decency and strength that becomes more muddled the more you say.
So some man in an office somewhere found out a) that Nora is the author of these books and b) that Torvald never divorced her, and he is threatening to expose her and send her to jail. There are several important period-sensitive issues happening here: A woman could only divorce her husband if she proved, basically, that he was a POS, a cheat or some such. But a man could divorce his wife for any reason. So clearly it would be easier for all if Torvald went along and signed the paper and that was that. If he refused and Nora chose to do it herself, she would need to ruin Torvald’s reputation. And to ruin a man again who didn’t really do anything wrong, at least according to society and everything he knew, would be very unfair. As for why the reveal of Nora as the books’ author would be criminal – she had been acting as an unmarried woman, conducting business and signing contracts as only an unmarried woman could back then. If it turned out that she had signed contracts and entered into deals without the consent of her husband and without him taking the lead on the business dealings, it would be a crime. I knowww so wrong.
The plot doesn’t really matter – the play is about Nora reconciling her decision to save herself with how it affected the people in her life. But the legal issues she faces provide an effective template for how these discussions progress. Either way it goes, there are no winners, and the decisions made – which we don’t see; don’t think that this wraps up their story all tidily and dumb – will continue to break this family. And they will continue to question whether Nora was justified in leaving and living her own life. No matter which side you’re on, there’s no right answer to what she should have done because, as we witness through the three conversations, it’s too complicated when humans are involved.
Once you laugh enough with Anne Marie, the door opens again, and it’s Torvald, played by a somber, unsmiling Chris Cooper, whose entrance immediately changes the mood from a comedy to a drama. His solemnity contrasts with Nora’s crass, almost boorish new manner that gives her the freedom to now sit with her legs falling open, to lie about on the floor in her skirts just because she can. Nora explains her situation to Torvald as if it’s the simplest matter in the world with a clear and straightforward solution. But Chris reminds you of the gravity of the situation, even just physically with how heavy his carriage seems. First of all, Torvald’s like, you just straight up left me and our children, never sent a letter or anything, we thought you died and OH YEAH, we told everyone you did, and you ruined me, and now you want more from me? Then he gets to the heart of the matter, which is that regardless of whether he complies with her or not, they still lose and continue to destroy each other. If he refuses to divorce Nora, she will either destroy him publicly to get the divorce or she will go to jail and be ruined herself. If he refuses and she does choose to try for the divorce, then everyone in town will find out that Nora is actually not dead and that Torvald lied about her dying, and so he’d probably lose his job and be ruined. On the other hand, it’s kind of the same hand because if he does divorce her, there would be a public document proving that Nora is still alive, so everyone would again find out that Torvald lied about his wife dying and he would be shunned and probably lose his job and be ruined. No matter how badly we want to commend Nora for trying to live her best life, her actions harmed Torvald and continue to harm him after all this time. Whether he was a bad husband or not, the punishment still seems to outweigh the crime, and Chris’s performance makes you believe that the self-empowerment behind Nora’s choice does not excuse its ramifications.
The uneasiness this dilemma creates in the audience does not go away, because we don’t find out what Torvald decides to do. It would be hard to believe, however, that he decides to give Nora what she wants. If he’s ruined either way, there’s no way he would make it easier for the woman who devastated him. But it just seems so unfair all around. It’ll make you wonder whether Nora should have just stayed, but then you know she would have suffered her whole life in a claustrophobic role. And you feel bad for Torvald, especially since he wasn’t really a bad man.
The complicated nature of it all continues as Chris leaves and Condola Rashad, brilliant, enters. (BTW, the show is structured generally in three bits – Nora’s conversations with Anne Marie, Torvald, and then Emmy, her daughter. Chris Cooper generally gets the same amount of time as the others, yet he is considered and nominated as Leading Actor in a Play. Erm.) Rashad plays Emmy, one of Nora’s three children that she left behind, now all grown up. It is hard to get over how awesome it is that Rashad, a black woman, is playing the daughter of two white people. There’s no contextual reason, no scandal, just that Rashad is a fantastic actress who deserved to be cast and, even though the character of Emmy would be white in the play’s society, it frankly doesn’t matter who is playing her onstage. Like Thomas Jefferson around the corner. It’s a play, and the audience can deal with it, so more productions should stop using the excuse of historical accuracy or whatever for being so damn white. We’re suspending belief anyway that Laurie doesn’t have a sister named Roseanne; we’re fine doing more. Emmy is a smart young woman with no apparent emotional connection to her mother. She did abandon her as a very young child, after all, and Emmy barely remembers her. Since Nora was okay with leaving her and her two sons in the first place, she doesn’t seem to mind that Emmy treats her coolly. But she does mind that Emmy is the exact opposite of the type of woman Nora is trying to empower. Growing up with no semblance of traditional domestic stability, Emmy yearns to marry and fulfill her social duty as an obedient wife, with the house and the kids and the banker husband (actually, her betrothed even works at Torvald’s bank). Naturally, this horrifies Nora, who spends most of the play railing against marriage (sometimes to the applause of the audience, sometimes to nervous laughter, sometimes to shocked silence when she goes too far). But the poised and intelligent Emmy seems almost more empowered and self-assured than Nora, who feels the need to throw her empowerment in everyone’s face. Emmy knows she has the right to a choice, and that her legitimate preference for the traditional option is still a valid choice. Despite her desire to stay in the place that restrictive society wants her to stay in, Emmy exhibits more clarity and self-awareness than her mother, especially when she tells her “Don’t make my wants about your wants.”
Nora thought she’d have an easy time convincing Emmy to convince Torvald to give into her demands, but Emmy swiftly turns the tables and asks Nora to let Torvald be, having done enough to him already. And Emmy doesn’t want the inevitable ruin to affect her happiness, as the scandal surrounding a faked death would probably stop her wedding. Nora, who stormed in at the beginning with conviction about what she needed to accomplish in this visit, is left confused about what to do. She doesn’t want to ruin her daughter’s chance at happiness, despite her opposition to its form. And she likely realizes how Torvald has suffered enough because of her. It’s completely unclear whether she would do what it takes to let her family live happily – for her to let the bad man expose her true identity and probably ruin her – but you get the sense that she at least can’t now do what it takes to actively ruin them. I almost just wrote that it’s literally between a rock and a hard place. It is not but it is very much figuratively that.
Not much really happens in the play’s swift 90 minutes, but these discussions are fascinating. And even though it’s not a perfect show by far, I just love the concept, to take a classic work and think about what happened next. It leaves you haunted by the questions of what’s right and wrong and whether choosing oneself is borne of selfishness or self-love. The situation is entirely unwinnable and really unpleasant to contemplate. Luckily, it’s just fan fiction, so you can continue believing that everyone lived happy lives after Nora first slammed the door. But it’s not as interesting that way.
THEATRE INFO
No intermission means no super long bathroom lines, which is wonderful. It’s quite easy to get rush tickets to this show, but that might change after the Tony Awards since this is up for eight of them. And all four actors are nominated, which is amazing.
Everyone came out of stage door (there are only four actors after all) and signed. Jayne and Condola moved off very quickly, probably thinking that everyone was waiting just for the bigger stars. But Condola came back when someone asked her to (not me I swear) and was super excited and friendly.
Walking towards the subway I saw Art from Orphan Black and screamed. The end.
It’s a good thing Ibsen has been dead for 111 years (I looked it up) because fanfic can infringe on an author’s copyright. But instead of getting sued, Hnath is getting rightfully lauded for his creative, engaging new play. Even if Ibsen were alive, I think he would have liked it. It takes place 15 years after the original work ends, when Nora famously decides she can no longer stand conforming to the strict rules for her gender and being treated like a doll so she leaves her husband and three children with a slam of the door. I saw Part 2 last week with my brother, who did not know the original work, while I’ve seen the original performed a bunch of times. And as soon as brother got over the excitement of seeing Frances McDormand and Joel Coen sitting across the way from us (just kidding he didn’t), he was fine, because honestly what I explained about the original plot in the previous sentence is all you need to know going in. I mean I don’t actually remember much else anyway so as long as you know ‘old timey gender roles, fed up wife, left her husband and children at the end,’ you’re good.
After that powerful ending of the original, what would bring Nora back to her family? How long would it take before she returned? As Part 2 opens, we repeatedly get the answer to the latter question – “Fifteen years!” the maid Anne Marie (Jayne Houdyshell, HILARIOUS all caps necessary) repeatedly shouts! “Fifteen years,” Nora (Laurie Metcalf) repeatedly repeats. The answer to the former question takes a little more prodding, as first Nora wants Anne Marie to gush over how good she looks, in her super expensive-looking gown and her all not-being-dead state, which is a surprise as the family, and the town, it turns out, believed she died because what woman could take care of herself?! Metcalf, who gave one of the best theatrical performances I ever saw in “Long Day’s Journey Into Night” several years back, is completely different here, loud and confident but with a certain unnaturalness in her tone and behavior that makes you a little uncomfortable, suggesting that Nora is not as comfortable and contented as she wants everyone to think. The subtle uneasiness could easily be ignored by audience members who want to believe that everything worked out for Nora, and could easily be seized upon for those who want her to have suffered. But Nora is very pleased with how her life turned out, because she became an author of famous books for women – under a pen name of course, lest she be ruined – criticizing the sexism of society and condemning the preposterousness (preposterity? preposterity! change approved!) of marriage. Her books have made a huge splash, garnering rabid fans and intense opposition, as enemies of her/fans of traditional society want to unmask the unknown author and destroy her to set an example.
Trying to prevent such destruction is what brings Nora back to this house. She needs a divorce from Torvald – they never got divorced in the 15 years! FIFTEEN YEARS! Anne Marie, who raised Nora and then raised Nora’s kids instead of her own, is incensed that after all this time (FIFTEEN YEARS!) Nora is only returning for selfish reasons, Nora who never actually said goodbye to the loyal Anne Marie. Houdyshell, always good, manages to make the audience absolutely fall over themselves laughing in the first part of the show, which is just Anne Marie and Nora laying out the facts. It’s a good way to easy into the serious dialogue to come, the debate over right and wrong and decency and strength that becomes more muddled the more you say.
So some man in an office somewhere found out a) that Nora is the author of these books and b) that Torvald never divorced her, and he is threatening to expose her and send her to jail. There are several important period-sensitive issues happening here: A woman could only divorce her husband if she proved, basically, that he was a POS, a cheat or some such. But a man could divorce his wife for any reason. So clearly it would be easier for all if Torvald went along and signed the paper and that was that. If he refused and Nora chose to do it herself, she would need to ruin Torvald’s reputation. And to ruin a man again who didn’t really do anything wrong, at least according to society and everything he knew, would be very unfair. As for why the reveal of Nora as the books’ author would be criminal – she had been acting as an unmarried woman, conducting business and signing contracts as only an unmarried woman could back then. If it turned out that she had signed contracts and entered into deals without the consent of her husband and without him taking the lead on the business dealings, it would be a crime. I knowww so wrong.
The plot doesn’t really matter – the play is about Nora reconciling her decision to save herself with how it affected the people in her life. But the legal issues she faces provide an effective template for how these discussions progress. Either way it goes, there are no winners, and the decisions made – which we don’t see; don’t think that this wraps up their story all tidily and dumb – will continue to break this family. And they will continue to question whether Nora was justified in leaving and living her own life. No matter which side you’re on, there’s no right answer to what she should have done because, as we witness through the three conversations, it’s too complicated when humans are involved.
Once you laugh enough with Anne Marie, the door opens again, and it’s Torvald, played by a somber, unsmiling Chris Cooper, whose entrance immediately changes the mood from a comedy to a drama. His solemnity contrasts with Nora’s crass, almost boorish new manner that gives her the freedom to now sit with her legs falling open, to lie about on the floor in her skirts just because she can. Nora explains her situation to Torvald as if it’s the simplest matter in the world with a clear and straightforward solution. But Chris reminds you of the gravity of the situation, even just physically with how heavy his carriage seems. First of all, Torvald’s like, you just straight up left me and our children, never sent a letter or anything, we thought you died and OH YEAH, we told everyone you did, and you ruined me, and now you want more from me? Then he gets to the heart of the matter, which is that regardless of whether he complies with her or not, they still lose and continue to destroy each other. If he refuses to divorce Nora, she will either destroy him publicly to get the divorce or she will go to jail and be ruined herself. If he refuses and she does choose to try for the divorce, then everyone in town will find out that Nora is actually not dead and that Torvald lied about her dying, and so he’d probably lose his job and be ruined. On the other hand, it’s kind of the same hand because if he does divorce her, there would be a public document proving that Nora is still alive, so everyone would again find out that Torvald lied about his wife dying and he would be shunned and probably lose his job and be ruined. No matter how badly we want to commend Nora for trying to live her best life, her actions harmed Torvald and continue to harm him after all this time. Whether he was a bad husband or not, the punishment still seems to outweigh the crime, and Chris’s performance makes you believe that the self-empowerment behind Nora’s choice does not excuse its ramifications.
The uneasiness this dilemma creates in the audience does not go away, because we don’t find out what Torvald decides to do. It would be hard to believe, however, that he decides to give Nora what she wants. If he’s ruined either way, there’s no way he would make it easier for the woman who devastated him. But it just seems so unfair all around. It’ll make you wonder whether Nora should have just stayed, but then you know she would have suffered her whole life in a claustrophobic role. And you feel bad for Torvald, especially since he wasn’t really a bad man.
The complicated nature of it all continues as Chris leaves and Condola Rashad, brilliant, enters. (BTW, the show is structured generally in three bits – Nora’s conversations with Anne Marie, Torvald, and then Emmy, her daughter. Chris Cooper generally gets the same amount of time as the others, yet he is considered and nominated as Leading Actor in a Play. Erm.) Rashad plays Emmy, one of Nora’s three children that she left behind, now all grown up. It is hard to get over how awesome it is that Rashad, a black woman, is playing the daughter of two white people. There’s no contextual reason, no scandal, just that Rashad is a fantastic actress who deserved to be cast and, even though the character of Emmy would be white in the play’s society, it frankly doesn’t matter who is playing her onstage. Like Thomas Jefferson around the corner. It’s a play, and the audience can deal with it, so more productions should stop using the excuse of historical accuracy or whatever for being so damn white. We’re suspending belief anyway that Laurie doesn’t have a sister named Roseanne; we’re fine doing more. Emmy is a smart young woman with no apparent emotional connection to her mother. She did abandon her as a very young child, after all, and Emmy barely remembers her. Since Nora was okay with leaving her and her two sons in the first place, she doesn’t seem to mind that Emmy treats her coolly. But she does mind that Emmy is the exact opposite of the type of woman Nora is trying to empower. Growing up with no semblance of traditional domestic stability, Emmy yearns to marry and fulfill her social duty as an obedient wife, with the house and the kids and the banker husband (actually, her betrothed even works at Torvald’s bank). Naturally, this horrifies Nora, who spends most of the play railing against marriage (sometimes to the applause of the audience, sometimes to nervous laughter, sometimes to shocked silence when she goes too far). But the poised and intelligent Emmy seems almost more empowered and self-assured than Nora, who feels the need to throw her empowerment in everyone’s face. Emmy knows she has the right to a choice, and that her legitimate preference for the traditional option is still a valid choice. Despite her desire to stay in the place that restrictive society wants her to stay in, Emmy exhibits more clarity and self-awareness than her mother, especially when she tells her “Don’t make my wants about your wants.”
Nora thought she’d have an easy time convincing Emmy to convince Torvald to give into her demands, but Emmy swiftly turns the tables and asks Nora to let Torvald be, having done enough to him already. And Emmy doesn’t want the inevitable ruin to affect her happiness, as the scandal surrounding a faked death would probably stop her wedding. Nora, who stormed in at the beginning with conviction about what she needed to accomplish in this visit, is left confused about what to do. She doesn’t want to ruin her daughter’s chance at happiness, despite her opposition to its form. And she likely realizes how Torvald has suffered enough because of her. It’s completely unclear whether she would do what it takes to let her family live happily – for her to let the bad man expose her true identity and probably ruin her – but you get the sense that she at least can’t now do what it takes to actively ruin them. I almost just wrote that it’s literally between a rock and a hard place. It is not but it is very much figuratively that.
Not much really happens in the play’s swift 90 minutes, but these discussions are fascinating. And even though it’s not a perfect show by far, I just love the concept, to take a classic work and think about what happened next. It leaves you haunted by the questions of what’s right and wrong and whether choosing oneself is borne of selfishness or self-love. The situation is entirely unwinnable and really unpleasant to contemplate. Luckily, it’s just fan fiction, so you can continue believing that everyone lived happy lives after Nora first slammed the door. But it’s not as interesting that way.
THEATRE INFO
No intermission means no super long bathroom lines, which is wonderful. It’s quite easy to get rush tickets to this show, but that might change after the Tony Awards since this is up for eight of them. And all four actors are nominated, which is amazing.
Everyone came out of stage door (there are only four actors after all) and signed. Jayne and Condola moved off very quickly, probably thinking that everyone was waiting just for the bigger stars. But Condola came back when someone asked her to (not me I swear) and was super excited and friendly.
Walking towards the subway I saw Art from Orphan Black and screamed. The end.
Academy Award Prediction/Rant Time!!
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.).
