Frankenstein - the play.

There will probably be spoilers her - but if you don't know the story of Frankenstein already - I weep for you.

Most people who know me are aware that I love me a good (or maybe even not so good) horror movie.
When I heard that the National Theatre  was going to broadcast their version of Frankenstein, I was very excited.
I love the theatre, I love the UK, I love going to movies, I love horror movies , I love popcorn... It sounded like the perfect night out.
It also helps that I have a tiny crush on the actors ;) Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller. These actors also reversed their roles so that one night one would play creature and the next they would play Victor. It really seemed to work for this play. 

I planned  for weeks to see this broadcast . I even changed my schedule at work for it. Then the night before BLAM. Sick.

At 9pm that night I was hit by the worst headache ever. I almost fell over. It honestly felt like I was literally hit by something. I couldn't even move my head. I was so afraid I almost went to the hospital. I even threw up. I took the day off work. I worse sunglasses in the house and slept the whole day . I am pretty sure it was a migraine .

What about Frankenstein? I was feeling terrible  but I was determined not to miss this play. I actually went with my mother to the theatre and watched this play. I almost didn't make it  but I will not let  a stupid headache and nausea  keep me from what I love .

The play starts with an unnatural birth. The set was very bare . A circular false womb is on the stage . It begins with a slight movement  and builds until the Creature is born. It is slightly disturbing  and seems wrong. The newborn Creature falls to the ground  and begins to experience  the sensations of the world. His limbs twitch and movie with his new life. He tries to move - and fails. It is a lengthy ( perhaps a wee bit too lengthy ) and painful process. Movement, failure, trying again until he succeeds in standing and walking. He is   much like a small child  in this. The first  months and years of a child's development is  captured in these moments . He does not understand  anything . Not even himself but he is alive and the sensations of life  please him.

His maker discovers him and  casts him out . Victor is both feeling gleefully victorious over winning this battle with Nature and God  and yet horrified  but the  product . He is a man who spends his time  trying to  break the limits of what Man can do  and never stops to think if it is something Man SHOULD do. There is no thought to consequence. He wanted to create life from a death  but never really wanted  to make a man. A being  of thought , emotion and need. The experiment, the victory is all. The product be damned.

They go their separate ways. From this moment on you see that they are each others equal and opposite. Victor is a recluse. Obsessed with science  and his own power. Creature's world is about experience, emotions- the quest for love. Love is something Victor doesn't understand. It is not a quantifiable thing. You can't figure it out with an equation. Love is a low priority  in Victor's life.
Creature is looking for  acceptance and happiness  where Victor only cares about how clever he is.Victor doesn't care about the pain he causes . His ends justify his means. He never tries to make amends - he only causes more pain and destruction. Creature causes much destruction and pain himself  but it is what he has learned in his short time with Man and while he knows what he has done is wrong  (and I believe him when he says he is sorry for these actions) he continues  destruction because he feels  it is what he has to do.

The other characters in this play  are basically there to move the story of Victor and creature forward.  The actors are quite good and I enjoyed there little scraps of dialogue. I wish there had been more. It is perhaps  a bit forgivable in this instance when you have such a strong story between the leads . Sometimes  something has to give  in a play and  their parts and the bulk of  Victor's story are the victims of this.

A few exceptions stood out . Elizabeth - I enjoyed her portrayal  and wished there was more of it. She was a good person. Better  than Victor by far. He does not appreciate the gem he has with her. He does not appreciate  or understand her love. She surprises him with her acceptance. She could have been the person to save both Creature and Victor  had she been given the chance.

The old blind man was also beautifully portrayed . He gave some depth and kindness in the play. He made you almost believe things could be different for Creature.

I also want to give a shout out to Ella Smith . She  was lovely and I was so please to see her working the stage . She had a very small role but I enjoyed it nonetheless . She made me smile. (Played Gretel and Clarice) .

What Creature did to Elizabeth was horrifying and inexcusable . It raised conflicting emotions. I certainly understood why he did what he did  but he was so wrong to do it . It hurt to see that .

Still at his heart Creature was not evil . He was angry and wounded.  He  tried so many times to be better .He failed . In the end his heart still held love for his creator . More love than hate . I believe he could have found love and acceptance in the world  but the only  one he really wanted those things from was his creator who was unable fully understand those things himself  let alone give them to someone else.

In the end Victor became the monster . He could have learned so much from his Creature if he had only  opened his heart . Creature was more human than he ever seemed to be.

I envy the people who got to see this play in person. It was wonderful and painful. I recommend it to everyone .
4.5 out of 5 stars

Ghost Stories - The Play

Yesterday I went to see the play Ghost Stories. It seems to be a play that captures the interest of a lot of people.
I have  never before been asked about a play I was going to see. People asking what it is about, is it scary , did you like it, is it too scary for me, is it worth seeing ?
Let's answer some of  those questions now , shall we?

First a bit  of background. The play was created by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman in the U.K. It went on to be a hit and is still running in London. Lots of great reviews for it and was nominated at the Olivier awards.
The show  has now expanded to Toronto  an opened on April 1st  at the Panasonic Theatre in Toronto (this is the production I went to see).

Aside from the title being Ghost Stories and  the series of warnings  claiming that the show is intensely scary and not meant for anyone under the age of 14 (15 in the U.K.) not much else is known. The advertisements show night vision video of  gasping  patrons watching the show . You never see one second of the play in any form of advertisement.  This adds to the mystery and fear  but it also  could disappoint some people.

The theatre is suitably decorated for the show. The caution tape does have a meaning within the play  so it does all make sense .

The theatre is pretty small and was also decorated inside  with various aspects of the play. There was more caution tape ,jumbled mannequins and  just off to the side  a kitty litter tray with a bag of litter .The walls were painted  to make it seem like a disused building . There was  flickering  construction style lighting  and they played the disturbing sound effects ( sort of moaning, water dripping etc). It was very creepy. We also noticed the numbers  written in chalk on the walls . We wondered what they meant  but that was for the play to answer .

The stage was also  very creepy looking . As you can see they really put a lot of effort into the atmosphere. It certainly gave a sense of dread.

Everyone in the audience  was nervous . Wondering what was about to happen and wondering if they would get frightened . The sound system was playing  their special effects sounds  very loudly.It was dark. Very good - a lot of nervous people.

Then it began. It was  a moment of oh... ok. This isn't what I was expecting. There was some interaction with the audience. Some nervous  laughter. A lot of people relaxed. Some were a bit confused. Hahaha being lulled into a false sense of security.

I don't want to give too much away  (especially since they asked us all so nicely to keep the secret as we left the theatre ;))  Let's just say that it starts slowly . It sets the theme  and the pace gradually builds . It does give you a sense of this is real and this is not and then POW turns everything on it's head.

We experience 3 different "stories"  in this play . They each have a different  kind of horror  and each one is sort of scarier than the next.  Oh also - you may get wet. mwahahahahahaha. You aren't just a casual observer in this play. You become a part of it.

It talks a lot about guilt . That is a big part of this play. GUILT. It ties all the parts together with a big red bow at the end .

The tension was great  and the scares were definitely there. I would have to say this is the scariest theatre event I have ever seen. There were also some nice laughs to make it bearable.  I almost get the feeling they removed some of the scares however, since  it seemed  like certain  parts  weren't as scary as they could have been and there were some slow parts. This play could have been nightmarishly frightening if they had wanted it that way.

The end also seem to lose all that connection we had  built up over the play , the participation The immediacy and threat level just didn't work . We were again removed from the story and while it was disturbing  and yes scary - it could have been so much more .

It was great but I did feel it didn't live up to the warnings about how scary this play was. If they hadn't made such a big deal  about the fear and  building such a strong anticipation I think I would have been over the moon with this play . As it was the scares disappointed me slightly. (please,please, please let me warn you it IS scary - I am just hard to scare. Do not take young kids to this.) I just felt it didn't quite live up to the hype.

Overall  this is in my opinion a must see for anyone who likes ghost stories and horror movies. You won't wet your pants  but you will get some thrills and chills.

4 stars out of 5 .

Doctor Who

Most people  who know me  will be aware that I am a fan of Doctor Who.
My first memories of it  are from watching the old Tom Baker episodes on PBS. I watched a few Peter Davidson episodes as well but stopped when he regenerated into Colin Baker . I thought Colin seemed kind of mean and I didn't like him (sorry Colin I was only 6) .
I watched the tv movie version as well. It was painful. I had really been looking forward to it  and Paul McGann was lovely as the Doctor  but wow was that movie bad. I blame Eric Roberts. He did his best but he was the wrong person for the job- also the  various attempts at americanizing it were horrifying. Oh but hey YAY for early Will Sasso.
I watched the new episodes with Christopher Eccleston . I  was very pleased  with the new direction. I was disheartened  to hear he was leaving after 1 season. I stopped watching  after about half of the Christopher Eccleston episodes because of that. I felt the show was doomed .
I thought I would at least check out the new guy - some fellow named David Tennant . I watched the Christmas Invasion- which was airing in February in Canada .I kind of liked it . I felt  a whole lot better about the show with a capable lead like Mr. Tennant. He has now become my favourite version of the Doctor.

My friend mentions Doctor Who whenever I visit . He says there is only one Doctor Who. The original Docotr who. The guy with the Scarf. He gets on my case whenever I try to explain  that this is not the case.

Look I have no problem  with a person saying they prefer  a certain actor  or that this actor was the first they ever saw in the roll of the Doctor but please  don't  negate all the work of the other actors  who have   taken on the roll.

I explain that 1. Tom Baker was the fourth actor in the roll so he was in no was "the original" Doctor. The first Doctor was William Hartnell.
2.He is the Doctor  and not "Doctor Who" as you so put it.
4- no wait a minute 3. As amusing as it is to refer to him as the guy with the scarf , if you are going to be a stickler  on him being the only Doctor that matters- maybe start using his name.
4.I Like Tom Baker . He did a great job but  I think all the actors who have played this roll have added something to it. The show has been running since 1963. It is more than just one actors work that made it this popular.

His response? There is only the guy with the scarf . That is it.

Sigh.

Engaging people in a social networking world.

I have some friends who like to scold me whenever I am over at their house "NO HANDHELD DEVICES IN THE HOUSE" .  Basically referring to  my use of my iphone. (I would also like to note these people  have laptops, ipod touchs and nintendo ds but I get singled out)

Now I admit it  would be rude to ignore people in front of you and  text away . Perhaps I may  occasionally twitter  when we are spending time together- however these are people I see every other  week at the very least and go on  trips with every year.  When I pull out the phone it  is for many different reasons.

Take a picture of the kids doing something clever.
Playing  games with his wife and/or kids on the phone (trivial pursuit)
Showing his wife and kids  pictures or youtube videos.
Sometimes sending maybe  2 or 3 twitters over the course of the evening or checking a text message.
Checking the time - I do not wear a watch.
When out -checking  the tip calculator .


Maybe that seems rude  but I think that aside from a couple of twitter posts I am  engaging this family as much as possible.

I find that the times I do pull out the twitter are the times I am basically being ignored. I don't mean that particularly negatively, just that I am not currently involved in anything ( there will usually  be at  least 7-10 people over so naturally people are doing various different things.

I have never chosen  my cellphone over someone talking to me in person. I always put it down.

I think it is just easy for some people to point at a person using their cell phone and say - oh aren't you being anti social. It is the opposite - I am being overly social . If you wish to talk to me then by all means do so. I do not feel  someone else has the burden of always trying to engage me in conversation but  I also  don't feel that I should always  being trying to butt in and make myself included .

Social networking and cells phones have changed the way people  talk to each other . I don't think it is a bad thing  so long as it isn't being abused  and the people in front of you aren't being  ignored. I think there is room for the odd text, twitter, facebook  AND spending time with people in person.