We reached the Comedy Club but we were a bit confused cause it actually was a bar? But really, you went to the back of the bar and up some stairs and there, there was a small room with seats and that is the Camden Comedy Club. London really has a way of making the simplest places feel so special. We arrived a little bit late, but we caught the last part of the main comedian making full of Bill a bit, that was fun. Afterwards she continued with her jokes and brought another woman on stage.
This was my first time at a stand up comedy event so I was pretty excited. It was fun to sit and hear jokes for an hour or so, much more entertaining than I expected if I'm being honest. The second lady that went up on stage had the crowd going but she wasn't as funny as the last woman that went up. She really stole the show.
When she first went on stage she seemed a bit quirky, and that's what I thought she was going to base her jokes on. Funny because she was quirky. But I was so wrong. She brought up issues of feminism but also of race. As an African-American, she experienced a lot of things that us as Americans are very aware of. Her bit "racist or insensitive" brought comedy to an otherwise very upsetting issue, how people of color are treated in the states.
Overall, the theme was feminism, however. And the ladies made a cool statement throughout the whole show. It was very "woman-empowering" and as a woman in the audience I came out feeling... well, empowered. They touched on issues of sexuality and the expectation of women to be more nurturing. That was cool. One of them touched on how Hillary Clinton is made fun of for wearing pantsuits, but that's all men wear.
It was cool hearing a comedic twist on these things that as a feminist myself, are usually talked about in very serious ways.
Thursday, June 14, 2018
The Puzzle Palace and the Royal Filtering System
From the
scale of the gatehouse entrance into the Base Court to the extravagant hand
painted ceilings to the spectacular formal gardens – it is clear that the
Hampton Court Palace was designed to project an image of luxury and wealth. After
Henry VIII had taken the palace from Cardinal Wolsey, he transformed it to further
demonstrate his power, which was intended to rival Versailles. The King
architected the palace in a way to practically feed, accommodate and entertain
his court, people of high rank, and his servants. The following paragraphs
will focus on how the design of the palace was used to restrict access to the
King by channeling people to the spaces appropriate to their rank.
As I made my way
through the Seymour Gate Main entrance into the Master Carpenter’s Court, I heard
the noise of chopping from horses and the shouting from servants instantly.
After passing through the court, I had been bombarded by the scent of fire
burning in Henry VIII’s kitchen. The first floor consists of multiple kitchens
that are filled with food prepared by cooks and servers, such as salted meats, vegetables
and bread. According to the official site of the Hampton Court Palace, hundreds
of servants were allowed to eat at the palace, but not given a dining place.
Those who were in the lowest ranking ate in the kitchens or in their own
lodgings.
Throughout the
palace are long chains of rooms with a guard at each door. Henry VIII designed
his palace to prevent all except the most important of people to gaining access
to the monarch’s private spaces. The more lavish a courtier’s clothes were, the
closer they got to the King. As I walked up the stairs from Clock Tower, I came
across the Great Hall where the mid-to-low ranking men ate. This is the largest
room in the Hampton Court Palace. In my opinion, I found this to be the most magnificent
room. Its walls are hung with Henry VIII’s ornate tapestries, which are known
as The Story of Abraham (Hampton Court Palace).
The top ranked
courtiers ate in the Great Watching Chamber, which is located in Henry VIII’s
apartment next to the Great Hall. The ceiling of the Great Watching Chamber
caught my attention the most. It is beautifully decorated with an elaborate design
of gold leaf and the badge of Jane Seymour. According to The Times of the
Tudors, the design of the Great Watching Chamber was built in honor of Jane
after she gave birth to Henry VIII’s son and heir.
Henry VIII’s
Palace is architected in a way that restricted access to the King. The design
was meant to put people to the spaces appropriate for their status, which is an
example of a royal filtering system. Although there are many magnificent pieces
of art, history, and architecture, this to me was the most fascinating design in
the Hampton Court Palace.
Sensuous, Sexy, SOAP
London’s Southbank featured a sexy, thrilling, funny show by
the name of SOAP. SOAP is not just all bubbles and water. This year’s Underbelly
Festival featured a unique combination of acrobatics, comedy, and live opera,
all surrounded by bathtubs. The show was performed by a super skilled troupe
who twist, turn, fly, fling, contort and juggle in a time span of 70 minutes.
SOAP, conceived and choreographed by Markus Pabst and Maximillian
Rambaek, opens with five pairs of bare, toned limbs scissoring out of baths
along to the beat of an opera version of Gnarls Barkley’s hit song Crazy and
closes with all eight performers dancing in a ‘choreographed’ routine. Between
these two acts are sandwiched individual and grouped together acts featuring:
Moritz Haase, the trapezist; Lena Reid, an aerial hoopist, contortionist and
dancer; Vanessa Alvarez, a foot juggler; Marie-Andrée Lemaire, a circus performer
and clown; Anton Belyakov, an acrobat and hand balance specialist; Daniel Leo
Stern, a specialist in aerial straps and acrobatics; Adem Yemam, a juggler; and
lastly, Jennifer Lindshield, an American soprano.
I was completely taken aback at first by the
unconventionality of pop opera and circus acts combined together. However, I
found that the opera contributed to the comedy of the show and added a sense of
feeling to the entire performance. My favorite act was the comedic stylings of Marie-Andrée
Lemaire, who engaged and brought laughter to the audience. I also was highly impressed
by Vanessa Alvarez’s unique skill of towel spinning. Not only is she able to spin
towels on her hands and feet, but she’s also able to juggle them in the air.
She is an impeccable balancer with skilled timing and strength. The largest part
of the show consisted of beautifully performed acrobatics. Lena Ried, Vanessa
Alvarez, and Daniel Stern told a very elegant, sensual, passionate story with
such feeling and intensity. Another amazing performance was done by Anton who
is a magnificent acrobatic and did a routine in a bathtub filled with water. His
impressive origami precision and ability to balance upside down won the crowd. Also,
I found the trapeze number by Mortiz astonishing, daring, and graceful. Throughout
the show, it was all held together by Lemaire who is a charming contemporary clown,
comedic and surprisingly an effective foot puppet as well as Lindshield who can
sing popular songs in a combination of pop, opera, and classical.
I absolutely loved this show and found it to be hilarious,
sensuous, and artistic. However, a word of caution for anyone that is not
prepared to get soaked, don’t sit near the front stage!
CineTREK #4 - A Day at the Globe
In true Shakespearean style, we watched Hamlet at The Globe. The theater, rebuilt to look just how it would have looked in Shakespeare's time, was mesmerizing. The stage had a decorated ceiling, "The Heavens," and stone columns that really took us back to the 16th/17th century and placed us in Shakespeare's time. One thing, I have to say, I didn't love about Shakespeare's time was the way they spoke. Why did it have to be so complicated? I know this is a huge reason why people love Shakespeare, the dialect and the romantic way thing were said, but I would have to say this is a huge reason why I don't love Shakespeare.
The play was good, the actors really showed us their skills and put on a wonderful show. However, I didn't love it. I had no idea what they were saying most of the time. There were some moments were I could keep up with them and kin of understand them, but mostly I couldn't and I was lost about 90% of the time. It wasn't a problem of projection, although I don't think microphones would have hurt, but understanding the dialect was extremely difficult for me.
Every time I've read Shakespeare I've had to go over lines about three times to get what he was trying to say. Trying to understand what was being said at the play, through dialect and the English accents which sometimes aren't the easiest to understand, really took away from this experience. And I know that in order to stick to the Shakespearean tradition microphones weren't used, and technology was kept to a minimum, I think maybe incorporating some microphones wouldn't hurt. I also think maybe a teleprompter showing us their lines would be great, but that's a bit too much and I recognize that.
One thing I did enjoy was seeing Hamlet played by a woman, and other male roles played by women and female roles played by men. This gender switch was extremely interesting.
Overall, the play was great. I wish I could have understood what they were saying more, maybe then it would have been a better experience for me.
The play was good, the actors really showed us their skills and put on a wonderful show. However, I didn't love it. I had no idea what they were saying most of the time. There were some moments were I could keep up with them and kin of understand them, but mostly I couldn't and I was lost about 90% of the time. It wasn't a problem of projection, although I don't think microphones would have hurt, but understanding the dialect was extremely difficult for me.
Every time I've read Shakespeare I've had to go over lines about three times to get what he was trying to say. Trying to understand what was being said at the play, through dialect and the English accents which sometimes aren't the easiest to understand, really took away from this experience. And I know that in order to stick to the Shakespearean tradition microphones weren't used, and technology was kept to a minimum, I think maybe incorporating some microphones wouldn't hurt. I also think maybe a teleprompter showing us their lines would be great, but that's a bit too much and I recognize that.
One thing I did enjoy was seeing Hamlet played by a woman, and other male roles played by women and female roles played by men. This gender switch was extremely interesting.
Overall, the play was great. I wish I could have understood what they were saying more, maybe then it would have been a better experience for me.
Hamlet's Madness
Theatre has been historically used as a form of entertainment, however, it can also be thought-provoking. Studying theatre, specifically Shakespeare, has opened my eyes to the many choices people have in creating a production. Take Shakespeare as an example, by just looking at the playwright without any sort of context from a performance, the play can fall short if one were to just read it. That's because plays, especially Shakespeare's, were meant to be performed to get the full picture, so to speak.
Watching Hamlet in Shakespeare's Globe was definitely a spectacle in its own way. The concept of a circular theatre seems to have its perks, since I was reminded that San Diego's Old Globe has a similar structure. As I've read and studied Shakespeare, I noticed that a lot of his plays are open to interpretation since not much information (production-wise) is given in the play itself. This can be really interesting because one can see the different ideas one comes up with and how they view the play itself. This is usually deeply expressed through different production concepts and Hamlet at the Shakespeare's Globe was no exception.
The representation of Hamlet caught my eye while watching this performance live. Especially when the actor depicts Hamlet as "mad," I wondered how they would express that creatively through costumes. Surprise lit my features when I saw Hamlet dressed in white, as a jester or joker, wearing face paint with a big red smile. In contrast, the Hamlet from San Diego's production took a different approach to Hamlet's madness besides the gender. This goes on to prove that plays come to life by the people during performances. Almost anything goes in theatre, especially in plays like Shakespeare. It is a creative way to see people's interpretation of Shakespeare's plays through the spectacle of performance.
The representation of Hamlet caught my eye while watching this performance live. Especially when the actor depicts Hamlet as "mad," I wondered how they would express that creatively through costumes. Surprise lit my features when I saw Hamlet dressed in white, as a jester or joker, wearing face paint with a big red smile. In contrast, the Hamlet from San Diego's production took a different approach to Hamlet's madness besides the gender. This goes on to prove that plays come to life by the people during performances. Almost anything goes in theatre, especially in plays like Shakespeare. It is a creative way to see people's interpretation of Shakespeare's plays through the spectacle of performance.
As you see the picture above, Hamlet is wearing a crown while conversing with someone. There seems to be a different take when it has to do with costumes in San Diego's Old Globe interpretation of Hamlet. When comparing this interpretation and the one from Shakespeare's Globe in London one can't help but notice the difference. In London, Hamlet was wearing lighter clothing, and seen as a jester with face-paint. They seemed to have taken a whimsical approach to Hamlet's madness. Whereas in the Old Globe, Hamlet's madness was linked to insanity and darkness. I personally liked the Old Globe's interpretation, but it was very intriguing to see the different take that was produced at the Shakespeare's Globe in London.
St. Paul's Cathedral: the theatrical performance of worship
From the grandeur of the architecture, elaborate designs detailed on every crevice, and traditional gowns of the church assembly - each element of the church was purposeful in nature, as it conveyed a sense of religious power and added a vibrant layer to the church. However, the most pivotal contributing element that transmutes worship into a theatrical proclamation of faith is the church choir. The immaculate presence of the choir immerses one into a heavenly performance, as the choir dominants the entire mass ceremony by singing hymns in both Latin and English. Reflecting on my experience at St. Paul's Cathedral, I cannot say that I experienced a spiritual awakening; however, the melodic nature of mass compared to the mass I attend with my family was astonishing, as this mass is not a communal congregation, but rather a celebration of faith.
Amant Double: Twins vs. Alien
Seeing a movie in a different language is always a very different experience than seeing one in English. First, the audience has to become comfortable with reading the subtitles while also paying attention to the details of the movie. This could take time for some, or be easy for others who are used to it. Another reason why it is a different experience is because cultures all have their own preference of movie structures. A french film is usually not commonly scene by people from America.
This movie was a cinematography masterpiece. The director used camera angles and lighting to make the audience feel a certain way during a scene. One specific scene that stuck out was when the main character, Chloe, was going to see if her boyfriend was pretending to be another therapist. She was walking up a spiral staircase when the camera pans out and shows an upward angle of a massive and long staircase that she would have to finish climbing. It was a beautiful shot and showed that she was willing to go through a lot to find out whether or not her boyfriend is who he says he is.
There were a lot of moments between characters that seemed so culturally different than what is scene in American movies and in real-life moments. They did not speak to each other that much or show a great loving emotion. It was a little difficult to figure out how they felt based on words, so the focus had to be on the shot.
What made this movie stand out was not being told a clear ending. Chloe has had stomach problems all her life and was told nothing is wrong. She was instructed to go to a therapist-- her soon to be boyfriend. They end up moving together and her stomach settles for a little bit. She is on a bus back from work and drives by someone that looks like her boyfriend who is talking outside to a women. He denies it was him, so the next day she stops where she saw him and discovers a plaque of a therapist with the same last name as her boyfriend's former last name. She makes an appointment with him and ends up meeting his very aggressive twin whom ends up having an intense sexual relationship with her. This relationship is full of fear and passion. Chloe never tells her boyfriend and ends up pregnant, not knowing whose kid it is. When her boyfriend leaves town, she notices that she is being followed and threatened by the evil twin. She ends up in his office with both the twin and her boyfriend. She stabs the evil twin and kills him when all of a sudden her baby starts to breakthrough her skin on her stomach and crawl out of her. This horrifying moment ends up actually being a massive cyst that was breaking out of her body. The audience find out this cyst is actually her unborn twin sister when she makes a gruesome joke about killing her twin sister. She ends up being driven home by her boyfriend. This makes it unclear if her boyfriend ever had a twin or if it was all in her head. The cyst could have been messing with her neurologically and now that it was out, she could go back to her normal self.
At this point, the audience can assume these events were a figment of her imagination that was being sprung upon her due to the cyst. At the very end, Chloe and her boyfriend are having sex in the bed in their apartment when all of a sudden, Chloe looks out the window and sees her twin. This could very well be in her head, until the twin slams her hand against the window and cracks it. The movie end and everyone is left with their mouth open in shock.
What was amazing was hearing from the very young, French director at the end. Even he refuses to give a clear answer to the ending because that was the point of the movie. The audience is forced to figure out how the interpret this movie on their own, much different than movies scene in America.
This movie was a cinematography masterpiece. The director used camera angles and lighting to make the audience feel a certain way during a scene. One specific scene that stuck out was when the main character, Chloe, was going to see if her boyfriend was pretending to be another therapist. She was walking up a spiral staircase when the camera pans out and shows an upward angle of a massive and long staircase that she would have to finish climbing. It was a beautiful shot and showed that she was willing to go through a lot to find out whether or not her boyfriend is who he says he is.
There were a lot of moments between characters that seemed so culturally different than what is scene in American movies and in real-life moments. They did not speak to each other that much or show a great loving emotion. It was a little difficult to figure out how they felt based on words, so the focus had to be on the shot.
What made this movie stand out was not being told a clear ending. Chloe has had stomach problems all her life and was told nothing is wrong. She was instructed to go to a therapist-- her soon to be boyfriend. They end up moving together and her stomach settles for a little bit. She is on a bus back from work and drives by someone that looks like her boyfriend who is talking outside to a women. He denies it was him, so the next day she stops where she saw him and discovers a plaque of a therapist with the same last name as her boyfriend's former last name. She makes an appointment with him and ends up meeting his very aggressive twin whom ends up having an intense sexual relationship with her. This relationship is full of fear and passion. Chloe never tells her boyfriend and ends up pregnant, not knowing whose kid it is. When her boyfriend leaves town, she notices that she is being followed and threatened by the evil twin. She ends up in his office with both the twin and her boyfriend. She stabs the evil twin and kills him when all of a sudden her baby starts to breakthrough her skin on her stomach and crawl out of her. This horrifying moment ends up actually being a massive cyst that was breaking out of her body. The audience find out this cyst is actually her unborn twin sister when she makes a gruesome joke about killing her twin sister. She ends up being driven home by her boyfriend. This makes it unclear if her boyfriend ever had a twin or if it was all in her head. The cyst could have been messing with her neurologically and now that it was out, she could go back to her normal self.
At this point, the audience can assume these events were a figment of her imagination that was being sprung upon her due to the cyst. At the very end, Chloe and her boyfriend are having sex in the bed in their apartment when all of a sudden, Chloe looks out the window and sees her twin. This could very well be in her head, until the twin slams her hand against the window and cracks it. The movie end and everyone is left with their mouth open in shock.
What was amazing was hearing from the very young, French director at the end. Even he refuses to give a clear answer to the ending because that was the point of the movie. The audience is forced to figure out how the interpret this movie on their own, much different than movies scene in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)