![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
NTLive Frankenstein
Under the cut are spoilers for a 200 year old book, a play that ran in 2011, and a filmed version of that play that's on its third showing. Here's one trailer for it. And here's the other trailer."
I've seen The NTLive Frankenstein twice. Other than the child playing William Frankenstein and the two leads switching off, the casts are the same.
Shortest review: Cumberbatch wins.
Longer analysis:
Wow. I really do need to start with "wow." I told![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
neotoma yesterday, that I don't care for filmed plays. I don't. As someone who trained, I can tell you that the acting is different. Physicality which works on a stage can be overwhelming or silly on film. But I really wanted to see this, and not just because I want to sleep with Cumberbatch's voice (seriously, I wouldn't run from Smaug because I'd be mesmerized by the voice *sigh*).
Last week, I walked out of the theater mumbling incoherently and shaking my head. I was near tears. Benedict Cumberbatch played the Creature (the fact that he's never named is emphasized at several points in the script) and I was moved by a person of intellect and physical deformity to the point that I pitied him, was happy he'd found a warped kind of bromance/hate thing with his creator, and could completely overlook the fact that he was both a murderer and rapist. We actually see the rape on stage, followed immediately by the Creature's fourth murder, so this is not an easy person to pity. And yet...
Before both showings, there was a brief film about how the play came together. It was directed by Danny Boyle with a script by Nick Dear from Mary Shelley's novel. There is one very brief interview with both actors talking about their approach to playing the Creature. Cumberbatch watched footage of people in rehabilitation from severe war wounds or car accidents -- people who'd literally been stitched back together. Jonny Lee Miller watched his two year old for tips on how to explore the world.
Both approaches were valid. In the fifteen minute sequence at the beginning of the play from the Creature's birth to its finding clothes (apparently both actors performed nude during the run of the show, but they and the she-creature from later in the show are given minimalist groin coverings for the filmed versions.), they explore their bodies and their surroundings. Miller's Creature stands quickly, but never loses the slightly tip-toed, off balance walk of a toddler. Cumberbatch's Creature takes far longer to stand, explores scent and taste more frequently than touch in this sequence, and never loses a slight jerkiness to his gait.
This sequence, which includes an exchange with Victor Frankenstein running off and abandoning his creation in fear, produces a deep sympathy, even through the appalling acts the Creature performs later.
One of the things that struck me when I finally read Frankenstein during my freshman year of college, was that Victor thought human proportions were incorrect, and his creature had to be put together from bits and pieces, rather than just reanimating a cold corpse, so that the proportions would be "right."
Cumberbatch's physicality as the Creature means that, as an audience member, it's impossible to forget his stitched together proportions. He is always not-quite-human even as he's still profoundly a person. Miller's gait smooths out; he's more flexible in the infant section. His Creature is a man -- with all the horrors humans can visit on each other -- which ironically made his Creature less sympathetic.
Two particular moments relatively early in the play stands out to me as ways to convey the differences in the portrayals. The first comes when the sun rises and the birds fly and it begins to rain. There's a strip of grass on the stage. Miller's creature ruts against it, then plucks a blade of grass and chews at it and spits it out and then tries another single blade of grass. Cumberbatch's creature is confused by the rain, intrigued by the grass, and actually eats it like a ruminant.
The second involves the Creature having a dream, which, by the end of the scene, is established as an erotic one. A dancer comes on playing a she-creature. There are a couple of moments of mirroring before she moves behind the creature and wraps her arms around him. He sags and relaxes in her arms (and points to the dancer for taking as much of the weight as she does -- I can tell both actors are cheating their weight a bit so as not to overwhelm her, but she's actually giving quite a bit of support, too).
I genuinely cannot put my finger on how the two scenes differ physically. I know that with the type of dancing, mostly en pointe, there can't be too many variations due to the unevenness of the stage. And yet, Miller's Creature hammers it home that this is an orgasmic dream, and Cumberbatch, in the mirroring steps mostly, somehow makes it romantic. Please don't misunderstand me, it's sexual in both portrayals, but the effect on the audience (seriously, I heard gasps with Miller's and "awws" with Cumberbatch's) is different.
On the Victor Frankenstein side, Jonny Lee Miller is pretty good, though, frankly, his bad wig is a distraction at a couple of points. (Miller's head is shaved which means his Creature's head looks a lot better than Cumberbatch's "skin" cap, but the cap isn't as distracting as the wig.) He's excited by the science and intrigued by his creation and seems to acknowledge its individuality, even as he's repulsed by how it looks. At least twice, he's frightened of himself and his ideas as personified in the Creature. He tries to kill the Creature with a knife, but he's clumsy. Frankenstein comes across as a sweet man who doesn't understand sex -- the scene where he kisses his fiancee is really, really awkward -- and who shouldn't have been allowed to do some of his experiments.
Cumberbatch's Victor isn't excited by the science -- he's excited by the workings of his own brain. His fascination with the Creature is as HIS creation. The man is brilliant and arrogant and absolutely ruthless. When he comes after the Creature with a knife, he goes straight for the carotid, and, had the Creature moved a little slower, might have ended the play in an hour. When he kisses his fiancee, it's carnal, but he pulls back in order to go to Scotland and make the Creature's bride. He's creepy and sensual when he presents the she-creature to his original, and my brain needed bleach at that point.
Again, a specific point of difference in their portrayals from the very beginning of the play. Miller's Victor keeps his distance and stays standing as he flings a cape over the Creature and flees. Cumberbatch's Victor gets down on his knees and peers at his Creature before covering it and taking fear. That moment is filled with might-have-beens, lives that could have been saved by his becoming a parent to the Creature (or, considering his creepiness factor, by killing it before it was fully aware).
I didn't have the OMG!!11!11!!! reaction to the ending of the play when Cumberbatch played Victor. I felt like his need was driving the Creature forward. The hatred was there. The acceptance was there. But the flicker of a strange love or tenderness between the two wasn't.
If Shakespeare Theatre runs these again next year, I may have to see them again. The performances were that good.
The script has some weaknesses. It tries to hammer home the "playing God" moments and the themes of sin and innocence are not treated delicately either. But as a vehicle for bravura performances, it's a winner.
I've seen The NTLive Frankenstein twice. Other than the child playing William Frankenstein and the two leads switching off, the casts are the same.
Shortest review: Cumberbatch wins.
Longer analysis:
Wow. I really do need to start with "wow." I told
neotoma yesterday, that I don't care for filmed plays. I don't. As someone who trained, I can tell you that the acting is different. Physicality which works on a stage can be overwhelming or silly on film. But I really wanted to see this, and not just because I want to sleep with Cumberbatch's voice (seriously, I wouldn't run from Smaug because I'd be mesmerized by the voice *sigh*). Last week, I walked out of the theater mumbling incoherently and shaking my head. I was near tears. Benedict Cumberbatch played the Creature (the fact that he's never named is emphasized at several points in the script) and I was moved by a person of intellect and physical deformity to the point that I pitied him, was happy he'd found a warped kind of bromance/hate thing with his creator, and could completely overlook the fact that he was both a murderer and rapist. We actually see the rape on stage, followed immediately by the Creature's fourth murder, so this is not an easy person to pity. And yet...
Before both showings, there was a brief film about how the play came together. It was directed by Danny Boyle with a script by Nick Dear from Mary Shelley's novel. There is one very brief interview with both actors talking about their approach to playing the Creature. Cumberbatch watched footage of people in rehabilitation from severe war wounds or car accidents -- people who'd literally been stitched back together. Jonny Lee Miller watched his two year old for tips on how to explore the world.
Both approaches were valid. In the fifteen minute sequence at the beginning of the play from the Creature's birth to its finding clothes (apparently both actors performed nude during the run of the show, but they and the she-creature from later in the show are given minimalist groin coverings for the filmed versions.), they explore their bodies and their surroundings. Miller's Creature stands quickly, but never loses the slightly tip-toed, off balance walk of a toddler. Cumberbatch's Creature takes far longer to stand, explores scent and taste more frequently than touch in this sequence, and never loses a slight jerkiness to his gait.
This sequence, which includes an exchange with Victor Frankenstein running off and abandoning his creation in fear, produces a deep sympathy, even through the appalling acts the Creature performs later.
One of the things that struck me when I finally read Frankenstein during my freshman year of college, was that Victor thought human proportions were incorrect, and his creature had to be put together from bits and pieces, rather than just reanimating a cold corpse, so that the proportions would be "right."
Cumberbatch's physicality as the Creature means that, as an audience member, it's impossible to forget his stitched together proportions. He is always not-quite-human even as he's still profoundly a person. Miller's gait smooths out; he's more flexible in the infant section. His Creature is a man -- with all the horrors humans can visit on each other -- which ironically made his Creature less sympathetic.
Two particular moments relatively early in the play stands out to me as ways to convey the differences in the portrayals. The first comes when the sun rises and the birds fly and it begins to rain. There's a strip of grass on the stage. Miller's creature ruts against it, then plucks a blade of grass and chews at it and spits it out and then tries another single blade of grass. Cumberbatch's creature is confused by the rain, intrigued by the grass, and actually eats it like a ruminant.
The second involves the Creature having a dream, which, by the end of the scene, is established as an erotic one. A dancer comes on playing a she-creature. There are a couple of moments of mirroring before she moves behind the creature and wraps her arms around him. He sags and relaxes in her arms (and points to the dancer for taking as much of the weight as she does -- I can tell both actors are cheating their weight a bit so as not to overwhelm her, but she's actually giving quite a bit of support, too).
I genuinely cannot put my finger on how the two scenes differ physically. I know that with the type of dancing, mostly en pointe, there can't be too many variations due to the unevenness of the stage. And yet, Miller's Creature hammers it home that this is an orgasmic dream, and Cumberbatch, in the mirroring steps mostly, somehow makes it romantic. Please don't misunderstand me, it's sexual in both portrayals, but the effect on the audience (seriously, I heard gasps with Miller's and "awws" with Cumberbatch's) is different.
On the Victor Frankenstein side, Jonny Lee Miller is pretty good, though, frankly, his bad wig is a distraction at a couple of points. (Miller's head is shaved which means his Creature's head looks a lot better than Cumberbatch's "skin" cap, but the cap isn't as distracting as the wig.) He's excited by the science and intrigued by his creation and seems to acknowledge its individuality, even as he's repulsed by how it looks. At least twice, he's frightened of himself and his ideas as personified in the Creature. He tries to kill the Creature with a knife, but he's clumsy. Frankenstein comes across as a sweet man who doesn't understand sex -- the scene where he kisses his fiancee is really, really awkward -- and who shouldn't have been allowed to do some of his experiments.
Cumberbatch's Victor isn't excited by the science -- he's excited by the workings of his own brain. His fascination with the Creature is as HIS creation. The man is brilliant and arrogant and absolutely ruthless. When he comes after the Creature with a knife, he goes straight for the carotid, and, had the Creature moved a little slower, might have ended the play in an hour. When he kisses his fiancee, it's carnal, but he pulls back in order to go to Scotland and make the Creature's bride. He's creepy and sensual when he presents the she-creature to his original, and my brain needed bleach at that point.
Again, a specific point of difference in their portrayals from the very beginning of the play. Miller's Victor keeps his distance and stays standing as he flings a cape over the Creature and flees. Cumberbatch's Victor gets down on his knees and peers at his Creature before covering it and taking fear. That moment is filled with might-have-beens, lives that could have been saved by his becoming a parent to the Creature (or, considering his creepiness factor, by killing it before it was fully aware).
I didn't have the OMG!!11!11!!! reaction to the ending of the play when Cumberbatch played Victor. I felt like his need was driving the Creature forward. The hatred was there. The acceptance was there. But the flicker of a strange love or tenderness between the two wasn't.
If Shakespeare Theatre runs these again next year, I may have to see them again. The performances were that good.
The script has some weaknesses. It tries to hammer home the "playing God" moments and the themes of sin and innocence are not treated delicately either. But as a vehicle for bravura performances, it's a winner.