Rendering 7: 'Theatre about theatre shows there's no business like show business'

The article ‘Theatre about theatre shows there's no business like show business’ was published by Mark Lawson in The Guardian on March 8, 2013. It discusses a ‘Chorus Line’, which is one of several successful shows that put the focus on theatre itself. 

   Speaking of the success, it is interesting to note that readers and critics are traditionally sniff about novels and novelists: a publisher in Harold Pinter's play Betrayal has an enjoyable riff about a writer who leaves his wife and moves to a flat, where he writes a novel set in an apartment containing an author whose marriage has collapsed and who is writing a book about it. However, Pinter's own medium is notably tolerant towards the generic equivalent – theater about theater. 

   Analyzing the examples of this form, it is necessary to emphasize that have just been revived in London: the 1975 Broadway musical A Chorus Line and Arthur Wing Pinero's 1898 farce Trelawny of the Wells. And there is every reason to believe that both shows are celebrations of the power of theatre and affectionate depictions of the rituals and figures of the profession. 

   Giving appraisal of the situation, it’s necessary to point out such sentiment from Irving Berlin's 1946 ‘Annie Get Your Gun’ as t here's no business like show business. Moreover, it could be the subtitle of both ‘A Chorus Line’ and ‘Trelawny of the Wells’ and of ‘Cole Porter's Kiss Me, Kate’ (1948). The others are: ‘The Judas Kiss’, ‘The Phantom of the Opera’, ‘Billy Elliot’, ‘Jersey Boys’, ‘Viva Forever!’, ‘Thriller’ and ‘The Bodyguard’. The author draws our attention to the fact that almost all these shows are musicals, which helps to excuse the frequency with which theatre people fail to look beyond their own workplace for a setting. Besides, there is every likelihood that musical theatre suffers from the fundamental structural problem of why the characters have suddenly started singing. 

   There are signs that in spoken drama, where there is no equivalent pressure to justify why the people keep making speeches, characters who are performers will tend to have a metaphorical significance, exploring issues of presence and simulation. And i n this area of drama, it is hard to avoid the influence of Shakespeare's Hamlet, with its troupe of travelling actors. 

   In addition, it’s an open secret that the use of the performer as an image of the way in which all people take on roles and say things that they may not believe developed into a subgenre of theatre, including, later in the 17th century, Philip Masinger's ‘The Roman Actor’. The early 19th-century tragedian Edmund Kean became the subject of an 1836 play by Alexandre Dumas. 

   Thus in resolute terms the author makes it clear that enjoyable though 'A Chorus Line' and 'Trelawny of the Wells' are, their boasting about the joy of show business occasionally feels like one of those Christmas letters about how wonderfully someone's offspring have done. As for me, I like musicales as well as simple theatrical performances. I think you’ll agree with me that while watching the performance (directly in the theatre) you forget about the reality, as really talented actors make any performance a masterpiece.

Rendering 6: 'Jonathan Slinger on Hamlet: 'I'm going to try to achieve the impossible'

The article ‘Jonathan Slinger on Hamlet: 'I'm going to try to achieve the impossible' was published by Lyn Gardner in The Guardian on March 11, 2013. It discusses Jonathan Slinger’s career (he is the RSC's brightest talent) and now he is about to take on Hamlet. 

   The article reports that Jonathan Slinger stands in the Royal Shakespeare Company's London rehearsal room, holding Yorick's skull aloft and at arm's length. 

   Speaking of his character, it is necessary to note that he may not be a household name, and is the first to admit he has not got the leading-man looks that make Hollywood sit up and take notice. What is more important, Slinger can be incredibly brave, with a dangerous, almost glittering edge to his performances; he has the knack of appearing unrecognizable from one role to the next, at home with both high comedy and tragedy. 

   Analyzing the situation, it is interesting to emphasize that Slinger's ascent to RSC royalty came through playing two very different kings: a drag-queen Richard II in 2007, and a gleefully malevolent Richard III in Michael Boyd's 2008 complete history plays cycle. 

   Giving appraisal of the actor’s career, it’s necessary to point out that when Jonathan first turned up at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts in 1991, he envied the traditional good looks of many of his male contemporaries. There is every likelihood that now, at 40, he thinks his appearance has worked in his favor, helping him develop his abilities as an actor. And in fact, for the past 10 years, Slinger has been in fairly constant demand. Now the big one – Hamlet – looms, directed by David Farr in a loosely contemporary setting: a run-down public-school fencing gym. There are signs that hey are currently playing with the opening, having Hamlet return to the empty gym and sensing a presence: there is the suggestion that it is Hamlet's grief that unlocks the ghost of his father. 

   It’s very likely that Slinger has been hitting on previous Hamlets – he doesn't say who – for tips. Moreover, it’s an open secret that it is not possible to play Hamlet in a psychologically "true" way, because Shakespeare wrote a series of character sketches rather than an individual. 

   In conclusion the author draws our attention to the fact that Slinger has already played many of the major Shakespearean roles, including Macbeth and Malvolio. But what's left after Hamlet?  As for me, I think the artist is to have a great skill to play the role of Hamlet, as he is a very complex character. The actor has to make him a psychologically understandable Hamlet.

Rendering 5: 'Whenever I see the Queen, I think, "Oh ... there I am": The right royal progress of Helen Mirren'

The article 'Whenever I see the Queen, I think, "Oh ...there I am"': The right royal progress of Helen Mirren’ was published by Neil Norman in the Independent on March 10, 2013. It reports at length and carries a lot of comments on a successful “royal” career of Helen Mirren, as to play one British monarch named Elizabeth may be considered fortunate; to play two looks like calculation.

   Speaking of her success, it is interesting to note that when Helen Mirren followed her portrayal of Elizabeth I in 2005 with Elizabeth II in 2006 the crown was hers for the taking.

   Analyzing her career, it is necessary to emphasize that coming from Russian Tsarist stock, it may be that she has a genetic disposition towards blue-blooded roles. There is every reason to believe that her grandfather Piotr Vasilievich Mironoff was a tsarist (White Russian) aristocrat who was in London negotiating an arms deal during the First World War when the 1917 Russian Revolution stranded him there.

   Giving appraisal of the situation, it’s intriguing to point out that Mirren was starring as Cleopatra in the 1965 production of Antony and Cleopatra. Besides, there are signs that she began playing sexually charged roles such as Castiza in the 1966 staging of The Revenger's Tragedy; Cressida in a 1968 production of Troilus and Cressida; and Lady Macbeth in the 1974 Trevor Nunn production of Macbeth. Moreover, the article draws our attention to the moment that some labels are hard to understand, and the difference is that Mirren has learned to exploit it. Following the notorious interview with Michael Parkinson, it was clear that Mirren was not going to let a little thing like male chauvinism stand in the way of her career nor dampen her sexual allure. Moreover, by 2006, Mirren had a cupboard full of awards and had been made Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the 2003 Queen's Birthday Honour List. 

   It’s an open secret that the remarkable thing about Mirren is her seemingly effortless ability to please most of the people all of the time. She has retained a dignity and professional kudos among her peers and the public through a string of performances and accompanying awards while retaining the factor that threatened to overshadow her early career.

   Thus the article concludes by saying that Mirren’s most endearing qualities – and what makes her the darling of media as politically polarized – is her attitude to her work which is respectful without being precious. And, I think, judging by the photo, Helen Mirren is very similar to its prototype. Besides, the actress is so at home playing royalty that you could slap her on to a postage stamp and no one would know the difference. And with the help of a great talent, she not only triumphs by the word, but also makes an indelible impression.

Film Review

"Shakespeare in Love" (1998)

Director:  John Madden

Cast: Joseph Fiennes as William Shakespeare, Gwyneth Paltrow as Viola de Lesseps, Geoffrey Rush as Philip Henslowe, Colin Firth as Lord Wessex, Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth I.

Synopsis: In glory days of the Elisabeth theater two playhouses were fighting for writing and audience. The first one was the Curtain Theater  the house to England’s most famous actor, Richard Burbage. And the second one was built by Philip Henslowe, a businessman who hardly made both ends meet, the Rose, where Shakespeare’s new play was put.

Review: Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush) demanded a play from William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) – who was in a creative crisis as the Muse left him – to be put on the stage in the shortest possible time. When the artist didn't expect return of his charisma, he met a beautiful noblewoman Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow). Thus the play was born – “Romeo and Juliet”, which showed the depth of love not high-colored and diluted with laughter. Their love was an incarnation of love and destiny of the tragedy’s characters. Their love did not triumph, as there was an abyss between them: the family, the debt, the destiny, because Viola was going to become lady Wessex. However, the woman was not gone for Shakespeare, as she became his heroine for all time, and her name was Viola.

Of course, the film is love, but it’s shown not as a passion, but as the inspiration, as Viola is the Muse for William Shakespeare. Thus, here we are to speak about talent, as it is something that can make any human action attractive, make a man not only laugh and be sad, but cry even if he considers himself a man with a stony heart.

While speaking about a man with a stony heart, I mean the queen (in the film) Elizabeth I, as even she has felt this talent to show a deep tragic love. Thus I've mentioned the queen not without reason, as she is like the iron lady in the performance of Judi Dench. And though she appeared in the film only four times, Dench confirmed a high skill of a splendid actress. And I think without further ADO it’s clear that Joseph Fiennes as well as Gwyneth Paltrow showed their best artistic qualities. Both of them got used to their roles, especially Paltrow, as her emotions, movements and grace pointed to the fact that she performed the role of a noblewoman with dignity. So, all I can say is that casting was fitting. At the same time I have to mention costumes (even trifles like always dirty with ink the playwright’s fingers) and high-quality decorations, as they reflected that time with dignity.

In addition, I’d like to add that this film cannot be compared with others, that reflect the life and creative activity of a great playwright William Shakespeare, as it carries its own originality and some missed moments. And though the film is only a fiction, there are some moments and characters which are based on real prototypes. It is a very emotional picture, and I watched it with real interest and pleasure.