clevermanka (
clevermanka) wrote2013-11-28 06:04 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Frankenstein
We were lucky to catch the last repeat showing of the National Theatre's Frankenstein at the Tivoli in Kansas City on Saturday.
mckitterick was generous enough with his time and money to buy us tickets to both shows so I could see the version with Benedict Cumberbatch as the Creature and Johnny Lee Miller as Frankenstein and vice versa. I'd heard tons about it and seen a bajillion gifs of it on Tumblr, so I thought I had an idea of what to expect. I didn't. At all.
Somehow I missed the fact that the production is from the Creature's point of view. Which was fantastic, since Dr. Frankenstein is (canonically) pretty much an arrogant douchebag. I just didn't realize that the play would open with the Creature's (confused/confusing) birth and (even more confused/confusing) first experiences with society. When a highly idealized steam train came bellowing onto the stage, with actors portraying passengers, crew, and the train itself I was all "Um. What? Is this whole thing going to be some surreal, largely-metaphorical concept piece? OH DEAR." But it wasn't. It was just a way of conveying the creature's non-understanding of the world and once I realized that, it was brilliant. This was my first confirmation that I had made the right decision in getting tickets to both shows. I got a lot more out of the opening scenes the second time around.
I'm not going to try to describe the spectacle that is the National Theatre stage. It's just...really, really impressive, okay? The sparse sets highlighted the remarkable abilities of the space to transform itself via rotating platforms, hydraulics, hidden doors, and cables. Even if the acting had been crap, the set design would have warranted glowing comments.
Of course, the acting was far from crap.
I'm gonna say it up front: Cumberbatch is a better actor than Miller and there's just not much that any amount of script or direction is going to do about that. But in this case, Cumberbatch's charisma worked against him in his portrayal of Frankenstein. He was brilliant as the Creature, but his Frankenstein was too sympathetic. I'm on board with portraying Frankenstein as a to-be-pitied genius that ultimately deserves his fate, but Cumberbatch's Frankenstein--well, honestly, by the end I just wanted to give him a hug. And I don't think that's entirely due to the fact that the man looked real good in his frock coat and riding boot combo. REAL GOOD.
Of course, as the Creature, he also looked real good in the...well, the pretty much nothing that he wears for the opening birth scene. I'd heard about the fifteen minute writhing-around-learning-to-walk sequence that he does basically naked, but hearing about it and watching it are Very Different Things. I'm not ashamed to admit that my first thought on seeing him sprawled out on the floor of the stage was "My god he has a perfect body." And I don't just mean he's fit. Which he is. Quite. I mean he is absolutely perfectly proportioned. His build epitomizes Da Vinci's golden ratio for the male form. I could go on about this for quite a while, but I'll just sum up with JESUS CHRIST THAT MAN'S BODY. Okay, moving on.
Cumberbatch is a excellent actor and that extends to physical acting. During the birth scene I felt like I was watching a real person learn how to see, how to manage limbs, how to walk. The way he floundered and made his muscles spasm was terrifying and heartbreaking. Miller's Creature seemed a bit too baby-like in his development (and he admits that he based a lot of his Creature on his own toddler). Watching Cumberbatch was like watching an adult re-learn how to move. Very different approaches, and for this character, Cumberbatch had the better one. I also liked his Creature's vocal delivery better than Miller's. But this could just be the fact that, well, you know. THAT VOICE.
I don't want to sound like Johnny Lee Miller was a slouch in the acting department, though. Like I said, his Frankenstein was more appropriate to what I feel is the theme of the story. I mean, you don't hate the guy, but you feel bad for his family and fiancee for putting up with him, and you're probably glad not to be his friend or relative. Miller managed to walk a perfect line between unappealing and reprehensible while not completely distancing himself emotionally from the audience.
My feelings about which was more successful at the dual roles have one exception for each. Both dealt with sex and sexual violation.
The one instance where I thought Cumberbatch's Frankenstein was better was when he presented the Creature with the mate. Now, I'm pretty sure that Cumberbatch could have on-screen charisma with a bucket of paint, but his one-sided advances on the Creature's mate were disturbingly electric. Watching him touch and (oh god) breathe on her, I better understood Frankenstein's decision to destroy her. If he, as a scientist and her creator (as well as a man with a previously-exhibited lack of libido), felt so drawn to her perfection, imagine the pull she would have not only on the Creature, but potentially on all men. By convincing me of his attraction, he managed to make her destruction less a matter of spite toward the Creature and more an act of desperation, defense, and fear.
On the other side of the coin, Miller's Creature's rape of Elizabeth was more believable and repulsive. Whereas Cumberbatch's rape portrayal was brutal and efficient, Miller's Creature seemed to be enjoying himself. It lasted longer, he was much more vocal, and it was altogether more disturbing. During the Cumberbatch rape scene I had a moment of "okay, yeah, that happened off-screen in the book and wow this is uncomfortable" but I had difficulty watching Miller's interpretation for the duration of it. The lengthy timing enabled Cumberbatch's Frankenstein to witness a lot more of the rape, and highlighted his inability to respond to the crime, which added to the horror of the situation.
All things considered, I preferred the version with Cumberbatch as the Creature. That was the version that aired first, and despite my initial confusion at what was going on, I'm glad we saw them in that order. It made for a more honest experience of what I feel the production was trying to achieve. I am quite glad, though, that I got to see both, and see them both pretty much back-to-back. If you have the chance, I recommend you do the same.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Somehow I missed the fact that the production is from the Creature's point of view. Which was fantastic, since Dr. Frankenstein is (canonically) pretty much an arrogant douchebag. I just didn't realize that the play would open with the Creature's (confused/confusing) birth and (even more confused/confusing) first experiences with society. When a highly idealized steam train came bellowing onto the stage, with actors portraying passengers, crew, and the train itself I was all "Um. What? Is this whole thing going to be some surreal, largely-metaphorical concept piece? OH DEAR." But it wasn't. It was just a way of conveying the creature's non-understanding of the world and once I realized that, it was brilliant. This was my first confirmation that I had made the right decision in getting tickets to both shows. I got a lot more out of the opening scenes the second time around.
I'm not going to try to describe the spectacle that is the National Theatre stage. It's just...really, really impressive, okay? The sparse sets highlighted the remarkable abilities of the space to transform itself via rotating platforms, hydraulics, hidden doors, and cables. Even if the acting had been crap, the set design would have warranted glowing comments.
Of course, the acting was far from crap.
I'm gonna say it up front: Cumberbatch is a better actor than Miller and there's just not much that any amount of script or direction is going to do about that. But in this case, Cumberbatch's charisma worked against him in his portrayal of Frankenstein. He was brilliant as the Creature, but his Frankenstein was too sympathetic. I'm on board with portraying Frankenstein as a to-be-pitied genius that ultimately deserves his fate, but Cumberbatch's Frankenstein--well, honestly, by the end I just wanted to give him a hug. And I don't think that's entirely due to the fact that the man looked real good in his frock coat and riding boot combo. REAL GOOD.
Of course, as the Creature, he also looked real good in the...well, the pretty much nothing that he wears for the opening birth scene. I'd heard about the fifteen minute writhing-around-learning-to-walk sequence that he does basically naked, but hearing about it and watching it are Very Different Things. I'm not ashamed to admit that my first thought on seeing him sprawled out on the floor of the stage was "My god he has a perfect body." And I don't just mean he's fit. Which he is. Quite. I mean he is absolutely perfectly proportioned. His build epitomizes Da Vinci's golden ratio for the male form. I could go on about this for quite a while, but I'll just sum up with JESUS CHRIST THAT MAN'S BODY. Okay, moving on.
Cumberbatch is a excellent actor and that extends to physical acting. During the birth scene I felt like I was watching a real person learn how to see, how to manage limbs, how to walk. The way he floundered and made his muscles spasm was terrifying and heartbreaking. Miller's Creature seemed a bit too baby-like in his development (and he admits that he based a lot of his Creature on his own toddler). Watching Cumberbatch was like watching an adult re-learn how to move. Very different approaches, and for this character, Cumberbatch had the better one. I also liked his Creature's vocal delivery better than Miller's. But this could just be the fact that, well, you know. THAT VOICE.
I don't want to sound like Johnny Lee Miller was a slouch in the acting department, though. Like I said, his Frankenstein was more appropriate to what I feel is the theme of the story. I mean, you don't hate the guy, but you feel bad for his family and fiancee for putting up with him, and you're probably glad not to be his friend or relative. Miller managed to walk a perfect line between unappealing and reprehensible while not completely distancing himself emotionally from the audience.
My feelings about which was more successful at the dual roles have one exception for each. Both dealt with sex and sexual violation.
The one instance where I thought Cumberbatch's Frankenstein was better was when he presented the Creature with the mate. Now, I'm pretty sure that Cumberbatch could have on-screen charisma with a bucket of paint, but his one-sided advances on the Creature's mate were disturbingly electric. Watching him touch and (oh god) breathe on her, I better understood Frankenstein's decision to destroy her. If he, as a scientist and her creator (as well as a man with a previously-exhibited lack of libido), felt so drawn to her perfection, imagine the pull she would have not only on the Creature, but potentially on all men. By convincing me of his attraction, he managed to make her destruction less a matter of spite toward the Creature and more an act of desperation, defense, and fear.
On the other side of the coin, Miller's Creature's rape of Elizabeth was more believable and repulsive. Whereas Cumberbatch's rape portrayal was brutal and efficient, Miller's Creature seemed to be enjoying himself. It lasted longer, he was much more vocal, and it was altogether more disturbing. During the Cumberbatch rape scene I had a moment of "okay, yeah, that happened off-screen in the book and wow this is uncomfortable" but I had difficulty watching Miller's interpretation for the duration of it. The lengthy timing enabled Cumberbatch's Frankenstein to witness a lot more of the rape, and highlighted his inability to respond to the crime, which added to the horror of the situation.
All things considered, I preferred the version with Cumberbatch as the Creature. That was the version that aired first, and despite my initial confusion at what was going on, I'm glad we saw them in that order. It made for a more honest experience of what I feel the production was trying to achieve. I am quite glad, though, that I got to see both, and see them both pretty much back-to-back. If you have the chance, I recommend you do the same.