Ethan's Errantry: Part 1

I've been trying to figure out how I'd start my first post about the trip for the past three days, typically ending with "I'll decide later." However, I realized if I never get the rough part of the blog done, the rest can't happen. So, here we go! The first blog post of my trip to Stratford-upon-Avon and London.

I do post a disclaimer here: Witticism and sarcastic remarks are my forte, but this is one experience I just had to get down on paper. Expect a much lighter tone in the future.

For those who don't know, this summer I've joined a study abroad trip called Drama in Stratford and London. As sophisticated as that sounds, it is basically a three week journey to England to watch plays. Many, many plays. 15, to be exact, and that's not counting any extra shows I may add on later. We begin with a week in Stratford-upon-Avon, home of the Shakespeare Birth Trust and the Royal Shakespeare Company, where we will have the opportunity to have show discussions and classes with some of the company members at RSC. Then, we transfer to London for two weeks, seeing big name shows on the West End and at the new Globe while still seeing smaller shows in fringe theatres in the city.

BUT, before all that, were the flights.

Oh, the flights.

Something to be noted: My family took a vacation to San Francisco the week before my little excursion overseas. We landed in ATL around 7:00am on July 2. My flight cocktail to get to LHR left at 12:22 on July 3. That gave me just over 24 hours in Knoxville to repack, find everything I needed for the trip, and sleep (it was a red-eye flight from Vegas, where we had been up and moving since 9 a.m.). Things were going really smoothly, and I went to bed around 12:00am to do some final work online. At 1:12 a.m., right as I was about to go to sleep, an e-mail arrived.

My flight from Newark to Toronto had been canceled.

Without that flight, we couldn't get to our London flight, so our entire plan to go on the trip collapsed. From there, I've created a bullet point order-of-events, just so you can have a little sense of how the next 46ish hours went. BUT, to make it FUN, I've added PICTURES! Note they aren't editing and all were off my phone, so you're seeing them as I saw them.

Home base. The sight of "The First Terror".

• 1:12 a.m. EST: Flight from Newark to Toronto was cancelled, meaning we’d miss Toronto to LHR.
• 1:13 a.m. EST: I Facebook Kelly to alert her and look at options.
• 1:18 a.m. EST: I say screw it and call mom.
• 1:20 a.m. EST: Upstairs with mom working on flights.
• 1:22 a.m. EST: Get e-mail: New flight: EWR to LHR, but arriving on July 5. Would have to spend night and get to LHR a day late.
• 1:30 a.m. EST: We begin the phone calls to United.
• 1:50 a.m. EST: Get first connection to United, call gets dropped.
• 2:40ish EST: Get second person on United, but can’t talk to Kelly or Dr. Anderson to confirm the “only flight” available, so we have to hang up.
• 3:50ish EST: Get third person at United, decide on new plan of action and get new tickets. New plan: Fly out of Knoxville at 6:47pm -> IAD, fly IAD -> LHR. Arrive 10:15 am. Verified with Dr. Anderson, good to go.
• 4:20 EST: Check bags with Kelly and get through security.

Tyson McGee. With leaves?

• 4:40 EST: Get coffee at Starbucks and talk about watching American Horror Story.
• 4:50 EST: Get e-mail saying flight is delayed to EWR, meaning we’d miss flight to LHR.

I give up on exact times at this point.

• Meet up with Kerri, whose flight had been delayed indeterminately.
• Get in standby line to get on Kerri’s flight, because our flight had been cancelled.
• Notified that Kelly and I are now booked to leave the following day to go through O’Hare, getting into LHR on July 5.
• I leave security and go to the United desk to get Kelly and I booked on the standby flight.
• Boarding passes won’t print, he said he’d bring them to us. Get phone call saying flight is boarding.
• Get to check-in, our tickets hadn’t been processed, no boarding passes. Get THROWN onto flight to Dulles International.
• Kelly spills coffee and stains the entire plane and our clothes.

Ceiling, pants, seats, tray table. All victims, like us.

• Arrive at Dulles, get e-mail saying the flight I was supposed to be on tomorrow was cancelled. 

Outside landing. It was raining. Foreshadowing of what was to come?

• Attempt to get on earlier flight because we were all now rerouted through Brussels. No luck. Ironically run into Jeannie, who was traveling on the earlier flight from IAD, which also happened to be delayed.
•  Get on flight to Brussels.

The mysterious meal on the Brussels flight. That small square? Cheese.

•  Arrive Brussels. Notice Kelly and I have a different flight than Kerri.
•  Kerri calls United to sort through the situation. Apparently our tickets were booked on British Airways while we were in Tyson. No boarding passes had been printed yet, and the phone operator told us that only happens for “bereavement.” Notified we could get bumped from our flight.

We're all so happy in Brussels. We were promised chocolate. None to be had.

• Kerri is notified her ticket isn’t “real”, but Kelly and I get booked on the plane to LHR she was meant to ride.
• Find person at Brussels Air kiosk, who prints us 3 boarding passes to LHR and verifies our seats are “real”. Most helpful person so far.
• WE FIND THE BEAR. Begin documenting our adventures with him.

• Arrive LHR. Realize Kelly and I have lost our luggage. We think it went on our original flights that were cancelled, but then we saw we had luggage tags, so we assume it arrived LHR before we did.
• Informed they can’t find our luggage, but they will deliver it to us.
• Find a ticket station, take Heathrow Express tram from LHR to Paddington Station.

I decided to look like the Hunchback at this point, with yet-unamed bear giving encouragement.

• Take taxi from Paddington Station to Merlybone Station.
• Acquire tickets from Merlybone Station to Stratford-Upon-Avon.
• 20:18: Train for Stratford-upon-Avon leaves with us on it.
• Around 11:00 p.m. in Stratford-upon-Avon, settle into our B&B.

So, if you include the fact I hadn't really slept on the plane or car ride from Vegas, I had been up and traveling for 72 hours straight, with only micronaps until I reached our final destination.

However, there is an upside to all of that traveling. I've decided to call my experience Ethan's Errantry. One of my favorite series of novels is the Young Wizards universe. When a wizard is commissioned to do a job, they are said to be on errantry. Upon Googling the definition, errantry means the state of traveling, usually searching for adventure.

Well.

If there's one thing this trip has been, it's been an adventure. We've taken to saying we earned our "Extreme Traveler" badges. I may have been stressed and hungry and sleep deprived, but now I am confidant in traveling airports as a point person, going to a country where I know nothing and can't even guess at their first language (French and Dutch, I now know), and dealing with cancelled flights. Though we still don't have our checked luggage (though I had a carry on with most of my clothes), and there's still three weeks of the trip left, I'm excited to be in a country with a major theatrical history and learn more about the art, the actors, and myself.

/cheesypost

-Ethan

Show Preview: The Valley of Astonishment

Written and Directed by Peter Brook and Marie-Hélène Estienne

Cast: Kathryn Hunter (Sammy Costas), Marcello Magni and Jared McNeill

Musicians: Raphaël Chambouvet and Toshi Tsuchitori

Website: http://www.youngvic.org/whats-on/the-valley-of-astonishment

Jared McNeill and Kathryn Hunter in The Valley of Astonishment

I first encountered Peter Brook some 15 years ago as an undergraduate when I was required to read his book The Empty Space for a directing class. The unit was focused on re-thinking the actor/audience relationship, and we were looking at Peter Brook and Jerzy Grotowski simultaneously. We read Grotowski’s Towards a Poor Theatre first, for which Brook had written an introduction. His introduction did not make much of an impression on me, except for one small section near the end, when Brook says the aim of his own theatre (as opposed to Grotowski’s) is to bring together “the private and the public, the intimate and the crowded, the secret and the open, the vulgar and the magical” (14). I didn’t really know what this meant at the time, but I thought it sounded cool. The vulgar and the magical… I suppose it might be fair to say this idea has become a guiding force in everything I work on these days.

Peter Brook

Brook’s book is divided into four sections: the deadly theatre, the holy theatre, the rough theatre, and the immediate theatre. For those who have never encountered Brook, here is a (very) quick and dirty run-down of what these classifications mean (please pardon my momentary lecture mode):

• The Deadly Theatre: This is the kind of theatre that addresses passive spectators – the kind of theatre he felt was taking over the stage at the time. No engagement, no need to think or be disturbed, everything outlined and perfectly understandable, handed to the audience (sitting quietly and passively in a dark auditorium) on a silver platter. Commercial theatre, meant to give audiences exactly what they expect, and make lots of money.

• The Holy Theatre: Theatre concerned with ritual and higher values (moral, spiritual) – making the invisible intellectual and spiritual realms of the human… well… soul, if you will, visible and concrete onstage. The concern is that the Holy theatre might remain on this “higher” plane and therefore not really engage with the audience on an everyday or physical level.

• The Rough Theatre: Focuses on senses, physical impulses, and direct engagement with the audience (and social engagement – audience members with other audience members). Brook was worried that an over-reliance on the Rough theatre might cause theatre to be simple and shallow (so, where the Holy theatre might cause people to get too much in their heads and not connect physically, the Rough theatre might cause people too think too much in physical and social terms and not connect intellectually/spiritually).

• The Immediate Theatre: The combination of the best elements of the Rough and Holy theatres. Something that engages the audience on both a physical (sensory) and intellectual (spiritual) level.

These different “theatres” raised all kinds of new issues for me about theatre back in my undergrad days that I am still struggling with today. What is theatre supposed to do – what is the function/purpose? How does theatre-the-art relate to theatre-the-business? What does the mutability (changeability, volatility, plasticity) of theatre do to the experience of a production (from the perspective of both the artists and the audience)? What is required for theatre to be theatre, and what is not required?

This play itself is highly intriguing to me for a variety of reasons, some which sound fancy and academic and others which really are just me being a total geek. But that’s ok, too.

The Valley of Astonishment centers on the neurological disorder known as synaesthesia, a condition that causes sufferers to experience a kind of blending of the senses. For example, you might experience colors as smells, or sounds as colors. Because theatre, at its core, is something we experience through our senses, I am very curious about how the idea of a kind of disconnect between the senses, or sense confusion, might change our experience of the world and the theatre (cause us to question certain assumptions about the theatrical experience).

The title of the play comes from a 12^th century Persian poem – The Conference of the Birds – which tells the story of birds who are searching for a leader, and travel through seven valleys (including the valley of astonishment – the 6^th valley). I confess that I have not done a ton of research into this poem (ran out of time), but my understanding from reviews of the show and a quick Google search is that the valley of astonishment comes after the valley of unity, which involves letting yourself go in in order to become one with everything else – you are nothing in the light of God’s presence (you are enfolded into god – selfless). In this state, you reach the valley of astonishment and bewilderment – everything is new, astonishing, and no longer connected to a sense of self or the expectations you may already have about yourself and the world.

The cast is led by Kathryn Hunter, who is a well-known and highly accomplished actress. For the Harry Potter-minded, she played Arabella Figg in the HP movies, so you will probably recognize her (here’s where the geek-out comes into play for me – yay Harry Potter!).

Kathryn Hunter in The Valley of Astonishment

When we see The Valley of Astonishment there will be several things I will be thinking about – several questions I have in my mind about the production. I want to know what Peter Brook does with a play. How does he create his own theatre? Is it immediate, rough, holy, deadly, some combination, something new? How does he set up the actor-audience relationship? How does synaesthesia come into play in both the play and in the theatrical event?

Buckle up, y’all – this will be a weird one! (so excited!!)

Just for fun:

“What Does Your Tube Stop Taste Like?” by Ben Riley-Smith

The Telegraph, August 23, 2013

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10257633/What-do-London-Underground-stops-taste-like.html

• Apparently our Russell Square Station tastes like celery.

Peter Brook’s Introduction to The Valley of Astonishment:

• http://youngviclondon.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/the-valley-of-astonishment-an-introduction-from-peter-brook/

Show Preview: Matilda

 

     I think we need to be honest and admit it: We all wanted to be Matilda. After watching the adorable 1996 movie adaptation of Roald Dahl’s children’s book, telekinetically partying in my kitchen while dancing to “Little Bitty Pretty One” was definitely on my bucket list. However, the source material for the film was actually a very different experience. In the film, Matilda manifests her powers with ease quite often, including levitating her friend Lavender. In the novel, Matilda only uses her power, referred to as “The Miracle”, a few times, none of which were for her personal gain. She did train her powers, but it was a much more focused process of maneuvering her father’s cigar, rather than making herself a nice meal.

    Another major difference between the film and the novel is that Matilda was only five and a half years old when she started school, and everything takes places within a few months. Matilda does not sneak into Trunchbull’s house and wreak havoc, nor does she get locked in The Chokey. FBI agents do not stake out the Wormwoods’ house (although the Wormwoods do get discovered for their illegal care sales and flee to Spain), and Matilda doesn’t actually carry adoption papers with her wherever she goes. Most important to me is the fact that Matilda is skipped forward six grades in the novel, which causes her hyper intelligent mind to work so hard that she loses her powers forever, instead of keeping them for trivial pursuits like pulling books from shelves.

    The point to all of this is that the 1996 film, generally adored by audiences, took liberties with the source material to make it more appealing for a film audience. More “action” and “comedy” were added to keep audiences’ attention, which is a very common practice in the industry. The adult figures are made into caricatures of themselves instead of the very real and dangerous representations of negligent caretakers Dahl’s novel described.

    In a quick skim of the Cast Recording, I am happy to say that it seems to be drawing from the source material more than the movie. Songs like “Revolting” and “Miracle” pull from lines in the novel and expand on them the way musical theatre should (click here to be directed to a Spotify playlist with the entire cast recording). I’m excited to see just how the “miracles” manifest themselves on stage, and if more “special effects” are used to increase spectacle (and, typically, audience spending). Even if it does, Matilda: The Musical would probably still be an enjoyable experience. The characters and story are strong enough to withstand some “fluff” while presenting important issues. Overall, I’m hopeful for a beautifully told story of our plucky heroine and her misadventures.

    Here’s a link to a Spotify playlist of Matilda: The Musical.

-Ethan

    Thanks to Google Images for the header picture!