Macbeth

          I recently saw a production of Macbeth starring Kenneth Branagh and Alex Kingston. While the play itself was performed in the UK, I was able to attend a screening at UCLA through National Theatre Live. I wasn't sure what to expect, but in the end I was pleasantly surprised with the experience. It was a tremendous advantage, enabling a widespread audience to sit through a production they would otherwise not be able to attend.

          As someone who is neither an avid theater-goer nor particularly well-versed in Shakespeare, I went into Macbeth with virtually no expectations. I was rather pleased when the cast delivered a really solid performance. Seeing this play took me back to my high school days, and certain lines triggered memories of memorization and performance. In fact, I'd nearly forgotten that one of my very favorite Shakespearean passages comes from Macbeth, and I sat in my seat reciting it my head as Branagh spoke the words aloud:

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing."

          In general, the experience of seeing Macbeth was incredibly unique because it was neither a live performance nor a film- instead it managed to entwine the best of both worlds. While the real audience members were limited to the single viewpoint of their seats, our theater was privileged in that we got to view each scene from several wonderfully-articulated camera angles. In that sense, the play was very active and engaging in a way that it wouldn't have been for the people viewing it in person. As someone who tends to prefer film over theater, I think that element is what really drew me into this performance. However, unlike watching a movie, these productions by NTL are done live. While the play is being viewed from a camera, it is unedited footage, which makes the overall composition feel very genuine.

          One thing I rather enjoyed about this play was the stage design- specifically that there was no stage. Instead, the theater was divided in half, allowing the performers to pass from one side to the other through a central passageway with audience members sitting on either side. This space allowed for a lot of action and movement that would've been difficult to pull off with a more typical platform. I thought it worked really well.

           If there was one stand-out actor in this production, it was Alexander Vlahos, who played Malcom. While he didn't have a particularly large part, I was constantly drawn to the energy and grace of his performance. I hope his acting career continues to expand because I'd love to see him perform again.

          Overall, I had a great experience, and I would highly recommend looking into National Theatre Live for future entertainment opportunities. In the upcoming months, I already have tickets to see Frankenstein with Benedict Cumberbatch and Coriolanus with Tom Hiddleston. Needless to say, I'm rather excited. 

Thor: The Dark World Review

          I have to say that after seeing Thor The Dark World multiple times in the past week, I am still left with an array of very mixed feelings. In my opinion, it was certainly the weakest of the three associated films. That being said, there were many elements of it that I did thoroughly enjoy.

[SPOILERS AHEAD: Read On At Your Own Risk]

          First and foremost, the movie seemed to be a bit at war with itself in terms of genre. It was largely action, but there were elements of comedy, romance and drama introduced rather abruptly at various points. Now, many movies have pulled off that sort of balancing act, and while I don't think The Dark World was particularly successful at it, the film did benefit from the attempted multi-dimensionality because the main storyline was not strong enough to stand alone.
          There were several plots going on simultaneously, and the main thread involving the dark elves was the weakest in my opinion. It felt somewhat forced within the larger context of the movie series, and involved an unnecessary amount of special effects that, for the most part, lacked the "wow" factor that should accompany good action sequences. There was far too much reliance on the mystical power of the aether, and very little actual explanation as to why certain things were happening.
           More than that however, the biggest problem with the storyline was that it lacked the emotional component that made the first film such a success. The primary villain, Malekith, is a tremendously two-dimensional character with no real motivation behind his treachery. In that respect The Dark World was a disappointing follow-up to Thor and The Avengers, which showcased Loki as the emotionally-driven antagonist. It's that extra layer of characterization which has led to his becoming the most beloved villain of the modern era. With Malekith, even his defeat, which is meant to be the climax of the movie, is underwhelming because the audience doesn't have a fully developed understanding of his character.

          Another thing that frustrated me about The Dark World was a specific scene: Loki's death on Svartalfheim. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a wonderfully heartfelt segment between the two brothers. What bothered me was the abrupt transition into the next scene. One second we see Thor angered and mourning, and the next he is completely composed and joking around with Jane as they escape to Earth. Now, I understand that the audience may not have believed Loki was really dead, but the point is that Thor did. I just felt he should've reacted differently after having lost both his mother and his brother. Faked or not, I don't think Loki's death received the treatment that his character deserved.
           Speaking of Thor and Loki, I'd like to address the last, and most aggravating thing about this entire movie. The house of Odin is obviously very broken and flawed after the events that take place in Thor and The Avengers, and while this set of complex and dynamic relationships lent itself to some incredibly powerful story material, Marvel chose not to capitalize on it. The small moments shared between the various family members were, by far, the most successful bits of the entire film. I adored the scene between Loki and Odin,

the scene between Loki and Frigga,

the scene between Thor and Odin,

the scene between Odin and Frigga,

and of course, every scene between Thor and Loki.

Those sequences in particular were what really brought the movie into the hearts of the audience. However, they were few and fleeting in duration. I wish the film would've emphasized the relationships between Thor, Odin, Loki and Frigga even more, because they were very moving and immensely powerful.

___________________________________________________________________________

          Now that I've thoroughly criticized the movie, I'd like to point out that there were several positive aspects of the film as well. For one thing, the comedic relief was both successful and necessary, and let's face it, Loki pretty much dominated on that front. In fact, the internet has begun referring to the God of Mischief as the "God of Sass"- and for good reason. The brotherly banter that ensues between he and Thor brings their complex relationship down to a more relateable, more human level. The cameo with Captain America was absolutely golden, and the scene when Thor hangs Mjolnir up on the wall was equally well-articulated. I found myself laughing repeatedly throughout the film, and I think the overall movie would've been significantly less enjoyable without that element of humor.

  

      
             For me, there are two standout characters in this movie: Loki and Frigga. What fascinates me about Loki is that he evolves noticeably between each film. In Thor, he is young and emotionally distraught, in The Avengers, he is bitter, ruthless and aggressive, and in The Dark World, Tom Hiddleston delivers a much more sarcastic, sardonic version of Loki that we hadn't really seen before. Despite the interesting shifts in personality, I find my attachment to this character unwavering. The relationship between Frigga and Loki is also one of the best things about the entire film. Yes, it's her death that ultimately leads to his provisional freedom, but it's quite evident that Loki genuinely cares about her. That being said, Frigga is a strong female character all on her own. We see her fearlessly take on the villain, Malekith, and she even dies with honor and grace as the Queen of Asgard. I was extremely concerned when Frigga and Loki were killed off almost consecutively. As two of the strongest, most dynamic characters, it would've been a shame to eliminate them both from the franchise.

          When it comes down to it, the very end of the movie compensates for all of its prior shortcomings. I was absolutely ecstatic when Loki was revealed on the throne. However, I feel like the shock and excitement caused people to overlook the beauty of what had just passed between Thor and "Odin" (aka Loki in disguise). It may have been Loki doing the talking, and he may not have meant a single word that he said, but I loved that it took a veil of deceit to allow the brothers to compliment one another, and I can't wait to see what happens next. Nobody really knows for certain where the story will go from here. Will there be a Thor 3? Will Loki finally get that solo film the world's been rallying for? Only time will tell. Here's to the future. Long live the God of Mischief.