A CONFLUENCE OF TEARS

I recently was catching up with an old college pal, Lexi, when the conversation turned to Game of Thrones. We joked a bit about how to discuss the show properly without spoiling any of it (we’d both seen all of it, but that principle may be for another post). One thing led to another, spoilery territory led to Lost, and I decided to come up with a list of the Top 5 Greatest Cries (at least in theatre or onscreen) that I’ve experienced.

For the record, I’ve tried to keep this SPOILER free. However, if you haven’t seen (or read, even if you didn’t see a particular production) - proceed with caution.

5: The finale of Lost. OK, I know. Right off the bat, a very divisive entry. I was obsessed with Lost! Truth be told, the last 2 seasons (arguably more or less) dropped the ball. An infuriating ending to one of the most enigmatic shows in my lifetime (so far). However, years later I rewatched the series, and had a very personal connection with the ending shot. It may have been due to my own wrangling with a familiar sense of loss in my father’s passing, but it hit home in a very big (definitely existential) way.

4: Jez Butterworth’s Jerusalem. This is a tricky one. I’m not even sure if I cried, technically, at the end of this (at least not on the first viewing). This production was so profound, I found myself on my feet before I had even recognized that I had moved . It was an insanely visceral response. My entire being - especially my heart - was ready to burst out of any physical boundaries of my body. Astonishing.

3. Mudbound on Netflix. Jesus, just watch it. I literally shouted at the screen multiple times. Grab some tissues and just deal with it. It was an early entry (I think) as far as Netflix films go, but this deserved so many more awards that it received. A stunning piece, and one of the greatest in cinema thus far into the century.

2. The National Theatre production fo All My Sons in 2001. This is so so so so hard. I want this to be #1. I will say that Laurie Metcalf’s performance is still the greatest performance I have ever seen. Ever. Period. By ANYONE (and I’m a HUGE Rylance devotee). I will undoubtedly talk more about this production in a future post, but this is a post about great cries. . .

1: The Safety of Objects. An absolutely devastating book (I couldn’t even finish Homes’ Things You Should Know), and an equally devastating film. I won’t bore you with all of the context (a friend had broken down while watching the film [at home] due to a personally charged reaction to specific moments) - this is a film that left me literally stunned. Rather than feel the immediate burn of the film at its climax, we had to talk our friend down. The cathartic meltdown didn’t happen for me until a few hours later, when I was on the 6 train back home, very late at night. I was alone in the car, and then BAM! It hit me. Out of nowhere- hot, furious tears and snot the temperature of lava thrusting from my face. I hesitate to recommend it, yet. . .

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner

Roast chicken w/ Montreal rub and chimichurri

AY, THERE’S THE RUB:

2 tbsp sea salt

1 tbsp black pepper

2 tbsp paprika 

1 tbsp garlic powder

1 tbsp onion powder 

1 tbsp chili powder (cayenne if you want to go nuts)

1 tbsp ground coriander

1 tbsp dill

1 tsp mustard powder (note: TEASPOON)

CHIMICHURRI:

1 shallot, minced or finely diced

1 chili of your choosing (minced or finely diced)

3 garlic cloves, minced or finely diced

2 tbsp vinegar (your choice, I like champagne or Prosecco)

salt, to taste

1 huge bunch of flat leaf (Italian) parsley, most stems removed and finely chopped 

2 tbsp finally chopped fresh oregano 

1/2 cup or more EVOO

Whisk everything together.  Get creative with the herbs. Keep in mind: the longer you let it mingle, the greater the flavor

AS FOR THE BIRD:

Preheat oven to 425

Give a good 3-5 lb chicken a wash with 1-2 egg yolks. Cover with Montreal rub. Stuff with sliced lemon, onion (or fennel), garlic, thyme, salt and pepper. Truss as needed. Roast for 1.5-2 hours, checking often after the 1 hour mark (you’re looking for a 165 internal temp). 

Worth noting: you don’t need to use all of the rub and chimichurri for this. Save the leftovers for future culinary adventures!

Polonius Funk

I found some scribbles regarding Polonius (in Hamlet) in a Moleskine recently:

Polonius is a satire of Humanism in a post-Renaissance era. He is an indictment against the vanity of those that used “Humanism” as a veil to actually serve themselves (Polonius proceeds to give great advice to his son regarding independence, yet clearly doesn’t trust him. . .hence Reynaldo).

Worth noting: Polonius was named “Corambis” in Q1(?) - “Corambisi” meaning “double-hearted.” Polonius may have been a veil for Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley. . .whose coat of arms bore “cor una, via una,” or “one heart, one way.” Double-hearted or two-faced?

Is there a correlation between “Polonius” and “Apollo?” Apollo was the god of truth (among other things). . .

(This is a direct transposition of thoughts from my journals; I apologize for not using any appropriate annotations for reference; I was probably tipsy when I originally jotted them down)

THE PROPER ADDRESS

Inaugural post alert!

Hello, and thank you for joining me.  This blog is my way of sharing my myriad thoughts on theatre, cinema, dining, cocktails - you name it. Consider it a paean to the things we love to do after dark (and sometimes mid afternoon). 

Without much (further) ado about nothing (I always thought this would have made for a hilarious subtitle to Hamlet), let’s get right down to it:

Shakespeare’s writing in verse is important to note.  For a performer, it is often indicative of what is happening within a character’s thoughts and actions.  Ten beats per line (sometimes more, telling). Sometimes rhyming, sometimes not. Sometimes breaking into prose.  The breakdown of stressed and unstressed syllables is absolutely key to understanding the language.

Arguably the most well known (and most-quoted) speech among Shakespeare’s work is “To be, or not to be…” It’s a beautifully introspective speech, but I believe is much more active than most portray or speak.  

Let’s take a closer look at the rhythm of the opening line alone:

“To be, or not to be, that is the question:”

More often than not, an actor will stress “that” when speaking the line. To actually speak “to be or not to be, THAT is the question.”  Stressing “that” belies the entire intention of the speech.  It doesn’t make sense for Hamlet to answer his own question in the very opening line of the thesis.   

The very property of the verb “is” in this instance is as such: it is dynamic, rather than stative.  It continues the progress of the thought, the very discovery of what Hamlet is contemplating (existentialism? Perhaps). He is discovering the very questions he proposes throughout the speech.

Thus, to stress “is,” makes much more sense. All of which lines up with the traditional scanning of the line. 

“To be, or not to be, that IS the question:”

This is not indicative of all the Shakespearean “isms.” We will talk about those later. 

Let me know your thoughts.