Written by Neil LaBute who some have described as a misanthrope and a misogynist as it seems much of his work presents plays or films around issues with women. It would be very interesting to meet with him and discover what he thinks about these summations.
Olivia Williams plays the sis. And indeed we learn that she is not a clean living person and the angry brother, Matthew Fox (who as his debut stage performance was very good indeed), reveals her history. At one point there as a suggestion of his incestuous desires for her. The seductress has been the woman he has compared himself with in terms of success and indeed she reveals his own sordid behaviour, beating women. But he can justify himself. In fact in the beginning he appears to be the monster, sweaing and drinking and less educated than his very cultured sis. As the the play unravels, it is apparent that despite her success at the University and respected position, her culture, she is less than moral. He repeatedly turns over her lying, each time she reveals a little more of the truth. She enunciates her story but he discovers another cover up lie and another. Bobby gradually pieces together what has happened. The end is that although disgusted with her, he colludes to save his sis from discovery. What I really felt is how much he loves his sis. At one point I thought it was being taken into incest but actually I think in hindsight he was displaying his adoration for her.
Betty is revealed as actually very shallow, having discovered how her young lover really feels about her when she reads his journal. Seeing herself as the enchantress compared to Bobby's femme fatale, she is facing herself as she ages. She has been relieved to be able to still turn heads and fell in love she thought when a young student appears to be beguiled by her knowledge and they can share their passion of literature together. As his reflections and suppositions start to merge, Bobby unfolds her pride and the sinister way that manifests itself.
"What LaBute is writing about is the elusiveness of truth and the deceptiveness of appearances. Bobby, for all his sexism and racism, turns out to be a fierce puritan. Betty, on the other hand, is an instinctive liar. But, while it's good to have our assumptions overturned, I am always a little suspicious of plays where it's dangerous to reveal too much of the plot." The Guardian
Olivia Wiliams seemed a little stilted at first. However, on reflection it could have been Matthew Fox. I am not sure. There just didn't seem such a flow of the lines in the opening scenes and maybe for a little longer. However, the actors seemed to warm up into their parts and became more believeable. The bro, sis relationship seemed real enough and the plot is the revealing frame between these two. It was easy to start seeing their history. It seemed subtle how to begin with the emphasis seemed to be on the low-life of Bobby and their dad and Betty was the success despite them. Ooops sorry gone back to the play.
LaBute - I read this on Wikipedia "LaBute's style is very language-oriented. His work is terse, rhythmic, and highly colloquial. His style bears similarity to one of his favorite playwrights, David Mamet. LaBute even shares some similar themes with Mamet including gender relations, political correctness, and masculinity." Yes this play was certainly about the gender relations and interations and very much about morals too. Room enough for a discussion on rights and wrongs and how some wrongs become more right as worse wrongs occur. "Well at least I don't do that", is what I mean.
Matthew Foz truly was superb. I really was moved from the uncooth, violent angry beer-swelling man to a man of principles and a man who loved and cared for his sister. On the otherhand, Olivia did a good job of taking me from the succesful, cultured woman to a woman who was just desperate and needy.
Overall I enjoyed it. I love the enitre experience anyway of being in the theatre, the live perfromances. We had great seats, 3rd row. We could see everything and hear clearly, no strain. It's worth paying the extra for the ease of focussing on the play rather than trying to see around people and hear above sometimes poor accoustics of the old theatres. Loved being at the Vaudeville. I didn't take anywhere enough photos.
ML said she enjoyed it. She too felt that the beginning was a little bit awkward and she didn't get a sense of a relationship between them. She went onto say but perhaps that was more about Betty knowing that she was lying.
I know ML was struggling all day with her tummy pains and I was struggling also with my own issues. It is so easy to just be me with ML. There are some shortcomings we both display and somehow we muddle around them because we get on and I love and value ML so much. She is a great friend to have. We share similar principles I think but also some differences, enough to keep challenging and opening my mind. This is always good. And ML seems to be growing in her confidence with knowledge. She knows things for certain now and she seems to know that she knows these days. It's an exciting growth for her in my view.
We met at Emabnakment, an easy stroll over Hungerford Bridge from Waterloo for me. I turned up and just about to sit on the steps when ML arrived. Our first port of call was the National Portrait as ML wanted to see the photos of Nan Marriot-Watson who was apparently ML's grandmother. Nan was an actress. The photographs are by Bassano who was a leading high society portrait photographer in the late 1800's until he died in early 1900's.
ML seems very proud of her connection to the stage. I get a feeling though that ML almost justifies herself because of the art history of people in her past, her fathers poetry, her mothers art and people like Nan and Augustus John way way back. Maybe it's me but this is where I feel a tension as if there is a superiority that seems to seep out of ML at these times. Unfortunately, the photos are no longer on display in the gallery. However, ML was able to see them and get copies of them from the database. She thoughtdully took copies for her brother too.
I suppose thinking about it, that there is a sense of being a somebody if ancestors have been a somebosy. This is a societal creation it seems. After all there is inheritance of status through the Lords and Royalty. ANd also the genetic connections of creativity is always pronounced. The woman who assisted ML to find the photographs enquired if ML had followed in her aunts footsteps. Of course people in the media have an importance. The famous are of interest. An encounter is always a sort of point of reference and holds great imporance for some people.
I can get star struck too. I think perhaps I would like to have some fame connection within my family.
I haev met many famous people in the life experiences I have had. I smile at myself as my sort of anti star struck attitude has always kicked in and I am dismissive, consequently the friendships are brief as I brush them off. Tch - I am such a bigot in an inverted way at times. Something else to work on.
So from Trafalgar Square we walked some of the way to Baker Street to find the Ampika P3 Studio. It was a huge space.
The display of the finalists for the Deutche Borse was interesting. I was aware that Jim Goldberg held the main hall and I am worried that he will be the winner. I am probably biasing his position in the gallery. Anyway I think his photo journalism is very good indeed. Highly political and not withstanding, he cuts across diplomacy. However, it is not unique anymore. It seems that I see a lot of it. Well nothing seems unique anymore. My vote is still with Roe Ethridge. I didn't get inspire by either Tom Demand or Elad Lassry. Just did nothing for me. Apart from Elad's use of the frame. I did like that.
I did also appreciate the precision of his photos. Crisp! But not a winner. Actually on reflection I am a lot more impressed with his work than I at first realised. But still not the winner in my mind.
Overall an interesting day. Walking around London, street scenes, art and culture.
Bliss
XX
Deutsche Borse
The annual prize is £30,000 and open to any photogrpaher of any nationality who has made a contribution to photography in Europe. (No wonder Jim Goldberg turned his attentions away from his other projects - cynical me!).
What does a contribution mean exactly? Getting published - does that mean you are a contributing photographer?
Before anyone thinks otherwise I did think highly of Jim's work. And nothing is completely original these days although everything and everyone is unique and brings them to their work, including me.
I just think that some things like money provoke or divert focus sometimes. And lets face it I would lie £30,000 and would hope not to become overly influenced by the commercialism and stick to principles. Difficult to do in a society run by economics.
There was a portrait by Roe Ethridge that I just thought was special in it's story ...
Thanksgiving
Now this is nothing to do with Europe. So I wonder what the contribution is to Europe during 2009 to 2010. Anyhow his photography has certainly been brought to my attention.
Bliss
XX
