inactive blog!! find me at @evies20dollars

Emily and I had to rush to get to the Roman Baths on time, but when we got there it was a cool experience to have. The site of the Roman Baths was actually rediscovered and turned into a museum in the late 1800s. The baths themselves are actually below street level, but when the construction began for the museum, buildings were built above the baths. The interior of the area surrounding the baths bears resemblance to what one would expect from Ancient Rome, with tall pillars, a terrace, and statues erected to Roman gods and goddesses. Without given any of this information about the baths or without much prior knowledge about authentic Roman life, somebody visiting the baths could easily believe the Great Baths and the pillars and statues surrounding it were actually authentic and discovered with the baths themselves rather than a later construction.

There was a lot to see in general and Emily and I found with every turn more things to discover, though we did have to rush a bit because we arrived slightly late due to the fact we left Glastonbury later than scheduled. Along with the main baths, there were hot springs, a temple to Minerva, other artifacts on display like pre-Roman coins, and realistic looking videos in different parts of the baths depicting life-size Romans going about their daily lives using the public baths, bartering at markets, and more. I wish we had had more time there-- even if we had made it on time, a half hour wouldn’t be enough to properly appreciate everything there-- but it was still an enjoyable experience and a rather nice change of pace from the more typically English sites we saw on our trip.

I feel as though the British Museum could have been a more enjoyable experience if being there didn’t feel so rushed. There was no reason for Monique and me to be rushing-- we had several hours we could spend there-- but there were just so many people in the museum. It felt as though we had to keep moving and moving so we wouldn’t be in anybody’s way. Compared to Camden Market, it felt like there were more people, though I don’t think that is actually true, but, because it made the museum space feel smaller, it felt that way. 

 Still, there were many interesting things to see there. The museum is largely historical, with exhibits dating back from ancient times to closer to modern day, organized largely by region of origin. We probably spent more time in the Ancient Greece section than any other because that is a personal favorite of mine. I had expected a bit more as far as Greek god sculptures because I had seen images online, but I realized afterward that the photos I was thinking of were from the Louvre, not the British Museum. We went through the European section and found many different exhibits, one particular one I enjoyed being a pendant of Thor’s hammer in the Nordic part. In the Arabic section, there were several garments, which I thoroughly enjoyed and found to be quite beautiful.

After visiting the Tower of London on Tuesday, a group of us got lunch and then went to the British Library. Though a technical library, it in some ways bore more resemblance to a museum than a traditional library. There were many art pieces on display in the halls. We explored in search of the copy of Virginia’s Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway that one of us had been looking for and struggled at first to navigate. We went to an area titled Manuscripts, which did not have it nor were we even permitted to enter. 

For the long weekend, while most of our class was away in Belfast, my friend Monique came up from Germany to visit. We spent our Saturday, along with her friend Cleo who is working as an au pair in London, at the Camden Market.

Camden Town had very little to offer until the early 1970s when it became a hub for the punk-rock movement. Today it offers street markets filled with nearly everything imaginable, from quintessential touristy trinkets to vintage clothes, Lolita and Harajuku fashion, beautiful paintings, rugs, countless food stalls and more. We explored as soon as we got off the Tube, walking up the street past numerous vendors. From stall to stall, store to store, the music changed ranging from the punk rock that made the area famous to EDM, classic rock, Latin, and more. The whole area was extremely colorful-- there was street art and even shops were decorated so they stood out with bright colors and animals like dragons and elephants above the entrances of some. Eventually, we reached an area off the streets where the market continued with several more stalls and small stores. Monique and Cleo had already eaten lunch with Cleo’s host family, but I was happy to see how many vegan stalls there were.

Something I noticed during my time here in London is the fact that unlike in the U.S., “socialist” isn’t a dirty word. While I haven’t spoken to any native Brits about their opinions on the matter (politics is a tricky subject to discuss with anyone, especially strangers) I’ve seen numerous adverts on the streets for things like Marxism 2019-- “a festival of socialist ideas,” a Karl Marx walking tour, other socialist events being held by universities in Bloomsbury, and a socialist newspaper stand on the day we went to Westminster Abbey as we walked by the Trump protests.

Admittedly, I had high expectations for Henry IV: Part 1 and so perhaps for that reason it came up so short for me. We were going to see it at the Globe and we had already watched two extremely excellent Shakespeare productions at the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Bridge Theatre. While these factors might have elevated my expectations, I think regardless, the Globe Theatre’s production of Henry IV: Part 1 was objectively subpar.

Changing genders in a play can be an extraordinary way to explore and create entirely new dynamics for characters and their relationships. Unfortunately, this play did none of those things, nor did it in any apparent way even attempt to. The genderbent leads, Prince Hal, Hotspur, and Falstaff were simply played as men. Giving women lead roles traditionally played by men and playing it the same as one might with men cast in the roles isn’t inherently bad, but it’s certainly a missed opportunity as far as doing something more interesting with the roles goes. The leads were not the only characters to be cast as the opposite gender-- two others were Mistress Quickly and Glendower’s daughter, otherwise known as the Welsh Lady. Both times, this gender change is only played for laughs rather than anything meaningful for the production. Mistress Quickly was dressed up enough as a woman that the actor appeared feminine, but not so much that the audience would not recognize that the actor was indeed a man in order to spark laughter from the audience, which sort of worked. Later in the play, Mistress Quickly speaks a line about being a true woman with a knowing look at the audience who, of course, knows she is being portrayed by a he. To me, this had negative and dangerous implications. The Welsh woman being portrayed by a man without any attempt to cover the fact the actor playing the role was male was another cheap gag at gender that was not actually very funny at all.

Something else I really disliked about this production was the portrayal of Hotspur and Lady Kate. What makes their relationship interesting to see on stage is their quick-witted, playful jabs at one another and shared passion. Once again, this production did not do any of this. Instead, Lady Kate was simply clingy and desperate for her husband’s love while he had only disdain and mockery to offer her. Nothing about this was enjoyable to watch; instead, it was just a bit sad and made Hotspur come across as less likable.

In the Royal Shakespeare Company’s 2013 production of As You Like It, Rosalind, portrayed by Pippa Nixon, when assuming the disguise of Ganymede, takes on a male appearance. With hair cut short and styled with gel to one side and a collared blue shirt, Ganymede looks as though he is a boy, perhaps a preppy boy rather than traditionally masculine, but a boy nonetheless. Because of this, her romantic interactions with Orlando (Alex Waldmann) come across as very homoerotic.

In Act 3 Scene 2, Rosalind/Ganymede sits closely next to Orlando as they converse about Orlando’s poems that he so abuses the trees with, his lovesickness, and Ganymede’s supposed cure. As they do this, they share what is presumably a blunt. This act, particularly in this context, has some undeniable phallic implications. Staged so close to each other as they interact with each other and even touch one another, from the viewpoint of the audience that is far less close to the actors as the camera that has filmed the scene, Orlando and Ganymede appear to be a gay couple. When Rosalind/Ganymede asks Orlando if he is truly in love with Rosalind, he responds “Neither rhyme nor reason could express how much” and despite speaking these things about the woman he is in love with, he looks at Ganymede with a look of such adoration that he might as well be declaring his love to Ganymede rather than Rosalind, though it would happen that he is actually doing both.

While Nixon and Waldmann’s portrayals of these characters have obvious sexual tension, when Rosalind/Ganymede directs Orlando to call her “Rosalind”, this is not only a man imploring another man to call him by the name of a woman, but specifically the woman the two characters have just discussed in great length that Orlando loves. Not only this, but Ganymede suggests Orlando aim to woo him as Rosalind. While it is her under this guise, Orlando does not know this and is agreeing to engage in flirting (more so than he already has been doing) with another man. He is very clearly interested in Ganymede as more than a friend and does little to hide this. During the time in which the play was written, there were no labels to be put on sexualities like heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or anything else and instead, sexuality was related more to actions in a single moment of time than any identity and who Orlando feels attraction to is demonstrably fluid. When Nixon’s Rosalind asks Orlando to show her where in the forest he lives, the simultaneous hesitancy and eagerness she displays make the interaction almost resemble a contemporary exchanging of cell-phone numbers. Thus, in this RSC production, Orlando and Ganymede are very clearly framed as two boys flirting with one another, clearly interested in one another and clearly queer.

In Act 5 Scene 3 of Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part One, King Henry IV has implemented a battle strategy in which there are numerous decoy kings impersonating him on the battlefield in order to confuse and frustrate his enemy. It works, as Douglas kills Blunt who was disguised as the king and believes he has triumphed, only for Hotspur to tell him “No, I know this face full well/A gallant knight he was; his name was Blunt,/Semblably furnished like the king himself” (Shakespeare 5.3.20-22).  This occurs several more times offstage and in the following scene, Douglas exclaims “Another king! They grow like Hydra’s heads” (Shakespeare 5.4.25). While there is no number of how many King Henrys are in the fray, based on that statement it is likely a lot.

This strategy King Henry executes also connects directly to both the idea of theatre and throne, and while successful on the battlefield, could lead the audience to some potentially questionable notions about royalty and what it truly means to be king. The decision to insert numerous decoy-kings into the battleground is not something that could have been predicted because sumptuary laws were in place during the time in which the play took place as well as the time it was written and being performed. Therefore, doing so was technically illegal. In general, the theatre was the only place in which somebody of a lower station might dress up as though they were from any higher class, much less royalty itself. In the middle of a war though, King Henry has staged his own sort of theatrical production with several other soldiers playing the role of him. If we are to look at words alone, sometimes the place of battle during war is even called a “theater.” Thus, in a meta-fashion, Shakespeare has staged a performance with a man playing King Henry IV, and the king has staged one of his own and cast other soldiers as him, sumptuary laws broken twice over.

Hamlet:

Romeo and Juliet:

A Midsummer Night’s Dream:

Macbeth:

Much Ado About Nothing:

Julius Caesar:

Richard III:

Twelfth Night:

The Tempest:

Benedick: You like me? You like my personality?