(no subject)
Frankenstein! Alright, I'm up and awake and feeling much better after getting another four hours of sleep which is good! Yeah, I can properly articulate and write and put sentences together. Go me! It's quite the accomplishment!
So, seeing both versions finally puts into perspective what people were saying about this play. Truly, they are two different plays depending on who is acting as whom. I didn't think there could be that much of a difference with just different actors, but hell, they did quite the job. It was completely different from the reversed version and it was simply stunning the different themes that each play actually brought to surface.
The original version, which is what we saw today, was more horror-esque than anything else. It brought to life the idea of putting a man back together and letting him survive on his own. With this version, it was more like...the remnants of a man trying to figure out how to work together again with his new self. Yes, he didn't know what or who he was before, but he was alive again and new and learning things to live again. Did he deserve to be born? Perhaps not, but he was there and he was TRYING and he saw nothing but the dark side of life that in turn, made him turn his back on his inherent good to take his revenge on the thing that brought him to life and made him suffer so. That made a disgusting pile of flesh that was dead live and suffer all over again without any thought as to the consequences of abandoning that creature to it's own devices.
The reversed version, what we saw back on the 13th, was...a commentary on cruelty in a more psychological horror way. Where the original version made it seem like the remnants of a man, this version made it seem like a child born anew. Yes he was born in an adult body, but he had a child's mind, learning his limbs and movement and everything all over again. He tried to reach out for help only to be abandoned by his master, leaving him to see nothing but untoward cruelty and misery. And as he begins to learn and ponder his existence and try to become something good and better than what he is, he's only beaten back down into believing he's a monster. So he decides to become that to fit in with the rest of humanity. And when he goes to see the man who created him, he sees nothing but that cold cruelty, that broken man that understands less than him. So he lowers himself down to that level to not only get what he wants, but revenge for abandoning and leaving him to this when he only tried to do what is right.
It's interesting to note that the featurette at the beginning of the plays had the actors talking about what they drew from to fit into the idea of the Creature. And where Johnny Lee Miller pulled his inspiration was from his child while Benedict Cumberbatch watched people who had suffered from strokes and car crashes and were relearning how to use their own limbs. And you can SEE that in each of their Creatures. Johnny put more of an innocence in his character that's slowly turned darker from many misunderstandings where Benedict brings out the disgust and anger for not being able to do what he should be able to do properly. And the best part about this is that neither of them were wrong in bringing this to the stage and their characters, because the Creature could be acted in either way. It's a perfect foil to a perfectly misunderstood character in modern media, and it's wonderful to see either interpretation.
Which one did I like more? Well, there are pros and cons to either. If I had to see just one though? The reversed version, hands down. While I like the idea of the anger inherent in Benedict's creature, I like his cruelty and coldness as Victor better. Yes yes, you can comment that it wasn't that hard to play considering how he plays Sherlock, whatever. But the thing is, Sherlock is completely different from Frankenstein himself. Frankenstein doesn't know how to love or feel much of anything, but he can act it to survive and get by. He doesn't even know it at the end of things, there's just a hatred for the Creature he created and must destroy by any means. Sherlock is cold yes, but he's made relationships he's dependent on and slowly grows to learn that he does love these people. Victor doesn't learn that, in my opinion. And Benedict's Victor was so very cold and cruel and saw the Creature as nothing more than an experiment gone wrong. Johnny's was...for me, more in line with what you would expect out of the movies, a man lost in his mind, torn between science and something else that I can't quite put my finger on.
Either way, if it hasn't hit your town yet, I recommend seeing it for just how amazing the play was. Both versions, of course, so you can see just how different and wonderful the questions the bring to the table are. Also, the audience - despite it being a sold out crowd - was a lot better this time. I don't know if it was just because it was packed or something, but it was nice to actually be able to hear the lines proper this time and enjoy the play just like I would a play. Good job, peoples, you learned from your mistakes, very proud of you :)
So, seeing both versions finally puts into perspective what people were saying about this play. Truly, they are two different plays depending on who is acting as whom. I didn't think there could be that much of a difference with just different actors, but hell, they did quite the job. It was completely different from the reversed version and it was simply stunning the different themes that each play actually brought to surface.
The original version, which is what we saw today, was more horror-esque than anything else. It brought to life the idea of putting a man back together and letting him survive on his own. With this version, it was more like...the remnants of a man trying to figure out how to work together again with his new self. Yes, he didn't know what or who he was before, but he was alive again and new and learning things to live again. Did he deserve to be born? Perhaps not, but he was there and he was TRYING and he saw nothing but the dark side of life that in turn, made him turn his back on his inherent good to take his revenge on the thing that brought him to life and made him suffer so. That made a disgusting pile of flesh that was dead live and suffer all over again without any thought as to the consequences of abandoning that creature to it's own devices.
The reversed version, what we saw back on the 13th, was...a commentary on cruelty in a more psychological horror way. Where the original version made it seem like the remnants of a man, this version made it seem like a child born anew. Yes he was born in an adult body, but he had a child's mind, learning his limbs and movement and everything all over again. He tried to reach out for help only to be abandoned by his master, leaving him to see nothing but untoward cruelty and misery. And as he begins to learn and ponder his existence and try to become something good and better than what he is, he's only beaten back down into believing he's a monster. So he decides to become that to fit in with the rest of humanity. And when he goes to see the man who created him, he sees nothing but that cold cruelty, that broken man that understands less than him. So he lowers himself down to that level to not only get what he wants, but revenge for abandoning and leaving him to this when he only tried to do what is right.
It's interesting to note that the featurette at the beginning of the plays had the actors talking about what they drew from to fit into the idea of the Creature. And where Johnny Lee Miller pulled his inspiration was from his child while Benedict Cumberbatch watched people who had suffered from strokes and car crashes and were relearning how to use their own limbs. And you can SEE that in each of their Creatures. Johnny put more of an innocence in his character that's slowly turned darker from many misunderstandings where Benedict brings out the disgust and anger for not being able to do what he should be able to do properly. And the best part about this is that neither of them were wrong in bringing this to the stage and their characters, because the Creature could be acted in either way. It's a perfect foil to a perfectly misunderstood character in modern media, and it's wonderful to see either interpretation.
Which one did I like more? Well, there are pros and cons to either. If I had to see just one though? The reversed version, hands down. While I like the idea of the anger inherent in Benedict's creature, I like his cruelty and coldness as Victor better. Yes yes, you can comment that it wasn't that hard to play considering how he plays Sherlock, whatever. But the thing is, Sherlock is completely different from Frankenstein himself. Frankenstein doesn't know how to love or feel much of anything, but he can act it to survive and get by. He doesn't even know it at the end of things, there's just a hatred for the Creature he created and must destroy by any means. Sherlock is cold yes, but he's made relationships he's dependent on and slowly grows to learn that he does love these people. Victor doesn't learn that, in my opinion. And Benedict's Victor was so very cold and cruel and saw the Creature as nothing more than an experiment gone wrong. Johnny's was...for me, more in line with what you would expect out of the movies, a man lost in his mind, torn between science and something else that I can't quite put my finger on.
Either way, if it hasn't hit your town yet, I recommend seeing it for just how amazing the play was. Both versions, of course, so you can see just how different and wonderful the questions the bring to the table are. Also, the audience - despite it being a sold out crowd - was a lot better this time. I don't know if it was just because it was packed or something, but it was nice to actually be able to hear the lines proper this time and enjoy the play just like I would a play. Good job, peoples, you learned from your mistakes, very proud of you :)