This month I’ve watched a bunch of interesting things, so this post is more like an old-school Abbi review blog:
Macbeth
Specifically, the production starring Ralph Fiennes and Indira Varma and staged in a great big warehouse in Canada Water. It’s very evocative. The set is scorched by a burning vehicle, assaulted by the sound of missiles and – at an appropriate moment – the walls are even soaked in blood.
What’s it about?
You probably know this one: Lord Macbeth, an 11th century Scottish general, learns from a trio of prophesying witches that he is destined to become King of Scotland. At the urging of his ruthless wife, he promptly kills the current King Duncan to speed things along, kicking off a bloody cycle of murder and madness.
Idiocy analysis
I’m very fond of Macbeth as a play (thanks, multiple English teachers!) but Macbeth the character is unforgivably stupid. He should be the only character with an ironclad motive not to murder the King, given that he is the only person in the world with supernatural assurances that he will inherit the crown anyway(!) and everytime I watch him yield to Lady Macbeth’s emasculating schtick I am internally screaming for him to grow a brain and/or backbone and just calmly point this out to her. But no. Macbeth is the guy who sees the path of a wildfire inexorably approaching his house and rushes in with a can of petrol to try and commit insurance fraud.
Who did you see it with?
Kira, who suggested we get tickets last year! Hat-tip to Annie who recommended an excellent Mexican spot in Surrey Quays to grab beforehand.
Have you changed your mind about this play since childhood?
No. In fact, in school I wrote a defence lawyer’s speech on behalf of the three witches arguing that they “have not murdered, or even requested or suggested murder” but “simply predicted a chain of events which can be interpreted in many different ways”.
I added that it was “of course, regrettable, that Macbeth turned to murder” but noted that – in their second encounter, when Macbeth comes back to the witches looking for more predictions – “the witches had every right to mislead a murderer, if the intention was to lead to his downfall, and if it was in the public good. They simply aided Macduff in his fight, in an unorthodox way”. Honestly, I’m not even sure I was asked to write this. I just remember feeling aggrieved on behalf of the weird sisters.
Timecrimes
A low-budget 2007 Spanish sci-fi thriller film (originally Los cronocrímenes).
What’s it about?
Through his binoculars, middle-aged Héctor spots a woman undressing in the forest opposite his home. Intrigued, he goes off to investigate and accidentally stumbles into a casual time-travel loop with deadly consequences.
Idiocy analysis
Héctor, much like Macbeth, is not a smart man. If we tastefully set aside the question of why he chooses to sit on a deckchair in his back garden staring at some secluded woodland through binoculars (everyone needs a hobby, I guess) the main problem with Héctor is that he has clearly never watched a single time-travel film in his life. Not even Back to the Future.
As a result he is unforgivably slow to understand the basic concepts, even when another character draws him a Time Travel for Dummies diagram in marker pen, and goes out of his way to alienate everyone he meets. The only saving grace is that he does eventually get the hang of things, even by that point he has blood on his hands. More of a bumbling idiot than a mad plotter.
Who did you see it with?
Nobody, although since Katie recommended it (as a sequel to fellow low-budget time travel thriller Primer) she got my real-time reaction.
Anatomy of a Fall
Justine Triet’s Oscar-winning French film (Anatomie d’une chute), which you should definitely watch if you haven’t already because the more people to swap theories with the better.
What’s it about?
Superficially, a courtroom drama about whether Sandra Voyter, a successful author, murdered her husband in their French chalet while their son, Daniel, was out walking the dog through the snow. But in fact (spoiler alert!) it’s impossible to know, and so the film is really about our own perceptions of two people in a marriage, culture and language (she is German, he is French, they speak English) and the stories we all construct to make sense of a consuming, fragmentary world.
But… honestly, I’m not ashamed to admit that it’s also just a lot of fun to watch as a whodunnit and then spend hours arguing about it with other people.
Idiocy analysis
Everyone here is too smart and thoughtful for any idiocy, although the French legal system does come across as bafflingly obtuse. To my mind, it’s extremely clear that – even if you’re sure she killed him! – the evidence is all circumstantial supposition and never even approaches ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ territory, so I’m not sure what they’re even doing in a courtroom. I’m sure this reflects an overly-romantic image of English prosecutors, though. In reality Sandra would probably still be stuck in a backlog and waiting for the case to reach trial.
Who did you see it with?
My mum, after a crab-laden dinner at Big Cheeks Thai, on the night she stayed over. We had to pause several times for discussion breaks.
The Picture of Dorian Gray
Sarah Snook’s amazing one-woman performance in which she plays all of the characters from Oscar Wilde’s 1891 novel.
What’s it about?
Dorian Gray is young and beautiful. He falls under the corrupting influence of Lord Henry Wotton, a cynic who advocates hedonism with a string of one-liners which would do extremely well on any social media platform today. Frustrated that he will grow old while his portrait will stay youthful, Dorian sells his soul in return for keeping his good looks forever and allowing the portrait to age in his place. It doesn’t go well.
Idiocy analysis
Well, Dorian himself is obviously not going to win any prizes for wisdom, but that’s the whole point: he’s a naïve innocent who quickly becomes selfish and cruel. But the real idiots are surely the story’s Victorian critics, who first tried to censor the homoeroticism (not very successfully) and later attacked Wilde, including in court, for the book’s indecency and immorality. Guys: please try to follow along to the end. The hedonist ends up dead.
Who did you see it with?
Kira, although this time it was my idea. And yes, of course I wouldn’t have gone had it not been for Succession, but Sarah Snook delivered with huge energy going into such a range of characters. The staging also really leaned into a knowing commentary on modern life, especially with Snook’s livestreamed selfie videos, which I thought served the story well.
Other highlights of March include: another wonderful evening with Karol at Tayyabs in Whitechapel, a truly delicious date night with Randi at a fancy tapas place (still thinking about that black squid rice), the unbearable tension of the nail-biting Lewisham mayoral by-election and a gentle evening of Carcassonne with our neighbour Adrienn.
I also administered lots and lots of ‘Life in the UK’ practice tests for Randi in the run-up to her exam – final spoiler: she passed! 🥳 – which occasionally veered into such pure pub quiz territory (e.g. where was Handel born?) that we couldn’t stop laughing at the absurdity. Finally, on Friday night I took Matthew on a spooky night tour of the Waterlink Way, followed by dinner and music at the Honor Oak pub. The next morning I headed up to West Hampstead to hang out with Josh and Cora and to return Cora’s cat, which I accidentally stole last time I saw them!
