#era and her deep-set mental instability

[fructidors]

i've decided what i need to keep going in life is a miniseries in the exact same style as dickinson but about percy shelley. i think about this a normal amount

[ignaeflos-blog]

Meta on life now as opposed to before, does she miss her life, friends & family etc? Has she personally come to terms with the differences? >

SEND ME A TOPIC TO WRITE A META ABOUT MY MUSE ON || accepting ~

With Nina’s situation, she is literally thrown from one hell into another ; a horde of titans inexplicably attacked her homebase and her encasement, by ‘unknown’ means, in a strange rock/orb follows immediately thereof (which saves her life) . Two thousand and sixty-three years later, she finally she arrives on paradis (I can give you exact details but on another post maybe bc it’s kinda irrelevant here; note her home continent is what came to be the current Marley territory). 

And then as soon as she awakens, it is to essentially the exact same situation-a titan invasion of the last human stronghold. By stroke of bad luck, she is also informed almost right away that her father (who arrived in a similar fashion) perished at the hands (jaws) of a titan. Naturally she is devastated but this is eclipsed by her understandable & intense disorientation. She begins to start trying to deaden the reality of what she is being told by fixating on somewhat fruitless tasks-twice she risks her life to retrieve one of her father’s cases(which was sealed with her) from the still titan-infested Trost district. Her thought process, not particularly orderly at the best of times, is on the verge of shattering-she is only able to keep a hold of herself by forming very short-sighted plans-she is going to escape/ get out of wherever this place is but deep down she is in despair and at a complete loss.

So she’s stuck in this horrific paradox where the events of her past life are raw & fresh in her memory-to her it happened a few minutes ago & is basically continuing right now. This single fact is paramount to her current state of mind-all of this is too fast, too overpowering. She is unable to resort fully to her coping mechanism (which she suppresses and buries memories by force in a mental ‘box’) & is instead hyper-focusing on what’s around her, trying to constantly block out everything that ties to her past ; she distracts herself with wooden housing, clouds, the abundance of water, 3Dm gear (all of which, to her, are completely alien) as one way of doing this. Another is her heightened violence and instability where she attempts to channel her frustration and dejection ; she all but loses her grasp on combat the first time she enters trost and fights erratically, desperately, only disabling instead of killing any titans. The second time, she is confronted by the survey corps/garrison and she lashes out completely, bordering on savage in her resistance to capture.

Even after she is tied and bound, she is still thinking of escape but not once does she think ahead of that. It isn’t until her father’s case is opened and she is questioned that it begins to hit home- you can’t go back. At this point she withdraws into herself completely and tries to shut everyone off and would’ve remained that way if she had not met Shadis.

So at this point, the trauma is too recent for her to even miss what remained of her friends and family (the two people left that were most important to her, were her father and childhood friend, Kiito) and they were both eliminated in, what seems to her, a matter of minutes. Nevertheless, she continues to receive flashbacks of trivial things triggered by current events e.g. she thinks of another friend, Nor (an avid lover of astronomy), when she is trying to discern where she is geographically. and so forth.

So no she has not come to terms with the differences and possibly never will-there are a million and one things that constantly throw her off/ confuse her over and above the new era and setting and I doubt she’ll ever get a sense of true normalcy but nothing’s concrete yet…

sorry if this isn’t very exhaustive >

[tediousoscars]

2018

Predict-o-meter: This year: 8/12; Total: 99/119 (83%)

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, and friends beyond the binary: It is time once again to set aside our daily woes and discuss all things Oscar.

This year’s class of 8 Best Picture nominees is extremely solid. There are no real clunkers, but, in my mind there are 4 soaringly great films, 3 solidly good films, and one … problematic film that is both great and not so great. We’ll get to that.

But keep in mind that even though I am using my traditional Contenders/Pretenders bifurcation there are no films below that I would recommend you avoid. They are all very good.

- THE CONTENDERS -

Black Panther. The beauty of this film is that it works so well on so many different levels. If you are simply looking for a blockbuster spectacle to munch popcorn to, you will not be disappointed; it totally works on that level. And even though it is the 18th(!) installment in Marvel Studios’ Cinematic Universe of inter-related films, “Black Panther” may be enjoyed on its own in isolation; if you have never seen another Marvel movie (Really? What is WRONG with you?) you won’t feel at all lost. And that is all well and good; I love a good blockbuster as much as the next guy. But that won’t get you Oscar Nominations. For that, we need to dig a little deeper. On the next level down, it’s just a really good movie. Great characters who are well-developed and three-dimensional, a compelling story told with humor and drama in equal measures, gorgeous cinematography and costumes that bring an imagined world to life, and an all-star cast of talented actors who are clearly giving it their all. The heart and soul of “Black Panther” is the fictional land of Wakanda: a central African nation hit with a meteor in the distant past that provided ancient Wakandans with access to vibranium, a near-magical metal that allowed them to develop advanced technology well before the rest of the world. Technology that they used to hide themselves away while developing ever more advanced weapons and transportation, including the technology that turns their tribal King into the titular super-powered protector. And herein lies the central conflict of the film: A Wakandan spy on assignment in Oakland in the 90s becomes disillusioned by the disparity between the safety and comfort that Wakandans enjoy and the degradation and oppression faced by members of the African Diaspora across the globe. When he is taken out by Wakandan authorities he leaves behind a young son who grows up hell-bent on avenging his father, but also determined to complete his father’s mission of using Wakandan technology to uplift all those of African descent. This isn't the standard “Good vs. Evil” we’ve come to expect from superhero movies. It’s a more nuanced “Isolation vs. Engagement” discussion of the best way to allocate scarce resources for the greater good. At its greatest depth “Black Panther” is a thoughtful exploration of themes of racism and oppression, violence and statecraft, retribution and forgiveness that stands up to critical analysis. In interviews with the cast and crew it is obvious that they were very cognizant of the fact that with Wakanda they were essentially creating from whole cloth an African mythology that could play a role comparable to that of Camelot in the Anglo-Saxon imagination. They took this responsibility very seriously and were determined that everything associated with “Black Panther” be of the highest quality. They succeeded spectacularly. No matter how deeply you choose to look at this film you will not be disappointed. It succeeds on every level.

Bohemian Rhapsody. This story of iconic stadium anthem band Queen and their mercurial frontman, Freddy Mercury, was told with the full cooperation of the surviving band members, and one of their conditions was that it not have an R rating. This has led to some consternation and gnashing of teeth over Mercury’s legendary excesses being watered down. But I thought that the device they used was effective: Rather than show the actual debauchery the film focuses on the morning-after detritus. Mercury staggers blinking through a maze of prone bodies and over-turned furniture, empty glasses and bottles scattered hither and yon, cocaine residue coating every horizontal surface. But the film isn’t primarily about Mercury’s rock star life; it’s about the band and how they worked together and became a worldwide sensation despite significant headwinds - watching the label guys turn up their noses at the eponymous song (soon to become one of the most beloved rock songs of all time) is choice. Everything here is well done. The story unfolds naturally, the performances are all solid, and the insight into the inner workings of the band are illuminating. Yes, they have the unavoidable family squabbles, but for the most part it isn’t about ego, it’s about the music. They fight for their own individual interpretations and priorities, but they all share a common vision of what Queen should be, and that is the organizing principle for their conflicts, at least during the band’s formative period. It’s all entertaining and engaging and good, maybe even very good, but it’s just not great. Until, at the very end, a choice is made by the filmmakers that turns on the after-burners and vaults the film into the stratosphere. After an ill-fated attempt at a solo album, a chastened Mercury beseeches the band to get back together for Live Aid, the bi-continental music festival for African famine relief that was the biggest music event of its era. A typical movie would handle this either with a quick montage of the various songs played in the set, or perhaps, one single entire song. But for this film they recreated Queen’s 20-minute Live Aid set in its entirety; note for note, move for move. And they imbue the performance with the knowledge - not known to the general public at the time - that Freddy Mercury had been diagnosed with AIDS (at a time when this was a death sentence). It is breathtaking. Rami Malek is favored to win Best Actor for his turn as Mercury, and this climatic, thrilling set is a big part of the reason why.

The Favourite. This is not your typical costume period piece about palace intrigue. We are used to tropes in which strong, formidable women connive behind the scenes to manipulate the men in power to do what they want. But this is the court of Queen Anne of England (Olivia Colman), so a woman is already in charge. Or she would be if failing health and mental instabilities didn’t prevent her from being effective. Enter Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough (Rachel Weisz), childhood friend and sometime lover to the Queen, Sarah rules the roost on behalf of the Queen and does her best to steer the ship of state in the direction that she, and her stalwart Duke of a husband, sees as best. And it is all going swimmingly until Sarah’s cousin Abigail (Emma Stone) arrives impoverished and disgraced by some disastrous antics of her father's. Sarah graciously takes Abigail under her wing out of familial loyalty, but is soon out-maneuvered and her young cousin takes her place at the Queen’s side and in her bed. This is all entertaining enough, but there is a fascinating subtext. Though Sarah does love the Queen, it is her over-arching love of Britain that drives her to seek and wield power. By contrast, Abigail has been rich and she has been poor and she has decided that being rich is better. So all of her machinations are aimed solely at personal gain. The interplay between these three characters - Anne, Sarah, and Abigail - is so intricate and expertly portrayed that all three of the female leads have been nominated for their roles. And it’s not just a question of great acting; the film is visually interesting as well. Typical depictions of royal courts in film are brightly lit to highlight the garish colors of the clothes and tapestries that abound. Here, though, the film is shot using mostly natural light. The relatively muted tones and deep shadows serve to augment the feeling of stealth and intrigue that often accompanies a simple passage through a hallway. Great performances, compelling art direction, and a (nominated) screenplay that crackles with snark, “The Favourite” is an enjoyable romp that manages to provoke a few thoughts along the way.

Green Book. At it’s core “Green Book” is a road movie with a well-trodden premiss: Two characters with nothing in common and a healthy disdain for one another are forced by circumstances to drive across the country, mayhem ensues, and they become fast friends. We’ve seen it a hundred times, but I’m not sure we’ve ever seen it done this well. Dr. Don Shirley was fastidious, refined, educated (the “Dr.” comes from multiple Ph.D.s), erudite, and a virtuoso pianist with unique style and flair. Frank Anthony Vallelonga Sr., better known as Tony Lip, was a guido street-brawler from the Bronx with a strong moral code that didn’t always align perfectly with a strict interpretation of the law. He wasn't in the Mob, but he was certainly Mob-adjacent, and could have been made at the drop of a fedora if he’d chosen to. And they were real people. In the film Tony is hired to be driver/fixer to Dr. Shirley on a 2-month concert tour. And right there you have the makings of a perfectly serviceable buddy road trip movie. But wait, there’s more. Dr. Shirley happens to be Black. And gay. And the tour is through the Deep South. And it’s 1962. This is fraught territory, and there is great potential for the film to slip into awful stereotype or maudlin sentimentality. But the screenplay - written in part by Tony’s son Nick - navigates this minefield with deft courage. Tony evolves from a casual, thoughtless racism to a deep respect for Dr. Shirley, both as a man and as an artist. For his part, Dr. Shirley moves from disdain for Tony’s uncouth nature to grudging respect for his tenacity, loyalty, and unique ability to see through a problem to a solution. And eventually respect turns to affection, which is all very predictable, but as with any good road picture it’s about the journey, not the destination. And this journey is laid out in a thoroughly entertaining, natural, and believable fashion (Nick swears that every event depicted in the film actually happened). This is movie-making at its finest.

- THE MISFIT -

Roma. The problem with this film is that from a technical perspective it is a mind-blowing masterpiece, but from a narrative perspective it’s a little slow and sparse, if I’m feeling generous, and downright boring if I’m not. Director Alfonso Cuarón is a shoo-in to win Best Director for his brilliant technical work here. Shot in large-format digital black and white the film looks crisp and clean throughout. But what is more astonishing is the rich, vibrant world that Cuarón uses as a backdrop for his story, which would otherwise be small and fairly claustrophobic. Brass bands randomly march down side strides, people are shot from cannons, and lavish weddings take place in the background of what would otherwise be simple scenes with a few lines of dialog. This takes a 30-second scene of dialog - for which 6 takes could probably be done in an hour - and turns it potentially into a 3-day budget-busting ordeal because of the logistics of getting 150 people in place and properly lit. And he does this over and over again. It must have directors, cinematographers, and producers dropping their jaws, but none of this effort and virtuosity drives the plot forward one millimeter. The largely autobiographical narrative (one of the young boys presumably represents Cuarón as a child) centers around Cleo, an indigenous domestic working and living in the home of a well-off doctor in the Roma neighborhood of Mexico City circa 1970. There is drama as Cleo deals with an unexpected pregnancy and the doctor abandons the family in favor of a young mistress, but the action plays out languidly through a series of “slice of life” vignettes. You learn a lot about the daily routine within the household - putting children to sleep, cleaning up dog poop - but precious little about the inner lives of the characters portrayed. Each year movies are nominated for Best Picture that are not nominated for Best Director. I think a strong case can be made that “Roma” should have reversed this trend. Cuarón’s Best Director nomination is richly deserved, but overall this film is not Best Picture material. It is a movie made for people who make movies. If you are a film student or an aspiring director it is a must-see. But casual movie-goers looking for entertainment should probably look elsewhere.

- THE PRETENDERS -

BlacKkKlansman. “BlacKkKlansman,” like “Green Book,” takes on themes of racism through the recounting of an incredible real-life story. In this case our hero is Ron Stallworth, a young, ambitious detective with the Colorado Springs Police Department. As the Department’s first Black officer, Stallworth is given an assignment to go undercover and attend a campus rally by Kwame Ture, a firebrand leader of the Black Power movement. Finding that he likes undercover work, Stallworth impulsively reaches out to the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan with an eye towards infiltrating the group. Over the phone he plays the part of white supremacist to a tee, but when he finagles a face-to-face meeting he quickly realizes that maybe he hasn’t thought this thing through. With the help of fellow detective Phil “Flip” Zimmerman (Adam Driver in a nominated role), Stallworth embarks on a Cyrano de Bergerac-esque escapade in which he talks to the Klan - including Grand Wizard David Duke - over the phone while Flip meets them in person. Director Spike Lee (nominated) has been known for his fireworks around issues of race in the past, but here he adopts an almost journalistic tone, presenting the story without hyperbole and letting the facts speak for themselves. This sounds laudable, but it actually serves to make the film feel a little … bland. Especially when combined with a very muted performance by John David Washington whose Stallworth always feels like he’s just trying to get through this scene before someone realizes he’s not supposed to be on set. Neither of these issues is enough to tilt the picture over into “bad” territory - it’s definitely interesting and entertaining - but they are enough to kick it out of Best Picture territory.

A Star is Born. There seems to have been a pact made with the Old Gods that in each generation the greatest female performer of her time must remake a version of the 1937 film “A Star is Born” starring Janet Gaynor. In 1954 it was Judy Garland, in 1976 it was Barbra Streisand’s turn, now, in 2018, the mantle falls to Lady Gaga, who was nominated for her efforts. By now the story is familiar: established star at the peak of his fame takes a talented ingénue under his wing only to watch her career take off while his crumbles. Bradley Cooper stars, directs, and worked on the screenplay; he was nominated for his portrayal of the gravel-voiced Jackson Maine, and for the screenplay, but not for his direction. Cooper’s Jack is an alcoholic with a troubled past, but is also a talented singer-songwriter and modern-day troubadour. When Gaga’s Ally - whom he plucked from obscurity singing torch songs in a New York City drag bar - starts to achieve success as his wanes, it is not simple jealousy that drives him off the deep end. He objects to the WAY she achieves success. In one of their first conversations Jack tells Ally, “There are lots of people with talent. But having something to say and being able to say it in a way that makes people listen? THAT’s special.” So when Ally starts writing catchy pop songs and performing on stage with backup dancers (à la Lady Gaga) Jack is perturbed, but is characteristically incapable of expressing his concerns without sounding unsupportive. So he bottles up his feelings and turns to the bottle. Both Cooper and Gaga give fantastic performances and there are several numbers that Gaga performs that are transcendent (I see big things for that girl). It’s definitely a solid film, and Gaga’s songs are worth the price of admission, but it just didn’t rise to the level of greatness in my mind.

Vice. There has been a bit of a hot streak of transformative performances portraying real-life political figures. I’m thinking particularly of Daniel Day-Lewis’ Lincoln and Gary Oldman’s Churchill. But in both of those cases the figure in question had pretty much faded from living memory. Not so with Dick Cheney, George W. Bush’s “Vice” President. Christian Bale (nominated) IS Dick Cheney to such an extent that if it weren’t for scenes depicting a young Cheney early in the film I don’t think I would have been able to identify the performer as Bale. It’s astonishing. And Amy Adams (nominated) is nearly as good as wife Lynne Cheney. But there is more to this film than just an epic performance by the leads. Director Adam McKay made his name with screwball comedies like “Anchorman” and “Step Brothers,” which most decidedly did not garner him Oscar nominations. But he turned a corner with 2015’s “The Big Short,” which did. Now he’s back and nominated again with “Vice” and, as with “The Big Short,” though he is swimming through serious waters he has not forgotten his comedic roots. “Vice” is by turns hilarious and infuriating, sometimes both at once. Given the current state of our politics the W era has taken on a warm glow of nostalgia for a time when, even if we didn’t agree with our leaders, we could sleep safe and secure in the knowledge that at least they weren’t actually agents of a foreign government. But “Vice” dredges up some of the seedier behind-the-scenes aspects to remind us that using Executive Privilege to undermine democracy is sadly nothing new. I probably should have liked “Vice” more than I did - Sam Rockwell’s (nominated) turn as W is not to be missed - but for some reason attempts to use the power of the presidency to  subvert the intentions of the Founders just doesn’t seem as quaint and jovial as it once did.

So which SHOULD win?

For me it comes down to “Black Panther” and “Green Book.” Out of a top-to-bottom very strong class these two stand out in my mind as the ones that are really hitting on all cylinders. From direction and cinematography, to acting and art direction, to just straight up story telling, these are the most well-rounded of the bunch. And while I do love me some “Black Panther” (Wakanda forever!) I have to go with “Green Book” for its added layers of emotional resonance.

But which WILL win?

I said above that “Roma” is a movie made for people who make movies. Well … guess who votes for the Oscars? People who make movies. “Green Book” is actually in the running, but appears to be a distant second. I’m going with “Roma,” which would be the first foreign language film in history to win Best Picture.

Best Actress - This appears to be a two-way race between Glenn Close for “The Wife” and Olivia Colman for “The Favourite.” I’m going with Close.

Best Supporting Actress - It appears as though my favorites from “The Favourite” will be shut out, as this seems to be between Regina King for “If Beale Street Could Talk,” and Amy Adams for “Vice.” I’ll take Regina King.

Best Actor - When I saw “Vice” on 12/27/18 I walked out of the theater and tweeted: ‘Bale’s gonna win Best Actor. You heard it here first.’ And I still believe that’s what should happen. And it just might, but now it seems that Rami Malek has the buzz for “Bohemian Rhapsody.” (Did I mention that they shot the epic Live Aid set on THE FIRST DAY OF SHOOTING?) I can’t quibble too much; he was great too. I’m jumping on the Rami Malek bandwagon.

Best Supporting Actor - Mahershala Ali (“Green Book”) will need to clear off some more space on the mantle.

Best Director - Alfonso Cuarón in a runaway. I have no quarrel with this, just with Best Picture.

Best Cinematography - Alfonso Cuarón for “Roma.” See above.

Best Foreign Language Film - This hardly seems fair with “Roma” poised to become the first foreign-language film to actually win Best Picture, but … “Roma.”

Best Animated Feature - “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.” Seriously, if you haven’t seen this do yourself a huge favor and check it out.

Best Original Song - “Shallow” from “A Star is Born.” As an added bonus the song actually plays a key role in the plot and is performed in its entirety in the film.

Best Original Screenplay - I am really pulling for “Green Book,” because it’s a great story, but also a great story-behind-the-story, with Tony Lip’s son penning the screenplay. But it looks like “The Favourite” will win.

Best Visual Effects - “Black Panther” is unlikely to win Best Picture, but Marvel should take home an Oscar here for “Avengers: Infinity War.” (Actual winner: “First Man”)

That does it for this year. Until next year keep your popcorn warm and your soda cold.

[uacboo]

Henry VIII died on this day in 1547.

The source of the interesting article below and it's references can be found here:

http://www.medicalbag.com/what-killed-em/henry-viii/article/486659/

For those of you inclined to read a paper on Henry VIII from a medical journal, this one from The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh in 2013 is definitely worth your time: https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/stride_5.pdf

Born on June 28, 1491, he was the second son of King Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York. Henry VIII became heir to the throne upon the death of his eldest brother, Arthur Prince of Wales, in 1502. Henry ascended to the throne upon the death of his father on April 21, 1509. He was 17 years old, 6'4" tall, athletic, handsome, exuberant, and intelligent. Early on, his subjects admired and praised him, but as he grew more unpredictable and tyrannical, his countrymen became disenchanted and fearful of their sovereign. First let’s talk about Henry’s life and the 6 wives. Henry was second in succession for the throne, after his brother Arthur, who died suddenly at the age of 15, 4 months after his marriage to Katherine of Aragon (daughter of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain). Henry then took Katherine as his first wife on June 11, 1509. The marriage between Katherine and Arthur was never consummated and a special papal dispensation was issued allowing Henry to marry Katherine. Reportedly, they were initially very happy, and the people of England held the royal couple in high regard. The couple suffered the loss of a male child and numerous miscarriages. They had only one child who survived, a daughter named Mary. Obsessed and unable to reconcile not having a male heir, Henry turned sour on his first marriage. By 1526, Henry began his most famous affair with Anne Boleyn, and sought an annulment of his marriage to Queen Katherine. However, getting an annulment or divorce wasn’t easy. Henry was catholic, with deep ties to the Roman Catholic Church. Henry petitioned the Pope for an annulment. A religious and political debate continued for over 6 years. Katherine stood her ground as a devout Catholic, and maintained that she was the true wife of Henry VIII and the rightful Queen of England. In 1533, Anne Boleyn became pregnant and Henry needed to conclude his petition for annulment or a divorce. When the Papal Council denied Henry’s wishes, Henry renounced Catholicism, broke the Church of England away from Papal authority, and declared that authority over the English Church belonged to the monarchy. Henry then had a divorce declared from Katherine and married wife number 2, Anne Boleyn. Anne promised Henry a son, but gave birth to a daughter, Elizabeth. She had numerous pregnancies but suffered multiple miscarriages and was unable to produce a male heir. Anne was married to Henry less than 3 years when he had her executed on charges of adultery, incest, and treason. Many felt the secretary of state, Thomas Cromwell, set Anne up for the charges and that she was actually innocent, though it was believed that Anne had Queen Katherine poisoned and caused her death. Henry had his own lady in waiting in the wings. Immediately after Anne’s execution, Henry married Jane Seymour, wife number 3, who fulfilled the obligation of a Tudor wife and bore a son, Edward IV, but Jane died in childbirth. She would always be known as Henry’s most beloved wife. Not a widower for long, Henry married wife number 4. Needing an alliance with Germany, and wanting more sons, the King agreed to a marriage to the noblewoman Anne of Cleves. However, the marriage was never consummated. Henry wanted to rid himself of Anne before he even married her. They mutually consented to end the marriage, and a grateful Henry bestowed upon Anne the title of “good sister” and gave her a very generous severance package. The revolving door of wives continued to spin, and next up was Kathryn Howard, wife number 5. Kathryn was a first cousin to Anne Boleyn and lady in waiting for Anne of Cleves. She was young and gay, and the King referred to her as his “rose without thorns.” Sixteen days after he was free of Anne, they married; Henry was 49 and Kathryn was 19. Kathryn managed to lift the King’s spirits; however, she was flirtatious by nature and sought the attention of other men. Rumors led to evidence of infidelity and Kathryn was executed and buried near Anne Boleyn. Henry’s final marriage was to Katherine Parr, wife number 6. This Katherine was 31 years old and a widow who was planning on marrying Thomas Seymour, brother of Jane Seymour, wife number 3, but when the King showed interest and asked for her hand, Katherine felt obliged to marry him. They were married for a short period of time, and within months of the King’s death, Katherine secretly married Seymour, which caused a scandal. So much for Henry’s wives. The Tudor court was a patron of the Royal College of Physicians, where men studied medicine, astronomy, music, and mathematics. Medical practice during the time period followed a holistic approach. Doctors were more like consultants trying to treat the body and the soul. The Tudor court also had many apothecaries who were skilled herbalists, and Henry had much faith in the many medicines they provided for him. They used herbs like willow bark, arnica, mandrake, rosemary, and lavender to remedy maladies. There were also surgeons used to treat battle injuries, or called in by doctors when bleeding was necessary. The Tudor era endured the onset of an illness known as “sweating disease” that claimed the lives of robust adults and children, including Henry’s brother Arthur. Neither flu-like, nor a plague, the sweating sickness (or sudor anglicus) first surfaced in England in the summer of 1485 and struck at least 4 times over the next century before disappearing. Very often fatal, this disease caused fever, profuse sweating, headaches, and extreme shortness of breath. Death usually came quickly, with a change from good health to death occurring within a few hours of onset. Medical historians have never clearly identified the origins of the disease, but it is thought it could possibly have been an early rendition of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. Henry never suffered from sweating disease. Reportedly, King Henry had suffered from smallpox and malaria, and at 44 had a leg badly injured in a jousting accident, from which he recovered, but later the area reopened and he suffered severe recurring ulcerations. He could no longer exercise regularly and became obese, his weight going up to more than 320 lbs. Reportedly, he suffered an unquenchable thirst, and had night sweats and open ulcers on both his legs and feet, consistent with a diagnosis of insulin deficiency and diabetes. He was an insomniac and suffered from frequent headaches. As he aged, he showed signs of mental decline, severe depression, a short temper, and personality change. It is rumored that while he was king, he enjoyed many affairs and had contracted syphilis, which could explain the mental issues, paranoia, and leg ulcerations as well. He had a series of strokes affect him, indicative of high blood pressure and/or poor circulation. Experts have speculated that he suffered from an endocrine problem called Cushing’s syndrome as well. Historians and researchers have argued that Henry may have also had McLeod syndrome, a genetic disorder that occurs in individuals with a Kell-positive antigen blood disorder. This would account for the multiple miscarriages on secondary pregnancies suffered by multiple wives, and account for the mental instability he demonstrated later in his life. The disease also weakens the musculoskeletal system. Henry spent his last days bedridden. The stench in the room from his ulcerations was foul and rotten. His doctors feared telling him that he was dying because the Treason Act, which Henry made law, forbade anyone from predicting or speaking of the king’s death. It is said that his archbishop, Thomas Crammer, finally admitted to Henry that his death appeared imminent. He died on January 28, 1547 at 56 years of age. He had reigned for 38 years. Life expectancy during this era was 50 years if you survived infancy, though other nobles did live longer. It’s most likely that Henry died of a combination of all of his ills, and had heart failure in the end. The funeral route was walked from Syon Abbey to Windsor Castle in procession. Legend has it that en route, during the night, his body imploded in the coffin and his blood leaked through to the ground. Henry VIII was buried in Windsor Castle next to his third wife, Jane Seymour. His son, Edward VI succeeded him. Henry’s will provided for an order of succession wherein it dictated that his son, Edward, should succeed upon his death. If Edward then died without heirs, his daughter Mary should then succeed, followed by Elizabeth. All 3 eventually ruled: Edward from 1547 until 1553, followed by Mary I, who rejected the Church of England and embraced Catholicism, from 1553 until 1558 , and finally Elizabeth I, who ruled from 1558 until 1603, and is revered as one of the most impressive English monarchs. Her period of rule is referred to as England’s Golden Age. The Tudor line ended with Elizabeth, who died unmarried and childless. Henry VIII remains one of the most famous kings in English history.

[larryland]

by Gail M. Burns

David Auburn’s Proof burst on the national consciousness nearly twenty years ago – winning Tonys and a Pulitzer and being made into a big budget, star-studded film – so the initial flurry of professional and amateur productions across the country has run its course and the play is ripe for revisiting in the #metoo era.

A simple play about complex subjects, Proof centers on 25-year-old Catherine (Talley Gale) who has just lost her widowed father, Robert (Richard Howe), a brilliant mathematician at the University of Chicago, after years of mental illness during which she was his sole caregiver. Her only sibling, older sister Claire (Halley Cianfarini), has opted for a high-powered career in Manhattan, but of course Claire is headed home for the funeral. Also in the mix is Hal (Ethan Botwick), a young professor of Mathematics at the University who was mentored by Catherine and Claire’s father, and who is going through the late professor’s effects to see if any important and undiscovered research survives him.

Claire and Hal begin a relationship, and she gives him a notebook containing an astonishing mathematical proof that she claims she wrote. But Claire doesn’t even hold an undergraduate degree, her studies having been interrupted by her father’s illness and her decision to care for him, and she also seems to have inherited some of his mental instability. Can she prove that the proof is her work and not a last burst of brilliance from her father?

At Oldcastle Eric Peterson has directed a gentle, low-key but deeply engrossing production. Because there is less high drama, the characters come across as more realistic. Gale, who is on stage nearly non-stop, presents Catherine as exhausted and grief stricken – after all these years of dealing with her father’s non-lethal mental illness it is a sudden cardiac event that carries him off – but not mentally unbalanced. There is a seismic shift for a caregiver when they suddenly wake up one morning and no one needs them anymore. Catherine is not only unmoored emotionally, but because was a caregiver during the years most people spend finding themselves and establishing a career, she also has no sense of herself separate from her father – except for her proof, which she worked on in the wee hours of the night, the only time when her father didn’t demand her full attention.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Gale literally twists herself into pretzels trying to simultaneously hug herself and render herself as small as is humanly possible. But when she and Hal connect and she gives him her most valuable possession, the thing that establishes her as someone other than her father’s daughter, we see the relative freedom and joy in her movements.

Botwick’s Hal is equally physically restricted. Like Catherine, he has lived in Robert’s professional shadow, – before he was 25 Robert had already made two discoveries that changed the course of modern mathematics. Both worry that the adage that a mathematician’s best years are over by the time he or she is 25 – in other words at about the age they receive their doctorate and embark on their academic career – is true. Have Catherine and Hal’s best years already passed? Hal sees himself as a mediocre mathematician and being able to discover and publish a posthumous proof of Robert’s could make his career. The likelihood of the proof Catherine gives him being hers and not her father’s seem slim…

Cianfarini’s Claire is all yuppie bonhomie. Freshly ground gourmet coffee, jojoba crème rinse, and an engagement to her equally upwardly mobile boyfriend form the center of her world. Accepting early that she has inherited only a small portion of her father’s mathematical skills, she has settled into a career as a currency analyst. She acknowledges that Catherine has inherited far more from their father – but worries whether that is a good thing.

Howe’s performance as Robert was a bit of a disappointment. I described Peterson’s production as low key, but in Howe’s case we get little sense of Robert’s illness, his brilliance, or his neediness. Whether there is a physiological connection or not, mental illness and great genius often coincide. This and the deep connection between Robert and Catherine – and we see Robert only in Catherine’s memories and imagination – are lacking.

On my previous encounters with this play I didn’t see the focus on the relationship between Catherine and Hal as central to the plot, but now it takes on a different complexion. At previous production I can remember thinking Hal was quite the villain, but director Eric Peterson makes it clear here that Catherine and Hal are genuinely attracted to each other, and that neither is using the other for ulterior motives. In fact, I don’t think I have ever seen a more engaging love scene than the one Gale and Botwick enacted at the end of Act I.

The other bit of gender politics in the play is the issue, which is still the case, that the majority of mathematicians are male. That a woman, and a young, uncredentialed woman at that, could best the “guys” at their game raises all sorts of toxic masculine reactions, which are played only subtly here.

When you enter the theatre you are greeted by Wm. John Aupperlee’s set depicting the back deck of the house Robert and Catherine share, adorned with Cory Wheat’s projection. I say adorned because as soon as the initial projection – an astonishing black and white trompe-l’œil image of the rear of the house – is switched for more subtle sunlight-through-the-leaves patterns, as it must be or the actors would be performing with blotchy projections all over them, the “house” resolves into nothing but a matte black wall with a door in it. The house projection returns during scene changes, but every time it vanishes again you feel a sense of loss.

It took me until well into Act II to understand that that one door – through which people seemed to access both the interior of the house and the outside world – was meant to be the back door of the house and that there was an unseen front door as well. In other words when people “left the house” they were going in through the back door and then out through the front door. In my mind exits to the outside world should have been made off of the deck, stage left, and indeed occasionally they were. When the critic has to spend a long while pondering a door there is something wrong with the set and/or the direction.

Ursula McCarty’s costumes subtly conveyed character and socio-economic rank while offering freedom of movement. The matter of the vanishing house aside, Wheat’s projections were fine, as was David V. Groupé’s lighting. Wheat is also credited with the sound design, which consisted mostly of an increasingly loud and insistent recording of The Sound of Silence played during scene changes. I usually like that song…

My technical quibbles aside, this a strong and moving production of a thought-provoking play. If you saw a production a decade or so ago, I encourage you to revisit it. And take along a teenage or twenty-something woman while you are at it. There is good fodder for debate and discussion on the ride home.

Proof by David Auburn, directed by Eric Peterson, runs August 31-September 9, 2018, at the Oldcastle Theatre Company, 331 Main Street in Bennington, Vt. Set design by Wm. John Aupperlee; costume design by Ursula McCarty; lighting design by David V. Groupé; sound and projections by Cory Wheat; stage management by Gary Allan Poe. CAST: Richard Howe as Robert, Talley Gale as Catherine, Halley Cianfarini as Claire, and Ethan Botwick as Hal.

For ticket reservations or additional information contact Oldcastle Theatre at www.oldcastletheatre.org or 802-447-0564.

  REVIEW: “Proof” at Oldcastle Theatre Company by Gail M. Burns David Auburn’s Proof burst on the national consciousness nearly twenty years ago – winning Tonys and a Pulitzer and being made into a big budget, star-studded film - so the initial flurry of professional and amateur productions across the country has run its course and the play is ripe for revisiting in the #metoo era.