#he can (and has) play any shakespeare character and be extraordinary at it

[catabasis]

i tried to transcribe it, let me know if i got anything wrong!

DAVID: I haven't done Shakespeare in over ten years actually, so this was a real... And I never thought I'd do Macbeth. I thought that's (unintelligible) for big strapping lads.

INTERVIEWER: Oh, don't do that to yourself, you are a big strapping lad, David Tennant.

DAVID: God bless you. But it was a real pleasure. (unintelligible)

David Tennant - Interview at the Olivier Awards

I know it's hard to understand, so if anyone wants to transcribe it - go for it!

[ingravinoveritas]

This past week, I traveled to London to see Macbeth. Everything I had heard and seen about David, Cush Jumbo, and the overall production convinced me that it was not to be missed, and so I took the crazy chance of purchasing a ticket months ago, and it was the first time I've ever gone to another country just for a play.

Ever since I was a kid, I have been going to Broadway shows, and the experience of live theatre has always been something incomparable and incredibly meaningful to me. Seeing something beyond Broadway, however, never felt possible until now. This opportunity arose at a moment when I was finally able to seize it, and now that I have attended the play not once, but twice (thanks to a lovely person who was able to help me obtain a £25 day ticket), I can say that Macbeth was, without question, the most amazing thing that I have ever seen on stage.

What follows is my review/thoughts on the production, and I will try my best to avoid spoilers (though fair warning that one or two may arise, so proceed with caution).

In high school, Shakespeare was something we were taught. It was an assumed part of the curriculum, labeled as a classic. Yet it seemed to exist in a time capsule--a product of its era, and of an English language barely proximate to the one we speak today. We learned Macbeth on the page, in annotations and themes and meter, rather than something pulsing, beating, living. Something that makes us feel. And for nearly two hours in a beautiful Victorian theatre in a little corner of the West End, all I did was exactly that.

I felt. And after seeing this play, I am not the same person on a molecular level that I was before.

Everything about this play--from David's mesmerizing portrayal of Macbeth to Cush Jumbo's wrenching turn as Lady Macbeth to the entire ensemble cast to the staging choices (light, sound, and so on)--is extraordinary. It is breathtakingly ruinous. It is so fully immersive that by the end you somehow feel bruised, viscerally disgusted and wrung out in equally beautiful measure.

It's almost misleading to say that we the audience are simply watching the play, because thanks to the binaural audio design (headphones), we are in Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's minds, and become accomplices to the characters' wicked deeds. When the porter (Jatinder Singh Randhawa) comes on to provide comic relief at exactly the perfect moment, it soon becomes clear that it is a distraction from our own discomfort at what has just happened. But it is a short-lived respite, as we are soon plunged back into the action and the characters' spiraling descent into madness.

In terms of David specifically, seeing him on television or on any screen profoundly pales to seeing him on the stage. In much the same way that the stage is Michael's natural habitat, it is also David's. The way he moves, the way he holds himself when he's not even speaking--which I got to see up close when he knelt directly in front of me on several occasions--is meticulous. David becomes the character he is playing, down into the pit of his soul. He disappears so thoroughly that I very quickly forgot that I was even watching him.

So many people can recite Shakespeare, but there is a marked difference between recitation and what David does. Together, David and Cush make Macbeth and Lady Macbeth feel like the Bonnie and Clyde of the Elizabethan age (only hornier). And the themes the play invokes--greed, fear, jealousy, power--are shown to be themes not of a particular era, but of humanity. David especially is so preternaturally good at making all of that unbearably real. He not only makes Shakespeare accessible to the modern world--an already difficult feat on its own--he makes it timeless.

For the last ten minutes of the play, I felt like I stopped breathing. The evil that Macbeth perpetrates, and the realization that he has not become like this, but rather that this is who he has always been, hits full force. As much as this play is very definitely an ensemble piece, David is the standout. He commands the stage, and at no point is he more powerful than when Macbeth is falling apart near the end.

(On a purely aesthetic level, this is also when David looks most beautiful--the wild hair, the form-fitting shirt heaving with the rise and fall of his greyhound lean chest, and the majestic sweep of the kilt with every frenzied movement. The complete erosion of the line between sanity and insanity, but also showing us how tenuous that line was to begin with. And he is utterly gorgeous while doing so.)

It's also at this moment in the play that we see how skillfully David has manipulated the audience. Where Michael uses a character's emotions much more overtly and aggressively--sniffing the audience out, stalking around the stage, feeling as if he's about to pull you up with him--David is far more controlled. He draws you in slowly, carefully, and it's only when we see the depths of Macbeth's depravity (notably killing Young Siward) that we realize the truth:

He got us. He made us the witnesses to Macbeth's malice, made sure we couldn't look away. And now we are complicit.

If I had to pinpoint any negatives about the play (which is extremely difficult to do), it's that there is only a brief moment where the pacing lags just slightly, and it's because David is off stage for a considerable period of time. The cast is absolutely incredible, bar none, but the energy doesn't quite maintain that high level when he is not there.

Also, from a sensory standpoint, this is very much not a sensory-friendly production. There are several instances of sudden loud noises in the headphones (which I found especially jarring), as well as the use of flashing lights, and considerable use of smoke at multiple points. All of these were more acute because I was sitting in the Stalls (second row), so I can only speak to it from that vantage, rather than from other locations in the theatre. But for anyone who is autistic (as I am) or has sensory-processing challenges, be advised that this play is definitely inaccessible in those respects.

When I left the Harold Pinter Theatre that night, I felt as though my entire central nervous system had been rearranged. There genuinely is no way to be normal about this play, because it is not a normal play. It takes apart everything you know about Macbeth and puts it back together in the most unexpected, electrifying way. It is the beauty of destruction, and no one embodies that more perfectly than David. Even days later, I can still feel the buzzing of my skin, the blood rushing through me, fingertips tingling from some heady combination of arousal and fear. (Or as Dr. Frank N. Furter once put it: "A mental mind fuck can be quite nice...")

The moment the lights went to black, every single person in that theatre was on their feet in a standing ovation. The applause was thunderous, and seemed even louder in the wake of the complete silence that preceded it.

I had sat in that silence--awestruck, captivated--and thought to myself that I could watch this production forever. And I would go back and do it all over again right now if I could. If you have the means, the opportunity, it is an experience I cannot recommend highly enough.

David is truly a master of his craft, and yet performs without a hint of ego. He gives everything he has and leaves it all on the stage. And what he and this team of people have come together to give us is something I will remember for the rest of my life.

(Pictures taken on 10/12/2024.)

[safsunderc]

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

A beautiful film, centring beautiful people, whose melancholic stories of neglect and deprivation spring no sympathy to mind, The Talented Mr. Ripley is an ode not only to one man’s jealousy, obsession and desire, but the shame he has been taught to carry as a low-class, gay man in modern western society.

Beautiful Country

The major bulk of the film takes place in Italy because Dickie loves it there, it is only there Marge is finally in her element to write her book. Italy has always been a place for bourgeois aristocrats to spend expensive summers, even now you think of Capri and images of Gucci stores spring to mind, of hundred euro meals and fashionable little sailing boats. I’ve been briefly, and it happens to be one of the most beautiful places in the world, worth every penny on the planet, and then some. But if you are as Dickie is, and pennies aren’t of your concern, why wouldn’t you spend all your time in Italy? It’s a lifestyle most of us can only ever dream of, but he carries it like a burden; Meredith says that those with their kind of money are driven to despise it, but if that is true they surely don’t behave that way. 

In all honesty, it’s pitiable to watch the sob story of a man with so much more than yourself, and for me, that’s what I find most irritable about Dickie and the characterisation of the bourgeois characters generally. As a woman of working stock myself, it’s hard for me to sympathise with any of Dickie’s hardships, and it must be the same for Tom, who is even closer to the excessive wealth they all flaunt; me, I’m just watching through a screen, Tom lives, for about the first hour of the film, my very worst nightmare: to have everything you’ve only ever dreamed about dangled in front of your face, and you’ve got to pretend like it’s nothing, like you’ve seen it all before. It’s excruciating watching Tom try and fit himself into this new bourgeois dynamic and navigate the extravagances of his new Italian lifestyle, as though he’s got to learn two new languages instead of one. 

Along with designer fashion brands and espressos, 20th century Italy comes to us off the back of the Roman empire and the renaissance, arguably two of the most culturally impactful events in all pre-modern history. Shakespeare’s final play, The Tempest, takes place on an isle off the coast of Italy and centres Italian nobility. The driving force of the plot is of a betrayal between brothers, an ironic parallel to Tom and Dickie. Italy is certainly home to the most beautiful buildings, paintings, literature, to the largest and mightiest military force in history, but it is also a haven of deceit and discomfort for the aristocratic class; Brutus had been Caesar's closest friend after all. 

Italy is also an uncommonly religious state, of course, it’s home to the Vatican city, home of the Pope. Catholic (or simply religious) guilt plays a large part in any person’s life who struggles dealing with their sexuality, and in a place like Italy, where religious superstition is at the heart of its people and communities, there is always an underlying sense of guilt for Tom during his time there. In a scene where Tom is accused of homosexuality by a police officer, it is made all too blatant the imperfections of the place. After a dreamy, hazy Italian holiday where Tom can kid himself into acceptance, it’s time to wake up and go back to the real world, it exists in Italy too. It’s a culturally progressive yet simultaneously conservative country, and that’s why the upper class thrives: there are boundaries safe to cross so you might feel like you’re living large, when really there is nothing extraordinary about Dickie’s life. In all its extravagance, it’s ultimately devoid of what Tom’s fruitless life has got: passion, devotion, and love. 

“But, because it spares my shame”

Along with those things, however, comes heaps of shame. The working man’s inner plight is that of trying to prove to others your worth through what labour you can provide for those whose own worth lies within their pockets; more than that even is trying to prove it to yourself. Tom deals with a lot of prejudice from other characters, but the one he is really facing judgement from is himself. This guilt and shame is ultimately what drives him to kill; it’s arguable that he kills Dickie out of pure obsession with the man, but if we follow the rest of his killing spree, it’s made obvious that it’s really because he is ashamed of his sexual and general identity. 

First, he kills Dickie. It’s honestly one of the most horrible, difficult scenes I've ever sat through, thanks to the way Tom cries as he does it, how he girlishly screams and is genuinely horrified at what he’s done. He’s just confessed his love for him and then Dickie is saying he is going to marry Marge and he realises that’s what is supposed to happen: boy meets girl, boy falls in love, boy and girl get married. But Tom is nothing if not gifted at spinning the narrative around so he lies blameless. No, it’s all Dickie’s fault for leading him on, and he’s so embarrassed of himself he can’t do anything but kill Dickie. Faced with the horrifying nature of his sexuality, Tom tries killing it, along with Dickie. You see a gross, incessant bug and you hit it hard as you can; a natural human response to disgust. 

Talented Tom Ripley’s Chains

You could say his next victim is arguably Tom Ripley himself when he assumes Dickie’s identity. Throughout the film I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, expecting it to be revealed that Tom Ripley wasn’t his real name either, and that Tom doesn’t exist at all. Instead, I’d like to think that Tom Ripley is already dead before the start of the film. There is so little we know about who Tom is: he’s musical and plays piano; he’s of low class; he of course has a knack for imitation and impersonation. He’s not academically-minded, cultured, charismatic, Tom Ripley is hardly even talented. The film spends about a good hour portraying Tom as calculated and brilliant and apparently he becomes Dickie with ease, something psychopathic about how good he is at what he does. But, when you really think about it, he gets caught at least twice and is almost caught another three times. Tom isn’t the intellectual mastermind he is famously cast as, rather he is driven by his passion and desire, and of course his shame. 

When Tom first reveals his ‘talent,’ it sets Dickie off laughing, like it’s some kind of party trick. As much of a talent as it is, Tom hardly uses it, signing maybe one paper as Dickie. Even Tom’s greatest talent is a meagre trick to impress and entertain people like Dickie; once again, he is the low-class laughing stock amongst the crowd of trust-fund babies and Princeton prodigies. Every small conversation between Dickie and Tom is laced with mockery and the class difference is blatant, even posing as an actual Princeton alumni he can’t hide he’s classless: can't ski, can’t sail, can’t even wear a different set of clothes each day. Class is something entrenched in a person’s being and you can’t escape whatever situation you were brought up under, and Tom is no different. 

Peeping Tommy

Tom’s relationship with Freddie is an anomaly, being the only person Tom seems to dislike. Maybe it’s because Freddie is genuinely Dickie’s friend and can flawlessly pull off what Tom himself is hanging by a thread trying to achieve. Tom is jealous of Dickie, yes, but he doesn’t hate him. When Tom kills Freddie he’s waiting for him behind a closed door, like an actual premeditated murder. It's also the only time we see him actually disposing of the body, like maybe he doesn’t mind us seeing this one, because there is no feeling for Freddie. This is really the only time we see Tom in all his glory, being that calculated psychopath. However, the act of killing Freddie is the same as killing Dickie: he’s just plain embarrassed and angry at himself, because Freddie is right, he is peeping Tom, he does know his ass from his elbow.

Later, when Tom is close to taking Marge as his third victim, he cuts himself on the razor that was meant for her, except, why are you clutching the blade of a weapon you’re about to use? It almost seems like Tom never intended on harming Marge at all; he can only afford this for the simple fact that she is a woman. This means two things: 1) He isn’t afraid of his attraction to her, and 2) No one would believe her if she uncovered the truth. This makes the women safe territory and he doesn’t feel the need to kill them.

There is a split second near the end where you think Tom might just push Meredith off the boat, but, of course, he doesn’t. He would never hurt a woman because Tom idealises them to the point where they could never be blamed for his shortcomings. Of course it’s Dickie’s fault Tom is sexually attracted to him, but there is no fault in his attraction to Marge because there would be nothing wrong with it. Except there seems to be no case of Tom actually desiring a woman as he does Dickie or Peter. 

The scenes of sexual intimacy between Tom and any other man I often found uncomfortable, or at least that Tom himself was uncomfortable; it is obvious he cannot stand himself and he says as much in the very first line: “If I could just go back, if I could rub everything out, starting with myself, starting with borrowing a jacket.” This sentiment is consistent through to the end when he accuses Peter of lying when listing good things about him, particularly when he’s told he’s beautiful. The crux of Tom’s psychopathic motivations is a crippling self-hatred, and that extends to his physical form. “Tell me some good things about Tom Ripley.” He asks, practically pleading. He’s so close to having everything that he wants, a man to love him, a huge sum of money, elevated social status. Except he can’t have the one thing he really wants, to be someone else. In the end, he is Tom Ripley and he can’t get away from that, in mind, body, and in all his talentless, displeasing spirit. 

This film is what I think is the most accurate portrayal of struggling with your sexuality and overall identity. It’s not a moving, sensitive experience that movies like Call Me by Your Name or All of us Strangers portray; it’s anguish, it’s violence, it’s losing the people you love and feeling like you did it yourself; it’s fearing being alone for the rest of your life. It’s pretending a whole section of you is not there and lashing out when you’re confronted with the basement full of unhappy thoughts. It’s hearing good things and not believing them; it’s hating your body and being afraid of it. It’s looking in the mirror and not knowing who you even are. It’s feeling like you made all the wrong choices and, like Tom puts it, believing it would be better to be a fake somebody, than a real nobody. 

[denimbex1986]

'David Tennant took to the Donmar Warehouse's stage as Macbeth alongside Cush Jumbo on Friday.

The actor, 52, showcased his skills as he put on a moving performance for a revival of Shakespeare's most extraordinary psychological drama.

The adaptation is directed by Donmar Associate director Max Webster, also known for Life Of Pi and Henry V.

The Doctor Who icon was joined on stage by Cush, 38, as Lady Macbeth.

According to the description the gory play portrays a 'spellbinding story of love and murder, the renewing power of nature, and of the internal struggles of a damaged man as he tries to control his destiny'.

The Good Wife actress is a heavyweight theatre star as she previously played in Hamlet at the Young Vic a few years back - after what she was described by the former New York Times theatre critic Ben Brantley as radiating 'that unquantifiable force of hunger, drive, talent usually called star power'.

In a glooming and dramatic animation, David and Cush stunned the crowd with a sensational performance - as the show is set to continue for the whole winter season.

The production will use binaural technology to create 'an intense and unnerving 3D sound world', according to TimeOut.

Chatting to The Guardian, the David said of his latest work: 'I thought I knew this play very well and that it was, unlike any other Shakespeare I can remember rehearsing, straightforward.

'But each time I come to a scene, it goes in a direction I wasn't expecting. It has such muscle to it, it powers along. Plot-wise, it's more front-footed than any Shakespeare play I've done.'

Talking about her character Lady Macbeth, Cush said: 'She is deeply ingrained in our culture. Everyone thinks they know who she is. Most people studied the play at school. I did – I hated it. It was so boring but that's because Shakespeare's plays aren't meant to be read, they're meant to be acted.

'People think they know Lady Macbeth as a type – the strong, controlling woman who pushed him to do it. She does things women shouldn't do. The greatest misconception is that we have stopped seeing Lady Macbeth as a human being.'

Earlier this week Doctor Who showrunner Russell T Davies has revealed that there are 'no plans' for David Tennant to return in the new series.

The actor reprised his role as the Time Lord for a trio of Specials to celebrate the show's 60th Anniversary, with a twist in the third and final episode leaving The Fourteenth Doctor to embrace a new life on Earth.

While David's return was praised by viewers, and the conclusion has left the door open for him to appear again in the future, Russell has confirmed that moving forward, new Doctor Ncuti Gatwa is the sole focus.

After his first appearance in the final special last week, Ncuti makes his full debut in a festive special on Christmas Day, alongside Millie Gibson, who will star as his companion Ruby Sunday.

Speaking at a Q&A following the premiere of the festive episode, Russell said: 'Sorry, it's the age of Ncuti now – it's 'David who?''

'No plans, genuinely, yet, because it's a busy TARDIS - these two [Ncuti and Millie Gibson as companion Ruby Sunday] are gonna just sail across the universe and capture your heart, so it's time to look at these two.'

Elsewhere, Russell also revealed that when the new series hits screens in 2024, there will be an appearance from 60s music icons The Beatles.

He said: '[The Christmas special is] completely different to the next episode, isn't it? And then the one after that, that's the Beatles... that's nuts!'

Viewers will get to see Ncuti make his full debut as The Doctor in the festive special which sees him cross paths with Ruby, before the pair encounter 'mythical and mysterious goblins.'

Ncuti made his first appearance as The Doctor in the third and final 60th Anniversary Special, The Giggle.

His arrival came when 'creepy' returning villain The Toymaker, played by Neil Patrick Harris, shot David's Doctor through the chest, forcing him to regenerate.

The Toymaker had turned human beings on Earth mad, before challenging the Doctor to a deadly game - which put the planet at stake - forcing the Time Lord to accept to try and save Earth.

Shooting the Doctor, The Toymaker said: 'I played one game with the First Doctor, I played the second with this Doctor, so your rules declare that I must play the third game with the next Doctor!'

His companions Donna Noble (Catherine Tate) and the returning Melanie Bush (Bonnie Langford) ran over to support him as he regenerated, with fans expecting that to be the end for David's character.

Melanie reassured him: 'You're going to be someone else, it doesn't matter who, because every single one of you is fantastic!'

While David tearfully said: 'It's time, here we go again! Alonzee,' as he expected to be replaced, but a huge twist saw his character remain alongside his new incarnation.

As he remained after the regeneration, he asked Donna and Melanie: 'Could you, pull? It feels different this time,' and as they yanked on his arms, Ncuti shot out of him and the two Time Lords stood alongside each other in a massive twist.

Making his hotly-anticipated debut, Ncuti's Doctor shouted: 'No way!' as he laid eyes on David, moving away from tradition which normally sees one Doctor replace another upon regeneration.

David said: 'You're me,' while Ncuti replied: 'No, I'm me. I think I'm really, really me! Oh-ho-ho I am completely me!'

When asked what had happened, Ncuti's Doctor said: 'Bi-generation, I have bi-generated. There's no such thing, bi-generation is supposed to be a myth, but-!'

The pair of Doctors then used their talents to face off with The Toymaker together and incredibly managed to beat him at his own game, sending the villain out of existence forever.

David's Doctor said: 'Best of three, and my prize, Toymaker, is to banish you from existence, for ever!'

'No, you can't. But I - not fair, please,' the Toymaker said, before giving the ominous warning: 'My legions are coming.'

After banishing The Toymaker from the world, both David and Ncuti's versions of the character stayed on screen, and went back to the TARDIS with Donna.

David asked Ncuti: 'How's this going to work, you and me?' as the huge twist saw two Doctors remain after a regeneration for the first time ever.

Ncuti told him: 'You're thin as a pin love, you're running on fumes,' before urging him to slow down and 'stop' rather than running and travelling in the TARDIS.

Ncuti then paid tribute to a whole host of former companions, including the late Elisabeth Sladen, who portrayed Sarah Jane Smith and sadly died in 2011.

'Sarah Jane has gone, can you believe that for a second?' Ncuti said as they sweetly paid tribute to the iconic actress.

David Tennant takes on Macbeth: Doctor Who stars transforms into the Scottish King alongside Cush Jumbo By CAROLINA PIRAS FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 17:24, 15 December 2023 | UPDATED: 17:40, 15 December 2023

e-mail 10

View comments e-mail Top +99Home 10

View comments David Tennant took to the Donmar Warehouse's stage as Macbeth alongside Cush Jumbo on Friday.

The actor, 52, showcased his skills as he put on a moving performance for a revival of Shakespeare's most extraordinary psychological drama.

The adaptation is directed by Donmar Associate director Max Webster, also known for Life Of Pi and Henry V.

The Doctor Who icon was joined on stage by Cush, 38, as Lady Macbeth.

According to the description the gory play portrays a 'spellbinding story of love and murder, the renewing power of nature, and of the internal struggles of a damaged man as he tries to control his destiny'.

David Tennant took to the Donmar Warehouse's stage as Macbeth alongside Cush Jumbo on Friday +10 View gallery David Tennant took to the Donmar Warehouse's stage as Macbeth alongside Cush Jumbo on Friday

The actor, 52, showcased his acting skills as he put on a moving performance for a revival of Shakespeare's most extraordinary psychological drama +10 View gallery The actor, 52, showcased his acting skills as he put on a moving performance for a revival of Shakespeare's most extraordinary psychological drama

TRENDING

David Tennant dons a striking shirt at Macbeth press night after party 2.5k viewing now

This production of Macbeth has oodles of atmosphere - PATRICK MARMION 4.5k viewing now

Nigella Lawson reveals the one household chore she has NEVER done 71.5k viewing now The Good Wife actress is a heavyweight theatre star as she previously played in Hamlet at the Young Vic a few years back - after what she was described by the former New York Times theatre critic Ben Brantley as radiating 'that unquantifiable force of hunger, drive, talent usually called star power'.

In a glooming and dramatic animation, David and Cush stunned the crowd with a sensational performance - as the show is set to continue for the whole winter season.

The production will use binaural technology to create 'an intense and unnerving 3D sound world', according to TimeOut.

Chatting to The Guardian, the David said of his latest work: 'I thought I knew this play very well and that it was, unlike any other Shakespeare I can remember rehearsing, straightforward.

'But each time I come to a scene, it goes in a direction I wasn't expecting. It has such muscle to it, it powers along. Plot-wise, it's more front-footed than any Shakespeare play I've done.'

Talking about her character Lady Macbeth, Cush said: 'She is deeply ingrained in our culture. Everyone thinks they know who she is. Most people studied the play at school. I did – I hated it. It was so boring but that's because Shakespeare's plays aren't meant to be read, they're meant to be acted.

'People think they know Lady Macbeth as a type – the strong, controlling woman who pushed him to do it. She does things women shouldn't do. The greatest misconception is that we have stopped seeing Lady Macbeth as a human being.'

Earlier this week Doctor Who showrunner Russell T Davies has revealed that there are 'no plans' for David Tennant to return in the new series.

The actor reprised his role as the Time Lord for a trio of Specials to celebrate the show's 60th Anniversary, with a twist in the third and final episode leaving The Fourteenth Doctor to embrace a new life on Earth.

While David's return was praised by viewers, and the conclusion has left the door open for him to appear again in the future, Russell has confirmed that moving forward, new Doctor Ncuti Gatwa is the sole focus.

After his first appearance in the final special last week, Ncuti makes his full debut in a festive special on Christmas Day, alongside Millie Gibson, who will star as his companion Ruby Sunday.

Speaking at a Q&A following the premiere of the festive episode, Russell said: 'Sorry, it's the age of Ncuti now – it's 'David who?''

The Doctor Who icon was joined on stage by Cush, 38, as Lady Macbeth +10 View gallery The Doctor Who icon was joined on stage by Cush, 38, as Lady Macbeth

According to the description the gory play portrays a 'spellbinding story of love and murder, the renewing power of nature, and of the internal struggles of a damaged man as he tries to control his destiny' +10 View gallery According to the description the gory play portrays a 'spellbinding story of love and murder, the renewing power of nature, and of the internal struggles of a damaged man as he tries to control his destiny'

'No plans, genuinely, yet, because it's a busy TARDIS - these two [Ncuti and Millie Gibson as companion Ruby Sunday] are gonna just sail across the universe and capture your heart, so it's time to look at these two.'

Elsewhere, Russell also revealed that when the new series hits screens in 2024, there will be an appearance from 60s music icons The Beatles.

He said: '[The Christmas special is] completely different to the next episode, isn't it? And then the one after that, that's the Beatles... that's nuts!'

Viewers will get to see Ncuti make his full debut as The Doctor in the festive special which sees him cross paths with Ruby, before the pair encounter 'mythical and mysterious goblins.'

Ncuti made his first appearance as The Doctor in the third and final 60th Anniversary Special, The Giggle.

His arrival came when 'creepy' returning villain The Toymaker, played by Neil Patrick Harris, shot David's Doctor through the chest, forcing him to regenerate.

The Toymaker had turned human beings on Earth mad, before challenging the Doctor to a deadly game - which put the planet at stake - forcing the Time Lord to accept to try and save Earth.

Shooting the Doctor, The Toymaker said: 'I played one game with the First Doctor, I played the second with this Doctor, so your rules declare that I must play the third game with the next Doctor!'

His companions Donna Noble (Catherine Tate) and the returning Melanie Bush (Bonnie Langford) ran over to support him as he regenerated, with fans expecting that to be the end for David's character.

Melanie reassured him: 'You're going to be someone else, it doesn't matter who, because every single one of you is fantastic!'

While David tearfully said: 'It's time, here we go again! Alonzee,' as he expected to be replaced, but a huge twist saw his character remain alongside his new incarnation.

As he remained after the regeneration, he asked Donna and Melanie: 'Could you, pull? It feels different this time,' and as they yanked on his arms, Ncuti shot out of him and the two Time Lords stood alongside each other in a massive twist.

Making his hotly-anticipated debut, Ncuti's Doctor shouted: 'No way!' as he laid eyes on David, moving away from tradition which normally sees one Doctor replace another upon regeneration.

David said: 'You're me,' while Ncuti replied: 'No, I'm me. I think I'm really, really me! Oh-ho-ho I am completely me!'

When asked what had happened, Ncuti's Doctor said: 'Bi-generation, I have bi-generated. There's no such thing, bi-generation is supposed to be a myth, but-!'

The pair of Doctors then used their talents to face off with The Toymaker together and incredibly managed to beat him at his own game, sending the villain out of existence forever.

David's Doctor said: 'Best of three, and my prize, Toymaker, is to banish you from existence, for ever!'

'No, you can't. But I - not fair, please,' the Toymaker said, before giving the ominous warning: 'My legions are coming.'

After banishing The Toymaker from the world, both David and Ncuti's versions of the character stayed on screen, and went back to the TARDIS with Donna.

David asked Ncuti: 'How's this going to work, you and me?' as the huge twist saw two Doctors remain after a regeneration for the first time ever.

Ncuti told him: 'You're thin as a pin love, you're running on fumes,' before urging him to slow down and 'stop' rather than running and travelling in the TARDIS.

Ncuti then paid tribute to a whole host of former companions, including the late Elisabeth Sladen, who portrayed Sarah Jane Smith and sadly died in 2011.

'Sarah Jane has gone, can you believe that for a second?' Ncuti said as they sweetly paid tribute to the iconic actress.

Ncuti then told David's Doctor to try and lead a life of his own, to which David said: 'I've never let the TARDIS go, never, that would hurt.'

In another huge twist, Ncuti managed to transform the one TARDIS into two separate time machines as a 'reward' for them winning the game against The Toymaker, under his rules where games override logic.

The episode ended with Ncuti heading off for more time-travelling adventures in the TARDIS, while David stayed on Earth with Donna and her family, sweetly noting he'd 'never been happier in his life.''

[schmergo]

I should be going to sleep but I'm still so blown away by how incredibly good STC's King Lear was that my mind is still racing. Patrick Page was so good and moving in the title role, unbelievably powerful and incredibly frail. He played the age of the character so well that I totally forgot that he's really only the same age as my (quite youthful) mom. When he kneeled on the stage, I actually worried about his joints! 

His delivery is so compelling and stage presence so magnetic that it pins your mind to the spot and refuses to let it wander. He makes you cry and yet he's also, like, really funny. And then he makes you sad with how funny he is. It's a tremendous performance. So many images from it are seared into my mind.

The rest of the cast was quite strong, too. I am a longtime STC fan-- in fact, I've actually seen over 30 shows there over the years. This is one of the best I've seen so far. I feel like in the past, some of their Shakespeare productions have had a little more style than substance, but this show felt so carefully crafted-- the supporting characters were all well-established and differentiated from one another, the cut of the script lean and fast-paced, the direction was sharp and purposeful, the set established place very well without being distracting or leaning into spectacle. The costuming was clever and lent a lot to the characterizations and settings; in some cases, one outfit was worth a thousand words.

This the second time I've gotten to see Patrick Page perform this past year. The first was in Hadestown on Broadway, the first in-person professional theatre production I saw since the world shut down in early 2020. It was such a revelatory experience that I decided then that I had to go back to seeing more DC theatre despite the COVID risk (masked, of course)-- it's one of the greatest joys of my life and one of the things I missed most.

I couldn't have picked a better time. This winter and early spring has been an extraordinary season for local theatre. Every show I've seen since I started watching local theatre again has been outstanding: Into the Woods at Signature Theatre, Beauty and the Beast at Olney Theatre, The Tempest at Round House, and now this. I firmly believe that DC professional theatre is as some of the best in the country and it's such a gift to experience this after so long without live theatre.

Two notes about this production of King Lear: 

1. If you're 35 and under, you can get discount tickets for $35. That was a HUGE savings.

2. As you may know, my biggest source of squeamishness and fear is any kind of eyeball gore. There's a very famous gory scene in this play. It involves eyeballs. I have avoided seeing any productions of King Lear up until this point partly because of that. I was told the scene in this production was especially chilling, but because I loved Hadestown so much, I had to risk it and go see it anyway. I can't tell you how the scene was because I closed my eyes and put my fingers in my ears during it, but I wanted to warn you if you're squeamish like me.

[readsalot1]

I totally agree. There's a lot of stories that are amazing and quickly discounted because they're old.

When COVID-19 caused the shutdown in the US, school was still on, but the needed time investment tanked for the end of the school year. This gave me a lot of time to read, and I read a whole lot of Shakespeare's plays.

While some were skipped (Rape of Lucreta was not something I was going near), some were lighthearted (Twelfth Night, Two Gentlemen of Verona), some were traditional comedies (Winter's Tale), and some were unquestionably tragedies (Romeo and Juliet, King Lear).

And some plays were very obviously products of the political culture of the time (fun fact, in Henry VI, the actress who plays La Pucelle (Jeanne d'Arc) in Part 1 usually also plays Queen Margaret in later parts, because they're both the "villainous women" in the play). Richard III is very obviously pro-Tudor, and the political climate in Hamlet's Elsinor more closely resembles England's court of the time than any contemporary Danish court.

Other plays are most definitely not something publishable today. And this is okay, as long as we (the readers) understand that the attitudes expressed, while prevalent in Shakespeare's time, are no longer acceptable. Othello and Merchant of Venice are definitely the most obvious examples of this, though Prospero's treatment of Caliban and Ariel in the Tempest are also questionable. (None of these plays are accurate representations of real people, or groups of people. However, it is important to note that Shakespeare gives these characters more depth than any of his contemporaries.)

Shakespeare remains one of the most impressive authors of his day, and truly an extraordinary playwright. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while some of his work hasn't aged well, it remains important to teach his work in schools, and the content that hasn't aged well, and the content that is obviously politically biased, remain important to teach as well. (Please hear me out before commenting/bashing)

Shakespeare's Henry VI presents an English perspective on events of the 100 Year War, and due to this perspective introduces narrative bias, which is especially present in the character of La Pucelle, who readers will be more familiar with as Joan of Arc (Jeanne d'Arc). Joan, in the modern understanding of events, was a female civilian who joined the French in working to fight against the English, and was eventually burned at the stake. In the religious context, she has since been canonized as a saint in the Catholic Church. However, in the play, she is written as a witch who is also (in colloquial terms) "sleeping her way to the top." Because Shakespeare is being sponsored by the English crown, and thus must support the English side in his "History" on the war, he has Joan represent a malevolent force.

Even more interesting is that Richard III, about the War of the Roses, has had elements (that could actually be just propaganda, there's not enough historical evidence either way) become part of the prevailing historical narrative. Specifically, the "boys in the tower" story, about how he arranged to have his nephews killed.

Othello could never work in the modern day, but it is representative of historical attitudes. Despite these attitudes, Othello remains a very real character, who, while incredibly competent at his job, remains open to manipulation. Iago takes advantage of social isolation and fear to exacerbate jealousy, and Othello remains a man who is deeply in love. While there are issues with racial attitudes in the story, it could serve as an important lesson about manipulation. Iago finds what Othello cares about (Desdemona), helps to set up the idea that Othello should no longer be secure in Desdemona's love for him, and helps the situation to blow up in Othello's face, so Iago can have what he wants (the job of Cassio, who he sets up as the "other man" in the supposed affair). The lesson that people may not always have your best interests at heart can be a hard one, and is often overlooked by detractors of the play.

Merchant of Venice might paint Shylock as it's villain, but he gets the opportunity to leave the audience with a line that emphasizes the equality of all humanity ("If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"). Additionally, he is remarkably three-dimensional by the end, which makes him much more intriguing as a character, and increases the attention the audience pays to the validity of his lines.

TL;DR, even some of the more "problematic" of Shakespeare's plays remain relevant today (and important to read), even if no longer for the same reasons as before.

(Exit Stage Right, pursued by a bear)

This is how it feels to read a classic that everyone in the world has already read and loves

[pynkhues]

Thinking about the IWTV actors doing theater is fun. For me, I am a nerd about Shakespeare, so for any actors I really love, especially ones who have a particular facility with language, I want to see them in Shakespeare plays. And Assad has already worked with the RSC! He did Winter's Tale and they filmed it, though it feels a bit odd because they had to film it during the pandemic without an audience. 

I've thought the most about Jacob and Sam since we've been watching them (as the same characters, vs. Rashid/Armand) since season 1 (we've been watching Eric too but he has such a specific voice, if that makes sense lol, that it's harder for me to imagine him in different roles -- but I'd be delighted to see him onstage in anything). Really ANY Shakespeare role with either Jacob or Sam would be thrilling. But two of my absolute favorite male Shakespeare roles, the ones that I maybe most want to see any actor I love do, are Macbeth and Richard II (not III, though I love III too). So if I could pick any role for them to do, it would probably be Sam as Macbeth and Jacob as Richard II. But vice versa would be amazing too (I'd REALLY love to see Sam's take on Richard II in particular, actually). Hamlet, Henry V, Benedick, Leontes, Brutus, Coriolanus, Iago (would be interesting to see either of them play a truly evil character), Richard III -- any really meaty role would be a dream. Also, I've seen Shakespeare productions with all-male or all-female casts (thinking of ones with Mark Rylance and Harriet Walter in particular), and those can work so brilliantly and give actors a chance to play opposite-gender roles without having to make the text accommodate a gender swap. So, with that in mind, I'd love to see either of them play Rosalind (I know Adrian Lester famously played Rosalind in an all-male production), Beatrice, or Lady Macbeth. If I'm dream-casting them in the same play, lol, an all-male production of Much Ado in which they play Beatrice and Benedick (could see either of them in either role, though I might gravitate toward Jacob as Benedick and Sam as Beatrice if I had to pick) would most likely kill me. 

Non-Shakespeare plays: Do you know Venus in Fur by David Ives? I saw the nyc production a decade ago with Hugh Dancy and Nina Arianda and it was one of the most astonishing things I've ever seen, and the main male role is extraordinary, just such a fascinating mix of masculine and feminine and submission and dominance. It feels like a role Sam would just utterly kill. Arcadia by Tom Stoppard is one of my absolute favorite plays, and if I could cast a production of it, I think I would cast Jacob as Valentine (he's a very funny, acerbic mathematician with hidden depths) and Sam as Bernard (though onstage, where he could easily read a little younger, I might want to cast Sam as Septimus. He would be hysterical as Bernard and both hysterical and devastating as Septimus). 

My brain keeps wanting to cast Jacob and Sam in plays together lol -- they just have such spectacular, unusual acting chemistry, even apart from their insane physical/romantic chemistry, that I just want to see it as much as possible. So I found myself daydreaming about how incredible a production of Betrayal (with Sam as Robert and Jacob as Jerry, I think) could be. 

Also, the Broadway production of Purlie Victorious introduced me to a play I hadn't heard of, and it blew me away. It's so funny and so sharp and so moving, and I think Jacob would be absolutely brilliant in the role of Purlie (and based on things he's said in interviews, it seems like a play/part he might really love). 

I could keep going, but this is already way too long lol. Basically I just really want both of them to do theater. I would LOVE to see Delainey in a Shakespeare play too -- she looks so young, so I would still love to see her as Juliet. Viola or Olivia would also be amazing, or Rosalind, or Innogen (from Cymbeline).

OH ALSO for Delainey: Nora in A Doll's House

I love this ask sooo much, and I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply! All your picks are amazing. Funnily enough, Much Ado About Nothing and Sam and Jacob as Beatrice and Benedick was one was one of the ones I'd thought about too! That play's been a bit front of mind recently just because I watched Anyone But You recently and realised about half an hour in that it was a (pretty mid, but not charmless haha) MAAN adaptation. The other one that maybe weirdly springs to mind is actually Assad in A Midsommer Night's Dream? I feel like he's got such a playfulness when he's not playing Armand, and I'd love to see him play to that, maybe as Puck?

I totally agree about Eric's voice being so specific when it comes to thinking of roles for him, but it could be cool to see him in something like 12 Angry Men but that probably will be him playing to type quite a bit, haha. Oh! Actually, he'd be great in Death of a Salesman too.

But gosh, Jacob and Sam - - I'd love to see them together in something too. A lot of this is probably going to be Australian-focused sorry, as that's what I often end up watching here but like, I'd loooove to see them in Holding the Man with probably Jacob as Tim and Sam as John, but that could go either way (actually on that note, just because both deal with the AIDS crisis, Angels in America would be amazing as well).

It'd be awesome to see them in something like Breaker Morant too, which can be such a phenomenal play depending on the cast and director (and was turned into a pretty exceptional film in 1980), and I was actually talking to someone at work a few weeks ago about how it feeles like Ray Lawler's Summer of the Seventeenth Doll should be coming up for a revival soon, and I love the thought of Sam and Jacob in that as Barnie and Roo (either role!) It feels especially interesting as a potential adaptation because while it's a very 1950s Australian play (in fact is considered to be the play that created Australian theatre), it was really embraced by Black communities overseas in the 60s and 70s too.

Oh, anything Oscar Wilde too, haha.

Love your picks for Delainey too! Especially Juliet and Viola or Olivia. Totally cliche, but I'd really love to see her in The Crucible as well, and I got to see Meet Me at Dawn earlier in the year too, and would looove to see Delainey and Roxane in that as a two-hander.

[oldbay-on-apples]

Dystopian Larry Fic Rec

Inspired by some of the lovely people and fic recers on here, I’ve decided to start making my own fic recs.  If you’d like, you can request recs in my inbox and I’ll see what I can do <3!

Please read the ratings and tags to these fics (because some of them are dark or have dark themes) and enjoy!

You Try To Be Everything (I Need) by lululawrence - @lululawrence​  (NR, 36k)

Wars, and rumours of wars, were nothing new for the world in the twenty-fourth century. The fighting had evolved over the years, and rarely did it involve traditional weapons. A group most widely known as the Southern Powers gained strength amongst portions of the western European continent and spread quickly. There was a fight the Southern Powers didn’t expect coming from the north of England, though. Resistance came in the form of an organised underground; a group comprised of people with the Touch that did the best they could to enforce a line that would not be crossed. Slowly, that line was moved from the Channel to boundaries further and further north. It seemed only a matter of time before the Southern Powers took over everywhere. Until that time, people did the best they could to live their lives in some semblance of normality. For Louis Tomlinson, that sense of normality was about to change when his best friend, Harry Styles, goes missing. Louis embarks on the journey of a lifetime where he uses his newly developed abilities to search for his friend, even when it takes him to places he never thought he would see while surmounting trials he never could have imagined. -

I loved the way the magic and technology in this fic intersected in such a unique way and the way the world was built was extraordinary!

red hands by reveries_passions - @dystopianharry​ (T, 132k)

I’ve never told anyone,” Harry murmurs, voice so soft no one else would be able to hear, if it wasn’t just the two of them. “But you’ve told someone,” Louis says firmly. “And that’s not gonna fucking happen around here. You don’t speak a word of it, or someone’s going to kill you, and we can’t let that happen.” * a dystopian au in which harry, an ex-soldier who’s escaped from his government run camp, accidentally stumbles across the biggest rebel movement in the country, and louis, one of the rebellion’s mysterious leaders who appears to hate him, seems to simultaneously have an obsession with keeping him alive. or: harry is wanted for treason, niall hasn’t changed in four years, liam is always smiling, and louis is angry. like, really angry.

- The plot of this is just *chef’s kiss* in so many ways!  I love the way the characters interact with each other and I’m weak for Niall and Harry’s friendship in this.

Love After the End of the World by writing_practice - @mercurial-madhouse​ (E 158k)

“Wait. Just so I’m clear in me fucking noggin,” Niall says. “An international worldwide takeover is well under way and the only thing standing between having hot showers and a second end of the world is us five fuckers?”    -----    Society shattered when all electricity suddenly cut off across the globe, plunging the world into darkness. Now, Prometheus Industries is the sole remaining supply of power, a saving grace to those who survived Lights Out. As fugitives in no-man’s land struggling to break into Prometheus HQ, death lurks around every corner for Louis and Zayn. Things get complicated when a routine recon falls apart and Louis collides with Harry and his mates Niall and Liam, survivors with their own agenda.    When staying alive is already a constant battle, the deadliest weakness is to be in love. For Harry and Louis, finding each other sits on top of the endless list of What Else Could Go Wrong.

-

This just came out in the most recent Big Bang (that’s still on going so you should definitely check that out) and this fic is so amazing!  I think it does a great job of just really immersing you in the world the characters exist in.  Love After the End of the World is also a Soulmate AU and I love the way those parts come together.  It also has an amazing prologue called PROMETHEUS RISING (M 5k) that I enjoyed immensely set in the same world!

at last, at last by suspendrs - @suspendrs​ (NR 41k) Locked

“Come with us,” Tommo says, stopping at the other end of the gymnasium, near the doors. “Don’t let them make you suffer any longer. Come with us, and be human.”

   Before Harry has even finished thinking it through, he’s on his feet, gaining the attention of every single person in the gymnasium. What has he got to lose, anyway?

   Or, Harry is born into a cult in a post-apocalyptic world, and Louis is the leader of the rebel group tasked with the mission of shutting them down. Together, they make a rather effective team.

-

This fic does a great job of making you feel like you’re experiencing with the characters, like I could practically smell what the characters were smelling!  The world it’s set in is so cool and the entire fic feels so well thought out and everything is so consistent!

my love will never leave you by we_are_the_same @so-why-let-your-voice-be-tamed​ (T 10k)

In a world where memories are used as currency, Louis will do anything it takes for Harry to get better.

-

I loved the idea behind this. Like the entire world is so brilliantly done! And it was all based on ONE word (because of the wordplay challenge).  Even though it’s set in a different world everything feels so grounded and realistic and I really really like that about it.

a prayer for which no words exist by Eliane (M 34k) Locked

"Louis is a few seconds away from blowing up a rather important section of the New York subway when he sees Harry for the first time."

-

In this fic the characters motivations are so clear (to the reader) and I love how it goes from Louis accidentally sort of, kind of, kidnapping Harry to them becoming friends then more.  I also love how no matter where they are the fic has a real sense of place. This is part 1 of landscapes of war.  The entire series is really good!

Who Painted the Moon Black by throughthedark (E 95k) Locked

   “People died,” Harry whispers so quietly Louis strains to hear. “People died, and I killed some of them. How does life just go on after something like that?”

   Louis shakes his head. “I don't know. It just does.”

   Hunger Games AU where Louis Tomlinson is district six's victor from the 69th Hunger Games and Harry Styles is district seven's victor from the 72nd Hunger Games.

-

This fic is a hunger games AU that both people who have and haven't read/watched the Hunger Games can enjoy. I like how it explores the world of the Hunger Games in a way that isn’t explored in the Hunger Games canon.  It’s really intense (like the E is for the darker themes and violence) and I enjoy it a lot.  There is a happy ending (as the author assures in the tags) and I really enjoy all the struggles that the characters go through.

Nobody Marks You by graceling_in_a_suit @graceling-in-a-suit​ (T 33k)

“The plan is: we’re gonna put on a play. Now, I see some doubtful faces–” Louis looked around and found zero doubtful faces. Liam looked intrigued, Zayn looked bored, and Harry looked scarily blank. “But this is what’s happening. We’re gonna do some fucking acting, we’re gonna perform our hearts out, and we’re not going to think about anything else. The past, the future; none of it. All we’re going to think about is... “ Niall trailed off, eyeing the bookshelf to his left. He closed his eyes and reached a hand out towards it, running his fingers over the covers before pulling a book out at random. “William Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing.”

AU: Five assholes stuck in a bunker put on a play.

-

This is one of my absolute favorite fics.  I just love the way the characters interact and they way the story is told.  It’s nonlinear so you jump around in time and it shows the way the character's relationships change throughout.  I’m a sucker for Much Ado About Nothing and though you don’t need to read it to fully appreciate the fic I think the use of the play throughout is genius. 

@1dfanfictionbookcovers​ has a really cool cover for the fic as well HERE

With a whimper by kitundercover  @kitundercover​​ (M 132k)

Dystopian AU. Louis has been alone for too long to remember how not to be, and Harry has too much to worry about to deal with a scrawny, wild, stranger.

---

The man grips his arm tightly. “You’re not going to say anything.” It’s not a question.

Louis shakes his head, his body twitching.

“Fine.” Large green eyes survey him before letting go. “It’s cold. Take this. Wear it.”

Louis can’t help another flinch as the man’s long scarf is wrapped around his tender neck, it’s still warm. He touches the soft material. “Thank you.”

The man bears his teeth. “Don’t thank me. Don’t ever thank me.”

-

The thing this fic does really does is showing emotional reactions.  Louis’ inner monologue is so well done and I really like the plot of the story.

these bountiful silences by tommoandbambi (T 123k)

they live in a world where they can only say four words per day. harry meets some people that don't want to live that way.

-

I really, really, really, like this plot and the story! The world that the characters exist in is so interesting and I just love the way in which it is a dystopia.

[cheesyficwriter]

hey there! I cannot express my love for your work (Isolated and lost in translation were *chef's kiss). Could you please write #75 for Romione? Thank you so much, I hope you have tons of cheese:)

Hi @shybrunettepainter! Thank you so much for reading and for your kind words 💜 what a fun prompt that definitely challenged me a bit! Just to preface, I am not well-versed in Shakespearean language, but I figured neither is Ron, so I definitely channeled him here 😉 hope you enjoy!

Prompt #75 - Speaks in a terrible Shakespearean/Elizabethan style to woo/make the other laugh.

Thee Maketh Me Happy

Hermione closed and locked her trunk, just as a knock on her bedroom door sounded. Hermione grinned and practically ran to open the door, revealing a beaming Ron on the other side. He had just arrived at her parents' home, with his father, to pick her up for a visit to the Burrow. They were two weeks away from starting their sixth year at Hogwarts and Hermione would be staying with the Weasleys for the remainder of the summer. 

“Hiya, Hermione!” Her stomach flipped wildly as she took in Ron's appearance. How was it possible that he had grown even taller in the last month or so since she had seen him? Despite the fact that he towered over her, he seemed to be filling out a bit more and she could make out his increasingly muscular frame under his tight shirt. 

They stood there awkwardly in the doorway for a mo, both unsure of what to do next, until Ron finally let out a strangled chuckle and opened his arms, inviting her in for a hug. She eagerly wrapped her arms around him tight and sighed. 

"I've missed you," she heard him muffle into her hair. 

"I've missed you, too."

Ron released his grip on her, but Hermione noticed he didn't step back. "Well, are you all packed and ready to go? Wait...it's you. Of course you are," Ron teased. 

Hermione swatted at him but gestured him inside her room. "Yes, I could probably use some help with my trunk."

When she turned around, she found that Ron wasn't listening, instead his eyes were raking curiously across the shelves of books she had lined up against the wall. 

"What is Shaks-spar?" Ron inquired as he retrieved a dusty and tattered hardbound book from the shelf.

"It's pronounced Shakespeare."

"Fine, then. What is it?"

"Not what, who. William Shakespeare was an extraordinary muggle playwright and poet, who has written some of the most beautiful works of English literature out there. I mean Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Macbeth…"

"Who's Romeo? Who's Juliet?" Ron asked, confused. 

"They’re characters from one of his plays. A tragic love story…" 

“Hold on a second, tragic? What’re you doing reading this depressing shite?” Ron wrinkled his nose in disgust, holding out the book at arm's length. 

“It’s a work of art, Ron!” Hermione responded, exasperated. 

"Yeah, well, not interested if it's intent is to crush my soul."

Hermione rolled her eyes at his theatrics. "I didn't realize you were interested in books."

"Ha, bloody, ha," he stuck out his tongue at her playfully. Hermione couldn't help but smile before pointing to the cover,

“That book contains a list of Shakespeare's most timeless quotes, as well as provides English translation.”

"It's in another language?" 

“Shakespearean -- otherwise known as early modern English. Most of the words are still used today in standard English.”

"I bet you a galleon that I can make you laugh with this rubbish." He sent her a challenging smirk that made her weak in the knees. Yet, she firmly held her stance, not willing to give in to the blasphemous retorts spewing out of his mouth. 

"It is not rubbish, Ron! It's a work of art!" She repeated, almost stomping her foot in irritation.

"Let's see, then!" Ron cleared his throat dramatically, as he flipped to a random page. He planted his finger on a quote and began reading, "Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate." He squinted his eyes at the page he just read from. "What the bloody fuck is that supposed to mean?"  

Hermione sighed heavily. Her visit with Ron was going well so far. Sarcasm intended. "It signifies long-lasting love, that goes beyond a single season."

"Then why doesn't he just say that?"

Because it's poetry," Hermione responded curtly through gritted teeth. 

He only hummed in response and kept reading. "All that blisters is not gold."

"Glitters. All that glitters is not gold."

"What? That's not what it says!"

"Yes it does. You read it wrong." 

Ron pursed his lips as he reviewed the text. "Oh, well, bugger me. Here's another -- what's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...Rose. That's a pretty name, I guess."

Hermione smiled. "Yes, it is." 

They locked eyes for a moment before Ron shook his head and returned to his reading. "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown...if I had a crown, I'm not sure I would feel uneasy but that's just me…"

Hermione exhaled loudly, clearly fed up with his sarcastic comments. "It's simply saying that being royal comes with a lot of responsibilities and having those responsibilities can be daunting." 

"Off with his head!" Ron shouted with vigor. 

"You think you're so clever, don't you?" 

"Oh Hermione, I know I am. And just to prove my point further, let's see if I can make you blush, yeah?" He flipped to the section with word translations and spent a few moments deciphering, his eyebrows scrunched up adorably. 

"Okay, here's one to start with. I like thy...curly hair?" Ron kinked an eyebrow up at her expectantly. 

"Acceptable." Hermione remained neutral with her face but secretly gushed inside at how Ron has just outwardly admitted he liked her hair. 

Ron's eyes lit up. "Brilliant!" He went on to search for more. 

"Uh...thy eyes art like chocolate…do I detect a smidge of color on your face, Miss Granger?" Ron's blue eyes sparkled back at her as he studied her face. 

"What? N-no...just keep going!" 

"Thee art...the smartest...wench...in the whole land." Ron paused in between words as he checked the book. 

"Wench?"

"That's what it says right here!" He pointed to the translation of woman on the page. 

Hermione crossed her arms and raised her eyebrows, almost daring Ron to try again. 

He obviously took the bait as he offered one more, leaning in close, "Thee maketh me happy." Ron smiled brilliantly at her and Hermione thought her heart might possibly explode. 

"What are you saying, exactly?" Hermione breathily whispered, not able to contain the flush of pink that crept onto her cheeks.

"Aha!" Ron pointed a finger in her face to triumphantly show victory. He clearly had forgotten her question, so Hermione brushed him off.

"You did not win, you were just standing so ridiculously close to me…"

He looked down at the book one last time before cheekily stating, "The lady doth protests too much, methinks."

"Oh, honestly!"

 

[mashbrainrot]

— Transcript below the cut —

Nobody ever calls him Dave

The role of the lovably unlovable doctor in 'M*A*S*H' fits courtly David Ogden Stiers like a surgical glove.

by Arnold Hano

When David Ogden Stiers mentioned that his birthday was coming up, the M*A*S*H crew decided to throw a party – birthday cake, 35 candles, the works.

But David Ogden Stiers called it off, probably because he still considers himself the new boy on the block, something of an outsider. Stiers (it's pronounced STYers), who plays the stuffy Boston doctor uncomfortably assigned to the MASH unit, is a shy man who prizes his privacy.

And this shyness isn't helped by Stiers' feeling that he still doesn't belong on a show that features so talented an ensemble cast as Alan Alda, Mike Farrell, Loretta Swit, Harry Morgan, Gary Burghoff and Jamie Farr. Stiers replaced five-year veteran Larry Linville at the start of the 1977 season. But others have gone through the same problem. Mike Farrell, who came on as Capt. B.J. Hunnicutt after Wayne Rogers left, says he's ''simpatico with David. I was in his shoes. He's grabbed me as an anchor.'" But not tightly. ''We haven't socialized,'' Farrell says. "But that's only because he hasn't accepted the invitations we've offered."

If Stiers hasn't fitted in socially, everyone agrees he has adapted to the role swiftly. Alan Alda raves about Stiers. "I'm very fond of him. He's extremely skilled. It's such a pleasure to work with him. He comes up withterrific ideas." In an early script, Stiers presents Alda with a can of gourmet food to take on a date. Alda studies the label. "Wild boar goulash?" he says. And Stiers makes the OK circle with his index finger and thumb. Except instead of raising his hand, Stiers improvised a stiff horizontal sign, held tight to his belt. "'It was perfect," Alda says. "Exactly the way his character would make it."

Stiers enjoys the freedom of the M*A*S*H set, where he is encouraged to do whatever he thinks will work. His first episode has him chewing out Radar, the cherubic corporal. "At first I tried to be nice to him. Then I realized, I am not a nice man. So I shouted at Radar. Imagine! I shouted at Radar, possibly the most sympathetic character in the history of this tube."

Everybody was pleased. Burt Metcalfe, producer of the series and the man who hired Stiers, says, "David has this unique quality. He can be lovably unlovable."

Stiers glows. "There is an extraordinary working relationship on the set. If it gets any more positive, we'll all have goony smiles." It's so idyllic that Stiers, always a night man before, now rises at 5:30, not only to make sure he's on hand for the first call, but because he likes to stand on the deck of his one-room Hollywood apartment and watch the sun come up. "It's the most beautiful time of day." says Stiers. And he's totally alone.

David Ogden Stiers – he likes using all three names; nobody ever calls him Dave – is an only child. A tall, courtly man whose shiny dome makes him look older than his 35 years, Stiers was born in Peoria, Ill., in 1942 and moved to Eugene, Ore., when he was 15. As a kid, he played baseball on Peoria sandlots. "| would hit the ball and I'd stand, appreciating the loft. I was out before I took a step. My teammates weren't thrilled."

Soon they stopped asking him to play. What he did was read, play the French horn and the piano, sing in church, and gravitate toward the theater. "The only child is left a lot to his imagination,"' he says.

He was never much of a student, because he didn't care. "My folks sent me to a psychologist after I finished high school. I had been enrolled in the University of Oregon, but I flunked out. My folks sent me to night school. Again I flunked out. I didn't want to be there." The psychologist found nothing haywire; all David wanted was to give acting a chance.

He spent a year with community theater in Eugene, and in 1962 joined the California Shakespeare Festival in Santa Clara, Cal. For seven years he did only classical roles and somehow managed to support himself. Then he joined San Francisco's improvisational company The Committee, but left in 1970 to go to The Juilliard School in New York, to do something about a voice that was "Illinois flatness compounded by California flatness, that horrible back-in-the-throat speech.'' Juilliard, though, cured him nicely, and today his voice is rich and resonant.

But San Francisco had not prepared him for New York. "All the orchestras of the world converged every winter on Carnegie Hall, all the dance companies. And the theater knocked me out. I was almost convinced," Stiers says, "that was the best of all possible worlds. That is, until I'd get out of the theater and feel that abject hostility on the street, see people talking to themselves and other people with open, running sores." It was a contrast Stiers found hard to adjust to, with "the filth on one hand and the cultural life rich as whipped cream on the other."

In 1974 he appeared with Zero Mostel in 'Ulysses in Nighttown,' and two months later opened in the musical 'The Magic Show,' playing an aged alcoholic magician. After nine months he'd had enough.

"I ran screaming from New York and settled down in the Oregon woods." His agent, Susan Smith, asked him to come to Hollywood to meet producers. He made a couple of films, in also-ran parts, appeared in the brief series Doc, did the pilot for Charlie's Angels and was offered a regular Angels role, which he turned down because he would have had to sign for seven years. He played three episodes on The Mary Tyler Moore Show as the station manager who hassled with Mary and Lou Grant over pay raises. M*A*S*H producer Burt Metcalfe saw one episode.

"Larry Linville had annouced he was leaving M*A*S*H," Metcalfe recalls. "We had to fill the hole. Larry was a brilliant actor, but we had allowed the Major Burns character to become somewhat childish. I thought we should go in another direction. Find a character who'd be a far more formidable opponent for Hawkeye and B.J. I had an image of William Buckley in mind. Then I saw David."

Nobody else was ever interviewed.

In January of 1977 Stiers signed a two year contract. He sees his character, Maj. Charles Emerson Winchester, as a man who has studied in Europe and summers in Maine. "I keep trying to lay in traces of very Down East expressions. 'Thank you' has become 'Th'k yo.' He is a petty man. The more threatened he gets, the richer his language becomes. In one speech I call Hawkeye and B.J. 'cretins and Visigoths.' That's got to be a television first." Especially pronounced 'cretins', British style.

That's his life these days. During one extended break he went back to Peoria for a family reunion, and though he enjoyed the reunion, he did not relish playing the role of star. "I'm happy not to be recognized. When I go to a restaurant I like to eat, undisturbed. I hear horror stories about Burt Reynolds and other stars, who never expect to get more than three forkfuls to their mouths consecutively before being interrupted for autographs. I am definitely a 33-fork man so far."

So he eats, usually alone, in a French restaurant on Vine, below Hollywood Boulevard, and then he walks home, to his barely furnished bachelor apartment where he lives alone.

Marriage remains in the abstract. "I expect it to happen, but I do not expect to work to bring it about. I look forward to a rewarding, loving relationship. But it is nowhere on the horizon." He has one special woman friend, but she lives in San Francisco nearly 400 miles away.

He'd like to make a movie in something other than a minor part, he'd like to do more Broadway theater and he'd like to go to Europe, which he has never visited. But that, too, is later.

"What I want to do eventually is settle down in Oregon,'' he says. "Go home and shut up and listen to the wind and the pine trees. Hollywood furthers your career. But you don't make friends."

Meanwhile, he remains in his Hollywood apartment, where he listens to classical music. Recently he bought a Richard Strauss autograph. "I walked into a place in Beverly Hills. Somebody had left the autograph on consignment for $225. I said, "I'll take that." Now I listen to 'Rosenkavalier' and nearby is a photograph of Strauss with a letter to a friend, signed by him. It connects. It puts him into the same room with me."

Otherwise, of course, he's alone.

[invisibleicewands]

[...] Sheen said: "It's the most dangerous play that exists, yet our culture has made it safe. It has become a rite of passage play for actors. But it is about the very nature of life, death and reality. What I want is to make it difficult and jagged again, unsettling and uncomfortable and disorienting for the audience."

He added: "One of the advantages of coming at it at this end of my career" – Sheen is 41 – "is that I am less concerned with establishing myself as an actor. I've done enough things to realise that unless the whole piece is working, it doesn't matter whether your part is big or small."

Doing Hamlet with Rickson was his idea, he said. "I worked with Ian on [Harold Pinter's] Betrayal for a tribute to Pinter at the National Theatre. I liked the way he worked, we worked well together and I love the fact that he doesn't really do classical stuff.

"I had seen Jerusalem at the Royal Court, and thought: 'This is the guy for me.' I asked him if he'd do Hamlet, and he said he'd go away and think about it, reread the play. I loved that he didn't say yes right away. If he was going to do it, it was because he really wanted to do it."

Rickson, for his part, described Sheen as "fantastically intelligent, but at the same time very alive emotionally. He has a certain maleness, combined with a poeticism, on stage. And he is suitably fearless in terms of going into the darkness in this play.

"A guiding thought for us is that it is about the madness of unprocessed grief. It is an extraordinary play that often we see sanitised. There is so much loss driving the play; it has a real depth-charge.

"I have never directed any old plays before except for The Seagull. The challenge is to make a text that can be so familiar feel urgent and resonant and fresh. I like the idea of treating classics as if they are new plays, and new plays as if they are classics."

David Lan, the artistic director of the Young Vic, said: "Michael is a completely brilliant actor who for years has been playing what you could call character parts; he discovered he was a brilliant mimic. Not since Henry V [in 1997, for the Royal Shakespeare Company] has he played big classical parts."

On the question of whether London had had enough of Hamlet over recent years, Lan said: "This is one of the rare times you can say it and it's true: the play is inexhaustible. There are so many different strains of thought in that play. And Michael can act anything. He is an acting animal." [...]

[addictedtoeddie]

The full Esquire Spain interview translated from Spanish:  

Eddie Redmayne trial: guilty of being the most talented (and stylish) actor of his generation

The Oscar winner talks about what it means to premiere a film with Aaron Sorkin (The Chicago 7th Trial on Netflix) and filming the new part of the most famous saga of all time under the watchful eye of its author, J.K. Rowling.

By Alba Díaz (text) / JUANKR (photos and video) / Álvaro de Juan (styling) 10/23/2020  

At the Kettle’s Yard Gallery in Cambridge, stands alone and leaning on a piano Prometheus, a marble head made by Constantin Brâncusi, and the only piece of art that Eddie Redmayne (London, 1982) would save from possible massive destruction. He tells me about it as he leaves the filming set of the third installment of Fantastic Beasts in the early days of an autumn that, we suspect, we will never forget. It begins to get dark as the actor nods seriously: "I promise to do my best in this interview."

Eddie Redmayne made himself in the theater despite some voices warning him that he could not survive in it. "Many people were in charge to tell me that it would never work, that only extraordinary cases make it and that I would not be able to live from this professionally." Even his father came home one day with a list of statistics on unemployed young actors. Redmayne, who is extremely modest, polite and funny, adds: “But I enjoyed theater so much that I got to the point of thinking that if I could only do one play a year for the rest of my life… I would do it. And that would fill me completely.

Spoiler: since then until today he has participated in many more. He set his first foot in the industry when he debuted at the Shakespeare’s Globe Theater and won over critics and audiences. He then landed his first major role in My Week with Marilyn opposite Michelle Williams. And then came one of the roles of his life, the character he wanted to become an actor for, Marius. With him he sang, led a revolution and broke Cosette's heart in Les Miserables. “I found out about the Les Misérables auditions when I was shooting a movie in Illinois. Dressed like a cowboy. I picked up the iPhone and videotaped myself singing the Marius song. I always wanted to be him ”.

Now Redmayne is an Oscar winner - thanks to his portrayal of Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything - and the protagonist of one of the most important sagas in history, Fantastic Beasts. He plays the magizoologist Newt Scamander in it. When I ask him what it means to him to be the protagonist of a magical world that is so important to millions of people, Eddie sighs and takes a few seconds to answer. “I have always loved the Harry Potter universe. Some people like The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars ... But, for me, the idea that there is a magical world that happens right in front of you, that happens without going any further on the streets of London, that. .. That exploded my imagination in another way.

During the quarantine, J. K. Rowling, who has been in charge of the script of the film, sparked a controversy through a series of tweets about transgender women. Redmayne assures that he does not agree with these statements but that it does not approve of the attacks of some people through social networks. The actor was one of the first to position himself against Rowling alongside Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and other protagonists of her films. "Trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary identities are valid."

After having spent a while talking, Redmayne confesses to me that he has never been a big dreamer not to maintain certain aspirations that ended up disappointing him. So he has always kept a handful of dreams to himself. One of them was fulfilled just a few weeks ago with the premiere of The Trial of the Chicago 7, a film written and directed by Aaron Sorkin that can already be seen on Netflix and in some - few - cinemas. “I was on vacation with my wife in Morocco and the script arrived. I think I called my agent before I even read it and said yes, I would. She probably thought the obvious, that I'm stupid. After that, of course I read the script, which is about a specific moment in history that I knew very little about. I found it exciting and a very relevant drama in today's times. "

And it is that having a script by Aaron Sorkin in your hands is no small thing. Eddie Redmayne has been a fan of his work ever since he saw The West Wing of the White House. “His scripts have delicious language and dialogue. As an actor, it's fun to play characters that are much smarter than you are in real life. That virtuosity is hard to come by. I really hope that audiences enjoy this movie and feel that there is always hope. " He remembers that since he released The Theory of Everything he has recorded, to a large extent, English period dramas, “and although the new Aaron Sorkin is not strictly contemporary,” says Redmayne, “to be able to wear jeans and shirts and sweaters instead of so much tweed is great ”.

Besides acting, art was the only thing the actor was interested in, so he ended up studying Art History at Cambridge University. “My parents are quite traditional and when I told them I wanted to act they gave me free rein but on the condition that I study a career. And I'm very grateful for that because ... Look, beyond that, when I play a real character I usually go to the National Portrait Gallery in London quite often. There I lock myself up. Now, for Sorkin's film, I went through a lot of photographs and videotapes. Art helps me to be more creative, to get into paper ”. If he were not an actor, he would be, he says decidedly, a historian or perhaps a curator. "Although I think he would be a very bad art curator."

Against all logic, Eddie Redmayne is color blind. But there is a color that you can distinguish anywhere and on any surface: klein blue. He wrote his thesis on the French artist Yves Klein and the only shade of blue he used in his works. He wrote up to 30,000 words talking about that color with which he became obsessed. “It is surprising that a color can be so emotional. One can only hope to achieve that intensity in acting. "

Like his taste for art, which encompasses the refined and compact, Redmayne seems to be in the same balance when it comes to the roles he chooses. When I ask him what aspects a character he wants to play should have, he takes a few seconds again before answering: “I wish I had a more ingenious answer but I will tell you that I know when my belly hurts. It's that feeling that I trust. In my mind I transport him to imagine myself playing that character. When I read a script I have to really enjoy it. You never fully regret those instincts. It's like when you connect with something emotionally. "

So we come to the conclusion that all his characters have some traits in common. "You know what? I never look back, and this is something personal, but I do believe that there is a parallel between Marius in Les Misérables trying to be a revolutionary, someone who is quite prone to being distracted by love but at the same time is willing to die for his cause, and Tom Hayden from The Chicago Trial of the 7 who was a man who had integrity and was passionate and fought for the things he believed in. So I suppose there may also be similarities between a young Stephen Hawking and Newt Scamander. There are traits in common in all of them that I don't really know where they come from ”.

When we talk about the year we are living in, in which it is increasingly difficult to find hope, we both let out a nervous laugh. "There must be," Redmayne says. “There is something very nice that Tom Hayden, the character I play in Sorkin's film, said to his former wife, actress Jane Fonda, just the day before she passed away. He told her that watching people die for their beliefs changed his life forever. In that sense, I also think about what Kennedy Jr. wrote about how democracy is messy, tough and never easy ... As is believing in something to fight for. I look at history and how they were willing to live their lives with that integrity to change the world and I realize that somehow that spirit still remains with us. " We fell silent thinking about it. "There must be hope."

I tell him about my love for Nick Cave's blog, The Red Hand, and one of the posts that I have liked the most in recent weeks. In it, the singer affirms that his response to a crisis has always been to create, an impulse that has saved him many times. For Redmayne there are two activities that can silence noise: drawing and playing the piano. “When you play the piano your concentration is so consumed by trying to hit that note that you can't think of anything else. Similarly, when you draw something, the focus is between the paper and what you are trying to recreate ... There I try to calm my mind.

Before saying goodbye, I drop a question that I thought I knew the answer to, but failed. What work of art would you save from mass destruction? "How difficult! I could name my favorite artists but still couldn't choose a work. Only one piece? Let me think. I am very obsessed with Yves Klein, but I would stick with a work by Brancusi. There is a sculpture of him, a small head called Prometheus, in Cambridge's Kettle’s Yard, on a dark mahogany piano. The truth is that I find it very ... beautiful ”.

Before leaving, he confesses to me - with a childish and slow voice - that he would like to direct something one day. We said goodbye, saying that we will talk about his next project. Next, the first thing I do is open the Google search engine. "P-r-o-m-e-t-h-e-u-s". Although Eddie Redmayne has trouble distinguishing violet from blue, he doesn't have them when choosing a good piece. He's right, that work deserves to be saved.

* This article appears in the November 2020 issue of Esquire magazine

Source: esquire.com/es/actualidad/cine/a34434114/eddie-redmayne-juicio-7-chicago-netflix-entrevista/

[insanityclause]

Coriolanus is a play that’s more respected than revered. Why does it have a rather difficult reputation? Coriolanus is relentless, brutal, savage and serious, but that’s why I find it interesting. Shakespeare sets the play in ancient Rome: a far older place than the Rome more familiar to us – of Julius Caesar or Antony and Cleopatra or the later Empire. This Rome is wild. A city-state wrestling with its identity. An early Rome of famine, war and tyranny.

In the central character, Caius Martius Coriolanus, Shakespeare shows how the power of unchecked rage corrodes, dehumanises and ultimately destroys its subject. I’ve read that some find Martius a hard character to like, or to relate to – less effective at evoking an audience’s sympathy than Hamlet, Romeo, Juliet, Rosalind, Othello or Lear. Yet there is a perverse integrity and purity to be found in his obstinacy and honour, which sits alongside his arrogance and contempt.

The play’s poetry is raw and visceral, quite different from the elegance, beauty, clarity and charm found elsewhere in Shakespeare’s work. The warmth and delight to be found in his comedies are absent here. But the unstinting seriousness and intensity of the play is what makes it fascinating.

How well did you know the play? I didn’t know it well. I had seen an early screening of Ralph Fiennes’s terrific film adaptation at the Toronto film festival in September of 2011. I was fascinated by the visceral intensity of the play: the power, hubris, and force of the title character; its lasting political resonance; and the immediacy and profundity of the familial relationships, particularly between mother and son – Volumnia and Martius – which struck me as perhaps the most intense and psychologically complex presentation of that bond I had come across in Shakespeare.

What drew you to Coriolanus as a character? I was fascinated by the evolution of Martius/Coriolanus as a character through the play. His arc is purely tragic. He begins the play as Rome’s most courageous warrior, is quickly celebrated as its most fearsome defender, then garlanded by the Senate and selected for the highest political office.

His clarity of focus, fearlessness and ferocity of spirit, all qualities that make him a great soldier, undo him as a politician. His honesty and pride forbid him from disguising his contempt for the people of Rome, whom he deems weak, cowardly and fickle in their loyalties and affections. He cannot lie. “His heart’s his mouth / What his breast forges that his tongue must vent.” He becomes a tyrant, branded a traitor, an enemy of the people: an uncontained vessel of blistering rage. He is banished, changed “from man to dragon”. Joining forces with his sworn enemy, Aufidius, he plots revenge against Rome: “There is no more mercy in him than there is milk in a male tiger.” And then finally, at the very end, as he watches his own mother, wife and son kneel at his feet and beg for his mercy, he reveals – beneath the hardened exterior of contempt – a tenderness and vulnerability not seen before.

That shift, from splenetic warrior to merciless “dragon” to “boy of tears”, fascinated me – and the fact that his intransigence, valour and vulnerability all seem to be located in, and released by, his complex attachment to his mother.

How does this play about politics and people resonate in today’s society? The play raises the question as to how much power should reside in the hands of any individual: a question that will never go out of date. “What is the city but the people?” cries the people’s tribune, Sicinius (in our production, brilliantly played by Helen Schlesinger). The people must have their voices. And, beneath that, I think the play also raises another complex question as to what degree any individual can withstand the intensity of idealisation and demonisation that comes with the mantle of unmoderated leadership or extraordinary responsibility.

It’s a physical role – how did you prepare for it with fight director Richard Ryan? Josie Rourke and I knew it was important to the clarity of the play that Martius be credibly presented as a physical presence. As a warrior, we are told, he “struck Corioles like a planet”. Big boots to fill. Hadley Fraser, who plays Aufidius, and I began working with Richard Ryan three months before we started full rehearsals on the text of the play. The fight between Martius and Aufidius is a huge opportunity to explore their mutual obsession (“He is a lion that I am proud to hunt”).

We also hoped there would be something thrilling about presenting it at such close quarters in the confined space of the Donmar. We wanted to create a moment of combat that was visceral, brutal and relentless. We knew it would require skill, safety and endless practice. The fight choreography became something we drilled, every day. Hadley was amazing. So committed, so disciplined. It created a real bond of trust between us.

You previously starred in Othello at the Donmar. What’s special about that space? The Donmar is one of the most intimate spaces in London. I must have seen at least a hundred productions there over the last 20 years, and as an audience member it always feels like a thrill and a privilege to feel so close to the action. There’s a forensic clarity to the space: the audience are so close that they see every movement, every look. For actors, there’s nowhere to hide. That’s exciting.

It’s what makes the Donmar special: the closeness, the proximity. Hard to imagine in the wake of Covid-19. Theatres everywhere need all the support they can get. But that’s what’s encouraging about National Theatre at Home. It’s keeping theatre going, but it’s also a reminder that the sector will need real support to stay alive: from the government and from us, the people who love and cherish it.

There is a rather bloody shower scene – what are your memories of that moment? I remember that the water was extremely cold. But I was always grateful, because the preceding 20 minutes – scurrying up ladders, down fire escapes, into quick changes and sword fights – had been so physically intense that the cold water felt like a great relief. Martius says to Cominius just moments beforehand: “I will go wash / And when my face is fair you shall perceive / Whether I blush or no.” So I washed.

The scene did have a thematic significance. So much of the play, and the poetry of the play, is loaded with references and characters who are obsessed by the body of Martius as an object: how much blood he has shed for his city; how many scars he bears as emblems of his service. His mother, Volumnia (​in our production played with such power and clarity by Deborah Findlay), says in a preceding scene that blood “more becomes a man than gilt his trophy”. Later, during the process of his election to the consulship, to the highest office, Martius is obliged by tradition to go out into the marketplace and display his wounds, in a bid to court public approval; to win the people’s voices. Martius refuses, in contempt for both practice and people.

In the shower scene, Josie wanted the audience to be able to see the wounds that he refuses to show the people later on, but we also wanted to suggest the reality of what those scars have cost him privately. We wanted to show him wincing, in deep pain: that these wounds and scars are not some highly prized commodity, but that beneath the exterior of the warrior-machine, idealised far beyond his sense of his own worth, is a human being who bleeds.

It’s an intense performance, in a three-hour play. How did you unwind after the show? My first thought is that I was always unbelievably hungry. Thankfully, Covent Garden is not short of places to buy a hamburger. I will always be grateful to all of them.

How did you modify your performance for the NT Live filming? The whole production for NT Live was very much the same as it was every night during our 12-week run. Naturally, as a company, we couldn’t help but be aware of cameras on all sides, especially in a space like the Donmar. We were all so grateful that the National Theatre Live team had come over the river to the Donmar. I always hoped the broadcast would capture the headlong intensity of the whole thing. The play opens with a riot, and does not stop.

What have you been watching during lockdown? I was gripped, moved and inspired by The Last Dance, the documentary series about Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls in the mid-90s (Steve Kerr!). Normal People for its two extraordinary central performances from Paul Mescal and Daisy Edgar-Jones. I’ve rewatched old tennis matches, which somehow I have found very comforting: in particular, the 2014 Djokovic/Federer Wimbledon final. And – because we all need cheering up – Dirty Dancing.

[vanessakirbyfans]

Ignore the cringeworthy title, which brings to mind several lives’ worth of Lifetime movies — Pieces of a Woman, a portrait of personal disintegration and the from-the-ashes process of piecing things back together, gives you three distinct reasons to pay attention to this late-breaking entry in the seasonal Pretty People in Pain sweepstakes. (It hit theaters on December 30th for a qualifying run; it starts streaming on Netflix on January 7th.) The first is The Shot, a set piece that kickstarts the drama in motion. We’ve already briefly met Martha (Vanessa Kirby), an expectant mother days away from her due date. And we’ve been introduced to her partner Sean (Shia LaBeouf), a construction worker who’s building a bridge in Boston. She is warm, witty, nurturing; he is rough-hewn, earthy and, per his own description, boorish (“now there’s a Scrabble word,” he adds). Martha’s middle-class family, especially her brittle and controlling mother (Ellen Burstyn), doesn’t much care for this blue-collar dude, but the couple love each other. They’re ready to eagerly embrace parenthood.

So when Martha’s water breaks, Sean distracts her with dumb jokes — already with the dad humor! — and places a call to their midwife. The woman they’ve prepped with, who the two have trusted to guide them through a home birth, is unavailable. A substitute named Eva (Molly Parker) will be assisting them in her stead. She shows up, helps with what turns out to be a somewhat fraught delivery … and then things suddenly, inexplicably take a turn for the worse.

The fact that the Hungarian filmmaker Kornél Mundruczó presents this entire sequence of events in what’s designed to resemble a continuous 24-minute shot sounds, on paper, like just another virtuoso move designed to induce a “how’d they do that?” shock and awe more characteristic of magic shows. Yet the director, making his English-language debut, isn’t indulging in hollow, look-ma-no-cuts showing off for its own sake; by letting viewers experience these wrong turns in real time, he’s both establishing your bond with these characters and letting his actors dictate the scene’s free fall from joy to tragedy. Cowritten by his longtime collaborator Kata Wéber, Pieces draws from her play of the same name (along with a very personal experience), and you can see the theatrical origins in this extended set-up. But that aspect works in the movie’s favor here. It’s not the fluid, snaking and craning camera that draws you in but Kirby’s animalistic grunts and cries, LaBeouf’s manic running around and tender encouragement, Parker’s authoritative earth-mother commandeering that slowly turn hesitant as the situation spirals out of everyone’s control. The “single” take is not the showcase itself so much as the stage for it.

Mundruczó’s breakthrough film, the 2014 Cannes prizewinner/canine-payback parable White God, proved he could meld feeling onto feats of incredible technical prowess — just try to direct an actual pack of 30 dogs to behave like an organized, vengeful army. Displaying your chops while also giving your performers room to do their best work, especially in a story that threatens to tiptoe into maudlin territory at any moment, is far more impressive then how much you can whip a Panaflex around. Not to mention that he’s marshaling a truly odd and unique cast: Name another drama that features LaBeouf, Burstyn, one of the Safdie brothers, Succession‘s Sarah Snook and stand-up comic Iliza Schlesinger in the same scene, much less the same movie. It’s a delicate balance, and this is where the second and third stand-out aspects enter the picture.

Everyone deals with the tragedy in their own way, from chilly disassociation to bad-habit relapses to furtive stabs at fucking the grief away. (To say that a sequence involving LaBeouf aggressively pursuing sex with Kirby before angrily storming away plays … incredibly uncomfortably in light of recent news is to put it mildly. There’s a fury in his work here that makes you feels like a voyeur, and not in a good way.) Martha’s mother chooses to pursue her catharsis by holding Eva accountable via legal means. Cue: The Monologue.

The matriarch has gathered the family together for dinner, in the hopes of, among other things, convincing Martha to go forward with a lawsuit. There is resistance. So Mom recounts the story of how sheer luck saved her as a baby, at which point Burstyn hand-delivers an elderly woman reopening a decades-old wound. There is so much kindness and sorrow, survivalist grit and a pleading sense of grace in the reading; Burstyn herself has said that she improvised part of the speech as the cameras were rolling. No one needs convincing that she’s a national treasure, yet to observe the veteran Oscar-winner elevating what could’ve been a clichéd exercise in pushing emotional pressure points is to observe the power of acting. It’s a showstopping turn in miniature, from someone with a career already bursting with them.

Pieces of a Woman largely belongs to the woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown at its center, however, and it’s Vanessa Kirby who gifts the film with The Performance. London theatergoers were lucky enough to catch the 32-year-old on stage, doing Shakespeare and Chekhov; the rest of us have been content to watch her flex as a clutch supporting player (The Crown) and action-movie femme fatale/hero (Mission: Impossible — Fallout, Hobbs & Shaw). But her profoundly traumatized Martha is something unique, a fully formed and in-focus picture of someone falling apart. She is a walking, talking, dead-eyed raw nerve, and after being partially responsible for the most realistic screen labors in recent memory, Kirby plays the bulk of her scenes in the key of shellshocked. It’s less a performance of repression than recession, as Martha keeps drawing back into herself or numbly shuffling through her interactions and routines. When she does occasionally lash out, it’s like the flailing gestures of a drowning person.

This is an extraordinary example of how to craft an empathetic take on psychic agony bit by bit, piece by piece, and without pandering for easy points. And it’s the sort of achievement that doubles as a coronation of Kirby as a first-rate actor, that next-gen star willing to crack herself open for a role. She’s a much-needed anchor here as well, notably when Weber’s script and Mundruczó’s conceptual choices veer off into shaky territory. There’s surely a way to express the ginger process of healing other than the heavy-handed visual metaphor of a bridge that, as we see the dates go by, slowly comes together as a solid structure; should you think you’re imagining some of those Biblical signifiers that pop up, an ambiguous Garden-of-Eden coda lets you know you’re not losing your mind. Not even Kirby can keep a late-act courtroom address from collapsing under its own weight.

But riding shotgun with her maternal phoenix makes up for a lot, and out of the trio of reasons to seek this work out, it’s the experience of shuffling miles in Martha’s blood-flecked boots that compels you to stay with it. So many movies deal with grief, anguish and personal reformation as little more than a chance for performative grandstanding. Pieces of a Woman has some of those moments, too. What’s fueling it, however, is a very real sense of what’s happens underneath all of the things we associate with melodrama — the tiny implosions beneath the surfaces. You merely see the impact instead of the demolition itself, but you see the damage done nonetheless. And when it’s all over, you see the hard work of someone succeeding in, hopefully, becoming whole again.

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Psycho Analysis: Fu Manchu

(WARNING! This analysis contains DISCUSSIONS OF OUTDATED RACIST STEREOTYPES! This analysis does not support or condone such things whatsoever and merely is here to analyze the cultural impact of the character!)

"Imagine a person, tall, lean, and feline, high-shouldered, with a brow like Shakespeare and a face like Satan, a close-shaven skull, and long, magnetic eyes of the true cat-green. Invest him with all the cruel cunning of an entire Eastern race, accumulated in one giant intellect, with all the resources, if you will, of a wealthy government—which, however, already has denied all knowledge of his existence. Imagine that awful being, and you have a mental picture of Dr. Fu-Manchu, the yellow peril incarnate in one man."

— The Mystery of Dr. Fu-Manchu (1913)

I think it really goes without saying that the late 19th century and early 20th century were deeply, incredibly racist. One such manifestation of the racism and xenophobia of the times was the villainous archetype known as the Yellow Peril. The so-called “Yellow Peril” is a caricature of eastern cultures, portrayed in a villainous light; the characters are diabolical criminal masterminds who tend to be geniuses, know kung fu, have mystical powers, command barbarian hordes, and dress like the most stereotypical dynastic noble you could imagine. Just think of every single cringeworthy Asian stereotype you can imagine, stuff it into one villainous package, and BOOM! You have yourself a Yellow Peril villain.

You’ve most definitely seen villains that fit some semblance of this trope. Lo Pan of Big Trouble in Little China and Long Feng from Avatar: The Last Airbender are notable examples (and ones that aren’t particularly problematic, as their works don’t rely on some white guy saving the day and instead have Asian heroes). But we’re not here to talk about them, oh no – we’re here to talk about the grandaddy of them all, the villain who codified the idea of a Yellow Peril villain to such… er, for lack of a better word, “perfection,” that even though he has somewhat faded from the public consciousness he has managed to continue inspiring villains up until the present day: Fu Manchu.

While not the first Yellow Peril villain, he is pretty much the face of it. He is what comes to mind when you envision such a villain, which may be because his cultural impact runs so deep – characters such as Batman’s nemesis Ra’s al-Ghul, the Iron Man foe The Mandarin, and James Bond baddie Doctor No among many others all draw inspiration from this legendary Devil Doctor. So what exactly is his deal that has made him such a problematic icon?

Motivation/Goals: So Fu Manchu’s goals started with him being a Chinese nationalist but eventually he moved into your standard world domination, with him developing over time into becoming a sort of noble criminal, a diabolical mastermind with some level of ethics, class, and standards; the man sent his nemesis gifts on his wedding day and always stuck to his word. This doesn’t seem like much now, but you gotta remember, this guy was one of the first big literary supervillains; you’ve gotta cut him a little slack.

Performance: So it is time to discuss the elephant in the room… not once in his long and storied history in film has Fu Manchu been portrayed by an actor of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Indian descent. Fu Manchu has always, always been portrayed by the worst possible option in every single case: a white guy in yellow face. Christopher Lee is perhaps the most well-known white man to play him in a serious work, portraying him in a series of films, though Boris Karloff portrayed him as well. 

Peter Sellers portrayed Fu in his last major cinematic appearance, though unlike most other examples that film – The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu – was a parody, which does at least take away a little bit of the bad taste.

The only valid white man portrayal is, of course, from the fake trailer for Werewolf Women of the S.S. As said fake trailer is a ridiculous sendup of exploitation films and trashy cinema in general, the inclusion of a white man playing the fiendish doctor is pretty much part of the joke – but it’s who they got that’s the real treat. We’ll get to that shortly, but before that…

It is honestly really disgusting that in the long history of this character, he has never once been portrayed by an Asian actor. You’d think at some point that someone might at least just cast any sort of Asian due to the unfortunate tendency to view Asian actors as interchangeable, but they couldn’t even do that.

Final Fate: Fu Manchu is notable because he always gets away, even if his plans are foiled; in fact, he’ll sometimes have plans within plans, so even when he loses, he still wins to some degree. But enough about his in-universe fate; let’s talk about the real world fate of the character, where Fu Manchu has a very odd legal status in terms of public domain.

While the first three books are in the public domain, some characters from later books are not considered part of the public domain, which has lead to situations such as Marvel’s Master of Kung Fu not being able to be reprinted for years. On top of this, as the character’s creator Sax Rohmer died in 1959, Fu Manchu is not in the public domain in Europe; this has led to him appearing but not being directly named in Alan Moore’s The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, where he is only referred to as “The Doctor” (amusingly, he goes up against Moriarty in that comic, the character he draws inspiration from).

Best Scene: In what is one of the very few non-offensive uses of the character, Fu Manchu is given a brief cameo in the trailer for Werewolf Women of the S.S. that shows up in the Rodriguez/Tarantino double feature Grindhouse, and he’s played by… well… just watch:

Final Thoughts & Score: Fu Manchu is an absolutely fascinating villain born out of incredibly problematic places.

There is absolutely no denying that Fu Manchu was created from a deeply racist place. It’s an unavoidable fact. There is no getting around it. Fu Manchu as a character was meant to demonize the Chinese, to the point where production of films based on him as well as the novels was halted in times of war when the Chinese were allies. These books, these stories, are all extremely problematic by the standards of today.

But with that being said… who, exactly, is the title character? Do you know, without looking it up, who the hero who Fu Manchu antagonizes is, the Holmes to his Moriarty? This is Fu Manchu’s series, and throughout it he projects an air of intelligence, sophistication, and even honor that you wouldn’t expect would be afforded to a character such as him. As far as racist propaganda goes, an extremely charitable person could be able to call this “progressive” in some regard. Positive discrimination is a step up from regular discrimination, right? Again, there’s really no getting around the glaring problems with the character and his origins, but the fact Fu Manchu is one of the first supercriminals in literature and manages to just be unflinchingly cool to the point where you’ll probably end up rooting for him over the bland white protagonists says something for how utterly racism fails when it manages to make the object of its derision infinitely cooler than the race it’s trying to prop up as superior.

By my own criteria, Fu Manchu could only be an 11/10. I can’t deny how much of an impact, for better or for worse, the fiendish doctor has had on pop culture, to the point where he gave his name to and subsequently killed off a variety of facial hair, a feat only matched by Hitler. But this comes with a disclaimer: I cannot stress enough that Fu Manchu is deeply and inherently problematic on a conceptual level, and that despite how genuinely cool and fascinating he is in the right hands it doesn’t and cannot erase that his original purpose was to demonize the Chinese and Asian cultures. He also managed to help perpetuate yellowface and helped to popularize cliches that have plagued Asian villains to this day. While many in his wake have still managed to be cool and engaging in their own right, it really cannot be said how this character has a very complex history. Has he done more bad than good? That’s not for a white guy like me to determine; I’m merely here to determine the overall quality of the villain and determine their impact, and Fu Manchu undeniably has impacted culture. It would be wrong and disingenuous to break my own rules to give him a lower rating due to his problematic elements, but at the same time I cannot sit here and pretend they do not exist.

I would love to see the day where Fu Manchu can be reclaimed to some extent. Look at Shang-Chi, for example; the (at this time) upcoming Marvel film is set to feature the Fu Manchu-inspired Mandarin as a major character, and he is set to be played by Tony Leung Chiu-wai, a Hong Kong actor. If one of the characters inspired by him can get portrayed by an Asian actor, perhaps someday in the future Fu Manchu can be reclaimed from his racist origins and given the respectful treatment he deserves. Fu Manchu is a character that is in many ways accidentally incredible and iconic. Born from horrendous racism, and yet the racist screeds depicting him always somehow manage to prop him up as the best character in the lot… it’s the paradox of racist thought, to go so far in demonizing their target they manage to make them more interesting and engaging than the generic protagonists. Fu Manchu is a truly great villain mired in the problems of the time he was created; in the right hands, great work could be done with him.

Bottom line is: Rob Zombie, get Nicolas Cage on the phone and start filming Werewolf Women of the S.S.

[hsiao-kang]

Fiona Shaw by David Yeo for The Telegraph, ‘Killing Eve's secret weapon Fiona Shaw on finding new fame, and falling in love at almost 60’ by Jessamy Calkin (full article under the cut)

Fiona Shaw has found a new audience thanks to her scene-stealing turns in Killing Eve  and Fleabag. The Shakespearean actor turned small-screen sensation talks spies, celebrity, tragedy, and getting married later in life.

You look great, I tell Fiona Shaw. Must be the pig’s placenta. Shaw, 60, pretty and angular in a soft grey shirt, smiles enigmatically from the sofa of her north London home. Pig’s placenta is her MI6 officer Carolyn Martens’ beauty secret in the second series of Killing Eve, Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s dark, wildly successful thriller about a psychopathic female assassin called Villanelle and Eve Polastri, the agent hunting her down.

But pig’s placenta aside, Shaw puts her youthful appearance down to ‘not being in the theatre every single night’. Which is where she’s been for pretty much the past 30 years. Formerly known for a huge body of iconic stage roles, including Hedda Gabler, Medea, Electra and Richard II, as well as for playing Aunt Petunia in the Harry Potter films, Shaw’s fame is now more attributable to her transition to television.

In Killing Eve, Waller-Bridge has taken a genre that’s a little worn out – the international-assassin thriller – and given it a completely different slant. The show won five awards at the Baftas earlier this month – including Outstanding Drama Series and Best Supporting Actress for Shaw, who in her acceptance speech referred to the ‘glass-shattering genius’ of Waller-Bridge.

Carolyn Martens, head of Russia at MI6, is a perfect example of Waller-Bridge’s wayward approach. Carolyn is very still. Arch, deadpan, erudite, severe. But she has a tipsy flirtatious side, and a hidden messy streak. She’s oblique – and the viewer doesn’t know how much she knows, or whether or not to trust her. Nor does Eve (played superbly by Sandra Oh). ‘I once saw a rat drink from a can of Coke there,’ Carolyn says earnestly to a bemused Eve when they’re in a rubbish-strewn alley. ‘Both hands. Extraordinary…’

‘Carolyn’s a joy to write,’ says Emerald Fennell – best known as an actor for Call the Midwife, and The Crown’s new Camilla – who took over from Waller-Bridge as lead writer on the second series (Waller-Bridge remains an executive producer). ‘Her blood runs very cool. She’s like a freediver who has trained herself to hold her breath and slow down her heartbeat – she’s done it for so long it’s now a permanent state. Her ability to steer an awkward conversation into blithely surreal territory is unparalleled and somehow seems very British.’

The character is entirely dependent on Shaw, adds Fennell. ‘She is unbelievably brilliant, funny, and scarily clever. In one of the episodes, another character mentions [11th-century saint] Anselm’s ontological argument [for the existence of God], and during the read-through it transpired that Fiona had written a literal thesis on it. Quite embarrassing for those of us who only had the most passing Wikipedia acquaintance with Anselm (me). Fiona’s cleverness and wit are built into the fabric of who Carolyn is.’

Shaw compares playing the part to keeping a secret at the same time as delivering a line. ‘It’s not easy to do. I have to say I do lose sleep over it – I’m playing somebody very different to what I normally play. Normally I have to expose the truth. When I’m in the theatre, where I would be swimming with the tide, it’s my job to lasso the audience and to make sure they understand the moral dilemma of the piece – that’s what leading players do. You are sort of the MC for the night…

In Killing Eve, most of my work is about knowing more than everybody else in the scene and hiding it. And it’s a terribly lonely thing to do. It feels all wrong – like rubbing my tummy and patting my head at the same time. I want to smile, I want to make jokes – but you are left with an ambiguity. You don’t know whether I know I’ve made a joke or not. It’s very good exercise for me.’

Even though they are friends, stepping into Waller-Bridge’s shoes must have been tricky for Fennell. ‘I think of Killing Eve as a beautiful, haunted doll’s house that Phoebe built,’ she says. ‘She’s already made this incredible world full of insanely compelling people, so the pleasure of writing it is to get to play in there, to put in a few of your own trapdoors and secret passageways, to move those characters around and occasionally push some of them down the stairs.’

Earlier this year, Shaw appeared in the second series of Waller-Bridge’s other seminal television show, Fleabag. Initially she had to turn it down because she was directing Cendrillon at Glyndebourne (directing opera is another of her talents). Then Fleabag overran, and she was able to join in after all.

Waller-Bridge is the definitive young auteur of our times, and it seems she can do no wrong. The stage production of Fleabag – coming to the West End in August – sold out in an hour. ‘I feel she’s nearest to Oscar Wilde,’ says Shaw now, ‘which is to say she’s greater than the sum of her parts.’ Comedy, in some ways, is quite a conservative thing, Shaw thinks, although it may not seem that way. ‘But it always has a frame; it stays within that frame but it kicks against it, like a child in a playpen.

‘Phoebe develops people so they turn into bigger people, and bigger people, and I think that’s 
a confidence that’s come with her previous work. She’s mastered one form, and she’s been able to take the gate off and let the characters run out into the field – and yet they’re still intact, and the audience follow them. It’s superb.’

For actors, she says, that approach couldn’t be better, which is why so many of them, including herself, Andrew Scott and Kristin Scott Thomas, are desperate to work with Waller-Bridge.

‘I could have played the boss of MI6 and pretty well come up with the same “ker-chings” every week,’ says Shaw, who also played an MI6 officer in BBC One’s recent Mrs Wilson, ‘but that isn’t what happens in Killing Eve.’

Waller-Bridge was always on set during the making of the first series, constructing and reconstructing her work like a Rubik’s Cube. When Sandra Oh pointed out that the actor Sean Delaney, who plays Kenny Stowton (a young ex-hacker recruited by MI6), looked like Shaw, Waller-Bridge decided to make his character her son in the story, and wrote it in, just like that.

Killing Eve, though it seems so British, is a BBC America production, having been initially overlooked here, according to executive producer Sally Woodward Gentle (this was before Fleabag became a TV hit). Woodward Gentle had read the Codename Villanelle novellas by Luke Jennings, on which Killing Eve is based, and approached Waller-Bridge. She had seen her one-woman play in Edinburgh, and thought she would bring a different energy to the show.

Shaw is taken aback by its popularity, and 
particularly by the wide demographic to which 
it appeals. ‘Fathers and sons watch it, mothers 
 and daughters, husbands and wives. I don’t think it bears much analysis. I suppose it has no politics, it’s fantasy really and that’s why I think the violence is nearly allowable – it’s cartoonish.’

It’s also stylish – the music is great; the costumes are superb; the graphics are slick – and clearly a high-budget project, shot in London, Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam. Shaw is often recognised for playing Carolyn. She was amazed when, on a New York street recently, someone reacted so wildly on seeing her that she appeared to be having a fit.

Fiona Shaw grew up in Montenotte, Cork, with three brothers. Her father was an ophthalmic surgeon and her mother was a physicist. She always wanted to be a tennis player, she says, but instead studied philosophy at University College Cork and then went to Rada in London. She still remembers the audition: the teacher told her later that she smelled of libraries.

That’s because it was as if she was born into the 19th century, she says now, compared to the other applicants. She was not cool. Everyone was instructed to wear a black dress. Shaw had made her own and it was a bit wonky. She was terrified. ‘I remember some American guys at the audition were doing press-ups, and people were talking about the Royal Shakespeare Company – and I thought, I haven’t a hope in hell.’

Hearing she’d got in was, she says, ‘one of the nicest moments in my life’. She is still an advisor at Rada. She worked hard and went straight into the cast of Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s play The Rivals at the National Theatre, alongside Michael Hordern and Tim Curry (‘I couldn’t have been in better company’). Her father had his reservations, ‘but I think he thought I would come to my senses’. A year later she joined the RSC. Her parents would come and watch her, and her obvious success calmed her father’s fears. ‘He got much more interested when he could read about me in the paper – in the end he was incredibly supportive but I had to go through the firewall of his disapproval for a while.’

Then her brother Peter was killed in a car crash. Shaw was 28 at the time. ‘That was such a blow to my family. Neither of my parents could really function for about a year after that. It was very hard for them.’

Two years after her brother died, she was offered the role of Electra (for which she won the first of two Olivier Awards), and in some strange way found herself channelling her grief. ‘I loved comedy – but then I was asked to do Electra. Deborah Warner was directing and I thought, oh well, I’ll give it a go. But I didn’t see the point of a tragedy and I couldn’t do it at all. And slowly I realised that it’s much more about yourself. And I discovered a new world through tragedy.

‘Electra has a brother who she thinks is dead – and I knew something about having a brother who was dead. I wouldn’t say in any way that I was mainlining my brother, but I suddenly realised that plays are about life, and domestic tragedies are heightened in the theatre – but they are the same as all our tragedies – and that is what the theatre is for. I don’t know why I hadn’t worked that out before.’

It was the first of many collaborations with Warner (with whom Shaw also had a relationship), which went on to include Hedda Gabler, a controversial Richard II at the National in 1995, and Brecht’s Mother Courage and Her Children.

Shaw’s first major film role was in My Left Foot with Daniel Day-Lewis (1989). Soon after came Three Men and a Little Lady (1990), and later the Harry Potter series. It is the former, she says, for which she is most recognised by the public. She has just finished filming Ammonite, an historical drama directed by Francis Lee, in which she plays Elizabeth Philpot, a palaeontologist, opposite Saoirse Ronan, and Kate Winslet as fossil hunter Mary Anning.

Was there a moment when she felt she had made it on her own terms? ‘I think I was very lucky. I didn’t do film on my own terms – you’re either a film star or you are not – because I was so obsessed with the theatre when I was young. Probably I would have had to go and sit in Hollywood – but I wouldn’t do that.

‘But I have done a lot of things on my terms, just being allowed to do those shows: Electra, Hedda Gabler – and Richard II, which seemed quite nerve-racking at the time, but that was part of the thrill of it. So I’ve always tried to do things which are hard to do – maybe even to a fault.’ She has never, she says, been trapped in a long run of a West End show she didn’t want to do. ‘There always had to be an element of experiment.’

And she loves taking theatrical risks. Like her rendition of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, which premiered at Epidaurus in Greece in 2012, then went to the Old Vic Tunnels in London in 2013, and on to the Brooklyn Academy of Music. Or (with Warner) the dramatisation of TS Eliot’s The Waste Land she performed in locations including an old disco in Brussels and a former munitions factory in Dublin. Last month she revisited it in New York, reciting it against the backdrop of a sculpture exhibition in Madison Square Park – it wasn’t advertised but word spread and people came in their hundreds. ‘It was a huge pleasure, it happened almost by accident – “Will you turn this water into wine?” And I did. It was lovely.’

Shaw’s father, Denis, died in 2011, but her mother, Mary, is 93 and still lives in the house that Shaw grew up in. She drives, plays tennis. When Shaw goes back home she sleeps in her old bedroom. ‘Well, I try not to – it’s awful to sleep in the bedroom you had when you were 14. Some things are still exactly the same, the wardrobe and the poster of Narcissus – do you remember those terrible posters?’

Shaw lives between the house in north London and New York, where her wife Sonali Deraniyagala, a Sri Lankan economist, teaches at Columbia University. In 2004, Deraniyagala was on holiday in Sri Lanka with her family when they were caught in the tsunami. Her husband, parents and two young sons died. For years, Deraniyagala lived in a haze of madness and grief. In 2013, she wrote an extraordinary memoir, Wave, which won several awards and had some remarkable reviews.

Shaw was in New York performing in Colm Tóibín’s The Testament of Mary when somebody gave her Deraniyagala’s book. She read it in her dressing room. ‘I thought it was the best thing I’d read for a long time, on any level.’ She mentioned this in an interview. Then things came together in a felicitous way: Shaw was supposed to return home straight after the play closed, but she had a serious ear infection (due to having to disappear for several minutes in a plunge pool every night on stage), and was unable to fly. She stayed in New York and went to a Laurie Anderson concert, where she was invited to Anderson’s book club – they were reading Wave – to meet the writer.

‘I was so surprised that she was that person – not the person in the book. We spent half an hour chatting. When I left I thought, I have just met life.’

She pauses. ‘The play had been exhausting and so much about death, and I was feeling so miserable, and I thought, that person is life – even though she has had more death than you would wish on your worst enemy, there’s a force in her that is just life.’

When Deraniyagala came to London they met up again. ‘Very quickly I thought, I just want to live with this person, and it’s been one of the most marvellous things to happen – but it was also highly unlikely. But in my profound self, at my core, I thought, I want to live with this person. It was deeper than anything. And thankfully, she thought the same – it’s been a beautiful thing to happen at this stage of my life.’

They got married in Islington town hall in January of last year, and then had their wedding party on the day of the royal wedding. ‘It was fantastic. Half of Sri Lanka came and it was a very beautiful wedding – everyone was wearing saris and looking gorgeous. My mother played the piano and sang, which was quite hilarious, and we had a band and dancing, a very late party.’

Her mother sounds very enlightened, being 93 and coming from a small town in Ireland. Were there no raised eyebrows at the fact that Shaw was marrying a woman? (As well as Warner, she previously had a relationship with the actor Saffron Burrows.)

‘More than raised. But it’s fine – the world is changing fast. My mother was very good about it and also very impressed by who Sonali is.’

So she’s not religious? ‘Oh she is, but she’s also terribly funny about it. And she’s a sort of nouveau old person. I think being old is quite a shock for her – and a lot of friends are dead, and some of them have lost their minds. But she’s very well – and very happy for me.’

Deraniyagala and Shaw have been to Sri Lanka several times to visit Deraniyagala’s aunt, and love it there. Given what happened to Deraniyagala, recent events – the bombings at Easter – must have been completely destabilising. ‘Sri Lanka has been very much at peace for the last 10 years since the war, but the scale of what happened with those 250 people dead – it’s as big as 9/11 for them, because it’s such a small island. They were innocent people, and it’s the most depressing thing – and terribly hard for Sonali – because the mass funerals are very near to the mass funerals of her family; it’s terribly hard for her to revisit that time. It feels a bit like a natural disaster because it has no rhyme or reason. It’s a black hole of destruction.’

Shaw is about to start work on a film called Corvidae, a thriller co-written and directed by young film-maker Joe Marcantonio. Then Killing Eve series three is on the cards for next year. If she had to choose only one discipline to work in for the rest of her life – theatre, film, opera or television – which would she choose?

‘That’s a cruel question. I would find it very difficult, but I would probably say television because I’ve done 30 years of the theatre. I’ve worked morning, noon and night, sometimes rehearsing all day and performing every night for decades. That’s a lot. I don’t have any great need to do that again.

‘And I’m very interested in television now because one of the new pleasures it’s given me is the scope of the audience. We used to be thrilled when we had 500 people, or 1,000. Now we have millions and you think, oh God, this is so obvious. Especially when the material is of such great quality and so uncynical. A few years ago they were just churning television out, but they aren’t now – it has some of the best minds working in it. So I feel in a way like I’m in the same profession, it’s just the shape of the stage which has changed.’

In the end, she says, in any medium, it all comes down to the same things she has always aspired to, and which she is so excited about – that sense of infinite possibility in a role, and the thrill of making the heartbeat of the audience quicken.

Killing Eve returns to BBC One and iPlayer in June