August Strindberg - Hemsöborna (Stockholms stadsteater)

Han kom som ett yrväder en aprilafton och hade ett Höganäskrus i en svångrem om halsen. (He arrived like a whirlwind an evening in April and had a Höganäs jug in a belt around his neck.)

~ August Strindberg, Hemsöborna

The quote above is probably one of the most famous of all introductory sentences in Swedish literature. It is taken from August Strindbergs book Hemsöborna which was first published as a novel in 1887. Strindberg spent a couple of summers at Kymmendö in the Stockholm archipelago. The inhabitants on that island took the novel personally and fobid Strindberg to return there because of it. I went to see a theatre version of the novel, directed by Stefan Metz at Stockholms stadsteater yesterday

The cast of Hemsöborna. Photo: Sören Vilks

The plot revolves around the inhabitant at a farm at the island Hemsö in the archipelago outside of Stockholm. The farm is run by the widow Flod (often called madam or moster [aunt]). Her son Gusten prefers to be out on the sea hunting and the farm decays, so she sends out for help and Carlsson is hired as a farmhand to help and he is the one arriving as a whirlwind an evening in April. 

Ann Petrén as Madam Flod.
Photo: Sören Vilks

Carlsson knows a lot about farming, but nothing about the sea, but with his help the farm prosper and everyone seems to like him quite well (in the case of Madam Flod a little too well...), but Gusten remains sceptical. Carlsson rents out one of the houses to summer guests. They have a maid he falls in love with, but after hearing Madam Flod proclaiming her love for him and realising he would get his own farm, he marries her.

The marriage, however, changes Carlsson and he goes from energetic farm to greedy entrepreneur. This theme is something it has in common with Chekhov's The Chery Orchard which I saw in Göteborg last week. Hemsöborna treats it far better though! The Cherry Orchard tried too hard to place the plot into a modern setting, it did not work because it felt too much like it was forcing political standpoints down in your throat and a classical play was added sort of like an afterthought. Hemsöborna, however, sticks quite well to the original plot and because it does, it manages to portray how power and money can corrupt a man.

The book

All the actors (even the often dancing extras) were very good. I am a big fan of Ann Petrén who played Madam Flod since long before this and she was really amazing here as well, but Claes Malmberg worked very well as Carlsson as well.

In The Cherry Orchard I was very confused by the scenery. With the actors coming out of boxes and trees in the background that was not even cherry trees and nothing about it really added up to what the characters were saying.

The scenography of Hemsöborna was very simple but extremely effective. It was all made up of corrugated fiberboards covering the entire stage, screen which showed what I think was Strindberg's own paintings and with sticks being used as waves, tree branches and fishing-rods. However the scenography also turned out to be extremely effective. The last scene is about Gusten and Carlsson together with the farmhands Rundqvist and Norman being out on the ice in a snow storm and the ice starts to break up into ice floes. The rest of the cast tore off those pieces of corrugated fiberboard pretty much piece by piece and it worked very well.

So to sum it all up: while the Göteborg theatre production of The Cherry Orchard (which was the one production I was looking forward to) was one of my probably worst theatre experiences ever, Hemsöborna (which was an unexpected christmas gift) turned out to be one of my best theatre experiences ever (Not the best. That is still Othello at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London.) and it restored my faith in the theatre that got torn a bit last weekend.





The photos, besides the first and the last ones, was borrowed from here. Photographer: Sören Vilks

Anton Chekhov - The Cherry Orchard (Göteborgs stadsteater)

Last Friday, I went to see Göteborgs stadsteater's production of Anton Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard (Original title: Вишнёвый сад) directed by Anja Suša in Göteborg (Gothenburg). It tells the tale of the aristocratic Madame Lyubov Andreievna Ranevskaya who returns to the family estate that is about to be auctioned to pay the mortgage. She gets offers to help save it, but is not at all interested in them and it is sold to Jermolaj Aleksejevitj Lopachin who is the the son of one of the family's former serfs. He cuts down the cherry orchard as the family leaves the estate.

The play deals a lot with class issues with an aristocracy trying to remain its status and societal position in a changing society and a new upcoming bourgoisie class trying to trying to find its way in their new materialistic reality. It opened at Moscow Art Theatre on 17 January 1904 and I can see how it can work in a modern setting whre classes are changing and no one really knows how to deal with there new position in society.

However, the production at Göteborgs stadsteater did not adapt the play into a contemporary setting very well. Almost throughout the entire play it felt like the characters actions did not fit with what they said, making the production feel confusing. The political statement became quite exaggerated and too much in your face for my taste. They were also the best example of how the character's actions did not fit with their actions, making the statements feel very misplaced, even though some of them I can actually agree to some extent with.

In the original play, Ranevskaja's brother Leonid Andrejevitj Gajev likes to play billiard, which in Göteborgs stadsteater's production had been changed to table tennis for some unknown reason. According to the English Wikipedia page about the play the billiard obsession is a symbol of the aristocractic decadent life-style and incompetence to adapt to a new reality. Having Lopachin come in with a golden table tennis racquet trying to interupt Ranevskaja and Gajev's game, like he did, would therefore be quite a strong symbol, but it was all lost to me due to the confusion that I felt about the play already by then.

I must admit, I was mainly interested in seeing the play because Simon J Berger played Lopachin. He is my favourite Swedish actor and he and the others did a good job with it all. The only problem I had was with the character Dunjasja who is described as husa (maid), which was not at all clear. The girl sounded robotic and I sat through the entire play wondering if it was intentional or not. She also had a puppet, which seemed to be an older version of herself which made it even more confusing. The main reason why I think the robotic tone of her voice was intentional, was that she did not use it while speaking with the sort of changed voice through the puppet.

So to sum it all up, as I have now read about the play, I can understand a few of the choices that was made during the production, but I should not have to read about the play to understand what I saw on stage and a lot of it is still a great mystery to me...

Kerry Greenwood - Ruddy Gore

Ruddy Gore is the 7th book about Phryne Fisher in which Phryne goes to the theatre to watch Ruddigore and celebrate the aviator Bert Hinkler who has flown from Croydon to Darwin.

The Bert Hinkler of the book is probably Herbert John Louis Hinkler the first man to fly solo from England to Australia, reducing the flight record of 28 days to 15. This all happened in February 1928, which had me somewhat confused about the timeline of the books, so I did a little bit of sleuthing through the books I have already read as to what dates are mentioned.

• Cocaine Blues: No dates mentioned at all as far as I could discern. (If you have noticed any indication as to any dates, please tell me in a comment.) 
• Flying too High: Amelia McNaughton mentions that her father wanted to marry her off like it was unbelieveable to happen in 1928. The date for her brother Bill's trial is set to 17th August 1928 as well and there is a mention of it being a winter's day, which for Australia would mean a day somewhere between June and August. 
•  Murder on the Ballarat Train: The murder of Anne Henderson took place on the night of 21th June 1928 and at the end of May that same year, Bobby Matthew's Megatherium Trust crasched, ruining Anne Henderson.
• Death at Victoria Dock: Bert and Cec are invited to dinner and mention that there will be a strike on 10th September and Phryne says it is the 1st September that day. Like Amelia, Phryne cannot believe someone was shooting at her because it is 1928.  
• The Green Mill Murder: No year is mentioned, but it seems to be set in October which is mentioned as Phryne is flying up to the mountains to meet Victor Freeman. 
• Blood and Circuses: The date is stated already in the beginning as Mr Christopher's body is found at the boarding house in which he lives. Jack Robinson, Constable Harris and Sergeant Grossmith also talks about the society getting harder and colder in 1928, so a police strike would not be so easy as it had been before. Also, when Phryne feels like her persona is slipping back to its primitive roots, her contemporary identity is refered to as "1928 Phryne". 
• The dates in Ruddy Gore are somewhat diffuse. 1928 is mentioned and based on what the boy Herbert Cowl (I wonder if he is named Herbert because of the other references to Hinkler.) who becomes Phryne's assistent tells her, it sounds like it would be a little before christmas. Phryne also tells the theatre manager Bernard Tarrant that she has had enough performance for a while and tells Dot Williams that this is not going to be like her time at the circus and she will come home every night. Phryne also have the St Christopher medal that Dot gave to her as she was leaving for the circus. So the book is definitely supposed to be set after Blood and Circuses.

Based on the preface of the book, there was a production of Ruddigore in Melbourne in 1928 (but it did not include any murderers). After a lot of hard googling I have not been able to deduce if there where a gala performance of the play for Hinkler for real and books on 1920's theatre in Australia has turned out to be pretty rare here in Sweden. Therefore my thoughts about the timeline will remain what it is. They might just have waited with celebrating Hinkler until November/December?

Anyway, Phryne and her friend Bunji Ross (one of those recurring characters of the books that I have talked about before) are at the theatre to celebrate Bert Hinkler's triumph. However, the performance is cut short when one of the main actors and then his understudy are poisoned. Phryne starts to investigate, but the main suspect seems to be the ghost of the late actress Dorothea Curtis who died playing Ruddigore in London thirty years prior to the events in Ruddy Gore.

'Could you call up a spirit for me? I've been trying to find one lately and she is very difficult to locate.'

~Phryne Fisher, Ruddy Gore

It is also in this book that we meet the character Lin Chung for the first time. On the way to the theatre, Phryne and Bunji helps him and his grandmother out of a fight and they are cleaned up at the Lins's house before they are off to the theatre. Throughout the entire book, Chinese men are following Phryne and she seems a bit worried about it.

Not only is the timeline between the books a bit confusing, but at the theatre history seems to be repeating itself with resemblances to thirty years prior. Phryne is also thinking how her life has turned into a comic opera. There are a lot of references back to Dorothea and Phryne is sure that her death was not an accident.

Hitherto I have liked each book about Phryne Fisher more and more, but this is a break in that trend. I prefer both Blood and Circuses and The Green Mill Murder over this one. I liked the plot and the theatre milieu and the world around the production of Ruddigore, but even though it was depicted just as thoroughly as the circus in Blood and Circuses which I really enjoyed, I thought this a bit tiresome. I also had problems connecting to all the people at the theatre. Everyone seemed to be quite full of themselves and they were all in love with each other and also left each other heartbroken. It was like a drama series on TV. Adding the Chinese and it got a bit messy. I still liked the book just fine. It was a fun read and it did not put me off the books.

Andrew Lloyd Webber - Phantom of the Opera

Yesterday, I went to see the Swedish production of Andrew Lloyd Webber's famous musical Phantom of the Opera at the teather  The musical is based on the book Le Fantôme de l'Opéra by Gaston Leroux which was first published in 1910.

It tells the story of the opera in Paris in the 19th century where the young preformer Christine has been given song lessons by a mysterious figure for quite some time before the show starts.  As it turns out, the mysterious figure is the opera's notorious phantom who wants to replace the opera's star Carlotta with Christine.

The opera gets new owners and one of them turns out to be Christine's childhood friend Raoul, vicomte de Chagny. They fall in love and a love triangle occurs which more or less turns into a destruction for the opera and more or less everyone working there.

I find both the love story and the character of the phantom wonderfully complex.

He is an abused child and it is said not even his mother wanted anything to do with him. She only gave him a mask to cover up his deformed face. He was then trapped in a cage and was forced to travel around being shown of to people just because he was defigured. This aspect of him is what I find to be the main theme of the show. What happens to someone who has been abused his whole life?

I know there has been an increasing number of pop-cultural expressions in recent years that says that we always have a choice how to act and this is true to a certain extent. You can always choose to treat people badly. However, as for someone who has been abused his whole life, I do think it is important to actually think of it from another perspective. The phantom has always been mistreated. No one has ever been close to him and no one has probably ever loved him. The society at the time was extremely nasty to people who did not fit into the norms. His only lasting relationships seem to be the one he has with the ballet teacher Madame Giry and Christine. What is also important to know about the Phantom is that he does seem happy to keep a distance towards Christine. Loving her from afar so to speak. Christine also seems to trust him completely, believing he is the angel of music her dead father has promised would come to her. This, I would say, indicates that they have had at least a fairly good relationship up until the point where Raoul shows up.

Raoul at first seems to be a better choise than Phantom. He is confident and handsome. He is rich and has a title. He and Christine also has a history, but one that is further back in history when they were children. This is actually part of the problem I see with their relationship. It is actually explained by Raouls part in the song Think of me and the Swedish translation I would say captures it much better. The original is: "Long ago. It seems so long ago. How young and innocent we were. She may not remember me, but I remember her." The Swedish translation however is: "Vad hon ändrats. Hon är inte mer, den barndoms vän som lekt' med mig. Vi har inte setts på länge. Men nog minns jag dig." ("How she has changed. She is no longer the childhood friend who played with me. We have not seen each other for long, but I do remember you.") This I think is the main problem! They did know each other as children (and probably also had some feelings for each other back then). However, they have grown up now and as our identities change with experience and time, we are never the same people as adults as we were as children. Since there is literally no time for them to form trust and get to know each other (like Christine has with the Phantom), I do think they are more in love with the memory of the child version of each other than of each other.

The second problem I have with Raoul and Christine's relationship is the fact that he neither listens to her and feels himself entitled to decide everything for her. This shows an extreme amount of disrespect and is not a quality that establishes trust in a relationship. This too is very well exemplified by their first meeting in the show. She has just preformed and also seems to have made herself ready for bed when Raoul shows up. She tells her of her mysterious song teacher, but he is not at all interested in what she says. Instead he tells her that she has two minutes to get ready because they will go out. The same goes for when Raoul tells of his plan to capture (and kill) the Phantom during the performance of his Don Juan. She says she will not preform it, probably both because she knows it will not work and because it is obvious she cares for the Phantom. However, Raoul more or less forces her to do so.

The Phantom, on the other hand, does show a great matter more respect for her. As I said above, he is really content watching and loving her from afar. However, as he realises that Raoul is a big threat for Christine's attention, he is triggered to show himself to her. The main problem is that he does not know how to handle other people. This is why it all goes downhill. But the only time he hurts her physically, he also shows remorse afterwards. This is important and why I do feel like the Phantom is a far better partner for Christine than Raoul.

The photo of the programme was taken by myself before the show. The other was borrowed from here.