13 Reasons Why Season 4 - Netflix

Cassette tape reminiscent of season 1

[Spoiler alert!] This season sees 'the gang' racked with guilt over Bryce's murder and their subsequent framing of the conveniently deceased Monty. The secrets and tension are causing them to mistrust each other and crack under the pressure. Especially Clay, who goes full Ginny Weasley being possessed by Tom Riddle's diary and sprays graffiti on school walls, terrifies classmates on a camping trip and sets fire to cars...without any memory of having done so. When his responsibility for these incidents is revealed, it doesn't have as much impact as it was perhaps supposed to because there were big hints that this was the case early on. I thought Clay might have been possessed by Bryce, which would have been an interesting twist.

Clay's breakdown was one major plot line. The other was the parents of Evergreen (is that the name of the town?) spying on their kids and being responsible for the instigation of the school's ridiculously hardcore security measures. I didn't feel strongly about this storyline but did think it deeply unethical for the parents to spy on their offspring to the extent that they did.

The storylines of seasons 1, 2 and 3 rely largely on the use of flashbacks. This was done well in season 1 - the only season based on a book. The flashbacks in season 2 caused the story to become ridiculously convoluted and undermined much of what went on in season 1.

Season 4 was the only one not to use flashbacks. Clay's visits to his psychiatrist constituted one of the alternatives to flashbacks. The other alternative was the Ghostly Visitations. Clay sees and interacts with Monty, Bryce and (deceased) Justin over the course of the season - even Hannah makes a final ghostly appearance despite her having bid farewell to Clay at her funeral in season 2! OK, so Clay is having a mental breakdown and it's manifesting in his seeing ghosts. BUT other characters see the ghosts too! Alex, Jessica and Winston all see and have complex interactions with one ghost or other, which implies that they really aren't just in anyone's imagination - they are real. Here are my issues with the ghostly visitations:

• The ghosts undermine the character development that took place in earlier seasons. Ghost Bryce in season 4 is as much of an asshole as living Bryce is in seasons 1 and 2. In season 3 we see a more sympathetic side to him, so why does he revert to his former nasty self as a ghost in season 4? Surely his redemption was the whole point of season 3?
• One of the main criticisms of season 1 from suicide prevention groups was that it gave teenagers the impression that it was possible to carry on actively influencing other people and situations after death. The show obviously never took that criticism to heart because season 4 is riddled with dead characters influencing people. In the 13 Reasons Why universe, no-one ever dies dies until they have completed all possible unfinished business to their satisfaction.
• And in case anyone responds to the above by saying 'but the ghosts are just in their heads!', then why do the same versions of the ghosts appear in more than one person's imagination?! Nasty Ghost Bryce appears to Clay, Alex and Jessica. 

I was struck by how much Clay and 'the gang' - particularly Clay - get away with at school. They are constantly swearing and shouting at and arguing with teachers. In episode 8 there's a full-blown riot, complete with vandalism, projectile-throwing, fighting and car-burning. I understand that the teaching staff are sympathetic because of what this year group has gone through, but surely it's totally unrealistic for the school to not only not exclude anyone but to allow these pupils to hold their prom shortly after they've literally RIOTED!

The last two episodes are incredibly and unnecessarily slow-moving. In episode 9 we are treated to numerous depressing montages of visitors entering and exiting and sitting in the hospital waiting room to be near Justin in his final days. Episode 10 takes us through their graduation ceremony in what feels like real-time. There were two natural endings in episode 10: one after Alex and Winston's conversation and the other during the post-graduation-ceremony drinks, when the camera focuses on Clay's face, which wears an expression of acceptance and understanding. But no, we have to go through more ghostly visitations and the ceremonial burying of the tapes etc.

Despite the convoluted nature of the second, third and fourth seasons of 13 Reasons Why, I've mostly enjoyed them, although for reasons of artistic integrity I firmly believe they should have stuck to one season  - the one based on the book. I've found all the seasons compelling (season 2 probably the least so), and have felt genuinely invested in the characters - particularly Justin and Jessica. That said, in season 4, I found the last two episodes so dreary and drawn-out that they put me off the whole season to some extent.

And I don't think Justin should have died. It was as though the writers realised that the 'reveals' of Clay as Ginny Weasley and the parents as massive snoops weren't powerful enough, so they had to shoehorn something else in. Why not give us a scare with Justin rather than kill him off? His brush with death could still have had the effect of bringing the other characters closer together.

Hetty Feather - The Final Chapter - CBBC

Foundling Hospital, London, 18th century

I know I said I was going to do another post about Anne with an E, but I decided to do this first. Well, it is another story about a red-haired orphan.

I found Hetty Feather - The Final Chapter lazy from both a historical authenticity and character faithfulness perspective. [When I say character faithfulness, I'm referring to the characterisation in the earlier series, not the books.] It's a children's programme, so some might see it as low hanging fruit. But I don't see why children's programmes should be any less historically accurate than adults', or have less plausible characters.

Much of my ire is focused on the Harriet/Mathias storyline. I know the writers wanted to round off the Hetty Feather oeuvre with a happy reunion involving all 'the gang'. But it didn't make sense. Why would two adventurous young people who weren't well-off want to spend what little money they had on travelling from New York back to England to get married there - when presumably they didn't even have many (if any) family members in England (see 'brought up in Foundling Hospital'). They had friends, but given Victorian working conditions, there was no guarantee that any of their friends would even have got the time off to go to their wedding. Plus, what about their New York friends?Plus, where were they staying in England? Were they living in sin? I get that the writers didn't want to go into detail because it's a children's programme but...it was annoying.

Other things...

• They should have explained Miss Emily's absence. It seemed strange that the eldest daughter wouldn't return to the house after the death of her mother.
• Do Harriet and Mathias want to get married in a chapel because they are non-conformists, or because 'chapel' sounds more old-timey? Methinks the latter because they eventually get married at the Foundling Hospital, which was run by Anglicans. Just say 'church'!!
• Speaking of which, WHY IN BLUE BLAZES are they OK with getting married at the Foundling Hospital? I imagine they have some good memories of the place - it was where they met, after all - but the Hospital did not foster a loving, nurturing environment for its child inhabitants. Hospital life was unvarying, rigid and emotionally cold - as portrayed with some success in the earlier series. Having them want to marry at the Foundling Hospital undermines their struggles as shown in the first three series of this programme. Realistically, Foundling Hospital alumni would want to get married there even less than I would want to get married at my old school. Which is very much NOT AT ALL.
• Also, why can't Harriet and Mathias get married in a chapel church? Why are they refused so many times? Is any reason ever given? 
• Final thing about Harriet and Mathias: aren't they way too young to get married? Yes, I know people used to get married younger in ye olde times. But if they were sensible they would wait until the man had enough money to be able to support a family. Given that foundlings would have left the Hospital at the age of 14 and this takes place three series/years later, that would make them 17. I doubt either Mathias or Gideon had anywhere near enough money to support a family at this point. I also doubt either of them would have been keen to saddle themselves with the responsibility. Or that Harriet or Agnes would be rushing into marriage, given that they both had reasonably satisfying jobs.
• Possibly THE most ridiculous event in this series is Hetty trusting Matron Bottomly and offering to take her in - a propos of absolutely nothing. Hetty is kind-hearted but she's also intelligent and reasonably perceptive. Why would you trust someone who has proved over the course of your entire lifetime to be manipulative and conniving - and who also bears a simmering resentment towards you! I bet Jacqueline Wilson did not approve this. At least give Hetty some kind of reason for trusting Matron, even a flimsy one.
• Hetty allows Matron Bottomly to steal Harriet's ticket back to New York. Does Hetty have Stockholm Syndrome or something?
• I don't buy Sheila agreeing to work at the Foundling Hospital for the same reason that I don't buy any ex-foundling wanting to get married there. I could understand her accepting the job if she had no choice and/or was lacking in confidence. But neither of those is true of Sheila. So why would she want to go back? Did the writers of this series know anything about the Foundling Hospital? Egads.
• I miss the theatre!

photo credit: dvdbramhall via photopin (license)

Anne with an E - Netflix

This is a bit how I imagine P.E.I. to look. Am prob wrong

I was an avid reader of L.M. Montgomery's books growing up. Anne of Green Gables, Emily of New Moon, Magic for Marigold - loved them all. I loved the characters, the descriptions of Prince Edward Island and L.M. Montgomery's capturing of what it's like to be a child with a vivid imagination and how much a vivid imagination can enrich your life.

So I was both excited and apprehensive about Netflix's Anne with an E.

The thing that impresses me most about Anne with an E is the casting and characterisation. The characters based on the book characters are played extremely faithfully to the books - certainly where the plot follows the plot of the books, anyway - particularly Amybeth McNulty as Anne, Geraldine James as Marilla and R.H. Thomson as Matthew. Anne isn't an easy character to play - she needs to be talkative, dramatic, whimsical and optimistic without becoming cringey or irritating. Amybeth McNulty isn't exactly how I pictured Anne, but her portrayal is no less legitimate than the Anne of my imagination. She plays Anne with complete sincerity and embodies her spirit perfectly.

The main issue I have with Anne with an E is the tone. The Anne books aren't relentlessly upbeat - sad things happen in them, the characters develop and grow up - but their general tenor is cheerful and positive. Anne with an E is dark. Bleak. The first season in particular is depressing: Anne suffers from PTSD, her future at the Cuthberts' is uncertain, and there are plenty of miserable orphanage flashbacks. Does anyone actually enjoy the orphanage scenes? Do they add anything? Once it's been established that Anne had a rubbish early life, what's the point in seeing yet more bullying flashbacks? It feels gratuitous. The bleak tone colours even the happier scenes, giving them a feeling of foreboding.

Relatedly: the new storylines. I don't have a problem with adaptations not rigidly adhering to a book's storyline, or the introduction of new characters. I've enjoyed some of the new storylines - Gilbert's friendship with Sebastian; Diana's relationship with Jerry. But some of the new storylines in Anne with an E feel a) unrealistic for the era and shoe-horned in for the sake of trying to make the plot relatable to modern viewers (e.g. Aunt Josephine's turning out to be a lesbian and her lavish party that makes LGBTQIA allies out of the most conventional of the Avonlea teens) and/or b) out of character (e.g. Gilbert becoming a stoker on a ship and delivering a baby at the age of fifteen/sixteen - this was implausible on so many levels. Why would academically-minded Gilbert, whose ambition it is to become a doctor, miss a ton of school by running off to become a ship's stoker?).

Rather than trying to tackle so many big issues - sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, persecution of First Nations peoples - I think they should have focused on a few and covered them in more depth and in a way that more accurately and subtly reflected people's varied attitudes of the era. In Anne with an E characters tend to be divided into 'caricaturistically prejudicial' and 'twenty-first century egalitarian' in their attitudes towards these issues.

Next: Anne with an E Season 3

Swive - Sam Wanamaker Playhouse

Swive was an intense take on the teenage and middle-aged lives of Elizabeth I, depicting the challenges she encountered on her journey towards becoming Queen, and those she faced as Queen - in particular on account of her being a woman.

Elizabeth was played by two actors: Nina Cassells as Princess Elizabeth and Abigail Cruttenden as Queen Elizabeth. There were only four actors in the play and three of them played more than one role. This was particularly impressive of the two women, who played an assortment of very different characters. Abigail Cruttenden played Catherine Parr and Mary I as well as Elizabeth.

Swive presented the teenage Princess Elizabeth as innocent but astute; anxious and highly religious. Her religiousness had an OCD-like quality involving repeating the same prayer over and over again. As Queen, she remained astute and anxious, and had a nervous face-touching tic . She was also formidable and ruthless - she carried out a horrible act that made me lose sympathy for her and which I'm not sure has a basis in reality - no, not ordering the death of Mary Queen of Scots! - something involving a fork. In Swive, Elizabeth is very clear about not ordering her cousin's death.

Elizabeth's aloneness came over strongly - the extent to which she had to figure everything out by herself, and rely on herself alone - especially after the death of her step-mother Catherine Parr, when Elizabeth was fifteen. (Although that relationship had soured somewhat after Catherine's husband's predatory behaviour towards Elizabeth.)

Elizabeth's desire to remain single and inevitable lack of an heir was a major theme. Her argument with Mary I, in which she criticised her half-sister for giving her power away to her husband was one of my favourite scenes. She had to be careful about what she said, given her and Mary's respective positions, but she couldn't resist giving Mary her honest opinion about Mary's marriage, her phantom pregnancy and religious impositions. Another of my favourite scenes was Elizabeth's argument with William Cecil (Michael Gould) about whether she would have the title 'Supreme Head of the Church of England' (her father's title, which she wanted) or 'Supreme Govenor', which she ended up having because it was considered more suitable for a woman.

The lighting - candlelight - was used to good effect in this play - it was made an integral part of the story.

 I felt somewhat short-changed because Swive wasn't a full-length play and I hadn't known this in advance. It was a single act of around an hour and twenty minutes. I felt like I'd only just properly got into it before it was wrenched abruptly from me. My other issue was the occasional jarring insertion of modern language. The characters kept saying 'OK'.

Next: Anne with an E - yes, it's a Netflix series rather than a play. It's going to be a bit like living during the Commonwealth for the foreseeable future theatre-wise.

42nd Street - Upstairs at the Gatehouse

Adorable model of the 42nd Street set

Another tour de force from Ovation, full of amazing tap-dancing, industrial-sized sacks of energy and buckets of joie de vivre. I'm always impressed with the way Ovation manage to scale down massive productions to fit the cosy space of Upstairs at the Gatehouse.

The plot was simple: theatre company plans to put on a new (and regressive) musical Pretty Lady (with an emphasis on youth and beauty) funded by the sugar daddy of the leading lady, Dorothy Brock (Tamsin Dowsett), who can sing well but can't dance. An ingénue who turns up late to the backing dancer audition - Peggy Sawyer (Kate-Anne Fenton) - turns out to be an amazing dancer, so she's taken on. After a falling out with Dorothy, Sugar Daddy pulls out of funding the production. Then Dorothy gets injured and everyone implores Peggy to be the leading lady, which role she eventually accepts.

While the plot was simple, it felt as though different elements had been added to different drafts of the script, and the writers had forgotten to remove parts when making each new draft. It was never clear who the protagonist was or which hinted-at romance was going to blossom. Would Peggy get together with Billy, the sweet, friendly dancer who helped her get into the musical? Or was she going to supplant Dorothy Brock in the affections of Pat Denning, Dorothy's non-sugar-daddy boyfriend? OR was she going to end up with the director, Julian Marsh, with whom she had a Stockholm-Sydrome-esque relationship? As it turned out, no romance developed. Between anyone.

And who was the protagonist? Peggy? Julian Marsh? Billy? Oh, and what was Julian Marsh's mysterious backstory? I'm sure that was spelled out in one draft.

But the songs and dancing more than made up for shortcomings in the plot - and I kind of enjoyed the misleading plotlines, anyway. The songs were catchy and memorable. Kate-Anne Fenton made an endearing Peggy Sawyer. The character could have easily become irritating/sickly, given her extreme humbleness, but in this production she remained likeable throughout. The costumes were excellent. There were loads of costume changes because of the 'show within a show'. I love 1930s fashions. And tap dancing. One of my favourite bits was when the backing dancers all danced to the café.

Next: Swive

Amélie, The Musical - The Other Palace

Poor quality photo of Amélie set

Amélie, The Musical is almost guaranteed to warm the cockles of the hoariest of hearts. I left feeling more tender and compassionate towards my fellow humans than when I'd entered.

Based on the 2001 film, this musical was faithful to the film's look, atmosphere, vibe and storyline. Amélie is the story of an idiosyncratic young woman (I'm trying not to use the word 'quirky') who is inspired following the death of 'Lady Di' (said in a French accent) to carry out small acts of kindness that end up impacting their recipients in significant, positive ways. The musical reminds you of the vulnerability/fragility of humankind and to remember to be aware that other people might have things going on in their lives that you don't know about.

It was in English rather than French but contained liberal sprinklings of French, rendered authentic by the French-Canadian origins of Audrey Brisson, who played the titular eccentric.

The music was similar to Yann Tiersen's film score, and was played by the actors on stage. Each actor played an instrument - including Amélie, who played the piano at one point. The music was made extra impressive by the actors whirling around and singing while playing their assorted violins/accordion/cello (the piano was the only instrument not whirled around, although it did move). The songs weren't particularly memorable, in that I didn't have any of them going around in my head the next day, but they suited the story perfectly. I was engrossed from beginning to end.

My favourite part of the Paris metro-styled set was the circular window (clock?), which doubled up as Amélie's flat, to which she effortlessly ascended via a rope/hoist, which was in keeping with her character. Other highlights/viewpoints:

• The puppet of Amélie as a young child, which depicted scenes from Amélie's early life while the adult Amélie moved in synchronisation with it, was poignant and moving.

• The life-sized gnome gaudily recounting its adventures from its travels around the world was a thing of joy.

• I loved the protectiveness of Amélie's café friends/acquaintances/employer, and their keeness for her to find love.

• I think it's a pity Amélie's mum doesn't get a redemption storyline. Her demise and the manner in which it takes place help to account for Amélie's eccentricity...but the oddness of her parents and upbringing by themselves would be enough to account for that.

Next: 42nd Street

Henry IV Part 1 - Globe Theatre

Globe stage

...the blessed sun himself a fair hot wench in flame-coloured taffeta

The drama began before the opening lines were spoken. Someone came onto the stage to rapturous applause, only to announce that Michelle Terry, who was supposed to play Hotspur, was ill, so the part of Hotspur was to be played instead by Globe stalwart James Garnon. Who, apparently, had never read Henry IV Part 1, let alone rehearsed the part at all.

How was he going to cope? Would the production bomb? Or would it rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes?

Unsurprisingly, the performance wasn't as polished or as pacy as it would have been had Michelle Terry played Hotspur. Hotspur is supposed to be young, dynamic and intense, with a kind of restless energy, which isn't easy to pull off when you're having to read from a script (and when you're not in the first flush of youth). But James Garnon did a great job, incorporating the script into his performance (e.g. pretending it was a book) rather than pretending it didn't exist, and adding in improvised actions (e.g. gently kicking his wife's bottom - in a humorous way - and playing with a groundling's hair).

Henry IV Part 1 alternates pretty starkly between comedy (featuring Prince Hal, Falstaff and 'the gang') and seriousness (King Henry's camp and Hotspur's camp). I admit I much prefer the comedic bits. My favourite part of the play is the scene in which Hal impersonates his father while Falstaff pretends to be Hal, followed by Falstaff playing the part of Henry IV while Hal plays himself. This scene was made extra funny in this production by Mistress Quickly (Jonathan Broadbent), who watched Falstaff and Hal doing their impressions very intently and seriously, critiquing their performances.

Sarah Amankwah, whose face was incredibly expressive, made an energetic, relatable Hal. Falstaff (Helen Schlesinger) was delightful and entertaining, but a little too energetic and fleet of foot for the character. I liked the fact that Falstaff added 'fat-shamer' to the litany of insults he bestowed on Hal - this play is FULL of fat-shaming, and it was good and funny to see them acknowledge it. I loved Nina Bowers as Poins and Douglas. She and Hal made an excellent doubt act, and watching her fighting as 'the' Douglas was a joy - it was refreshing to see a woman play that kind of part.

Talking of the fighting, they had swords/daggers and everything, but the fighting was 'no contact' - very well-choreographed, though, and just as dramatic as if it had involved contact. I was impressed with James Garnon who must have learnt his fight choreography in a very short time - and his lines for that scene - you can't wield a weapon and hold a script!

Next: I don't know