![]() |
–
I am surprised how this production still lingers on my mind. The story, back then, struck me as unconvincing: a dashing Italian army officer (Giorgio – played by David Thaxton) falls in love with a diminutive, sickly and unattractive woman who dies at the end of the play (Fosca – played by Elena Roger), despite the fact that he has a very beautiful and voluptuous, albeit already married, lover (Clara – played by Sarlett Strallen).
I’m sorry that you’re lonely,
I’m sorry that you want me as you do.
I’m sorry that I fail to feel
The way you want me to feel.
I’m sorry that you’re ill,
I’m sorry you’re in pain.
I’m sorry that you aren’t beautiful.
But yes, I wish you’d go away
And leave me alone!
Everywhere I turn, there you are
This is not love
Just some kind of obsession.
Will you never learn when too far is too far,
Have you no concern
For what I want, what I feel?
(pointing at Clara’s letter)
Love is what you earn and return
When you care for another
So much that the other’s set free.
Don’t you see?
Can’t you understand?
Love’s not a constant demand,
It’s a gift you bestow
Love isn’t sudden surrender
It’s tender and slow, it must grow.
Yet everywhere I go,
You appear or I know you are near
This is not love just a need for possession.
Call it what you will
This is not love, this is a reverse
Like a curse, something out of control
I’ve begun to fear
For my soul…
Clara
It seems to me the answer rests with you.
Yes, I have obligations at home, Giorgio,
but my heart is yours. When my son is older,
when he goes off to school, there is the
chance for us to be together. I will make
the sacrifice you ask of me then. Please
understand why I can’t now. Will you wait
for me, Giorgio? I have to know. We both
have to know.
[…]
Giorgio
You think that this is love?
Love isn’t so convenient.
Love isn’t something scheduled in advance,
Not something guaranteed you need
For fear it may pass you by.
You have to take a chance,
You can’t just try it out.
What’s love unless it’s unconditional?
Love doesn’t give a damn about tomorrow
And neither do I!
‘What’s love unless it’s unconditional // Love doesn’t give a damn about tomorrow’ — wow. Fosca’s foolish and headlong love for Giorgio has changed the man. In comparison, Clara now seems inferior and dull. Giorgio proclaims his love for Fosca in the following:
Not pretty or safe or easy
But more than I ever knew.
Love within reason –
That isn’t love.
And I’ve learned that from you…
Are you cold?
Fosca
No, I’m afraid.
Giorgio
Of what?
Fosca
All this happiness,
Coming when there’s so little time.
Too much happiness
More than I can bear.
I pray for the strength to enjoy it.
You’ll leave tomorrow.
This is the only time we have.
You do love me, don’t you?
Giorgio
Yes, I love you.
Fosca
Say it again.
Giorgio
I love you.
1Listen to this wonderful Fresh Air interview “‘On Sondheim:’ The Musical-Theater Legend At 80” and then explore the full archive.
[W]hen it is asked how London can be a triumphant city when it has so many poor, and so many homeless, it can only be suggested that they, too, have always been a part of its history. Perhaps they are a part of its triumph. If this is a hard saying, then it is only as hard as London itself. London goes beyond any boundary or convention. It contains every wish or word ever spoken, every action or gesture ever made, every harsh or noble statement ever expressed. It is illimitable. It is Infinite London. (pp. 778-779)
Boswell’s diary of street life in 1762 provides an account of sexual favours currently on offer. On the evening of Thursday 25 November, he picked up a girl in the Strand, and ‘went into a court with intention to enjoy her in armour [i.e. wearing a condom]. But she had none… she wondered at my size, and said if ever I took a girl’s maidenhead, I would make her squeak.’ On the night of 31 March, in the following year, ‘I strolled into the Park and took the first whore I met, whom I without many words copulated with free from danger, being safely sheathed. She was ugly and lean and her breath smelled of spirits. I never asked her name. When it was done, she slunk off.’ On 13 April, ‘I took a little girl into a court; but wanted vigour’. Boswell, often a moralist after the event, does not regard the fact that it was a ‘little girl’ as of any significance; this suggests that there were many such thrown upon the streets of London. (pp. 374-375)
Is Ackroyd’s reading of ‘little girl’ too literal or anachronistic? Could there be other interpretations?
![]() |
From Hogarth’s “Morning” (the first in the Four Times of the Day series, 1736) |
Red is London’s colour. The cabs of the early nineteenth century were red. The pillar boxes are red. The telephone boxes were, until recently, red. The buses are characteristically still red. The Underground trains were once generally of that colour. The tiles of Roman London were red. The original wall of London was built from red sandstone. London Bridge itself was reputed to be imbued with red, ‘bespattered with the blood of little children’ as part of the ancient rituals of building. Red is also the colour of violence.
The great capitalists of London, the guild of the mercers, wore red livery. The Chronicles of London for 1399 describe ‘the Mair, Recourdour, and Alderman off London in oon suyt, also in Skarlett’, while a poem commemorating Henry VI’s triumphal entry into London, in 1432, depicts ‘The noble Meir cladde in Reede velvette’. The pensioners of the Chelsea Hospital still wear red uniform.
Red was the colour used to mark street improvements on the maps of London, and to indicate the areas of the ‘well-to-do’ or wealthy. ‘Red’ was also the Cockney slang for gold itself. The London river-workers, who supported the mobs that poured through the streets in the spring of 1768, invented the red flag as a token of radical discontent.
Novelists have also identified the colour of red with the nature of the city. In The Napoleon of Notting Hill (1904), Chesterton’s vision of a future London, a protagonist asks: ‘I was wondering weather any of you had any red about you’ and then stabs his left palm so that ‘The blood fell with so full a stream that it struck the stones without dripping’. This is a prelude to the success of ‘the red Notting Hillers’ in that novel.
Red crosses were placed upon the doors of households shut up with the plague, thus confirming the symbolic association of the colour with that London disease which was once considered ‘always smouldering’ like covered embers. The fire-fighters of London wore red jackets or ‘Crimson Livery Cloth’. Their commander, dying in a great fire in 1861, performed one telling act — ‘pausing only for a moment to unwind the red silk Paisley kerchief from his neck’. The colour is everywhere, even in the ground of the city itself: the bright red layers of oxidised iron in the London clay identify conflagrations which took place almost two thousand years ago. (pp. 217-218)
In his latest book 50 Literature Ideas You Really Need to Know, John Sutherland says this about Hamlet: “Every age interprets the play’s enigmas differently, sometimes wildly so (is Hamlet mad, enquired Oscar Wilde; or merely the critics of Hamlet?). The nineteenth century saw the Prince of Denmark as a noble philosopher. Coleridge hazarded, proudly, that he had a ‘smack of Hamlet’ in himself. In the twentieth century, it’s not unusual for Hamlet to be seen by feminist critics as a homicidal, sexually predatory brute, spouting stale truisms and obnoxious self-pity. Has anyone, over the centuries, got Hamlet (or Hamlet) right, or has everyone? Can anyone?” (pp. 8-9)
While writing about other plays, I often spend time recounting the story. This is, I think, unnecessary for Shakespeare’s Hamlet, as everybody seems or claims to know it. Even if you are unfamiliar with the plot, it is possible that you can recognise some of the lines from it: “Frailty, thy name is woman!” (Act 1, Scene 2), “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” (Act 2, Scene 2), “To be or not to be: That is the question.” (Act 3, Scene 1), “Rich gifts wax poor when givers prove unkind.” (Act 3, Scene 1), “I will speak daggers to her, but use none.” (Act 3, Scene 2), “When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions.” (Act 4, Scene 5), “The rest is silence.” (Act 5, Scene 2), etc. etc. etc.
1‘Nunnery’ was also a street slang meaning brothel.
The iconic City office tower is now high-rise housing. Originally converted into luxury flats, the block soon slid down the social scale to become a high-density, multi-occupation tower block. The Gherkin now worries the authorities as a potential slum.
Refugees from equatorial lands have moved north in search of food. They make their homes in the buildings that once drove world finance – before the collapse of the global economy.
The exhibition is on until 6 March 2011. Alternately, you can view all the postcards and learn more about the project, first conceived in 2008, at the “London Futures” website.
–
–
Last December, we went to see Alan Bennett’s new play, The Habit of Art, which is about an imaginary meeting between W.H. Auden and Benjamin Britten (this is in a way similar to Adam Fould’s novel The Quickening Maze, which centres on an imagery meeting between John Clare and the young Tennyson). We bought the tickets primarily to see Michael Gambon. Unfortunately he was not well enough to perform and was replaced by the excellent Richard Griffiths (whom we liked from The History Boys). Was the show good? Suffice it to say that at the interval I went to buy a signed copy of the play. And I got to see Gambon in Krapp’s Last Tape, which I wrote about here.
On Tuesday, we went to see Alan Ayckbourn‘s Season’s Greetings at the National Theatre. Jeff lined up early in the morning to take advantage of the NT’s day ticket policy.1 They hold back a number of tickets to sell on the day, even for sold-out shows, which Season’s Greetings was. The best part, however, is that day tickets are only £10 and if you are close enough to the start of the line, you can get seats in the front row. Fortunately, Jeff was third so our seats were front row centre. Considering the fact that tickets on the West End can be £80 or £90, £10 for front-row seats is a pretty good deal.
![]() |
“Champaign and cinnamon candle”. Photo courtesy of E & S |
May all our friends and family have a wonderful Christmas and a happy New Year.
–
–
–
“Truth is in my heart, and in my breast there is neither craft nor guile. — The Egyptian Book of the Dead.
–
Today we went to the British Museum to see the Journey through the afterlife: ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead exhibition. It was a truly worthwhile visit.
‘Book of the Dead’ is a modern term for a collection of magical spells that the Egyptians used to help them get into the afterlife. They imagined the afterlife as a kind of journey you had to make to get to paradise – but it was quite a hazardous journey so you’d need magical help along the way. [Read more here.] [Want to read all the spells? Try here.]
I was fascinated by many of the things we saw (and listened to – the audio guide is highly recommended). Below are some of the things I found interesting:
![]() |
The exterior and interior texts of this coffin were catered for different readership |
![]() |
spell 59. The Goddess Nut in a tree feeding Tameni and her ba spirit |
![]() |
spell 81A. Spell to transform into a lotus flower. spell 87. Spell to transform into a serpent. |
The interesting thing about the weighing of the heart is that during the process, the heart could speak and reveal unflattering secrets about the owner’s life, which could affect his/her chances to advance to paradise. For this reason, there were spells to mute your heart. For example: “May nought stand up to oppose me at [my] judgment, may there be no opposition to me in the presence of the Chiefs (Tchatchau); may there be no parting of thee from me in the presence of him that keepeth the Balance!”
Since one of the sins the Egyptians were judged for was lying, this seems like cheating. Still, it’s better than having your heart eaten.
![]() |
Picture courtesy of JP. |
WRITTEN IN SNOW
–by t
We extinguished two glasses of port,
drained the lamp,
transfigured from dressed to undressed.
Both times were revelatory.
The way you spoke then did not speak:
everything was newly sparse–
more new than sparse.
I do not remember it all, now,
what we said afterwards:
The virtues of simplified over traditional,
perhaps.
But we kept the blinds two-thirds drawn
and from your warm bed
we caught slivers of tree branches
in soft toques.
The snow had stopped and the road was icy
when we left. What took place already seemed hazy;
even your steadying arm around my shoulder
felt different.
Friendly people, we commented
on irrelevant things: the barber shop over there,
the dog park. Then I saw phrases fingered on cars,
unconvincingly hidden in snow. The calligrapher,
in haste, had chosen simplified.
It doesn’t matter, I guess.
New snow may fall, cover the slate.
And given time, all words melt.
–
–
–
–
–
On the film:
![]() |
Blue Valentine |
This post was originally written on 5th July, 2009.
![]() |
A still from “The Boy from Mars” |
![]() |
A still from “June 8, 1968” |
The best of the four videos for me came next – “June 8, 1968” (2009). It opens with a jolting image of a train in mid-motion. Throughout the film, we see things from the perspective of someone on this moving train starting on the tracks but widening to show the surrounding landscape. Soon, silent and motionless people, dressed in 1960s style clothing, begin to appear along the tracks. They are all watching the train mournfully as it passes, yet we never know what they are watching. However, there is a clue in the title, as on this date a train carried Robert Kennedy’s body from New York to Washington and almost a million people gathered on the route to pay their respects. Parreno’s video is based on images from Paul Fusco, who was one of the people on that train. The effect is that we are in essence watching a funeral without knowing who the funeral is for. I am glad I did not know the significance of this date while watching the video and was free to form my own interpretation. For me, the train seems to symbolise the arrival of something imminent, perhaps bad news that could alter people’s lives. The elegiac faces, I thought, were mourning the end of their current lifestyle. The fact that the gathering people were largely motionless also gave me the feeling that they were bound to where they were and therefore were sad to see the train pass them by, not bringing any one of them on board. Some of the images (they are all very beautiful): a girl on a floating boat on an empty lake, a boy holding the bars of his bicycle, African-American workers sitting on top of another static train, four people occupying different levels of a slope, etc., also encouraged me to construct stories about them. A thought-provoking seven minutes.
![]() |
A still from “Invisibleboy” |
![]() |
“No More Reality” |
The final film “No More Reality” continues the themes of invisibility and uncertain reality that we encountered with the unseen Martian boy, the unknown cargo on the train and the Chinese boy. The work begins with children’s chanting which you can hear in all the rooms in the gallery, creating a disorienting effect for viewers who are uncertain where the next video will be shown. When the video does appear, we see French children chanting and holding placards saying “No more reality”. What does this protest signify about the reality of the images we have just experienced and their implications for the viewers and the work? Do these children, too, long to escape reality and become invisible?
–
See more “How to be British” postcards here.
–
![]() |
Adolf in Blunderland |
![]() |
Winston Churchill and his famous “V” |