Much Ado - the "proper" review
Jun. 27th, 2011 12:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caz963Hey - that rhymes!
I'm fortunate enough to be going to see Much Ado a few times over the summer, but I went for the first time on Saturday night and had one of the best evenings out that I've had in a long time. Of course that was, in large part due to the delightful company afforded by the lovely![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
canterlevi, but I think that David Tennant and Catherine Tate may have had a hand in it, too :P
Everyone else who's been has already written about the production itself - the setting, the golf-cart, the decorating scene etc. etc. so I've decided to try not to repeat things that others have already said. Instead, I'm going to ramble a bit about the play itself, and some other things that have occurred to me as a result. I've already written my OMG! - David Tennant is the most gorgeous thing on the planet post, just to get that off my chest, but I still feel I need to pinchhelygen's usual disclaimer and point out that I'm pretty much incapable of expressing an objective opinion where DT is concerned. That said though, he didn't put a foot wrong, so perhaps that makes such a disclaimer redundant.
T&T obviously chose very well when they opted to do this particular play together. Not only is it one of Shakespeare's most popular plays, it's also one in which the language is very accessible (being written almost entirely in prose may help somewhat) and one in which the "do-they? don't-they? / will-they? won't-they?" plot that surrounds the two principals is now a very familiar one to anyone who watches television/films and/or reads books on a regular basis. I'm sure they also recognised that the relationship their characters had already established on screen in DW was in many ways very similar to the one that Beatrice and Benedick have in the play; both of them have said as much in interviews, Catherine Tate acknowledging that the dynamic is very similar - so for any audience familiar with their work in DW, Beatrice and Benedick are a sort of natural extension to the Doctor and Donna; two people who love each other to bits while being completely aware of the other's faults and who are also not above pointing those faults out when the occasion demands it. And even when it doesn't ;-)
I will admit to having been a bit nervous when reports starting coming in after the previews, that the setting and staging might be a bit too "gimmicky" for the sometimes-toffee-nosed theatre critics, but fortunately I needn't have been because everything works. The songs are brilliant pastiches of Wham, Bonnie Tyler and other 80s favourites, although the words themselves are all the Bard's. (You know, I still can't help sniggering whenever I read or type those words, "The Bard" - thanks to the joke at the end of TSC - "oi mate, you're barred"... silly, I know.)
I know that some reviewers have complained that they're playing everything for laughs - but why shouldn't they? For one thing, it's all there, on the bloody page. And for another, is there an unwritten rule somewhere that Shakespeare has to be performed po-faced? He wrote mass-market entertainment, which often included broad comedy with lots of sexual references (some of them pretty crude) and gags about bodily functions - and just because many of those reference are couched in terms with which we are no longer familiar doesn't make them any less rude, does it? Or any less funny. Yes, this production does emphasise the comedy aspects quite broadly and very physically - but again, I think it's another example of how Tate and Tennant (seriously, with those names, they were destined to be a double-act!) chose the perfect vehicle. They're both incredibly good at acting with their entire bodies (there's one brilliant moment in the final scene where they're mirroring each other's body language perfectly - think of them ripping up the contracts in SitL and you'll know which bit I mean!) as well as of a subtlety of facial expression and fortunately, because Wyndham's is quite small, that's visible even from near the back of the stalls. I also think that they and presumably the director - were well aware that this will be not only the first time some of the audience has seen Much Ado but for some, the first time they've seen any Shakespeare at all. So it's important that it's understandable and accessible to all - and if that means that some of the verbal comedy has to be underpinned by physical comedy - well, that's called "interpretation", isn't it? The point is that it's done incredibly well and when the big, dramatic moments unfurl - and they do - the contrast is stark.
I think that for any modern audience, the part of Much Ado that is the most difficult to come to terms with is the Claudio and Hero part of the plot. They are the conventional lovers - he, a fine, upstanding young nobleman, she, the lovely daughter of a dignitary and they fall in love at first sight. That's not an uncommon thing in stories and plays of the time and later and it's a frequent trope in classic literature of many different stamps. Their story is taken straight from ancient Greek literature (I think? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong - my studies were quite a few years ago) and when also wrapped in the conventions of the sixteenth century, it can be quite a hard tale to swallow. But I can handwave that part of it, because I know that it's following those conventions, and because at the time, two young people of good family and fortune would probably have been paired up and married off by their families for financial gain or to ensure continuation of the family line or whatever. But what's difficult to accept in the play is not the suddeness of the falling-in-love or the swiftness of the ensuing nuptuals; it's the downright cruelty (and mysogyny) of Claudio's actions when he denounces Hero at the altar and her own father's immediate belief in her guilt. It's the fact that he can believe her guilty because another MAN - a prince - SAYS THAT SHE IS. Not to mention the fact that Claudio and Don Pedro are so ready to believe her guilty on the flimsiest of evidence.
I think it's very hard therefore to make Claudio a sympathetic character and it's a tough role for any actor. Not only is he going to be completely eclipsed by Benedick (not just in this production where, let's face it ANY actor has a tough job simply by being on the same stage as David Tennant!) but also because Claudio is basically a pretty straight-laced prig. The actor in this production (Tom Bateman) did a decent job in what is a fairly thankless role.
And here, a quick mention for the rest of casting, which was very good. Adam James was an excellent Don Pedro - especially in the scene where he sort of proposes to Beatrice - as was Jonathan Coy as Leonato. I don't really know why Leonato acquired a wife (in the play, he has a brother who lives with them) other than that perhaps because it worked better in the context of when the production was set.
I could write (and have written!) essays about Beatrice and Benedick and their relationship, but I'll try to spare you that ;-) As I said before, the "two characters who love each other to bits/are perfect for each other but who can't see it" has become a familiar staple of fiction and I think we all get where they're coming from by now. Beatrice makes it clear that, at some point, in the past they had a relationship which didn't work out, so her sniping at and about him is tinged with an element of self-preservation. Benedick, despite the bravado is clearly masking insecurities to which he freely admits in private - "Love me... why?"; but for me, one of the most important facets to his character is that he's not afraid to break from the crowd and step up to the plate when he has to. The scenes where things get serious are the ones where you really get a sense of just who Benedick is; and I think that they're make-or-break for the actor, too. For most of the play, he's "the funny one", the one the others turn to when they want to have a laugh. He's witty and he's clever, which could make him insufferable, but he's saved from that by his self-knowledge and capacity for self-deprecation. In the scene after the denunciation, however, we're reminded that he's a soldier and a good one at that, because he uses his intelligence and isn't led by others into reaching the wrong conclusion. No doubt, his love for Beatrice is part of the reason he's not so ready to believe Claudio and Don Pedro as Leonato and others are, but he also uses the evidence of his own eyes, and uses his brain to determine his course of action. For me, this, and the challenge scene are defining moments - and I thought DT hit exactly the right note in both. The challenge to Claudio was quiet and utterly deadly - you were left in no doubt that he is a dangerous enemy and that he would show not an ounce of mercy should the situation demand it. That's one of the things I've always found attractive about the character of Benedick - the fact that while he may be the "Prince's jester", deep down, he's a man of intelligence and principle. He has his line, and once drawn, it's crossed at your peril, and that sort of thing is something that DT conveys incredibly well.
It was, of course, helped by the fact that he looks stunningly, jaw-droppingly handsome in those dress whites! And I may have whimpered during the earlier declaration scene where he's trying to get Beatrice to say she loves him and he's deliberately shoving aside and tipping over the chairs to get to her. Take-charge Benedick is really hot :-)
David Tennant has this incredible ability to make Shakespeare's words sound as though they were written just a few days ago. I have no idea how he does it, but somehow, the words coming out of his mouth sound as though he's speaking everyday "normal" English. Perhaps it's because those words are accompanied by such a wide range of facial expression and vocal inflection that it makes them easier to understand - I really don't know what it is. I'm quite familiar with the play, having seen it several times over the years, and studied it in depth, but that was a while ago and it's been a while since I've seen it, so I'm sure it wasn't all down to familiarity.
He also has such amazing presence on stage. I said in my last post that it's not news to many of us that he's an incredibly gifted comic actor - but I think that there will be some for whom that does come as a surprise, especially if they're only familiar with his work on DW and perhaps Hamlet. Other than Hamlet, I've not seen any of his other stage work (I didn't manage to see LLL) and most of the telly stuff he's done has been in more serious vein, but his turn in He Knew He Was Right as the smarmy vicar and his performance Casanova were among the first things I really noticed him in, and in both cases I remember thinking how good he was at the comedy. Another of the things I adore about him is the fact that he really doesn't appear to give a stuff about looking ridiculous. I'm not just talking about the scenes he plays in drag (but the dancing is hilarious) but there's also the way he turns into a love-struck schoolboy when he overhears that Beatrice is in love with him. He just stands there (covered in white paint) with an utterly dorky and stupid grin on his face, looking for all the world like a gangly teenaged boy in the throes of his first crush.
Oh, and did I mention the denim cut-offs? And the thighs? *g*
It's just a brilliant all-round performance. DT's an out-and-out star, but not in a way that's at all ostentatious or "look at me" - he just IS. The lights seem a little dimmer when he's not on stage (of course they're not - it just feels like it) and when he is there, it's almost impossible not to look at him, even when he's not the main focus of the scene. And no, it's not just because he's so lovely to look at and I'm a demented DT fangirl (well maybe just a bit!); it's charisma, or star quality or whatever you want to call it.
Catherine Tate - who looks stunning throughout - can't quite match David when it comes to the ease with which he handles the language, but given this was her first time performing a leading Shakespearean role on stage, she did a wonderful job. It wasn't as though she was fluffing lines or tripping over her words, it's just not as effortless, although to be honest, I think there are probably very few actors around who can match DT for that anyway.
But in all other aspects she's right up there with him.
(I thought she was really brave, being hoisted up and down on that harness in the decorating scene - she was pretty high up at some points and it was a long way down!)
I'd read some reviews about the "Kill Claudio" moment (which I always think is key to the way the actress interprets the role) being played for laughs, but fortunately, it wasn't. The declarations of love are quite funny, with CT doing an equivalent love-struck teenage act, and I have to admit that's one of the few things in her performance I wasn't wild about (but then that's down to the direction I suppose). But it worked, and provided a good contrast for what came next, even though I think that some members of the audience weren't prepared for the switch and thought she was still 'avin a larf when she asked Benedick to kill his friend for the sake of her cousin's honour.
The long-awaited snog was, of course, greeted with whoops of delight. Most of the productions I've seen put one in the declarations scene (Ken and Em do in the film as well) so I was a bit surprised to learn there wasn't one there in this production. But boy, do they go for it at the end - with DT doing a variation of Ten's gobsmacked, post-snog face - except here he's got self-satisfied, smug and "gimme some more of that!" in there as well :-)
So there you go. It's a good production and a load of fun. David and Catherine really are firing on all cylinders and their timing - whether alone or together - is perfect. Their amazing personal chemistry really crackles and there's no difficulty at all imagining these two characters as lovers - who will undoubtedly not stop their bickering at the bedroom door. If this was the 1940s, someone out there would be signing them up to make a string of screwball comedies together, but as it is, we can only hope that the pair of them manage to make time in their schedules to work together again - on stage or screen. Individually talented though they are, what they bring to their work together is something very special and I, for one, feel really grateful to have been able to experience that, first hand.
I'm fortunate enough to be going to see Much Ado a few times over the summer, but I went for the first time on Saturday night and had one of the best evenings out that I've had in a long time. Of course that was, in large part due to the delightful company afforded by the lovely
canterlevi, but I think that David Tennant and Catherine Tate may have had a hand in it, too :PEveryone else who's been has already written about the production itself - the setting, the golf-cart, the decorating scene etc. etc. so I've decided to try not to repeat things that others have already said. Instead, I'm going to ramble a bit about the play itself, and some other things that have occurred to me as a result. I've already written my OMG! - David Tennant is the most gorgeous thing on the planet post, just to get that off my chest, but I still feel I need to pinch
helygen's usual disclaimer and point out that I'm pretty much incapable of expressing an objective opinion where DT is concerned. That said though, he didn't put a foot wrong, so perhaps that makes such a disclaimer redundant.T&T obviously chose very well when they opted to do this particular play together. Not only is it one of Shakespeare's most popular plays, it's also one in which the language is very accessible (being written almost entirely in prose may help somewhat) and one in which the "do-they? don't-they? / will-they? won't-they?" plot that surrounds the two principals is now a very familiar one to anyone who watches television/films and/or reads books on a regular basis. I'm sure they also recognised that the relationship their characters had already established on screen in DW was in many ways very similar to the one that Beatrice and Benedick have in the play; both of them have said as much in interviews, Catherine Tate acknowledging that the dynamic is very similar - so for any audience familiar with their work in DW, Beatrice and Benedick are a sort of natural extension to the Doctor and Donna; two people who love each other to bits while being completely aware of the other's faults and who are also not above pointing those faults out when the occasion demands it. And even when it doesn't ;-)
I will admit to having been a bit nervous when reports starting coming in after the previews, that the setting and staging might be a bit too "gimmicky" for the sometimes-toffee-nosed theatre critics, but fortunately I needn't have been because everything works. The songs are brilliant pastiches of Wham, Bonnie Tyler and other 80s favourites, although the words themselves are all the Bard's. (You know, I still can't help sniggering whenever I read or type those words, "The Bard" - thanks to the joke at the end of TSC - "oi mate, you're barred"... silly, I know.)
I know that some reviewers have complained that they're playing everything for laughs - but why shouldn't they? For one thing, it's all there, on the bloody page. And for another, is there an unwritten rule somewhere that Shakespeare has to be performed po-faced? He wrote mass-market entertainment, which often included broad comedy with lots of sexual references (some of them pretty crude) and gags about bodily functions - and just because many of those reference are couched in terms with which we are no longer familiar doesn't make them any less rude, does it? Or any less funny. Yes, this production does emphasise the comedy aspects quite broadly and very physically - but again, I think it's another example of how Tate and Tennant (seriously, with those names, they were destined to be a double-act!) chose the perfect vehicle. They're both incredibly good at acting with their entire bodies (there's one brilliant moment in the final scene where they're mirroring each other's body language perfectly - think of them ripping up the contracts in SitL and you'll know which bit I mean!) as well as of a subtlety of facial expression and fortunately, because Wyndham's is quite small, that's visible even from near the back of the stalls. I also think that they and presumably the director - were well aware that this will be not only the first time some of the audience has seen Much Ado but for some, the first time they've seen any Shakespeare at all. So it's important that it's understandable and accessible to all - and if that means that some of the verbal comedy has to be underpinned by physical comedy - well, that's called "interpretation", isn't it? The point is that it's done incredibly well and when the big, dramatic moments unfurl - and they do - the contrast is stark.
I think that for any modern audience, the part of Much Ado that is the most difficult to come to terms with is the Claudio and Hero part of the plot. They are the conventional lovers - he, a fine, upstanding young nobleman, she, the lovely daughter of a dignitary and they fall in love at first sight. That's not an uncommon thing in stories and plays of the time and later and it's a frequent trope in classic literature of many different stamps. Their story is taken straight from ancient Greek literature (I think? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong - my studies were quite a few years ago) and when also wrapped in the conventions of the sixteenth century, it can be quite a hard tale to swallow. But I can handwave that part of it, because I know that it's following those conventions, and because at the time, two young people of good family and fortune would probably have been paired up and married off by their families for financial gain or to ensure continuation of the family line or whatever. But what's difficult to accept in the play is not the suddeness of the falling-in-love or the swiftness of the ensuing nuptuals; it's the downright cruelty (and mysogyny) of Claudio's actions when he denounces Hero at the altar and her own father's immediate belief in her guilt. It's the fact that he can believe her guilty because another MAN - a prince - SAYS THAT SHE IS. Not to mention the fact that Claudio and Don Pedro are so ready to believe her guilty on the flimsiest of evidence.
I think it's very hard therefore to make Claudio a sympathetic character and it's a tough role for any actor. Not only is he going to be completely eclipsed by Benedick (not just in this production where, let's face it ANY actor has a tough job simply by being on the same stage as David Tennant!) but also because Claudio is basically a pretty straight-laced prig. The actor in this production (Tom Bateman) did a decent job in what is a fairly thankless role.
And here, a quick mention for the rest of casting, which was very good. Adam James was an excellent Don Pedro - especially in the scene where he sort of proposes to Beatrice - as was Jonathan Coy as Leonato. I don't really know why Leonato acquired a wife (in the play, he has a brother who lives with them) other than that perhaps because it worked better in the context of when the production was set.
I could write (and have written!) essays about Beatrice and Benedick and their relationship, but I'll try to spare you that ;-) As I said before, the "two characters who love each other to bits/are perfect for each other but who can't see it" has become a familiar staple of fiction and I think we all get where they're coming from by now. Beatrice makes it clear that, at some point, in the past they had a relationship which didn't work out, so her sniping at and about him is tinged with an element of self-preservation. Benedick, despite the bravado is clearly masking insecurities to which he freely admits in private - "Love me... why?"; but for me, one of the most important facets to his character is that he's not afraid to break from the crowd and step up to the plate when he has to. The scenes where things get serious are the ones where you really get a sense of just who Benedick is; and I think that they're make-or-break for the actor, too. For most of the play, he's "the funny one", the one the others turn to when they want to have a laugh. He's witty and he's clever, which could make him insufferable, but he's saved from that by his self-knowledge and capacity for self-deprecation. In the scene after the denunciation, however, we're reminded that he's a soldier and a good one at that, because he uses his intelligence and isn't led by others into reaching the wrong conclusion. No doubt, his love for Beatrice is part of the reason he's not so ready to believe Claudio and Don Pedro as Leonato and others are, but he also uses the evidence of his own eyes, and uses his brain to determine his course of action. For me, this, and the challenge scene are defining moments - and I thought DT hit exactly the right note in both. The challenge to Claudio was quiet and utterly deadly - you were left in no doubt that he is a dangerous enemy and that he would show not an ounce of mercy should the situation demand it. That's one of the things I've always found attractive about the character of Benedick - the fact that while he may be the "Prince's jester", deep down, he's a man of intelligence and principle. He has his line, and once drawn, it's crossed at your peril, and that sort of thing is something that DT conveys incredibly well.
It was, of course, helped by the fact that he looks stunningly, jaw-droppingly handsome in those dress whites! And I may have whimpered during the earlier declaration scene where he's trying to get Beatrice to say she loves him and he's deliberately shoving aside and tipping over the chairs to get to her. Take-charge Benedick is really hot :-)
David Tennant has this incredible ability to make Shakespeare's words sound as though they were written just a few days ago. I have no idea how he does it, but somehow, the words coming out of his mouth sound as though he's speaking everyday "normal" English. Perhaps it's because those words are accompanied by such a wide range of facial expression and vocal inflection that it makes them easier to understand - I really don't know what it is. I'm quite familiar with the play, having seen it several times over the years, and studied it in depth, but that was a while ago and it's been a while since I've seen it, so I'm sure it wasn't all down to familiarity.
He also has such amazing presence on stage. I said in my last post that it's not news to many of us that he's an incredibly gifted comic actor - but I think that there will be some for whom that does come as a surprise, especially if they're only familiar with his work on DW and perhaps Hamlet. Other than Hamlet, I've not seen any of his other stage work (I didn't manage to see LLL) and most of the telly stuff he's done has been in more serious vein, but his turn in He Knew He Was Right as the smarmy vicar and his performance Casanova were among the first things I really noticed him in, and in both cases I remember thinking how good he was at the comedy. Another of the things I adore about him is the fact that he really doesn't appear to give a stuff about looking ridiculous. I'm not just talking about the scenes he plays in drag (but the dancing is hilarious) but there's also the way he turns into a love-struck schoolboy when he overhears that Beatrice is in love with him. He just stands there (covered in white paint) with an utterly dorky and stupid grin on his face, looking for all the world like a gangly teenaged boy in the throes of his first crush.
Oh, and did I mention the denim cut-offs? And the thighs? *g*
It's just a brilliant all-round performance. DT's an out-and-out star, but not in a way that's at all ostentatious or "look at me" - he just IS. The lights seem a little dimmer when he's not on stage (of course they're not - it just feels like it) and when he is there, it's almost impossible not to look at him, even when he's not the main focus of the scene. And no, it's not just because he's so lovely to look at and I'm a demented DT fangirl (well maybe just a bit!); it's charisma, or star quality or whatever you want to call it.
Catherine Tate - who looks stunning throughout - can't quite match David when it comes to the ease with which he handles the language, but given this was her first time performing a leading Shakespearean role on stage, she did a wonderful job. It wasn't as though she was fluffing lines or tripping over her words, it's just not as effortless, although to be honest, I think there are probably very few actors around who can match DT for that anyway.
But in all other aspects she's right up there with him.
(I thought she was really brave, being hoisted up and down on that harness in the decorating scene - she was pretty high up at some points and it was a long way down!)
I'd read some reviews about the "Kill Claudio" moment (which I always think is key to the way the actress interprets the role) being played for laughs, but fortunately, it wasn't. The declarations of love are quite funny, with CT doing an equivalent love-struck teenage act, and I have to admit that's one of the few things in her performance I wasn't wild about (but then that's down to the direction I suppose). But it worked, and provided a good contrast for what came next, even though I think that some members of the audience weren't prepared for the switch and thought she was still 'avin a larf when she asked Benedick to kill his friend for the sake of her cousin's honour.
The long-awaited snog was, of course, greeted with whoops of delight. Most of the productions I've seen put one in the declarations scene (Ken and Em do in the film as well) so I was a bit surprised to learn there wasn't one there in this production. But boy, do they go for it at the end - with DT doing a variation of Ten's gobsmacked, post-snog face - except here he's got self-satisfied, smug and "gimme some more of that!" in there as well :-)
So there you go. It's a good production and a load of fun. David and Catherine really are firing on all cylinders and their timing - whether alone or together - is perfect. Their amazing personal chemistry really crackles and there's no difficulty at all imagining these two characters as lovers - who will undoubtedly not stop their bickering at the bedroom door. If this was the 1940s, someone out there would be signing them up to make a string of screwball comedies together, but as it is, we can only hope that the pair of them manage to make time in their schedules to work together again - on stage or screen. Individually talented though they are, what they bring to their work together is something very special and I, for one, feel really grateful to have been able to experience that, first hand.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-27 12:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-27 07:07 pm (UTC)I think the production had the potential to go really wrong or work really well and fortunately, it's the latter. The gimmicks work and it goes without saying that the central performances are brilliant.
I'm very much looking forward to my next visit!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-27 01:48 pm (UTC)I want to go again!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-27 03:04 pm (UTC)And I'm going again in 3 weeks!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-27 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-27 02:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-27 03:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-27 04:25 pm (UTC)with lots of sexual references (some of them pretty crude) and gags about bodily functions
I did "Measure for Measure" for A Level and quite a lot of our time was spent working out all the sexual innuendos. I think "bums on seats" would probably have been Shakespeare's motto!
this will be not only the first time some of the audience has seen Much Ado but for some, the first time they've seen any Shakespeare at all
Yes, there were quite a large number of school parties at the performance we saw, who were obviously enjoying it hugely. My husband saw a bad Shakespearean production as a schoolboy and was put off for forty years so making Shakespeare enjoyable and accessible is always a good thing in my book!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 08:43 pm (UTC)I always think it's a difficult line to draw between popularising something which is a one-off and making something more accessible in the long-term. Having worked in the music biz, I saw that a LOT - the whole "crossover" market was looked down on by the "serious" musicians and critics, for example, and I really doubt that the advent of people like Charlotte Church, Hayley Westernra and even Katherine Jenkins has increased the popularity of classical music or opera - rather, they've just increased the popularity of certain songs and arias etc.
But that's not to say that people shouldn't try. And they've clearly gone into this to do the best bloody job they can and appeal to the widest possible audience. Had the critics panned it, it would still have sold out and people who saw it would still have had a ball. But they've managed to satisfy both camps (for the most part) and that's not something to be sniffed at!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-27 06:12 pm (UTC)I also think that they and presumably the director - were well aware that this will be not only the first time some of the audience has seen Much Ado but for some, the first time they've seen any Shakespeare at all. I have to say that when I saw this production the first time (I've seen it twice already) I was COMPLETELY unfamiliar with Much Ado (although I've seen/read lots of other Shakespeare) so not only was I watching David and Catherine for the first time, I was also watching the story unfold for the first time and I really didn't have any difficulty understanding it, so I think they did do a very good job at making this accessible.
You hit the nail on the head in your paragraph about Claudio. That was something I really struggled with while watching this. I enjoyed the actor and I think he did a great job, but I just had such a hard time with the complete switch he makes at that point. And then in the end when it's revealed that she's alive and he's all in love again, well, I have a hard time buying and accepting that. He treated her horribly, he needed to do more to redeem himself. I think though that this is a flaw with the play and not the production and that the actor did the best he could with it, I just am not 100% happy with it story-wise, you know?
I have no idea how he does it, but somehow, the words coming out of his mouth sound as though he's speaking everyday "normal" English. Perhaps it's because those words are accompanied by such a wide range of facial expression and vocal inflection that it makes them easier to understand - I really don't know what it is. I'm quite familiar with the play, having seen it several times over the years, and studied it in depth, but that was a while ago and it's been a while since I've seen it, so I'm sure it wasn't all down to familiarity.
As someone who was completely unfamiliar with the play, I can honestly say that I agree with you here. Particularly when Tennant was speaking I sort of forgot that I was watching Shakespeare. I understood everything clearly and enjoyed every delectable moment.
I too was impressed by Catherine's bravery with the pulley scene. It is QUITE A distance and she moves around a LOT. But she does it so well and it's so funny I'm really glad they were able to stage it that way. The second time I saw the play (July 13th) she actually got stuck in the harness near the end of the scene. Everyone else had left the stage and she was supposed to unhook herself and walk to centre stage but she couldn't get the hook off and at one point it seemed she nearly burst out laughing as she tried to walk and was pulled back. Luckily one of the painters noticed and came to her rescue and she stayed in character the whole time so it worked!
The ending of the play is my favourite. I LOVE that kiss - like you said it's got a bit of "gimme some more of that" which I TOTALLY loved. And I love the amount of energy that the whole production gives off and all the dancing is just so much fun and enthusiastic - especially from David and Catherine. If I can, I really want to go again on closing night (it's sold out but if I see a ticket for sale somewhere I'll snag it or take my chances with lottery) just because I think they'll totally let go then. I love the song too. "Hey Noni, noni" is fantastic and I love that the cast all sing it.
Ahhhh I'm getting all nostalgic for this production again. I really must go to see it again once term is over and I'm not at work when the lottery is drawn at 10:30 *g*!
Thanks for a delightful review. I really enjoyed it!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 09:01 pm (UTC)Much Ado is one of my favourite plays. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on Shakespeare, but I've seen a fair few of his plays over the years and this is one I always enjoy. And when I did an A level in English a few years ago, it was on the syllabus, so it gave me the opportunity to go into it more deeply. I do have a bit of a thing for that whole trope of "two people who snipe at each other but who fall in love eventually" - and I have to admit that I find myself relating most relationships (in drama) like that back to Beatrice and Benedick. Josh and Donna in The West Wing - which is my all-time favourite show - were cast in a similar vein and I remember writing an essay once about B&B in which I found myself thinking about J&D and having to stop myself writing down their names instead!
It's important to realise that the Claudio and Hero subplot is very much a product of its time. IIRC, the original story is taken from a Greek drama in which theirs is the main story and I don't think there are any Beatrice & Benedick-type characters at all. There are familiar tropes in most kinds of fiction - fairy stories have wicked stepmothers and handsome princes; 19th century heroines have - for the most part - to follow certain social mores if they are to maintain their all-important reputations and make a good match; the plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries are full of plots which feature mistaken identity and disguised lovers/siblings etc. - all of them are following certain conventions which the audiences of the time would have understood and accepted without question. Some of those traditions are more familiar to us because of the popularity of TV costune drama, for example, but many of the ideas that are put forward with Claudio and Hero are not, so regardless of whether the production is modern or traditional, it's very difficult for the modern audience to get to grips with it or find it in any way plausible.
And of course, there's the idea of women being completely subservient to men, the out-and-out mysogyny and double-standard that's being practiced, both of which are very unpalatable today,
But as I said, where those scenes really come into their own is in how they show that Benedick is not so much a product of his time as the other men are, because he's prepared to entertain the thought that actually, the woman night be right and the men wrong. And thus they make him an even more attractive character (and man) than he already was.
The snog was great, but the part that gave me the shivers was the bit where he was slowly and deliberately turning over the chairs in a most predatory manner. Guh,
At the risk of making you hate me, I AM going on the last night ;-)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-29 01:10 am (UTC)Much Ado is really awesome. I'm glad I've seen it now and it actually now ranks up there with my favs (I haven't seen that much Shakespeare mind you.)
I do have a bit of a thing for that whole trope of "two people who snipe at each other but who fall in love eventually" OMG! I totally do too. SO many of my "ships" fit into this category. Luke and Lorelai from Gilmore Girls is one, Anne and Gilbert in Anne of Green Gables, the list goes on.... But....
Josh and Donna in The West Wing - which is my all-time favourite show - were cast in a similar vein OMG! They are TOTALLY my favourite of the lot (and West Wing is my all time favourite show also!) I LOVE them sooooo much.
it's very difficult for the modern audience to get to grips with it or find it in any way plausible. Yeah I think that's what it is. In the context of the time it was written it does make sense, but definitely it's hard to take now. Still it didn't really diminish my enjoyment of the show at all, it was more something I noticed.
, where those scenes really come into their own is in how they show that Benedick is not so much a product of his time as the other men are, because he's prepared to entertain the thought that actually, the woman night be right and the men wrong. And thus they make him an even more attractive character (and man) than he already was. I agree. This totally makes that whole storyline better and I LOVE Benedick (and DT) all the more in that scene. It adds so much depth to his character.
The snog was great, but the part that gave me the shivers was the bit where he was slowly and deliberately turning over the chairs in a most predatory manner. Guh,
Yeah, that was pretty awesome. *swoon* (Did I mention I was in the THIRD row? OMG so close and brilliant.
Awww, I don't hate you, I'm jealous, but I'm still hopeful I will somehow find an extra ticket for that show. The Theatre told me there could be some early returns. I'll keep trying.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 03:27 am (UTC)I really wish that i could have managed to see this myself. I am so envious of everyone that's getting to do it once, let alone repeatedly.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 09:06 pm (UTC)You're quite right in what you say about the conventions by which women were constrained. The mysogyny in Shrew has clearly affected its popularity but fortunately, that's not been the case with MAAN, as there is so much else to balance it out.
I think that this aspect of the play is the one thing which really doesn't work with the updated setting - in the 1980s it wouldn't have been an issue. But as I've said somewhere here, I don't think it really matters because it's not the setting, it's the sensibility of the audience which is the issue. I'm sure that people who are seeing the more traditional, Globe production have the same problems with that part of the story because the concepts are just so alien to us, 400+ years after the play was written.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 05:50 am (UTC)for the record, I had never read, nor seen any production of the play before going to see it a few weeks ago, and I had no trouble following it at all.
In fact the only Shakespeare I had seen on stage before, was Hamlet last year, with John Simm. There were certain parties (not John I might add) in that production who could most definitely have learned something from DT and the rest about how to "do" Shakespeare and make it understandable and accessible, that's for sure
no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 10:49 pm (UTC)I'm sure I'll have more to say after I've seen it again. :-)
I couldn't get to see John Simm's Hamlet, but I was lucky enough to see David's. I don't know it as well as I know MAAN, but again, I remember being conpletely drawn in by David's incredible facility with the language and his ability to nake me believe he was saying those words for the first time.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 11:28 pm (UTC)I wasn't lucky enough to see David's Hamlet live, although I do have the DVD, and I actually only got to see John because an lj friend had tickets she couldn't use at the last minute and I bought them from her.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 12:05 pm (UTC)I think people tend to forget that Shakespeare wasn't writing things to be studied and poured over, he was writing things to be watched, to be enjoyed. Not pulled apart in a 2 hour exam. This production showed the fun in Shakespeare amazingly well. And given the two leads did it for people who may not have given Shakespeare another thought since finishing that exam.
DT's an out-and-out star, but not in a way that's at all ostentatious or "look at me"
The thing that strikes me often when watching David is that I forget I'm watching him. Which I think has got to be the highest praise for any actor.
I love Shakespeare, even when it's serious and complicated I love the way the words flow, even if I've no hope of following what's being said. This production, though, made it easy to watch, and I agree, Tate and Tennant need to do more together (at least we have the benefit of them actually liking each other too, so hopefully they can co-ordinate!)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 11:06 pm (UTC)One of the reviews I read suggested they tackle something like Private Lives next. I certainly wouldn't object to ANY project they embark upon, but I'd imagine their schedules are such that another theatre venture will be out of the question for the very near future :(
Someone needs to write something for them, dammit!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-29 08:17 am (UTC)We can hope though!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 08:15 pm (UTC)Would you mind if I link to it?
no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 09:08 pm (UTC)And of course, I don't mind linkage at all :D
no subject
Date: 2011-06-29 07:54 pm (UTC)You have described this production very eloquently and accurately, imho, and I agree with every single word.
*applauds*
no subject
Date: 2011-06-29 08:14 pm (UTC)Ithangeyew! :-)
part 1 of my comment
Date: 2011-06-29 09:07 pm (UTC)So, I knew absolutely nothing about the play when we bought the tickets months ago. As you say, David and Catherine are bringing people to the theatre, mission accomplished. Back when he was doing Hamlet I had not been a fan of him yet, so I missed that. I do remember my friend buying the DVD and watching it four times, and I hesitated, fearing it might be boring, with the difficult Shakespeare English and all. Then we watched it together and I was surprised how much humor there also was, and David totally touched me with his emotions.
So, after we bought the tickets, I educated myself, found a great website where they talk about each act in detail, what happens, and what it did mean at the time. I also listened to the radio play where David had spoken Benedick already. Plus, we went to see the German version of the play just a few weeks ago here in my home city, what a great coincidence that it was there and I can compare the productions now, as I am just back home from London (if we had flown two days earlier I would have even been able to go to the Torchwood preview and meet JB in the same week as David, not sure I could have handled THAT)
So, I felt as prepared as possible, but I must admit that the first time around, even though I always knew what was going on at the stage, I had a hard time catching some words or even sentences. And if you miss one the next one also does not make much sense. But there was so much going on, you did not know where to look first, lots of surprises (I had not spoilered myself before) and so I wanted to see it again. Luckily, we won tickets in the lottery, and I bought the script and in every free minute (while waiting at the stage door, for example) I read it and tried to memorize as much as possible, and at the second time we saw it I really did understand what they actually were saying.
I absolutely admire everyone who is able to learn words and sentences which are so difficult! Plus, I should mention, it really is not David's fault or even the Scottish, I do have the same problem when I listen to him reading audiobooks. Instead of concentrating on WHAT he says I just happily listen to the sound he makes, how easily the syllables roll off his tongue and then that wonderful voice... So, that's my excuse and I stick with it LOL
And it's true, whenever David was on stage, I did not let my eyes wander, even if he was only standing at the side and not saying anything, like in the church. Still he had such an intense look on his face there, you could not look away.
I also agree about Don John, he really managed to touch me with his sad look. I always like it when it isn't all about the comedy, when there is depth. This would be an actor I would like to see more of.
Sorry, turned out I wrote too much, see the conclusion in the next post!
Re: part 2 of my comment
Date: 2011-06-29 09:08 pm (UTC)I guess I also watched the play with "eyes from today", because at the rotten orange moment I wondered why Margret did not just say something... does she not remember anything? - although I do wonder such things a lot in movies etc., if everyone acted logically, there often would not be a story. Which is why I don't like most operas, in general I don't like people who pretend to be someone else, and stir up trouble on purpose with it. Guess I am too honest for this world, and I don't like talkin bad about people behind their backs.
At the aforementioned internet page it is pointed out, that Claudio already believed only bad things, when he was told, that Don John had stolen Hero from him at the ball. Without even asking questions he believed it, which foreshadowed the end. Apparently he easily believes what everyone tells him (oh, I do have a question, because there was a bit where I also wondered - why does Benedick tease him about the "bird nest"? Was he even present, how could he know what happened at the dance? For me, this scene stood oddly out, because before it he had the encounter with Beatrice and left the stage angry, and afterwards he was still angry about what she had said, so why was he suddenly making fun in between? Somehow that did not fit).
The two scenes where Benedick and Beatrice are hiding are also standing out to me, plus the hen night, that was a nice surprise. As were the white uniforms ;)
I didn't pay any attention to the lyrics of the songs, even though I had read in the script that those also would be Shakespeare lyrics. Mostly I just thought the music was too loud, and then I have a hard time catching any text. But I loved the last song, how they made it sound modern, and the dance. I really do have a catchy tune from that, still do after some days, and occasionally I breake into a "Nonny, Nonny" LOL
Thank you very much for this excellent and thorough review, I will keep the link for reference. Wish you fun at the other times when you are going - lucky you! Hope you are not right with America stealing "our" David, even though it would be nice he would be more recognized. Maybe we do get that Rex series then, after all?
But I also do hope he will be back on stage soon, and I will be back in London, as well. Wyndham's became my second home between Wednesday and Sunday.
Here is me with David, if you are interested: http://dieastra.livejournal.com/29928.html
Greetings from Dresden, Germany
Astra
Re: part 2 of my comment
Date: 2011-06-30 09:23 pm (UTC)Re. the "bird's nest" thing; I don't have my copy of the play in front of me, but I think that Claudio makes it clear that he thinks that Don Pedro has wooed Hero for himself, so Benedick's comment doesn't come competely out of the blue. I also agree with you about the fact that Claudio is very ready to believe wrong information at that point - although I'd argue that he's probably more angry at what he believes to be the duplicity of his friend at that point, because I don't think he blames Hero. But it does certainly show that he's easily swayed by the suggestions and opinions of others.
I think it's hard for anyone today to watch the play without bringing a modern sensibility to it - it's not possible. BUT, one can become familiar with the dramatic conventions and language of the time and are thus able to - perhaps - accept some of those plot points which are less palatable because of that knowledge. It's the same with novels; it's important to understand the world that Jane Austen, for example, was writing about and how restrictive society was for women in orderm for some of the events in her books to carry the impact that they are meant to have. I mean, these days, nobody would bat an eyelid at Lydia Bennett running off with Wickham, would they?
And that's not meant to be a criticism of your viewpoint in any way - just to say that sometimes we have to just accept things that may seem odd to us and not let it spoil our view of the whole.
I'm impressed with your graps of English and I can understand why you sometimes found it hard to keep up. I find that my brain "switches gears" when I listen to Shakespeare and I'm sure there are native speakers who have just as much trouble with language with which they're not familiar. I'm a language teacher (French and Spanish) and my facility in those languages certainly doesn't extend to an understanding of their national playwrights!
Re: part 2 of my comment
Date: 2011-06-30 10:12 pm (UTC)(and will you also go to the Fright Night premiere in August? David will be there as well - on his only day off on Sunday!)
The script I have is the exact one they play on stage, with all changes they made, and Claudio is alone on stage when he talks about what he just learned about the prince and Hero, then Benedick enters (is it possible he overheard him, though?) and starts talking about the garland and says: "You must wear it one way, for the prince hath got your hero".
But maybe back then Benedick also easily believes what someone just told him, and later he learned to ask questions.
these days, nobody would bat an eyelid at Lydia Bennett running off with Wickham, would they?
I'm so proud that I know what you are talking about ;) Just recently, my friend made me watch this wonderful British series with her, the one with Colin Firth (not the movie), and of course from DVD in English (I recently tried to watch another Jane Austen thing in German TV, but it just does not work when it is dubbed - plus it lacked Mr. Firth - yes I'm shallow ;) ).
And yeah, there also were a few times where I had to ask her to be sure I get things right. While I understood that folks might look bad at Lydia, I found it outrageous that it would fall back onto the whole family, even those who had nothing to do with it. I really feared there would be no happy end. Glad Mr. Darcy took matters into his own hands.
Being from Eastern Germany, the first foreign language I learnt in school was Russian. Learnt it for five years, and was good at it - and have now forgotten most of it, because there is just no usage anymore. Which is a pity.
I did start with English as well, but the lessons were not very good, I had trouble that the pronoucation was so much different than the written word... I learnt all of my today's English by watching Stargate DVDs (with English subtitles) and reading lots of fanfictions and books. Till this day, I often sound like Jack O'Neill, with sarcasm and everything... can't help it LOL
At that time, American English sounded easier to my ears, I realized they had tried to teach me British English in school, but the Amerian was easier to speak and understand. But now, with Torchwood and Doctor Who, I have come to appreciate the British (and Scottish and Welsh) very much as well. Still learning something new every day, and throw myself into it with open arms!
When something is fun, you don't realize that you are learning, so this is my advice for everyone: watching TV and reading books. A friend of me is also an English teacher, and she showed her students the new Sherlock series, and now they even read the books... another mission accomplished!
(and just as a last note - we also visited the Sherlock Holmes museum while being in London. Back in Eastern German days, I actually had written a letter to him, because I knew someone answers them. It would have been the highlight of my day if I had gotten a letter with an English stamp on it. I never would have thought that I would ever travel there myself!)
no subject
Date: 2011-07-19 06:56 am (UTC)I only wish I could've been there with ya. The more, the merrier and all that jazz, ya know. ;)
And your mini-review aka 'The Shallow' was bloomin' awesomely hilarious AND apt as well. :D Denim shorts for the win! ;) Were they REALLY all THAT short though? Or were they more knee-length, like board shorts are? :S *innocent look* What? Important question is important, dude. *lol* *wink*
Anyhoo, and again, THANKS for sharing these reports of yours! :) Even though I was physically a world away at the time, I still feel like I was right there with you, because of these entries of yours. So - BRAVO! :D *mondo hugs*
~your pal, Sharma,
over here from My 'purple
land' request entry at T!L... :)
PS:
Guess whose money-maker-booty-shaker is shaking its groove thing in my icon though. You get three guesses and two of 'em don't count. ;) *sly wink*
PPS:
REALLY IMPORTANT: I finally officially friended you too. Hope you don't mind and mayhaps friend me back. :)
Besides DT, we actually have a whole bunch of other things in common too:
~ Leverage (I love me some Nate and Sophie, but they're all great),
~ Doctor Who (obviously...lol),
~ writing and fanfic (What's your fave thing to write? I usually watch, read, and write the same kind of sci-fi/fantasy hybrid, actually),
~ White Collar (I'm a newbie though),
~ Charles Dickens (What's your fave book written by him? Usually, mine is either Great Expectations or A Tale of Two Cities), and...
~ chocolate (OMG, I am like addicted to the stuff! ;) Especially if it's white chocolate, or chocolate-raspberry, or dark chocolate...)
I am also absolutely WILD about Harry Potter, Casanova, Castle, Mentalist, and (The) Glades fan too. ;) Therefore, I suppose I have something that draws me toward certain tall, skinny, Scottish blokes. (Of course, this could be a complication of a virus that I have, called Tennant-itis...) *wink* ;)
BUT, that same something-something also draws me towards shorter, blonder Aussie surfer dudes (Simon Baker & Matt Passmore, to name a couple).
Either way I have no hope at all, as I currently live in America, half a world away from both of those places. Oh, well. I guess I can dream. ;)
Anyhoo, I'm a soon-to-be 28-year-old (as of this Oct 11) chick, who is a writer of books and stories in my real life. Of course, most of them are unpublished so far. But, I hope to change THAT soon.
And anyway, the reason I friended YOU was our commonalities, your helpfulness over the few years that I've been a T!L member, and the fact that you are adorable and sweet and funny and knowledgable, and I need someone like that more regularly in my life. Hope you'll consider me as a new official pal as well. :) *mondo hugs*
~a new-old and hopefully
now more official pal,
Sharma :) :) :)
no subject
Date: 2011-07-19 11:22 am (UTC)I've only written fic for three fandoms; I have to be really really invested and interested in characters to want to fic them; I wrote a fair bit of West Wing (Josh/Donna) fic and a few Studio 60 ones before I moved on to Doctor Who. I'm firmly in the Ten & Donna camp - I'm always drawn to couples who bicker and snark at each other and I have a bit of a thing for friends who could be more. Most of my WW fic is shippy; most of my DW isn't, but I have written Ten/Donna because she's the only one of Ten's conpanions I can see him ever being interested in "like that".
Books - I think my favourite authors are Austen and Trollope. With Dickens, I'd definitely go for Great Expectations, but I love David Copperfield, too. In fact, it featured in one of my fics (http://caz-fic.livejournal.com/21986.html).
I don't watch a huge amount of TV these days. Maybe I'm getting grouchier as I get older, but something has to really grab me at the outset to make me want to keep watching, you know? Leverage and White Collar are great, and I'm really into Fringe - it's well worth checking out if you've not seen it; the main characters are terrific.
I'm a musician and I'm a teacher. Currently, I teach Music and Languages (French and Spanish) and I've got two kids (girls) aged 11 and 8 about whom I gush occasionally!
Please feel to poke around here - my fic journal is
Oh, and I'm glad you enjoyed the review. I'm taking my eldest daughter to see it in August, so I shall have to try to act like a responsible adult and try not to drool too much!
no subject
Date: 2011-07-19 11:06 pm (UTC)Thanks for friending me back! :D *hugs*
Well, it looks like we have SOMETHING ELSE in common! ;) Though I don't teach them, I DO speak both Francais & Espanol...though, apparently, my computer doesn't, as the appropriate accent marks don't exist on my keyboard. *lol*
I've only written one Who fic so far & it was a Solo!Ten effort. BUT, I DO agree with you about Ten and Donna being the best-fitting duo of Ten's years. I'd even go as far as to say theirs was the best partnership of ALL of NuWho, & that INCLUDES Series 5 & 6 as well.
I think I like T & D the most, 'cuz they could be funny and sweet and saucy and snarky all at once, and still be very believable. I could see the possibilities of a friends-with-benefits relationship happening between them somewhere along the way too. IMHO, Martha was too abrasive and impulsive with Ten, and Rose was too selfish and childish when with him. But, Donna was just right. :)
(Of course, I still like Rose & Martha, mind you. Just not as much as Donna.)
I LOVED the fact that, of all the girls, Donna is the one who grew and changed the most. I only wish she could've kept that change, without the problem of dying soon after she'd remember. That was prolly my only regret of ANY of the RTD years.
Also? 'MY' Doctor is and will forever be TEN. Eleven's okay and all, but I'm just not a huge fan of him nor of any of his accompanying storylines thus far.
(I also liked Ten/Rose, but I can't write Ten/Rose for the life of me. And trust me, I have tried. I'm more comfortable with Handy aka 10.5 being the 'Ten' part of this pairing equation, and NOT the original Ten. I wonder what says about me. *lol*)
So, with all that in mind, I AM currently working on two new Who fics: a rather angsty romp that verges on being a whumpfest, with Ten & Donna as its leads, set in our universe, AND a romantic whumpfest with Handy - who I've called John Noble, in honor of Donna - & Rose as ITS leads, set in the zepplin-powered parallel universe aka Pete's World.
As for your MAAN drooling? Your 11-year-old might very well drool too, so I think you'll prolly have nothing to worry about. ;)
When I was her age, I was already drooling over three WAAAAY older dudes: Superman (the Dean Cain version) AND MacGyver (a long-haired Richard Dean Anderson) AND Peter Caine (Chris Potter in Kung Fu: The Legend Continues). ;)
As for Dickens? David Copperfield is great too. I just think I like Pip better than David, because of Pip's name. *lol* And because I read G.E. first. :)
As for more modern authors? Who are some of your faves? Or do you have any? :S I mostly love Neil Gaiman, Stephen King, Jim Butcher, and J.K. Rowling myself.
~your new pal,
Sharma :)
PS I'm off to read up on and friend your FIC LJ too, so thanks for the link! :D *hugs*
PPS Most of my posted fanfic are Stargate or Mentalist related, though I really wanna branch out into my most recent fic-fandoms, namely The Glades, Castle, and Doctor Who...the latter, by getting more than just the one fic out there. (See here for THAT one & only completed/posted Who fic: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5593354/1/The_Doctor_That_Came_In_From_The_Cold).
As a writer, I'm a whumper first and foremost (aka a hurt/comforet junkie), I'm an angster second, and I'm a 'shipper third. Ten/Donna (DW), Ten II aka Human Doctor/Rose (DW), Castle/Beckett (Castle), Jim/Callie (The Glades), Daniel/Betty (Ugly Betty)...The list goes on & on. ;)
PPPS Your cat is lovely! :D I hope all is well now with her. *sends good vibrations to you both*