The Pillars of the Earth, Ken Follett

The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett

This epic historical novel was set in 12th century England, between 1120 and 1170, during the period known as The Anarchy. To someone like me, who has little knowledge of that period, the book provided an introduction to the period, and in particular, to the way in which the king and the church severely oppressed the people, keeping them indentured and in poverty. The book also provided an interesting introduction into the change that occurred during that period in the architecture of churches from Romanesque architecture to Gothic architecture with its pointed arches, ribbed vaults, and flying buttresses. I found both of these introductions to be very interesting -- enough so to warrant further research as I continued my reading.

This book is a novel, and in the end, it is about the characters in the novel and their stories. All novels demand of their authors a well-written, interesting story, with well-developed characters. As I have mentioned before, I have not found Ken Follett to be a great writer, nor have I found his stories to be very interesting. However, I very much enjoyed this story, and I found the characters to be extremely well developed. I find his writing to be adequate at best, and at times less than adequate, but this story was compelling, and these characters were compelling. I found the endless conflict to be too much at times, but in the end, I appreciated his happy ending, which left me feeling good about the book. I liked this book, and I recommend it.

Atonement, the Movie

Atonement

The premise of this movie (book) is interesting -- a young girl makes a mistake that ruins the lives of her sister and her sister's boyfriend. Once the mistake was made, it could not be undone. She had to live all her life knowing of the tragic effects of her mistake. We all make mistakes, and we have to live with them -- "to err is human". It is almost as if we are foreordained to make mistakes that cause us pain for all of our lives. It seems to me that the biggest problem is having to live with the knowledge of causing pain for others, and that was her mistake. In the end, desperately seeking atonement, she wrote a book about her life experience, but with a fictional happy ending. The movie was sad; it was not a happy experience at all, and I am not sure that I would recommend it.

When I went to see this movie, I had not read the book, nor had I read any reviews of the movie. I knew only that it was a love story set during World War II, and that it was getting great reviews. After a few minutes of the movie, I found that I was getting restless. It was dragging. As it continued, the pace continued to be slow, and I found that I was becoming bored with the movie and impatient. Throughout the movie, I was troubled by the slow pace and drifting nature of the movie. Later, I read this New York Times review of the movie, and I agreed with it in general.

Atonement

My Fair Lady, Kennedy Center

My Fair Lady, Kennedy Center

Written by Lerner and Loewe, and first produced on Broadway in 1956, My Fair Lady is one of the greatest musicals of all time, and my favorite musical of all time. Direct from its 50th Anniversary London engagement, this production from the National Theatre of Great Britain was so outstanding that one could not imagine the original production being better.

British theater actors Christopher Cazenove as Professor Henry Higgins and Lisa O'Hare as Eliza Doolittle, surely were as wonderful as Rex Harrison and Julie Andrews. The other principal actors were also outstanding: Walter Charles as Colonel Hugh Pickering, Alma Cuervo as Mrs. Pearce, Tim Jerome as Alfred P. Doolittle, Sally Ann Howes as Mrs. Higgins, and Justin Bohon as Freddy Eynsford-Hill. I have seen the movie numerous times, and I felt that this cast was as good as the movie cast.

I have seen more than 100 Broadway shows, including many musicals, and this show was the best show I have ever seen. It was absolutely incredible.

As a footnote, it is interesting that George Bernard Shaw wrote this play, Pygmalian, in 1913, and he wrote the part of Elisa for Mrs. Patrick Campbell, with whom he had a romantic correspondence for more than 40 years.

Exhibitions of J.M.W. Turner and Edward Hopper

Exhibitions of J.M.W. Turner and Edward Hopper at the National Gallery of Art

As a non-artist, and one who has little understanding or appreciation of fine art, I can only have impressions of the works of these two artists, and the strongest impression I have is of the incredible contrast between the two. It seems that the National Gallery of Art intentionally exhibited these two great landscape artists at the same time to demonstrate their completely contrasting styles. Although both painted landscapes, their styles were vastly different.

As shown in The Fighting Temeraire above, Turner’s paintings are impressionistic, and some have called him the first impressionist painter. His paintings depict vast, epic scenes flooded with powerful emotions, emphasized by dazzling accents of light. His paintings are filled with motion and drama, often depicting violent, devastating forces of man and nature. In contrast with his more dramatic paintings is his tranquil Venice, from the Porch of Madonna della Salute, depicting the peace and serenity of gondolas on the Grand Canal.

Hopper painted Americana, as shown in Nighthawks, shown above. He painted buildings – houses, lighthouses, windows, roofs. Hopper’s paintings are completely sterile, completely devoid of motion, completely emotionless, completely lacking joy and vitality and life. The people in his paintings are motionless, gazing unfocused into the distance in deep thought. His buildings have no warmth, no plants, nothing associated with life. Sterile, lifeless paintings.

How fascinating to view these two art exhibits together.

Edward II by Christopher Marlowe

Edward II by Christopher Marlowe
Shakespeare Theatre Company

As Tamburlaine was Marlowe's first play, Edward II was his final play -- the bookends of his professional career and his life. Written in response to a challenge by Shakespeare, Edward II is a play about a man who threw away his position as king and his life because of a self-destructive character flaw. Edward was so bent on uncontrolled debauchery that he squandered his country's riches and placed it in danger of collapse. As a result, he was overthrown and then killed.

I have three thoughts about the play: First, Edward's debauchery was of a homosexual nature (and very well portrayed in the play). If it had been of a "straight sexual" nature, it might have been tolerated somewhat longer, although the end result would probably have been the same. Edward's debauchery was not the result of his homosexuality, but the result of a deep character flaw of being completely unable to recognize and accept any responsiblity in life, of being desperately bent on his own self destruction.

Second, audiences at the time of this play (1592) seem to have been attracted to wildly overwrought melodrama, and this play was filled with such theatrics. I found the unceasing and greatly excessive whining and writhing by Edward II and others in the play to be nauseating. I realize that a new art form was created by Marlowe, and for that reason, I wanted to see the play; however, I found the play itself revolting.

Third, I thought the play was well cast. Although I did not enjoy the role of Edward II, Wallace Acton played the role extremely well. However, the performer in the play who most attracted my attention, and the one I will remember most, was Deanne Lorette, who played Isabella, the wife of Edward II. She was incredibly sexy and conniving, and I found that I simply could not take my eyes off of her whenever she was on stage. I will certainly look for her in the future.