Wednesday 9 February 2011

Unencumberbatched

I don't normally read reviews of plays before writing my own, but this time I just had to check, and frankly, there is something of the elephant in the room about them all. And elephant is really not the kindest word here. Let's just put it out there (he did).

I SAW BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH'S PENIS LAST NIGHT. NOT JUST BRIEFLY. IT WAS FLAPPING AROUND FOR ABOUT TEN TO FIFTEEN MINUTES.

Anyone who DOESN'T begin their review of the Danny Boyle-directed Frankenstein (National Theatre) exactly like that either:
a) saw the play on a night when Johnny Lee Miller was playing the creature rather than Benedict (the two actors alternate the main parts), and should therefore have started their write-up by saying 'I saw Johnny Lee Miller's penis last night.' (Block capitals optional.)

Or alternatively:
b) they are UTTER PONCES.

I've skim-read several reviews and NONE of them have mentioned Mr Beefy McManStick (thanks to this website for the excellent list of euphemi). Yes, I am 33 with a degree in English Literature, and yes, I have several other things to say about the two hour play, but if we've evolved to a stage where remarking upon a prime viewing of celebrity tackle has become taboo, then mister, pull the cord and stop this train, because I want to get off.

So. On with the trouser snake review: I know the rubbish they tell men to make them feel better - that willies are all sorts of sizes when flaccid, but tend to grow to a fairly standard length and girth when erect - but even if this were true, clearly it is still preferable to have a big One-Eyed Nightcrawler even when flaccid. Unfortunately, Benedict Cumberbatch's organ is not big. It isn't even medium. I'm afraid it is small and tapered, like a baby carrot. To make matters worse, his buttocks are surprisingly curved and fleshy, like a woman's.

But hey, Benedict, if you're reading, fear not - because I thought your acting was, like, TOTALLY AMAZING! Once I'd stopped judging the lunchbox, I could get on with enjoying his performance. The creature is born from a weird, taut, circular womb in a spellbinding opening scene. He flails, jerks and grunts, making an utterly convincing transition from homo foetus to homo erectus over ten or fifteen captivating minutes, Cumberbatch's extraordinary voice put to brilliant animalistic use, the vulnerabilities of his character illustrated perfectly, setting up the audience for an empathy that continues throughout the play, helping us root for him even once he's behaved in the inevitable montrous fashion.

Sadly, there's another reason we long for Benedict's creature to succeed and remain on stage: basically everyone else in the play is pretty much totally crap. I think it's probably down to a really lameass script which suffers from squeezing a plot that lasts several years into an interval-less two hour rush, but the singsong West Country accent of the fat maid is like something out of a GCSE Shakespeare production, the farmer's wife is sub-panto, Frankenstein's dad was wooden, his fiancée's naive optimism was reminiscent of Playschool-era Floella Benjamin, and the many hammy one-line roles set the scene well enough but ended up feeling really token. At the other extreme, some of the sets are so good that they feel embarrassing - early on, a blinding locomotive enters centre stage to banging Underworld beats, ridden by steampunk-goggled actors yelling and singing unintelligible songs among jets of sparks and waves of dry ice. The creature rolls past the engine and has a seconds-long encounter with one girl - but then, after only a couple of minutes on stage, the train retreats, never to be seen again. So much work, so much money, so little payoff.

But still, go if you can get tickets (I think it's sold out 'til April). Benedict is truly amazing, bringing pathos and even humour to a brutish, violent creature. There are some interesting ideas about loneliness, the need for parental love and acceptance, and the role of man on earth. And I even learned an important life maxim - having become convinced that Frankenstein would be a much better role than the monster, I'd wanted to see the play on a night when Ben was the scientist and Johnny was the creature. Thus, when the former flopped out of the womb, I thought (and may even have whispered) 'Bollocks.' But then it unfolded that a) had I had things my way, I would have seen Johnny's penis, not Ben's (I'd far rather have seen Ben's); b) the creature is a MUCH bigger part than Frankenstein even though I'm pretty sure that he does not have a bigger 'part' than Frankenstein (ahem) and c) Benedict, I'm convinced, will make a much better creature than Johnny. So I didn't get what I'd thought I wanted, but what I ended up getting was even better than I'd imagined what I'd wanted was going to be. Lesson: SHUT UP.

21 comments:

  1. I am doing ALOT of laughing. Seeing surprise actor cock is always high on my list of 'musts'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your funny and frank review. I've been reading them and am surprised at how many don't mention that the main character is STARK NAKED the first fifteen minutes.

    I saw a lab theater production based on the life of Artaud. The unknown actor was nude for half the play. It was extremely "Do not giggle. You are an adult w/a degree." despite the depressing subject matter. I can't imagine that same experience w/a well known actor I admire.

    As you are forthright and funny, I have to ask. Is he man-scaped or 1970s afro natural in the nether regions?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:25

    Shame about the small cock but at least he gave a (ahem) stirring performance.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just bloody brilliant. I laughed a lot - almost as much as I did watching the po-faced wankers near me at the National Theatre lapping up the play, the shit-eating twats.

    Hope you don't mind a vanity link to my own review too. http://www.thingstodoinbalhamwhenyouredead.com/2011/02/cock-of-world-frankenstein-at-national.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous15:56

    Can't help but be thrilled that the word I've to type (below) to verify my post is 'PENALIS'. Its like someone knew...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous18:57

    I find public discussion of man's size an example of extremely bad taste.
    Men and women with gauges in your brains, psychologically your "size" is tiny.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks to all - glad you enjoyed - and to that final Anon poster, Benedict, I'm sorry - I really didn't think you'd find this blog. It wasn't that small, don't worry. Mwah.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous 411:08

    I saw that Daniel Radcliffe's piece once when he was in Equus. The wife was so astonished by the inadequacy of Harry Potter's....er.. magic wand and the sheer expanse of pubic hair that she said, far too loudly, 'I literally cannot tell if he is a man or a woman'.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Anon 4 - definitely one of my favourite LLFF comments evah. Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous 419:13

    Just a thought. Aren't you being a bit harsh on Ben? Don't all penises taper? I mean, mine isn't the same width at the bottom as it is at the top otherwise it would look like a swiss roll and I don't imagine that would be a good thing, uh?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well this is awkward.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous 414:30

    A clarification...I've had another look. It's not the same girth (better word?) at the top as it is at the bottom but not by much. So it is ACTUALLY quite like a swiss roll but without any jam or sponge.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sigh. I'd love a bit of swiss roll. Who am I kidding? I'd love a swiss roll.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous19:20

    God, now when I'm sitting in the audience this weekend, all I'm going to be able to think about is this review. If I interrupt the performance with loud laughter, I'm blaming you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous18:27

    Very nice review indeed! Had a bit of a giggle there. Like Joan of Art (in a previous comment), I too would like some more info on the opening scene, though. Pubic hair: nonexistent, manshaped or 1970s?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hello to Anon - glad you enjoyed. Pubic hair... I'm struggling to remember. So clearly it wasn't memorable. But if I had to choose one word, I'd say: sparse. Will confer with Grania and post an update if she thinks I'm wildly wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey,

    Late to the party here I know, but...

    I humbly submit that the "tapered" look you witnessed might have been an old actor's trick for avoiding unwanted erections onstage: they tie their foreskin around the tip of their penis with a bit of string, and apparently that keeps the little bugger from unexpectedly poking its head up and having a look round at all the nice people in the audience in the middle of a soliloquy.

    Search for "David Tennant" and What the Butler Saw in Google Images and you'll find a rather leg-crossingly graphic example of the practice.

    Q

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous17:47

    Thanks! (It's me again, the previous Anon) I actually went to see Frankenstein last evening! It was the last performance of Benedict Cumberbatch as the Creature, or so I've been told :) Loved the performance again (I had already seen the censored live registration version at the cinema), and the willie was not as small as I had expected after reading this review! So thank you for preparing me ;)

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Q Oh. My. GOD. That is a lot of information. I am definitely not doing the Google search you suggested. But I do thank you for bringing such an enlightening factoid to the, erm, 'party'.

    @Anon - glad you enjoyed and found that the member in question wasn't too disappointing. Maybe Carrotbatch has been working on his lunchbox during his lunchbreaks.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous08:47

    Different anon.

    So, this was just discussed in length somewhere else on the webz...would you say it looked like Jude Law when he changed his pants at that villa in France?

    Captcha: kindylay *facepalms*

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous23:56

    @anon 4. Are you sure it wasn't because you were so far away from the stage? It's called perspective, Dougal. Looking at the pics of Daniel from the play all I can say is you must either be lying out of your bum, have poor eyesight or one really big... sense of humour. But anyway. His wand normal, average, quite far removed from small. Perhaps it was a chilly night?

    ReplyDelete