Redefining the Burger/Chaucer Experience. . . .

Redamak’s you say? The hell I say! I never thought that the BEST burger that I ever had would be in England of all places...but The Gourmet Burger Kitchen is, as Zagat claims “redefining the burger experience.” Mind you, I was raised on personal farm-grown Texas beef – black angus and crosses and the like. But I have never positively drooled over a burger and had the “I can’t believe I ate the whole thing” feeling that I had when I left the GBK. Avocado (AKA guacamole to the rest of us), streaky bacon (as opposed to the other type of bacon the Brits use, and I’m not sure whence it comes, so I’m leaving that open to debate), lettuce, tomato, and so much of everything that I could not eat it without a knife and fork. And, being who I am, I did try. Finally I was resigned to using silverware.

Later I headed off to see The Canterbury Tales performed at the Gielgud Theatre near Piccadilly Circus, by the Royal Shakespeare Company. You may have heard “Chaucer” scoff at the reviews of its bawdiness on “his” blog. By stroke of chance, I saw Part II first, and it was by far the stronger of the two. It lead off with a sometimes awkward rap version of Sir Thopas, which worked only because of the hilarity of imagine Chaucer with gyrating wenches and singing churls as backup. This was followed with the strength of the Pardoner’s Tale, the Wife of Bath’s Tale, the Friar and Summoner’s Tales, the Clerk’s Tale, the Merchant’s Tale, the Squire’s Tale (amusingly told as a youth’s attempt at telling a tale, which was interrupted and mocked by his companions), the Franklin’s Tale, and the Manciple’s Tale.

Overall I loved it. I thought that the Wife of Bath was PERFECT, and I assure you I’m a hard sell on that one. She was just perfect, with the right jollity, stream of consciousness style, and earthy suggestion of sexuality. One thing I wasn’t feeling was their imagining of the Pardoner as only two shades more masculine than a drag queen (I prefer a more ambiguous gelding or mare, though I did enjoy the Pardoner-Summoner interplay). I was also struck (nearly blind) by an unnecessary mooning at one point in the Merchant’s tale (why?), and the quite obvious swyving that was taking place in the pear tree. Yes, yes, it’s necessary, but it was a bit graphic. And I’m not even that squeamish!

But this was not near so graphic as Part I the following night. It was not near as good in terms of the way the tales were organized and performed, and let’s face it, however great an idea it may have been, leading off with the Knight’s Tale is a bit boring for today’s audiences. And the Miller and Reeve’s tales were reduced to much more sex and farting than I remember. And I really don’t need to see that on stage. I think they are far more effective if I’m allowed to just imagine them, rather than seeing the Reeve’s caricature of a miller and his family blow up their sheets. I will say that the woman playing the Prioress was absolutely fabulous – perfectly prissy as the Prioress, and fantastic as a series of hags, especially the one in the Wife of Bath’s Tale. And the Cook had a great stutter and was just as disgusting as I had hoped he would be. They also cleverly worked in the Monk’s Tale, sort of. . . . The Monk was continually mocked by his companions as he attempted to tell his tale and was cut off. Finally, they allowed him to take the stage. . . before the lights went out for intermission. When they and we returned, most characters were sleeping, and he was telling his final princely fall. This was really clever, I thought at lest.

Yet still, I don’t think there was a good way to make certain tales accessible to modern audiences, or at least, that way was not found by this production – the Knight’s Tale, the Prioress’s Tale, and the Man of Law’s Tale are hard sells. The Nun’s Priest’s tale had some innovative use of puppetry (which I found more appealing than the Manciple’s tale of a man dressed as a white crow and then a filthy, moulting black crow), and the “loudest scene in medieval lit” was really well done – actors assumed the voices of the dogs, cows, pigs, bees, chickens, horses, and all other barnyard animals who raise up a cry. It was great. There was also onstage puppet chicken sex.

Oh, and they also incorporated “other” medieval lit where they could – in songs or references. For instance, the Miller’s hende Nicholas sings the lyrics “I have a gentle cock” while waiting to seduce Alisoun. Clever, though I don’t think he’s a) the monk who wrote the thing, or b) talking about the rooster who wakes him up every morning. . . . just a guess.

Overall, I wouldn’t have missed it. But I do think that if I had seen Part I first, I’m not sure that I would have been as excited about seeing the next part. Thank goodness I saw Part II first, or I might have said “forget it” after Part I, which was not nearly so well done as a whole. Part II made it all worthwhile, and I enjoyed every minute of it. And the other audience members had really positive reactions to both parts, so if it gets people excited about Chaucer, I’m all for it!

Thus far, trip highlights: Gower’s Tomb, and The Canterbury Tales, Part Deux.

Anyone game for staging selections from the Confessio Amantis? :-)