London Walker - Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens

Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens are two large parks in downtown London that are a part of the Royal Parks System.

Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens are connected and when you are there they feel like one large park. But they are not they are divided by a lake called the Serpentine. Hyde Park covers 350 acres and Kensington Gardens covers 270 acres, giving an overall area of 630 acres. Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens are part of four parks that actually form a chain of parks through downtown London. The other two parks are Green Park (47 acres), which runs past the main entrance to Buckingham Palace and on through St. JamesPark (57 acres), which leads right up to the Horse Guards in Whitehall. 

These parks downtown make for numerous beautiful locations to relax in. The varying types of flowers, trees and shrubs make for wonderful scenery. All the parks also have public art and statues that are fun to look at. These locations date back to the 1500s though most of them don’t become public parks until the 1700s still that makes for a lot of history. And it is just fun to walk in a place an know that hundreds of years ago other people were walking in that same place for the same reason you are to enjoy a nice stroll through the park.  

If you are even in London take the time to walk through these parks. One can walk directly through all four parks in about an hour though if you want to take the time to look around and appreciate all the scenery and art it will take much longer than that. I've spent numerous hours in these parks and they are great places to hang out, especially when it’s sunny. 

For now I'll will just include pictures of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. I'll make a post for Green Park and St James Park another time. 

My Pictures

Hyde Park

   

Kensington Gardens

  

Shakespeare’s Globe Theater: Our Trip to see the Indian Version of The Tempest

Last week Priya and I went to Shakespeare’s Globe Theater to see a production of Shakespeare’s play The Tempest.

The Globe Theater is dedicated to productions of Shakespeare’s work. It is a building that was reconstructed to resemble, as closely as possible, the original Globe Theater, which Shakespeare wrote for and worked in. It sits on the south side of the river just west of London Bridge. 

Here's a short history on the original building:  During the first years of Elizabeth’s reign (1558-1603), the English playing companies used inns, inn yards, college halls and private houses for their performances. It was not until 1576 that the actor-manager James Burbage built the Theater in Shoreditch, the first purpose-built playhouse in London. Shakespeare joined the resident troupe at the Theater in the 1580s and the company (later known as the Chamberlain’s and then the King’s Men) flourished there for 20 years.

In 1596 a dispute arose over the renewal of the lease and negotiations were begun to acquire a disused hall in the precincts of the old Blackfriars priory to use as an indoor theater. James Burbage died in February 1597 and in April the lease expired, but the dispute continued for two years, during which time the company performed at the nearby Curtain playhouse. In Christmas 1598 the company sought a drastic solution: they leased a plot near the Rose, a rival theater in Southwark, demolished the Theater and carried its timbers over the river. To cover the cost of the new playhouse, James Burbage’s sons Cuthbert and Richard, offered some members of the company shares in the building. Shakespeare was one of four actors who bought a share in the Globe. By early 1599 the theater was up and running and for 14 years it thrived, presenting many of Shakespeare’s greatest plays.

In 1613, during a performance of Henry VIII, wadding from a stage cannon ignited the thatched roof and the theater burned to the ground all in less than two hours. The theater was quickly rebuilt, this time with a tiled roof. Shakespeare may have acted in the second Globe, but he probably never wrote for it. It remained the home for Shakespeare’s old company until the closure of all the theaters under England’s Puritan administration in 1642. No longer of use, it was demolished to make room for tenements in 1644.

The building Priya and I visited is the new Globe Theater, which was reconstructed and opened in 1997.

Here's a short history on the modern building: The project to rebuild Shakespeare’s Globe was initiated by the American actor, director and producer Sam Wanamaker after his first visit to London in 1949. Twenty-one years later he founded what was to become the Shakespeare Globe Trust, dedicated to the reconstruction of the theater and the creation of an education center and permanent exhibition. In 1993 after 23 years spent tirelessly fundraising, advancing research into the appearance of the original Globe and planning the reconstruction with the Trust’s architect Theo Crosby, Sam Wanamaker died. At that time the site had been secured, the exhibition undercroft structurally complete and a few timber bays of the theater were in place but it wasn't until three and a half years later the theater was completed.

They attempted to make the Globe as historically similar to the original as possible but that was difficult because nobody knows for sure what the original Globe looked like. Printed panoramas, such as those by John Norden and Wenceslaus Hollar, give some idea of the theater’s exterior; written accounts, usually by visitors from overseas, building contracts and one sketch (of the Swan theater) tell us something about the interior. In addition, there are suggestive descriptions included in the plays themselves, such as the famous Chorus which begins Henry V: ‘And shall this cockpit hold the vasty fields of France / Or may we cram within this wooden ‘O’...’

What we do know is that the Globe itself was not a truly circular building. The archaeological excavation of the Rose Theater in 1989 revealed what most scholars had long suspected that the Elizabethan playhouses were polygonal buildings. In the same year, a small portion of the Globe itself was excavated, from which two important inferences were drawn: that it was a 20-sided building and it had a diameter of 100 feet.

Techniques used in the reconstruction of the theater were painstakingly accurate. Green oak was cut and fashioned according to 16th-century practice and assembled in two-dimensional bays on the Bankside site; oak laths and staves support lime plaster were mixed according to a contemporary recipe and the walls are covered in a white lime wash. The roof is made of water reed thatch, based on samples found during the excavation.

The stage is the most conjectural aspect of the reconstruction. Almost nothing survives from the period to suggest the appearance of this part of the theater. Its design was drawn from evidence provided by existing buildings of the period and practical advice offered by the actors and directors who participated in the 1995 ‘Workshop’ and 1996 ‘Prologue’ seasons.

Other than concessions to comply with modern day fire regulations such as additional exits, illuminated signage, fire retardant materials and some modern backstage machinery, the Globe is as accurate a reconstruction of the 1599 Globe as was possible with the available evidence. Still for the time being this Globe is – and is likely to remain – neither more nor less than the ‘best guess’ at Shakespeare’s theater. So the modern Globe was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in June 1997.

So that is what I can tell you about this building both its historical and modern stories.

Now back to our visit. Priya found tickets to Shakespeare’s The Tempest and she wanted to go to which I eagerly agreed. Now this production of The Tempest was not a normal production of the play rather it was an Indian version of the play. It had Indian and European actors who used both English and some Indian language (not Hindi) to act out the play. 

Before we went I did a little research on The Tempest because even though it was a play I had heard of it, it was not one that I was familiar with. Obviously there is no way to become truly familiar with one of Shakespeare’s plays in an hour but I did what I could before I had to leave for the show. So I just went to Wikipedia for an overview of the play because while Wikipedia is certainly not the most trustworthy of places to get your information it is one of the easiest places to get. If you are not familiar with the play take a look here and you can see what I saw.  Again while I won’t promise that this is the best synopsis of the play it lays out the basics. The main character is named Prospero and he is the Duke of Milan. He is usurped and exiled by his brother to an enchanted island. His daughter Miranda is with him and he is served by a spirit named Ariel and a deformed creature Caliban. Prospero has magical abilities and he raises a storm to wreck his brother and his confederates on the same island. Once they are there Prospero’s long contemplated revenge can now be attempted.

Now despite my research I must admit that once I was in the theater actually watching the play I was almost instantly lost and found it very difficult to follow what was happening on stage. There were numerous reasons for this. First was the issue of language. As I said before the actors used both English and an Indian language and they seemed to switch back and forth at random times. There were even times when one actor spoke in English and another actor would respond in the Indian language. Now while I’m sure there was some sort of structure to when they would change languages as someone who couldn't understand the Indian language it made large chunks of the play completely incomprehensible for me. The second problem, closely connected to the first, was the issue of accents. Many of the actors were Indian and often even when they were speaking English their accents were so thick that I could not understand what they were saying as well as the fact that the English they were speaking was Shakespeareian English not modern English, which is not the easiest English to understand in the first place. I would get words and phrases here and there but again there were just huge gaps in my comprehension of what was being said and thus of what was happening in the story. The third issue was where we were sitting. Our seats were not very good. We were off to the side of the stage and there was a large pillar right in front of both of us. It blocked my view of at least a third of the stage and Priya lost about half of the stage. So when you can’t understand what is being said or see what is being done it makes for a very taxing time. Due to all of these factors Priya and I decided to leave during the intermission. This meant we saw about an hour and a half of the play but missed the last hour or so of it. Still with all the problems I mentioned I feel I could accurately say that even though I was there for the first hour and a half I missed all of the show.

Now the theater itself is quite beautiful and I am pretty sure Priya and I will be back but I know the next time we go we will definitely get different seats than the ones we had this time. As far as what play we’d go see I’m pretty open to anything though I would vote for something done fully in English. The theater was roundish with four levels of seating. There was also a large area for people to stand in front of the stage, kind of like a concert. One of the most interesting things was that it had an open roof so you could see into the sky. I can only imagine how many times a play must have been rained on or even rained out. If you are even in London this is a place I would recommend going.

Here are some pictures of the theater.

Savages - Movie Review

Priya and I just watched an Oliver Stone movie called Savages and we want to give it a review. It was made in 2012 and it is described as a crime thriller movie. It was available to watch for free using On Demand with our cable package so we decided to give it a shot. I was the one who actually picked so everything following this is really my fault. I picked it because it was supposed to be a crime thriller and I felt like something a bit more exciting rather than a comedy or a simple action film with stuff blowing up.

The plot surrounds two friends Chon (Taylor Kitsch) and Ben (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). They live in Laguna Beach California and they are rich and successful by growing and selling marijuana. Chon is a former Navy SEAL and he originally smuggled the marijuana seeds out of Afghanistan. Ben is a graduate of UC Berkeley where he studied botany and business. He cultivated the seeds and developed a particularly potent strain of marijuana that leads to them gaining a large international customer base. The other main character who does a lot of the narrating of the story is Ophelia (Blake Lively) who goes by the name O. The strange thing about O is that she is in a romantic relationship with both Chon and Ben and it is not a secret rather it is a polyamorous relationship that all three of them openly participate in. O describes Chon and Ben as two halves that complete each other and provide her with the perfect man. It really is a strange part of the movie and takes some time to get used to.

The trio receives a video from a cartel enforcer Lado (Benicio del Toro) who works for Elena (Salma Hayek) the head of a dangerous Mexican drug cartel. The video shows several severed heads and a chainsaw, and demands a meeting. The cartel offers a business partnership that neither Chon nor Ben want to accept. Chon is much more aware than Ben of the threat that the cartel poses to them so he tries to explain to Ben the steps they should take to protect themselves and show the cartel that they cannot be bullied or pushed around. But Ben wants to simply get out of the business and go do other things. So they offer to hand over their products and network to the cartel for free so they can get out of the business. But the cartel won’t accept this they want Chon and Ben’s expertise not just their customers so they insist on a partnership. At this point both Chon and Ben realize that a partnership with the cartel is not really a partnership rather it means they would just be working for the cartel who could do whatever they wanted with them. So they decided to make a run for it and go to Indonesia with O for at least a year until the heat from the cartel dies down.

Before they leave Chon and Ben speak to corrupt DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) who has aided them in their business by keeping the authorities off their trail. He urges them to partner with the cartel. They again refuse. The cartel gets wind that the trio is going to run so Lado and his crew kidnap O. Chon and Ben are notified of O's kidnapping via a video call from Elena, the cartel leader, who threatens to harm O if the two of them do not partner with her.

The movie takes various twists and turns as Chon and Ben try and figure out how to save O’s life. One of the major problems they face in trying to save O is that Elena’s crew includes a traitor who is now working as an insider for Elena’s main competitor in Mexico. This leads to conflicting interests with the members of the cartel that Chon and Ben interact with. Sometimes they are bargaining with Elena and sometimes they are bargaining with the traitor who does not truly want the same thing. Ultimately Chon and Ben discover that Elena has her own daughter who lives in LA. They decide to kidnap Elena’s daughter and offer a straight up trade for O.

They successfully kidnap the daughter and send a video to Elena demanding a trade. The exchange is set to occur in the middle of the desert. Both sides agree to come alone but there are, of course, snipers from both sides hidden in the hills prepared to fire. At this point there seems to be a dramatic finish to the movie but that soon changes as the director and/or writers try to make a weird twist at the end, which if one wants to know I will let them watch the movie for themselves.

So that’s the gist of the movie.

Zach's Review

Now for at least the first 15 minutes of the movie I was very tempted to turn it off and pick a different film to watch. The story takes a while to develop and it is a bit confusing during that time. Plus the strong emphasis on O’s relationship with Chon and Ben is just so weird that it is hard to focus on the rest of the movie. But Priya and I kept watching and by the 25 minute mark I was interested in what was happening and more invested in the story. For the next hour the movie was pretty exciting as the guys tried to save O and O tried to stay alive. Towards the end of the movie when it looked like everything was going to be resolved I was ready to say it was a decent movie, nothing amazing but worth a watch. Then the last 10 to 15 minutes turned into this strange web of events that in my opinion messed everything up. Basically it seemed like the director couldn't decide how to end the movie so he just gave you two different endings at the same time. I was not a fan of this as it didn't really leave you feeling like the movie had actually resolved itself.

I would end up giving this movie a 4 out of 10. About half of it was interesting and half of it was either confusing or boring. For those who like crime thrillers I would say this movie isn't really one of those because while there is a lot of crime and some thrills there just isn't a lot of suspense or mystery, which are things I associate heavily with crime thrillers. It’s the type of movie where after the first 20 minutes or so you as the audience know everything about who is good and who is bad and who is doing what to whom and then you just watch as the characters try and figure it out for themselves. So there really isn't that much suspense for the audience except with how it’s all going to end. Then when you get to the end you find out that there are two endings rather than one and in a way they just cancel each other out. Basically if you have a couple hours to waste and the movie is on cable for free I would say go ahead and watch it if for no other reason than trying to figure out what the whole point of the three person relationship is. But beyond that I wouldn't recommend anyone going out of their way to watch this movie.

Priya's Review

I don’t really have much to say about this movie. It was a Sunday night, there was nothing to do, it was on telly, we watched it. And all I could think about was Jason Mraz every time I saw Aaron Taylor-Johnson's character. 

And I couldn't work out why Selma Hayek was wearing a wig that’s exactly like her natural hair (there’s a scene where it comes off and you just think “Ok… was there a point to wearing it?”). If you have nothing to say about a movie, good or bad, does that ultimately make it good or bad?

Burrito Quest - Burrito Café

Last week I decided it had been far too long since my last burrito (over three weeks) so I went ahead and picked out my next burrito place to try out. I ended up picking a place called Burrito Café. It has two locations in London. The one I went to is right next to Charring Cross Station, which is near Priya’s office. I actually found out about it just by walking past it one day on my way to meet Priya. That was probably over two months ago and I have been wanting to try it ever since.

The store itself is pretty small. You might be able to squeeze 15 to 20 people in there if people were willing to share tables with strangers and bump elbows. As I often do I decided to go around the time it opened, which was 11:30 am for this location. While this time might be a bit early for many people to have lunch I do this so I can be one of the first customers of the day, which allows me to avoid crowds and get fresh ingredients. As I often do I got to the place early, around 11:15 so I just wandered around outside until they opened and I was the first one in the door. Now before I go on let’s recap how I judge the burritos. I do it based on eight categories. First is the quantity of available options on the menu. Second is the quality of the individual ingredients. Third is the ratio of those ingredients in the burrito basically how much of each ingredient is there. Forth is the strength and execution of the wrap, does the tortilla tear easily or fall apart in my hand? Fifth is the size of the burrito bigger is usually better. Sixth is the overall taste of the burrito. Seventh is the price of the burrito. I’m willing to pay for quality. Eighth and lastly is what I call the two hour tummy factor. Meaning how does the burrito makes me feel a few hours later because it can be great in your mouth but not so great in your digestive system especially if you are walking home, which I almost always am. Now the other variable that is much harder to take into account is that of the individual server who is helping you. Often when a burrito is made it is difficult to know if the ratios of each ingredient given to you are those that the restaurant wants or just those that the server feels like giving. Similarly when it comes to the strength of the wrap it often comes down to the skill and experience of the person wrapping the burrito rather than just the quality of the tortilla. Due to this is can be hard to properly judge a place without going there a few times unless the food is just horrible than what’s the point, right? So I try to be fair to all the places I go especially the first time and focus more on the food rather than the service.

First, the amount of available options on the menu. In this respect the Burrito Café did pretty well. Beyond just burritos, tacos and salads they also had nachos and quesadillas on their menu both of which looked pretty good. They had chicken, pulled pork, barbacoa beef and grilled vegetables as their main ingredients. For fillings they had three salsas, beans, rice, lettuce, cheese, sour cream and guacamole. Along with that the burritos could be ordered in two different sizes, a small or a large. This was the first place I had been to with size options for a burrito. So I ordered a large chicken burrito with black beans, mild and medium salsa, cheese and lettuce. Now one of the first problems I had was that there was no rice available when I was ordering my burrito. At the time I didn't even know if they served rice with their burritos it was only later as I was leaving that I saw they had put rice out to serve with their food. Due to this my burrito was not quite what I wanted. Beyond the food they also had self-serve, refillable sodas. When I first saw this I was quite excited but that excitement disappeared quickly when I saw that the soda was Pepsi and worse that there was no ice served with the drinks. I mean Pepsi is bad enough but make it warm and then it is just not palatable. I bought the drink before I saw these flaws so I spent the meal drinking warm 7up, which I don’t particularly like but it is better than warm Diet Pepsi.

Second is the quality of the individual ingredients. When it came to the individual ingredients I would say that overall I was not very impressed. The best ingredients were the tortilla itself, the cheese and the lettuce. I don’t often mention lettuce because I don’t often get it but here I did and it was very fresh and gave great texture to the burrito. The chicken was fine but nothing special. The mild salsa was not very good and the medium was similar to the chicken okay but not great. I would say the beans were good but not as good as the cheese and lettuce but still better than the chicken and salsas.

Third is the ratio of the ingredients in the burrito. Here the restaurant did not do well. The first problem, as I mentioned earlier, was that I didn't get any rice so this led to an odd amount of the other ingredients. The burrito was dominated by lettuce, cheese and chicken. There were not enough beans and so little salsa that it barely was noticeable except for a few bites in the middle of the burrito. The first four bites was almost all chicken and by the time I got to the other end of the burrito it was almost all beans and those were really the only bites with beans in them. There were really only four or five bites right in the middle where I could even tell there was salsa in the burrito and even then it was hard to notice. There was more mild salsa than medium, which was not very good because the mild salsa was not as good as the medium salsa. What was odd was the main way I knew I had any medium salsa in the burrito was when I noticed the temperature, the heat, in my mouth rather than by actually being able to taste it. But the few times I could taste it, it was far superior to the mild salsa.

Fourth is the strength of the wrap. This was probably one of the burritos greatest strengths. While I certainly wouldn't call it the best wrapped burrito I've ever had, or even had in London, it was one of the better aspects of this burrito. The tortilla was well steamed and the burrito was neatly and tightly wrapped. About half way through a small hole opened up at the bottom leading to bean juice dripping out but overall that was not that big of a deal. That likely wouldn't have happened if all the beans had not been shoved to that one end. 

Fifth is the size of the burrito. The Burrito Café offered two sizes for their burritos. I, of course, ordered the larger one. The size ended up being about average, certainly nothing I would call huge. Now I’m sure it would have been a little heftier if I had gotten some rice in it but still it wouldn't have been the much bigger. I have no complaints about the size. You get a fair amount for what you pay.

Sixth is the overall taste of the burrito. Based on what I've written to this point it will likely not be a surprise that I would say the overall taste of the burrito was not that good. It was a lot of chicken and lettuce. There were random bites here and there mixed with some cheese and salsa but far too few to make it a good burrito.

Seventh is price. The price of the burrito was average. It was 6.50 pounds for a chicken burrito and 1.50 for a refillable soda cup. The prices vary based on their size and the main ingredient one picks. They also have meal deals, which include a drink and tortilla chips with your meal.  Again I would say the soda was not good both because it was Pepsi and even more because it was warm. Now one thing the Burrito Café did that I wish more places did was they gave me a frequent visitor card. So every tenth burrito is free. Now I’m pretty sure I won’t be going to this place ten times but I still liked that they provided this to their customers.

Eighth and lastly is what I call the two hour tummy factor. After I had this burrito I spent a majority of the day walking around downtown including at the Tate Museum of Modern Art. It did not take long for me to develop a side ache as I walked around. Now to be fair I believe this was due more to the 7up I had than to the burrito itself. I usually only drink diet sodas but the 7up was regular and thus packed with sugar. I believe this along with walking away too quickly after eating led to my discomfort for the next few hours. The side pain did eventually go away and there was never any real stomach pain so I won’t call the burrito bad for the stomach.  

So overall based on this visit I would say The Burrito Café provided me with one of the worst burritos I've had here in London. I would give it a 4 out of 10. It is certainly a place I would go to if I were stuck with no other burrito available to me, like in China, but luckily that is not the case here in London. Look at some of my other reviews for better places to go.

Here are some pictures. 

Other Burrito Blogs
Previous: Poncho 8

Burdened

It’s been almost a year since I've had a full time job. This time last year I was finishing up my last few weeks in China as an English teacher. After that I moved back to the States for three months as I worked on getting a finance visa, which then allowed me to move to London. Since getting here I have spent two and a half months on getting married (Dec to Feb) and then four months on getting a residency permit (Feb-May) that will allow me to work here in the UK. Since the time I got my residency permit I have submitted dozens of applications and CVs (resumes) to various companies. I been given multiple interviews and as of now I have only received one job offer. Now that job is a good one and one that I want. It is a substitute teaching job that could lead to a permanent teaching position. The problem is that in order to work with children here I have had to go through multiple criminal background checks from all the countries I have lived in for over six months in the past five years as well as here in the UK. I have applied for checks from the United States, South Korea and the UK. This job was offered to me back in May and I have yet to receive all my criminal background checks back though I sent in the applications within about a week of being offered the job. It has been almost seven weeks of waiting and now after my background check from the States finally showed up (it took them six weeks to process and send it to me) it seemed like I was almost done and ready to start working. The problem is that the school systems here just began their summer break and now there will not likely be any work available until the end of September. During these weeks of waiting I have continued applying for other jobs hoping I could get something so I could at least be making some money during the summer and perhaps give myself a job that I might prefer to the teaching job. But I have yet to find a job and as the days and weeks pass I find myself applying to lesser and lesser jobs, places I wouldn't have even thought about working only a month ago.

Each day that passes seems to bring with it a little more weight that I have to carry as I feel I am letting not only myself down but Priya. Priya has been very supportive but we both know I need to find work soon in order to deal with the new financial burdens that come with marriage. The thing is I’m just not used to struggling this much in order to get a job. The fact is due to my constant moving I've had to look for new jobs fairly often so looking for work is nothing new but what is new is not being able to find it. In the past 5 years I haven’t lived anywhere for more than one year. I have moved six times during that period and only twice have I had a job waiting for me in the place I was moving to. The other four times I have moved to places with nothing waiting for me yet a majority of those times I have been able to find work within a relatively short period of time, three months or so. Of course each time I moved to or within the US I didn't have to worry about applying for a work permit and I could start job hunting right away. Here in London that was not the case so it would obviously take more time for me to get a job here yet since I have been eligible to work here I have sent in more applications and been on more interviews here than in all the other places I’ve lived. The truth is most of my experiences in job hunting have been fairly positive and successful. Really I had become fairly used to being offered a job after getting an interview. I've even turned down a few job offers in that time. But here in London I have been on several interviews and have been rejected by all of them or at least not contacted again. I even had one job that brought me in for a day of on the job testing only to be sent home half way through the day being told I was not “right” for them. I wrote about that experience earlier in this blog take a look here if you want to see what happened. All of that is to say I’m not used to failing so often as I seem to be failing here and beyond just the worries that come from not having a source of income the feeling of rejection brings with it a unique and significant weight all its own.  

Now I don’t know what the immediate future holds in store for me but I admit I am not very optimistic as new problems continue to pop up and little hope seems to be in view. All I can do now is keeping looking for work and cross my fingers that things get better.