|
Post by Nicholas on Nov 26, 2021 23:17:31 GMT
Sondheim was a genius. Goes without saying. But there’s something beyond that. It was his heart. This clip encapsulates what separates Sondheim – the music and the words, of course, but the search for further meaning, the shared experience, the possible improvements, the potential of collaboration, the JOY when everyone gets it right…
91 is not a tragedy, but this is still absolutely heartbreaking.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Sept 24, 2021 14:23:04 GMT
Well I blooming well hope so. Did you see what happened last time they had a spark, in 1613?
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Jun 20, 2021 12:37:01 GMT
Cats 2: This Time It's Purr-sonal.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Apr 15, 2021 10:42:01 GMT
I think things will be looked on differently in 5 years time when the concerns outlined in J K Rowling's thoughtful essay Here’s a question.
How much of your information about trans lives comes from JK Rowling, or Suzanne Moore, or Mumsnet, or authors of that ilk? And how much comes from trans authors?
In other words – who’s framing this for you, who’s saying how we see this issue?
And does that lack of trans representation in trans stories bother you?
One of the cruellest things I think I’ve ever read was recently published in The Spectator, where James Kirkup found his inner Betty Friedan, suddenly showing solidarity with women after the hate crime committed against Sarah Everard. Writing about her murder (in a situation she should have been safe in), he wrote:
Absolutely, how important. Society is backsliding. 'Outside' isn't safe. We need to protect women. But then, despite this being a murder with terrifying societal connotations for how we simply walk outside, Kirkup wrote:
Um... So trans women are equivalent threats to this tragedy? And yet, the canny thing is that this article is (at its rotten heart) true. As this board has shown, women FEEL at threat. Why wouldn't a Spectator reader feel threatened by trans issues, given the prominence of anti-trans articles in the Spectator? And of course it's hardly just the Spectator – British authors specialise in seeking out all kinds of teeny stories they can exaggerate to keep this 'debate' rolling. This near-daily drip-feed leads to a feeling of fear. So whilst – ESPECIALLY after this hate crime, which revealed how few safeguards we all actually have – this fear and indeed anger should be addressed (by both cis and trans women) at our infrastructure, at our substandard safeguards and authorities, at our culture towards women, naaaaah – instead, let's blame trans women for cis male violence. But do the facts back him up; ARE women at threat from trans women? Absolutely not. Trans women face the same gendered dangers on the streets of assault and mistreatment as cis women, and the same societal exclusion as the rest of the LGB community. The issues Kirkup quotes – “standing in society”, “near-equal status”, danger when “doing the most mundane things” – are dangers to trans women too. The article ought to conclude the exact opposite – that cis women and trans women should be allies in making sure it's safe to simply go outside; given the abuse on the streets and within families, we know that not to be so. The same rights and safeguards absent when protecting cis women don’t protect trans women…
Yet this suggests trans women are a threat to cis women, so shouldn't participate in protecting their own safety. That's heartbreaking. There wasn’t even the cause to demonise trans women – and yet they found a way! Instead, this strikes me as a time to show solidarity with anyone at threat from cis male violence. Allyship seems the most natural thing now.
Some quick facts: This took me 5 minutes of googling. I could have done more but I'm not sure I could have coped. And yet trans women are a threat to cis women? Really? Aren't they allies?
So let’s specifically talk about changing rooms. A woman in a sports hall is more likely to be assaulted by their coach – as we’ve seen in numerous high-profile cases. Or by the family member driving them to and from their lessons. If a thug is going to barge in and assault them, that thug will do so whatever the pretence.
In any of these cases, are the rights and safeguards there to protect women? We know they’re not. We know that the police’s response to assault charges is pitiful, a fraction of what it should be. We know now that the police themselves are an issue however appropriately they apparently act. These lack of safeguards are one of the reasons why trans women are assaulted at a sickeningly high rate along with cis women.
I almost wonder if there’s misplaced altruism. You perhaps have a sense that, by assuming trans women have an ulterior motive then countering that motive early on, it’s a way of tackling actual abuse. After all, against actual abuse, we're powerless, and this is a way to have power. For example, a lot of abuse happens from people within the family – and so, to protect ourselves, we have to learn to potentially distrust our better instincts and accuse our siblings or parents of being abusers – and that’s such a potential horror to ourselves. If we want to feel safe leaving young women like our daughters in the charges of sports coaches, we need to know that abusive coaches can be reported and victims will be taken at their word – yet we live in a time where we know the police are not our friends. Changing these and providing these safeguards is, frankly, impossible without, well, revolution. We can vote in the local council elections, sign petitions, and go to vigils as long as we don't cause any disruption. In a world with so little we can control to protect women’s rights, and so much needing protection and change, scapegoating then excluding trans people is something we can control. That gives us a sense of safeguarding.
But trans people are not the perpetrators in a case like this, and it's righteous anger wrongly directed. And, um, there’s no evidence that trans people using their preferred space is a threat. Quite the opposite.
A trans person using their chosen changing room is in as much threat from a coach or a family member or a random attack as a cis woman is. And it's deeper societal changes – making sure that people can be trusted and reports of abuse are taken seriously – that we ought to really aim for.
Someone earlier mentioned thugs on Twitter. That's just wrong. That's a minority of hooligans on the internet who should be treated as the criminals they are - and, indeed, the fact that it's so hard to report hate crimes online is something else that ought to worry us. The best way to fight against death threats on Twitter is to stand by everyone at risk. Who gets threatened online? Trans women. Cis women. Women. The best way to fight abuse is to look at who’s conducting the abuse and hold them accountable – whether the police or authority figures or random thugs. Again, this is a situation that requires allyship, not demonization.
Amnesty International denying “legitimate representation” to women like yourself was new to me. I researched that, taking it in good faith. That’s terrible. It’s also untrue.
The full letter is here. In context it’s clearer, but the full sentence absolutely says enough:
Good! This strikes me as no different to asking the BBC to stop letting Nigel Lawson and his like talk about the climate crisis. If the BBC, in its ‘balance’, decides that it’s equally OK to let a transphobe talk trans policies on Question Time or on the Today show, the BBC suggests to you and to me that this isn’t a lived experience, but a ‘debate’ – and a ‘debate’ where your rights as a woman stand opposed to those of trans women, not alongside. This, needless to say, is so harmful to trans women in society, and this ripples later to trans women in the workplace or trans women getting medical attention. It'd be the same as inviting an anti-vaxxer on to discuss Astro-Zeneca for 50% of the 'debate'. Is that bad?
Indeed, I’d really love to know where you read about this story. Truth be told, I hadn’t heard about this particular news item (Amnesty’s recent decision on Russia struck me as a mistake, though I still send them a tenner a month). Looking it up, I found those three words you quoted – “deny legitimate representation” – repeated in numerous tweets and Spiked articles and Facebook posts and fringe websites – but not the whole letter. The context – the crucial framing, the necessary safeguards – are removed, and only the sensationalist words are taken out of context and implied to mean something different. Did you read about the threat trans people are under, the similar threats of violence and sexual assault to cis women, and the dangers that come from not giving trans people accurate medical health – as well as the repeated use of the word ‘feminism’ and ‘ally’ and support for cisgender women? Or did you just read the few sensationalist words out of context – “defend biology” and “deny representation” – and take them to their out-of-context extremes? Or, more importantly, who did that for you – who framed this letter for you?
As for Amnesty – it was the local branch manager in Ireland. They’re currently fighting for the rights of cis women arrested in Saudi Arabia. That’s a cause we should all support. Here in the UK, we should deny people who support conversion therapy from going on the BBC, just as we should deny anti-vaxxers. Internationally, women’s rights are women’s rights.
When framed fairly, the letter wants to stand for safety. When framed by sensationalist excerpts alone, it absolutely means what you say. And therein lies the terrifying way this ‘debate’ is framed – in support of anti-trans policies and against women’s protections. You took this story to heart – and why not? Through this interpretation, it would harm women. I had to spend a good 15 minutes of my life looking up the story, reading the whole letter, checking Amnesty’s general feminist policy, and writing this. Fundamentally, your view comes from someone else's bad-faith reading of the line ‘defend biology’ out of context – clunky words, I admit, but in a letter this long, I take a good-faith reading and assume they mean “treat biological sex as gender identity”. That might just be me. The context of the letter absolutely implies a broad feminist approach, but where’s the fun in reporting that? Where’s the sensationalism in that? Where’s the righteous anger the right can use to win your vote with that?
I do believe almost all of this is down to the framing of a narrative; who lives who dies who tells your story. On here, someone said “We’ve not seen the same being done to the word ‘man’ [as to the word 'woman']”. Well, indeed – for example, if you buy the Spectator’s recent report on Manchester Uni scrapping the word ‘woman’ (www.spectator.co.uk/article/manchester-university-scraps-the-word-mother-) you’d have more proof of that, with the word 'mother' becoming verboten. Read the article, however, and both the word ‘mother’ and ‘father’ aren’t to be used – so in fact, yes, men are being erased. But, um, report it honestly and without sensationalism, and it’s a simple extension of ‘parent or guardian’ – so the Spectator are flat-out lying. Nothing is being erased. Yet this fell into my inbox as a leading story I had to read. Hmm. Why frame this story that way? Why SPECIFICALLY talk about erasing women, not extending terminology full stop?
And then James Kirkup has fuel for his fire when he wants to blame trans women for the death of a cis women in an act of obvious misogyny. It's so cruel, so harmful to cis and trans women, so dangerous to society on the whole, I'm amazed people aren't angrier at the media that peddles this. But I'm also not amazed. It's easier to be angered by Manchester Uni's straw man here than it is by the Spectator lying.
I say the Spectator, but it’s the lot of them. I have push notifications from the Telegraph when Suzanne Moore has thoughts. The BBC frames this as an either/or – pretending trans lives aren’t lived but debated. The Guardian/Observer – our leading liberal paper – is far far far from perfect. As this shows, our media has long realised the power of anti-trans narratives, and a few simple lies from 2016 – cannily linking a few principles and skimming over where evidence was missing or contradictory – showed the UK media that transphobic theorising sells. There is so much evidence that bathrooms and changing rooms present no greater threat when trans people are allowed to use them – but there are ways to frame it otherwise. Money money money. Right now more people are tweeting about whether Robert Webb deserved this interview or not than the lived experiences of trans women thanks to charities criticized on Twitter. The topic is not discussed fairly.
Now, whilst that suggests it’s the media in particular who’ve stoked transphobia, I have a wee theory about why this is the case. Is the UK LGBTQIA+ friendly? No. It hasn’t been since summer 2019.
Boris Johnson is an opportunist. We know that. When homophobia was laddy fun, we all know what he wrote, and it boosted his career. When the mayor of London required allyship and tolerance, he marched in Pride, and that boosted his career.
Transphobia is very good for the Tory party. Trans rights aren’t.
What we’ve seen so much of this year is a ‘culture war’ being brewed. It doesn’t matter how untrue this bullsh*t is – what matters is that the feeling of something big works. This year, two statues were torn down – Edward Colston, and the Jen Reid statue replacing Edward Colston – and yet statues are debated in parliament, written about in the Tory press, and debated on the BBC as one of the five most pressing topics on Question Time. If the Tories can push an issue like this, they can choose the battle ground.
As we’re seeing on this board, it’s easy to frame this as ‘protect women or stand up for trans rights’. The issue, in this binary, simply doesn’t exist – but it’s easy to manipulate a few facts and frame it as such. So all the Tories need to do is maintain this either/or, this 'debate' – self-serving and fraudulent though this is; ineffective as it is; hurtful to women as it is. And the Tories – and the Tory press – are doing just that, especially dividing liberals.
And with this, what can Sir Keir do? Fighting for common-sense trans rights means ‘pandering to liberals’ and ‘excluding women’; not fighting for common-sense trans rights will obviously harm him as a liberal leader. But that’s the position the media and the Tories are putting him in. If trans people themselves got to frame this debate, it would be all about the allyship and tolerance necessary, and support for trans rights would be a vote winner. As the Tories get to frame it, instead, it's a way to kill Labour votes.
And I do wonder how liberals will vote in the next election. Just as Brexit became a single issue that turned Labour voters away from Labour, the Tories are framing other culture issues: toppling statues and campus free speech and other bullsh*t that – with bad faith arguments framed as they choose – means Sir Keir can’t win. Even though it’ll cause great danger, trans rights are one such issue.
The Tories – and the establishment press – are framing this debate for us; not the lived experiences of trans people themselves. And they’re framing it as this either-or. And it’s working. And it'll cost Labour votes. And it'll cost cis women their safety. And it'll cost trans women their lives.
As long as these opportunists are in power, no minority is safe. ESPECIALLY whilst these opportunists need a punching bag, no minority is safe.
Protecting trans rights means protecting women’s rights. It is not an either/or. Standing with women means standing with cis women and standing with trans women. Sometimes these mean fighting for the same issues; sometimes these mean fighting for parallel issues. The rights of women are fundamental. The rights and safeguards protecting women have been neglected and chiselled away at for years, if they were ever truly there.
Instead, we get politicised lies; it’s amazing how easy it is to slightly skew the evidence to make trans women (especially trans women, not trans men) the villains of a piece. With Manchester’s ‘parents/guardian’ policy, the Spectator can take 50% of one report from one university and use it as fuel to the fire that female-specific terms are being erased. For James Kirkup, trans women are the real threat to women murdered in safe spaces – trans women don’t need to even exist in a story to pose an existential threat to women. And this is the bad faith underlying the lived experiences of trans people in the UK. That is, simply, unforgivable.
But principles like ‘standing for women’ and protecting women in shared spaces are so so important – too important to be held back by lies about trans women. Instead, we need to challenge and change the media and the authorities and the society at large. And in the end, this ‘debate’ just does harm. Trans people are at physical and mental risk. Cis women are at as much risk of male danger as they ever were. But the media keeps selling and the Tories keep winning and the world keeps turning. And well-meaning people keep parroting that, holding not just trans rights back but your own rights back. When the world reopens, we need to properly protect the rights of women, cis and trans, against a greater threat than misrepresentations in media and lies about locker rooms.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on May 16, 2020 0:21:05 GMT
The PEN Pinter Prize goes to authors who offer an "‘unflinching, unswerving’ gaze upon the world, and shows a ‘fierce intellectual determination … to define the real truth of our lives and our societies’."
In 2013, the Prize went to Sir Tom Stoppard.
And in 2001... "As for Cats, you'll have to ask Universal - we're trying to get those rights back, too. Tom Stoppard wrote the screenplay and it has the cats absolutely nailed."
So presumably the unflinching, unswerving gaze was:
"So first, your memory I'll jog And say, "A cat is not a dog""
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on May 3, 2020 21:07:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Mar 28, 2020 22:00:48 GMT
So - sadly but aptly - what are the odds now that, because we hadn't learnt properly to wash our hands, we won't see Mark Rylance's show about learning properly to wash our hands?
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Mar 25, 2020 15:47:14 GMT
LOVE IT!
(mind, depressingly, that's the best 'episode' this series...)
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Mar 22, 2020 15:24:06 GMT
Sondheim means SO MUCH to me – to so many of us – that I could just gush about how perfect everything the man ever did was for hours. I’ll always consider the times I saw Sondheim in conversation some of the highlights of my life. His musicals have, through various points in my life, changed it entirely. Seeing Company with Raul Esparaza on a cruddy YouTube link as a teenager was unbearably personal; seeing Company a decade later, older and ‘wiser’, with Rosalie so perfectly embodying Bobbie’s insecurities and society’s pressures, felt unbearably personal all over again in such a different way. It’s not just that Sweeney changed my life; it’s that Sweeney could change my life all over again in ten year’s time. So perfect, so timeless, so multitudinous, so meaningful are his musicals.
However, today of all days, I just want to return to his warmth. The man’s always praised for his wit and wordplay and complexity, but it’s his insight and sincerity and simplicity that has me returning to him – a feeling I feel listening to “Move On”, or “Our Time”, or the ending of The Frogs, or “The Miller’s Son”. I can think of no better words for today than this infinity in a grain of sand – this song, from Into The Woods. It’s gotten me through dark times. It’s gotten my through my first week of isolation this week. It will get me though until I’m 90 myself. For being so truthful, humane and empathetic, I owe so much to Sondheim – we all owe so much to Sondheim. If I could, I’d thank the man for all those beautiful messages. This one’s speaking to me so profoundly at this point in time.
Hard to see the light now Just don’t let it go Things will turn out right now We can make it so Someone is on your side No-one is alone
(P.S. On a similarly emotional note, Sondheim Disco Boogie is on Amazon, but also broadwayrecords if you want to support them directly and nob off Jeff Bezos - www.broadwayrecords.com/shop/losing-my-mind-a-sondheim-disco-fever-dream-mp3. $12.99 well spent…)
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Mar 20, 2020 13:53:08 GMT
I don't see any reason to postpone. The actual winning is a list of words which can be printed or read out. It's just the celebratory stuff that has to be cut. Announce them, have winners record their thanks, stitch it together for a broadcast, job done. It might just be my view, but they’ve spent a lot of time and effort turning the Olivier Awards into a real event - not just something to honour artists, but to celebrate theatre as a whole. Over the last decade it’s gone from being held in a hotel to the Royal Albert Hall with an edited broadcast going out on national TV with major event sponsorship. I’m not saying they can’t do it the way you’re suggesting but considering 2020 is going to be the most difficult year for theatre this side of WW2, postponing a big event like the Olivier Awards and holding after this is all over is a way to pay tribute, celebrate and announce to the larger world the West End is open again for business. From a finance point of view, ITV presumably aren’t going to pay for broadcast rights for a bunch of thank you messages recorded on an iPhone, so I think that must be a big factor in how they move forward too - most likely that money has been used and spent somehow on holding the event itself. Perversely, the single best thing the Oliviers could do is a semi-amateurish, filmed at home, "show must go on" show!
Usually, the Olivier are an embarrassing misinterpretation of what we love about theatre. Last year, Jason Manford sang some songs from the 70s hit show Chicago, before cracking some of his stand-up fat jokes. As a representation of 2019 in theatre, it was embarrassing.
(and I always bang on about this - on national telly, they always forget to mention national theatre. Even shows like Jamie or The Girls, which started in regional theatre, are advertised as London's own. This is the single worst advert for theatre, and is our ONLY annual advert for theatre)
So, usually, the Oliviers are a bit ashamed to celebrate how regional theatre is, how glorious musicals are, and how far-reaching theatre can be. Is it just me, or is this now an own goal? [edit: I mean open goal but I'm THAT bad at sports metaphors]
What's the plot of a bunch of Fred and Ginger musicals? What did Judy and Gene do in Summer Stock? What's the damn cliché about musicals? Let's goooooooooooooo on with the shoooooooooooooooooooow!!!!! That's what we all (pretentious though we may be) really love about musicals. There's a sunny side to every situation. They defy gravity. We're singing in the rain.
And what could better exemplify that than an Oliviers done in THIS situation of situations? Imagine! What could be more old-fashioned musical than an opening musical routine performed via Facetime, orchestrated via Sibelius, cut together by the best damn talent in the biz - hokey as heck, but triumphant above all else? What could better exemplify the regionality of regional theatre than having our nominees log in (preferably tuxed up) via Skype from all across the country? What could better celebrate the communality of theatre than the theatre community STILL coming together?
The Oliviers have always been embarrassed about being a celebration of musicals, because we have this unfair perception of musicals as simplistic "let's put on a show" entertainment. Now we have an excuse to do that! As a theatre lover, to know that the industry's still on its feet would be a great morale booster. If I worked in the theatre, it might feel a bit above my level to celebrate rich celebs self-isolating in their mansions, but at least they're rich celebs celebrating my work, my business, and how irreplaceable this business and my business is. Best of all, as a regional advert for the indestructability of theatre...
In short, they should do the tackiest, cheesiest, most amateurish, LITERALLY PHONED IN awards show ever. It might be the best Oliviers ever.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Mar 16, 2020 18:58:54 GMT
If any of my upcoming shows get cancelled, I will use any refunded money to donate to a theatre charity such as Mousetrap, or to Birmingham Hippodrome/Capital Theatres. They will need all the contributions they can get right now. This might be another thread (in fact, I think we had a thread on it once), but maybe we could collate a list of theatre charities, or ways to support buildings and companies we love? For example, if you could provide links and a wee description of those charities, I'm sure all of us would be interested in knowing what they do, and up for supporting the theatre in absentia - and if anyone else knows any other charities, the more the merrier! It would be fab to have as diverse (regionally and topically) a set of theatrical charities, so we can support what we love in as many ways as possible. I'm particularly worried about those actors playing spear carrier 2 or understudying Perdita who maybe just lost one of their first big jobs - not to be grim, but the levels of depression in this field are already high, and a show of support would be great*. We all care about theatre for different reasons, and given we'll all be saving money we'd otherwise spaff up a wall, maybe we can - if possible - draw attention to good causes close to our hearts instead. *And, if any out-of-work actors are on here, or reading here in need of emotional support, I personally would love to hear stories of being in this business and support you in this dark time. If you need is a shoulder to cry on, I'm sure we can be that shoulder!
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Jan 11, 2020 21:15:43 GMT
Long-Bailey, or it WILL be the death of the Labour party. Alas…
Labour are the party of Keir Hardie, of Clem Atlee, of Nye Bevan. It was founded upon basic Socialist principles.
In a two-party system, in which Labour stands for the Left against the Tories standing for the Right, there’s wiggle-room. As they did under Blair, they can move to the centre if that’s what the nation wants or need, as long as there’re still left-leaning. In a two-party system, we just need strong leftism vs strong rightism.
I might be wrong, however, but I counted between 4 and 7 parties debating on the telly this election.
The Lib Dems are a centre-left party.
Why, then, are the Hardieists and Atleeists of the non-centre-left Labour looking for a centre-left leader?
Simple: half the party are in the wrong party. That, and First Past the Post is the problem.
OBVIOUSLY it would be flat-out wrong to say First Past The Post is why Labour lost – whilst we’re diagnosing that disaster, to blame FPTP would be to miss the millions of other points, not least a confused hard-left/centre-left mishmash of a party competing with other mishmashed leftists. However, I believe FPTP is why the left lost.
The simple existence of tactical voting shows how fundamentally rotten our left’s identity has been. It should be flat-out inconceivable to vote for one party in lieu of another. My local Lib Dem was asking me to vote for him instead of a 4-day week and mass renationalisation, because apparently left-wing is left-wing – just as I shouldn’t vote for my local Green, despite the bloody obvious difference between the two party’s green policies. Left-wing parties shouldn’t be interchangeable. Up until 2015 and Corbyn, they somewhat were, and I was very happy to vote for lefter-than-Labour local Lib Dem David Rendell especially in lieu of the non-candidate Labour shunted into my constituency. Really, up until Corbyn, to some extent the Lib Dems and Labour WERE interchangeable.
Indeed, when the Lib Dems did so well in 2010, it was largely on the back of a principle that their party should never have contemplated – tax-payers pay tuition fees – yet Labour, if they stuck to their founding principles, should never have bloody implemented in the first place. Under a two-party system, Blair had the ability to slide to the centre, as he somewhat DID embody all the left. Therefore, Blair, um, made mistakes. Clegg (it’s bizarrely thanks to him) slid into Labour’s further-left gap which, at the time, was more electable (amongst a certain demographic, at least – a demographic who wants and needs Hardieism). He showed we can and should differentiate our leftist parties.
Corbyn proved so popular amongst new Labour voters as, for the first time in many of our lives, the identity Labour was founded on was back in the mainstream, back in the party. Owen Smith? An identity-less nonentity, with only the vaguest guiding principles. Corbyn? He harked back to Hardie.
If we have two left-wing parties (and, um, don’t we have several?), isn’t it important for each of them to have their own actual identity? And is the identity of Keir Hardie’s party REALLY Keir Starmer? Don’t his centrist, but nonetheless liberal and democratic, principles fit better somewhere else?
Whilst this has hurt the left, it’s positively poisoned the right. After the Lib Dems and the DUP, this is the fourth coalition the Tories have entered into in the last 9 years – albeit unofficially. A good hard-right party should be proud to stand strong against the centre-right Tories, state their case for their existence, and receive the votes they rightly (or wrongly) deserve – so why did Farage stand down his MPs in Tory seats? There are milquetoast centrist remainer Tories who won, because a hard-right nationalist stood his party down in their seats. Apparently, the entire spectrum of the right is interchangeable. And who can blame them when, in 2015, the Tories flat-out stole UKIP’s raison d’être just to win a majority, even though UKIP are a hard-right party who should win or lose votes on their own damn merit? The fact that we have no successful centre-right party – despite having plenty of successful centre-right politicians in the Tory party – is a product of our desperate clinging to FPTP, our anachronistic notion that we have one right-wing versus one left-wing. Who are the Tories anymore? And depending on the success of Farage’s new party, or potentially the emergence of grassroots environmental or pro-EU right-wingers, who will they be, come the next election?
In Labour, there is only one Hardieist running for Labour leader. Anyone but her might be a sticking plaster for the left, but will only damage the Labour party more long-term. Under Blair, Labour were the only viable left-wingers, and the centre-left was pushed more to the right; under Blair, the party’s origins got smudged. If we are a two-party system, Labour should heed the way the wind is blowing and elect the most electable left-ish figure. If we are more than a two-party system, our left should differentiate itself with confidence and clarity.
There is, I admit, a depressing possibility that Hardieism is dead, and therefore Labour is dead, or at least Long-Bailey’s Labour are a minority party. If so, so be it – progress happens in strange ways. For the left, acknowledging this change will help in the long-term, even if it ends up electing the Lib Dems over Labour. The existence of two near-identical left-wing parties zigzagging between centrism and hard-leftism depending on where the wind is blowing is genuinely hurting the left; the presence of so many centre-leftists, not in our centre-left Liberal Democrat party but our hard-left Labour party, is frankly baffling. The left, however, is in total as strong as ever.
I realise that, in some ways, I’m actively advocating for the defeat of the Labour party. I feel, however, I’m actually advocating for the victory of the left – albeit not in the form we maybe expected. Swinson’s Lib Dems are left rudderless now we said bollocks to their “Bollocks to Brexit” campaign, yet centre-leftism is as strong as ever. Corbyn’s win over Owen Smith showed a desire to keep Labour traditionally Labour. If Labour give up on Hardieism, the left will never recover. If Labour elect Starmer and Starmer wins in 2024, the Lib Dems will have won – the centre-left will have won, at least. If the Lib Dems elect Starmer and Starmer wins in 2024, the Lib Dems will have won – the centre-left will have won, but with the hard left as allies and challengers. Hell, the likes of Starmer want a clear break from Corbyn. What could be a clearer break?
Therefore, the answer to me is simple. Long-Bailey simply HAS to lead the Labour Party; Keir Starmer should defect and run for the Lib Dems instead.
That, and our voting system needs to be reformed, to represent the diversity of the left, open up the diversity of the right, and represent the reality of our 7+ party system today. Anything less will destroy the Labour party, and potentially rot the left, as it’s already saved the Tory party, but rotted the right.
But congrats to Starmer on winning this election, and congrats to bloody Johnson for trouncing an identity-less Labour party and an inefficient holistic left in 2024...
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Jan 7, 2020 15:51:45 GMT
So...
As our beloved new Prime Minister fails at his first serious challenge (if only we'd had some hint that Boris Johnson wasn't competent when dealing with Iran)...
And a devastating war stands on the precipice...
And British democracy begins its slow descent into at best ineptitude and at worst...
Our opposition is challenging him using a hashtag from Cats.
#MaCavitysNotThere
Welcome to the 2020s.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Jan 2, 2020 19:52:40 GMT
Andrew Lloyd Webber: We didn't need words, we had faces.
Also Andrew Lloyd Webber:
(For what it's worth, the fact that a massive, big budget, CGI ballet movie exists makes me happy. The fact that it's a movie in which humanoid tap-dancing cockroaches get eaten by Rebel Wilson, playing a masturbating cat who literally tears her skin off twice, is quite the world we live in. The existence, the sheer audacity, the balls-to-the-wall joy of this movie is something to behold. The fact that our triumphant finale is a badly rapping magical cat successfully teleporting CGI Judi Dench who quotes Taylor Swift and kills Jennifer Hudson... Ray Winstone plays a singing cat who gets killed by tap dancing! This movie got made - got made on this scale. This movie goes all out. I laughed at it. I laughed with it. I cried at Memory. I genuinely LOVE this movie)
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Dec 24, 2019 13:34:14 GMT
Best show of the year? It’s between Company and Six. Both five stars, both gems, both loads between their ears, both huge fun, both shows I’ve thought about non-stop all year. Oh, and conveniently, both shows with fab cast recordings – Not I/Footfalls/Rockaby didn’t have quite the same listenability.
Now, though – I ADORED Company, but having relistened to Six a few times, I think we really need to stop simply stanning that show and just seriously, tediously, academically look at how brilliantly these songs are written – how concise it is, how many witty lines just are smuggled in, how the medium is the message, and how cruelly apt its messages are. I think if you have 90s pop on the one side and 30s Kabarett on the other, to compare Six with Kander and Ebb isn’t just accurate – it shows how GREAT Six is that this comparison is deserved. But sod that, I loved loved loved it, I wonder if I’ll ever stop being excited by the cast recording.
So apologies Marianne Elliott, but the show of the year just has to be Six.
…but my secret favourite event of the year? Wife. I think it’s a great play for anyone, but Samuel Adamson could have written it just for me, being about being inspired not just by theatre in general but especially by A Doll’s House. I still feel inspired by A Doll’s House from 2013, and now I feel doubly inspired by Adamson’s appreciation, anger, optimism, and affection too. It’s a surprisingly fiery play which acts as a manifesto to take plays out into the real world – honestly, I hope I do bring a bit of Nora with me wherever I go, and this inspired me to keep that fight. It also reminded us that LGBT rights still must be fought for even in places as liberal as Kilburn, and illiberal attitudes aren’t historical at home or abroad – and I’ve definitely taken that with me too. I absolutely adored everything about this anyway – the fact it’s about one of my favourite plays sweetened the deal. It’s easy to say WHY great theatre inspires us, but in the real world hard to say HOW it has inspired us. This play argues for the fiery power of inspiration, allegory, theatre, and equality. If you missed it – too few people saw it – buy the script, read it, love it.
Also, Patti Lupone, second row.
Most exciting part of the year? The surprise of that small show Six being SO enjoyable, SO political, SO intelligent, SO thrilling, then SO successful… Fleabag was up the road, and that’s similarly exciting too – fiercely independently-minded shows are becoming such big hits. I think these successes could make producers riskier next time they’re at the fringe, and young artistes stick to their guns and bonkers ideas. I bloody hope so.
Also, Patti Lupone, second row.
Best performance of the year? For all the show’s flaws, Reese Shearsmith’s performance of Putin literalised the man’s inadequacies, and grip on power, in a left-field and scary way.
That said, when I remember Company, I of course remember “Being Alive” and “Marry Me a Little” – but I also remember “You Could Drive a Person Crazy” for Rosalie’s confusion over this barrage of insults, “Side By Side” for her overwhelming isolation, even “Ladies Who Lunch” for her engagement with Patti’s intensity. I think her performance in Company was one of the best dramatic performances I’ve ever seen, by being so intensely thoughtful and reactive – and that’s ignoring the fact that it’s a musical performance, and she has THAT voice! I honesty would say Rosalie is one of the top 5 performances of my life.
Also, Patti Lupone, second row.
Worst show of the year? I’ve avoided any true stinkers in my very limited theatregoing this year. These days, having so few opportunities, I either get fed what NT Live feeds me – and there’ve been no Macbeths this year. When I am in London, I try to pick things I know will at least TRY, so I can’t be disappointed – I enjoy a show ‘falling with style’. For example, like some of you on this thread, I may have been largely negative on When We Have Sufficiently Tortured Each Other, but blimey did I enjoy the mental badinage it forced me to do with it, even though it didn’t work IMHO – I also think a good heart can save a show, and I think WWHSTEO IS invested in gender diversity, literary criticism, and its strangely romantic end – so I’m very glad it problematically exists.
The only show I’ve seen this year and felt unsatisfied by was when Jack Thorne set up so much political and familial potentiality and then wrote a wet fart in The End of History – but especially given how stupendous Lesley Sharp was, to say that that was bad bad…
Oh wait! Was I’m Not Running this year? What narked me off about that is that a study of why people run, from diverse backgrounds, would be fascinating, intelligent, and prescient: why would this doctor turned accidental politician run, and why would a politician’s son run, and why would a young immigrant run? However, by focusing on Sian Brooke’s life alone, the play is a dull character piece about an uninteresting fictional anomaly whose life is just bland. It therefore makes no commentary. The play’s just so boring and aimless. Outside the play, though, ask – why did Sir David write about her and only her? Looking at the show, and having seen Sir David’s smug-as-sin NT Live interview, it’s clear why – because Sir David thinks that this character is a great feminist hero, a great rallying cry for the NHS, and a blow against a misogynist Labour party; Sir David thinks that left-wing feminism is failing, and the only person able to bring it to life is him. God, the play’s smugness almost overrides its tedium. Almost. The play’s actual feminist lines were fairly terribly judged, anyway – as feminist literature it was oversimplistic and even offensive! Sir David wrote an excellent left-wing character study in The Absence of War which used its character to truly excoriate left-wing and Labour faultlines, and the focus there worked because this one character COULD personify broader class and culture so well. Here Sir David so limited in scope because Sir David honestly thinks HIS is the voice left-wing feminists need, and his character the perfect encapsulation thereof, for left-wing feminism to rise up. That’s myopic, offensive, and (to quote a non-left-wing non-feminist) onanistic. Mind, watching the first act I had the best nap, so I’m Not Running is also my show of the year.
In case that was last year I’ll nominate Bitter Wheat, sight unseen – I did borrow the script and read it, and on the page it’s pants. Of all the ways to tackle Weinstein’s abuse and its impact on our culture, Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich in an Adam Sandler fatsuit as our bumbling comic hero, by the guy who wrote Tony Hopkins vs a bear, is about as wrong-headed as can be (I guess the Berkoff wasn’t meant to be great, but this was BIGGER and more mainstream, and I think that matters). It’s unfocused, it’s shallow, and the comedy is just unsuccessful. The idea of viewing this story through such a macho superficial lens is just rank. Its actual writing of Weinstein is icky, sympathetic to him like all comedies love bumbling monsters. This, as theatregoers, is all we have to go on for one of the most important social movements of the last five years – the pretentious wrestler who wrote Oleanna sniggering behind the schoolsheds. Is it unfair to judge a show just on script and guesswork? Yes! But hey ho, the existence of this show in the West End is unfair. So with the caveat that I’m unfair, and life’s unfair – Merry Christmas – 2019’s worst show is Bitter Wheat.
But… I was so profoundly inspired by Wife, and by Company, and ESPECIALLY by Six, that I want to end this list on a high. Wife showed that passion in theatre matters, as long as we take that passion back out on the streets. Company showed, well, Marianne Elliott is a genius, and turned Bobbie into (ironically?) more of an Everyman, whose emotional journey will stick with me for a long time. Six… where to begin on a show so political, so critical, so clever, so tuneful, so exciting?
There ya go. However you celebrate, enjoy yourself, Merry Christmas, hope 2020 validates what’s been a great millennium of theatre so far, and a Happy New Year.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Dec 24, 2019 13:31:40 GMT
1. Rocketman 2. Rocketman 3. Rocketman 4. Rocketman 5. Bros: After the Screaming Stops.
I bloody loved Rocketman, but that’s unfair.
The film that actually moved, surprised, excited and delighted me most this year was, of all things, Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse. Especially after having just seen a franchise say “Nope, belief and hope aren’t enough to be a hero, you need a good bloodline”, to end a blockbuster with the line “Anyone can wear the mask” is an inspiring, inspiring message, and one that’s told through honestly one of the most beautiful and adventurous-looking movies I’ve seen since Kubrick and one of the most fun movies since I was a kid.
Sorry We Missed You was every bit as brilliant as I Daniel Blake. There were little moments – Goodnight Irene, the key scene with the daughter – that just broke me, individual moments of humanity. Other moments – crowds at bus stops, in hospitals – showed how universal this story was. I never found it hyperbolic or melodramatic – I found it profoundly accurate. I was appalled and heartbroken by that end.
I also found myself bizarrely crying throughout pretty much the entire last half hour of Blinded by the Light. At first I thought it was too twee and I’d hate it, but a) THAT MUSIC, and b) actually, the handling of the National Front, the message of inspiration, a family letting go – I hadn’t realised how invested I was until, I sh*t you not, I cried at every new scene from the National Front march onwards. I’ve seen indisputably better films this year, but I got such an emotional kick from it that I’d include it.
Judy wasn’t great but the Andy Nyman scene was, so I’m nominating that as a short movie.
And actually on the subject of short movies, I’m not a huge Radiohead fan but am a Paul Thomas Anderson fan and found Anima – Tati-esque, Gilliam-esque, balletic – strangely delightful.
That said, the more I think about Rocketman’s glitz and glory, the more it makes me grin, and the more I think about its heart the more it makes me cry. It’s AMAZING.
But best film of the year, best film of the all time, come on…
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Dec 24, 2019 13:28:34 GMT
Whilst it’s interesting to talk about the best and worst of the last ten years, what we then miss reminiscing are those teeny gems. There are often those little shows that sneak up on you, those that maybe aren’t perfect but work just to your tastes, sometimes those shows you forget about until years later they crop up randomly in a dream. For me, there are a surprisingly large number which, years down the line, I’ve realised left a much bigger impact than I realised. As well as celebrating the biggest and best, let’s also celebrate those little gems.
Mermaid is the one I most want to bang the drum for. Many reviews were unduly snide, which I attribute mostly to critics not seeing it as about and for teenagers. A beautiful – truly beautiful to watch – evocation of the Little Mermaid myth, its framing of a teenager writing this story, grappling with political ideologies and forming her first tentative political identity, gave this such a punch. Like many young creative teenagers, Blue at the centre was brimming with potential, with confusion, with passion, with fear, and with too many ideas for her head to contend with; the show’s committed, fierce feminist policies, royal satire, and ultimate messages both political (fight for what you believe in, even if it’s only you) and personal (be yourself) literalised this eagerness, passion and politicisation in a way that teenagers could easily understand, and crusty old me still found inspiring. I remember the beautiful tableaus of myths of the sea elegantly constructed from seemingly nothing, and Blue alone on stage with a tatty homemade flag finally fighting for her own political beliefs. I adored this, and since its critical reception was so wrong-headed, this five star show deserves much more.
If You Kiss Me Kiss Me is another one I personally felt a deep connection to, oddly enough. Most of its creatives call it a gig, so this might even be accidental. However, by framing these songs of love, pissing your life away, and fighting the power against a very domestic 80s world, there was an inescapable political edge – Thatcher lingered over everything, be that the dole, crappy housing, lost opportunities, or (as I read the end) the sick spectre of Cameron reviving Thatcher’s uncaring world. If there is ‘no such thing as society’, forming your own society, falling in love, and singing grim northern love songs is actually a political act.
Lela and Co seemed, at the time, pretty damn good, but I didn’t think more than mebbe four stars. Perhaps it was my lack of engagement with similar political movements that stopped me realising, then, how canny it was. Since then I’ve read a lot of letters, diaries, or anecdotes about innocent victims of war – a depressingly broad world of storytellers telling an unforgivably broad world of horrifying stories – and the way Lela and Co’s dark theatricality gave us nowhere to escape and literally nothing to see, and the way Katie West befriended us so charmingly, make those stories feel like something Lela and Co told me personally, made me actually feel. Since then I’ve thought of it, and been reminded of it, a lot. It was an experience, a very human experience.
And Maria Aberg’s As You Like It – although I’ve seen it mentioned elsewhere, so I’m glad it touched other people so much too. From its romantic, laid-back charm to its absolutely beauty to my being an embarrassing Laura Marling fanboy, it was basically tailor made for me. Love Laura Marling as I do, I think that’s actually her album I listen to most. Theatre being so communal, there are certain shows that I return to as ‘happy places’ (Nell Gwynn, Jamie Lloyd’s riotous She Stoops), and none more so than this glorious piece of musicality and loving and joy.
I don’t know if I’d call any of these best of the decade, love them as I do. I’ve also found it fascinating to find these stories re-emerging in my memory years after the fact, often after I didn’t realise their power. So, rather than only celebrate the best of the best, let’s celebrate some of those little shows that meant so much just to you!
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Dec 24, 2019 13:23:53 GMT
A monkey in Inherit the Wind at the Old Vic a decade ago I'd forgotten about that! Sweet, wasn't it. Forgettable, apparently, but sweet. And wasn't there also a grotesque rat in it? I think he played the lead role. And i'm sure I've seen a 'little lamb' in Gypsy ere now.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Dec 24, 2019 13:22:32 GMT
And so I wait with baited breath for the triumphant comeback (I hate that word, it's a return) of the British musical. This decade, the British musical gave us Six, which I think means WE WIN, but also included Matilda, The Clockmaker’s Daughter, Sunshine on Leith, Standing on the Sky’s Edge, Everybody’s Talking About Jamie, Little Bulb’s Orpheus, Made in Dagenham, Betty Blue Eyes, Girl from the North Country, American Psycho, The Light Princess, If You Kiss Me Kiss Me, Romantics Anonymous…
So when you say ‘return’, I assume you mean return of the mega-musical (I LOVED Made in Dagenham, but…) but isn’t this more exciting?! Before around 2015ish, the West End was profoundly unwelcoming for ANY new show – we couldn’t have had a Leopoldsholm this decade, not before stuff like A View from the Bridge and The Nether and King Charles III transferred and showed we want risk in our plays and not Barkings in Essexes. Personally I actually think one of the best things about the British musical TODAY is that it isn’t Broadway and Blockbusters – that bigness limits risk. Instead here, young experimental talents can do as they please – which I think peaked with Six.
Best British musical this decade, then? London Road. Name me one British musical from the pre-comeback era that did what London Road did, or one contemporary American musical that’s done it either. No, it didn’t transfer to Broadway, or even out of the Nash. No, the film didn’t do Bohemian Rhapsody figures. No, it hasn’t been revived since. It was, however, the most daring and original and humane musical I think I’ve seen. I’ll take that over a thousand Tootsies. Hell, for me the most politically pointed show of the decade was Jane Horrocks doing Depeche Mode. I love the modern British musical.
So yes, we didn't have a Les Mis or a Me and My Girl or a Cats this decade. But we had a Matilda, a London Road, a Bob Dylan fest, and a Six. Comeback? From Six back to Cats? Purrrrrrrrrrrr-lease... The British musical never went away.
P.S. My top ten, into which I’ve not put a lot of thought so probably will regret some dumbass omission: 1. wonder.land SIX - actually, dumbass omission, I didn't see Sunshine on Leith on stage, but I love the film and have argued it as genius for six years now, so a tie, cheekily, I guess 2. Fun Home 3. Hamilton duh 4. London Road 5. JANE HORROCKS DOING THE SMITHS WAS BIZARRELY BRILLIANT BITE ME 6. In the Heights yeah Lin Manuel’s got skill 7. Scottsboro Boys Kander and Ebb at their best 8. Made in Dagenham 9. Lazarus 10. Everybody’s Talking about Jamie 11. Can I also say how much I loved the As You Like It at the RSC which wasn’t really a musical but sort of was with those fantastic Laura Marling originals? (Dumbass omission, I literally mentioned American Psycho in the opening and missed it from my list...)
And I can't be arsed to think of my top ten revivals but of the top of my head Company obvs and Imelda in Gypsy obvs but the Arcola's Carousel was psychologically incisive, beautiful to look at and listen to, and the heart behind that interpretation...
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Dec 24, 2019 13:14:51 GMT
It’s Christmas Eve, which for me, as a musical lover, doesn’t begin until I’ve gathered the family around the fireplace, poured some mulled wine, sat piano, and all sung along to our favourite Christmas-themed musical number. That’s right – all together now! – Sam Byck’s monologue in Assassins.
Actually, whilst it’s only Christmassy because of the title, I really really love Jason Robert Brown’s Christmas Lullaby.
Laura Marling’s written music for a number of theatre shows now, so I’ll sneak this seasonal, absolute gem in. It’s beautiful on the album, but the orchestration here... I weep every time.
And have you seen Conor McPherson’s written a sequel to Girl from the North Country? First glimpse here:
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Dec 22, 2019 21:42:34 GMT
It isn’t an argument. It’s the law. I cannot understand and never will how we can refer to this as “the will of the people” when it wasn’t a legal referendum. I don’t care what you say or how you phrase it. It will still be illegal in years to come. It is a fact. Not an opinion or an argument. It’s like the earth is round not flat. However, perhaps we now no longer live in a democracy. Don’t see how we can ever lecture other countries unless we clear this up. I know...shut up, move on. Doesn’t make it right. Firstly, yes I agree. We have democratic rules, and they were broken. Something should be done – well, something should have been done before. The SECOND we got a whiff of lawbreaking, we should have put Brexit on ice.
Here’s the problem, though. What you're not saying - and what almost no-one is saying – is that “People (THESE people) broke the law promoting Brexit”. What you’re saying is “The Brexit campaign broke the law”, or “Brexit was rendered illegal”. Weirdly, I think that passive voice has caused a dangerous relationship to the facts.
You see, I think there’s a form of cognitive dissonance here. There’s been a lot recently about the difference between a lie and bullsh*tting. Apparently, lying is where I say “It’s raining” on a sunny day, and I’m rightly called wrong. Bullsh*tting is where I say “Today they tell us it’s sunny, but don’t you feel the rain?” and I unite us behind one ideology – a false ideology, but as a belief cannot be a lie, it's bullsh*t. It's like the difference between saying “Scientists believe Climate Change isn't man made” (a lie) and “Well, can scientists be trusted on such a chilly day as this?”. OR it's the difference between saying “The chief exec of the NHS is wrong” (a lie) and “The people have had enough of experts”...
So, to the EU campaign. People didn’t vote because of lies the campaign peddled. People didn't FEEL they were lied to. The lies felt part of a belief system. Even if proven wrong, people still believe in the thought behind them, if not the facts. Will the NHS get £350 million? No – but it feels right that if we leave the EU we can spend more on ourselves. Are our bananas too bendy? No – but Brussels does control a lot of our rules and some of them seem crazy so it feels right to blame the bananas. Did the campaign overspending promote any flat-out lies? No – it promoted bullsh*t.
If there is an intervention tomorrow, and Brexit is invalidated the day after, and a vote occurs the day after – ooh, that’d make it Christmas! – Brexit would win by a landslide. Why? People wouldn’t say the invalidation was democratic UK law – they’d call it another intervention in the Will of the People™. This is why a lot of Brexit voters don’t mind the interference. They weren’t ‘lied’ to. You can’t lie about belief, and a lot of the Brexit campaign was based on belief, a bullsh*t belief. If I BeLeave in Britain, I don’t care who funded it. If anything, I’m glad that bullsh*t view was funded in the first place.
As such – especially as there’s no way in hell the referendum will now be nullified, but even if it is, that bullsh*t ideology won’t be – what I think we have to do is shift the conversation itself. We need to point out that the ideology behind the bullsh*t is wrong. We need to attach the illegality to someone. We need to stop using the passive voice “YOU were lied to” and start pro-actively saying “Boris Johnson lied to you”. We need to stop saying “YOUR vote was illegal and rendered invalid” and start saying “Boris Johnson’s illegality invalidated your vote”. Better, we need to show how unpatriotic, how undemocratic, how uncaring he was (they were) by accepting foreign money, by promoting their bullsh*t.
Frankly, as I see it, on the legal front yeah, we have to move on. On the ideological front, though, we’re only just beginning. And who knows, mebbe if we get that ideological front going (if we get some of that bullsh*t to stick), the legal front might evolve from there. Simply, stop saying “The referendum was rendered illegal”. Start saying “THESE ARE THE PEOPLE who rendered the referendum illegal”. Please use one very big name in particular.
For a start, if things progress according to the red lines set out in the withdrawal agreement, EVERY SINGLE UK CITIZEN loses the right to live/work/study/retire across about thirty other countries, and for no good reason other than to appease a bunch of racists and xenophobes and allow obscenely wealthy people to continue to evade their taxes. And leaving aside how depressing - no, not depressing, disgusting - it is to see people vote for their children to have fewer rights and opportunities than they did themselves, freedom of movement will end as a result of a referendum which has been proven to have been conducted illegally. That's unacceptable. Here’s my contention there.
A large number of working-class people voted Leave. Did they take these opportunities away from their children? There’s a degree of privilege you need to work and travel abroad which many Leave voters don’t have. Austerity had already taken those opportunities away – Brexit felt like a vote for more rights, given how many rights austerity had stripped away already.
A large number of rich people voted Leave. Therefore they can buy their children Visas.
For working-class voters, that younger generation is already losing rights and opportunities. For Thomas, Samuel, Victoria and Isabelle, mummy and daddy can continue buying those rights and freedoms. The latter should make us angry in an Internationale way. The former, however, should make us angry at the country we’ve let Britain become.
Therefore to some extent there is a class thing. We need to resolve that. Europe is a luxury to some extent. We should address that. We should have addressed that a long time ago. HOWEVER, with 40% of children living in poverty by 2022 (WHY ARE WE IGNORING THIS?), it’s frankly disingenuous to say that a generation is making their children poorer by leaving the EU. Thank you very much, we’re making our children poorer using good old fashioned British cruelty.
So, if you travel vocationally, you need to have studied to that level, earned a job, readied your career, and saved up. IF you travel to secure a job, you need a certain amount of disposable income. If you struggle financially to take your family on holiday to the Isle of Man, it’s hardly taking an opportunity away to take Slovakia off the table. This disparity is something we should have tackled already.
A key example here is education. The long term impact here will be devastating – imagine being a historian and not being able to affordably visit Pompeii or Athens, a computer scientist barred from CERN, a geologist pining for the Fjords. How many conferences take place – in English, conveniently – in Europe?
All of that being lost is tragic – but if your local school is crowdfunding pens and pencils, trips to Europe are probably far off.
Did Brexit take opportunities away from a young generation? No – austerity did. Sorry, YES, Brexit has – but austerity got there first. Austerity, and the lax treatment of the working-class throughout the Blair tenure which led to the working-class being the natural victims of Tory austerity. Those worst hit by austerity are rarely given a voice, so we didn’t hear about the systematic destruction of basic rights like guaranteed shelter or a budget for food first-hand, and STILL don’t – whilst those of us NOW having our opportunities taken are the children of journalists, academics, Twitter-savvy gonzos – people with a voice. That opportunity to “live and love” in Europe is a namby-pampy pipe dream for most people, and really, is it a right or a luxury? The right to better ourselves, economically, educationally, sociologically, scientifically, in Europe is one that we SHOULD fight for – but one that’s already off-limit to many Leave voters, and still open for the richer Leave voters.
You could argue that working-class Leave voters took that opportunity away for a generation – but middle and upper class politicians took those opportunities away for a young working-class generation a long time ago.
(Incidentally, these are connected. Brexit became an ideology – a bullsh*t ideology – which was perpetuated by bullsh*tters like Johnson to the communities he was, and is, stripping rights from already. A nullified, illegal Brexit vote would make us happy – we’re getting our opportunities to visit Toneelgroep and the Schaubauhne back – but those people bullsh*tted too angry – they’re getting nothing out of it, but their democratic right to voice their opinion denied.)
Anywho, long story short, did people vote for their children to be poorer? For rich people it’s no skin off their nose – look at how many Leave campaigners are buying EU citizenship for their families – money talks. For working-class communities, our wretched country robbed them of these opportunities long ago. YES, we have made a generation poorer – my f***ing generation, thanks – but only certain brackets of that generation – my f***ing bracket, thanks. If I hear someone say “We’ve stopped a generation being able to live and travel and work and retire and love in Europe” once more I’ll scream. That’s always been a privilege – that’s never been an opportunity for 40% of children in 2022 in our viciously cruel country. It’s a more complex picture than that. We still have major problems to sort for a desperately poor generation, increasingly robbed of rights and opportunities on home soil by bullsh*tting politicians, back in blind uncaring Blighty.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Dec 20, 2019 11:41:53 GMT
"Revealed in a comic" - that maybe 1%, if that, of the people seeing the film will actually have read. Oh, unlike the cameos from Ahsoka Tano, Kanan Jarrus, Luminali Unduli, Aayla Secura and Adi Gallia, which 100% of the audience got? I'm happy not putting that in a spoiler, because even I don't know who half those people are. Unlike the point where Maul popped up in Solo and everyone in the cinema who hadn't watched a children's cartoon for six years went "huh?". However niche, if it's canon it's canon.
Plus, I might be wrong, but I'm sure there's a line in TROS where Kylo mentions his own family tree, and draws that comparison. I might have misheard, or mebbe it's phrased in a way that confirms the comic, if you know the comic. When the script comes out, we'll see, and I'll be happy to admit if I misheard.
Even if this is wrong, the gay kiss in this is an insult. There's enough Stormpilot implied to keep baiting, but nothing explicit, and the tacked on lesbian kiss with Amanda Lawrence - which, if you saw Angels, is bloody tame in comparison to her angel - is there to pretend they did their job. If they felt a gay kiss wasn't as deserving as a straight kiss, that's actually simply bad character development - it's absolutely the arc Finn and Poe were on - let alone offensive representation. If I'm at all right about the bloodline part, ew.............
And regarding family I fundamentally stand by my key criticism. This film argues that the most important parts of the world are only there if you're born into it. If your body is an ubermensch, perfect - if, like Rey in this, your family happens to be a great dynasty, hooray for nepotism. If you're the child slave from the last movie, you're dirt. This year has shaken my faith in humanity quite a lot, but I took the view that child slavery probably isn't deserved, and the joy of the universe should be shared. That's something TROS fundamentally rejects.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Dec 20, 2019 11:04:30 GMT
SPOILERS
Glad the blood relatives get a heartfelt, triumphant, full-frontal snog, but the gays get two seconds in the background. Priorities, Disney. Priorities.
{Spoiler - click to view}They weren't blood relatives.
Palpatine is Rey's mother's father, which is both a hideously creepy thing to think about, and profoundly underwhelming. The central thesis of TLJ was that the Force - a universal power that connects good and bad, life and death, and unity with nature - belongs to you and me. The thesis of this film is, NOPE! Better hope daddy comes from a good family.
Palpatine is also Vader's father. OK, yeah, this was established in a comic a couple of years ago, so mebbe you missed it, and perhaps that's contentious. I could swear there was a line in TROS, though, that mentioned Palpatine being Anakin's progenitor which would make Palpatine Kylo's mother's father's mother's father. screenrant.com/star-wars-anakin-father-emperor/2/
OK, sure, mebbe I misheard, mebbe I'm reading too much into it. Nonetheless, that'd make Palpatine Rey's grandma, and Kylo's great-grandmother. That makes Rey and Leia cousins, and Rey and Kylo are first cousins once removed, I think - or is she his aunt?
OK, mebbe it's not blood. We don't know if Palpatine got his leg over. He impregnated Schmi using Midochlorian magic, and mercifully we're spared the biology of Rey's parents. Mebbe 'blood relative' was wrong. Mebbe Kylo and Rey are 'Midocholorianal relatives'. If that's true - and Palpatine's involuntarily celibate, as all the badass villains in this trilogy seem to be (god this film's awful), it somewhat confirms the notion that he also Midochlorianilly impregnated Schmi. Not blood, Midocholrians. Is that better?
Palpatine does say "My blood flows in you" to Rey, mind, so presumably there are some of his bodily fluids involved.
I don't blame you for missing it - an incidental detail from a comic isn't anyone's priority, and the script tosses this key info off in one line. It's like the Maul reveal in Solo - confusing for people who don't know, boring for people who do.
As a Star Wars fan who so loved the fact that TLJ introduced the Force as a power that lives through people and nature, not bloodlines, the notion that Rey's only powerful because of her rich granddaddy is, well, very 21st century, and very depressing. On this, my point stands - TLJ introduces Broom Boy, a child slave who shows that even the lowliest and most downtrodden are connected to the heart of the universe. TROS says he deserves to remain in slavery and leaves him there to rot and die.
HOWEVER, on the family point, TROS is TERRIBLE at re-establishing it, but yes, Palpatine is Kylo's great-granddad and Rey's granddad. So, that kiss, between aunt and nephew, in front of his rotting corpse... Bloody hell this movie's awful.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Dec 19, 2019 23:19:03 GMT
SPOILERS
Glad the blood relatives get a heartfelt, triumphant, full-frontal snog, but the gays get two seconds in the background. Priorities, Disney. Priorities.
So, the villain of the piece is an alt-right entitled manchild obsessed with a better darker past, who needs someone to hold his hand and explain it all to him. Turns out that's not the villain of the film - that's its target audience.
At least the prequels tried to do something new.
Oh, and also, you know how TLJ showed that the Force isn't just dynasties and even a scavenger like Rey can use it? What a fantastic follow-through. And, um, that force-using child slave at the end of TLJ? He's, um, still in child slavery, right?
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Dec 12, 2019 14:59:21 GMT
Personally Id be more ashamed of saying I'm voting for a party who at best are lying about their ability to afford all the ideological policies they are putting forward or at worst, genuinely going to bankrupt the country trying like they did last time, than I would admitting I vote Conservative. But that's just me. 🌳 Firstly, Labour are liars? So you're voting Johnson? Sure...
Secondly, Labour's manifesto is costed, so that's that.
Now to the meat of it. Is it really worth having poor children starve, tower blocks burn, NHS users die, disabled 'workers' die at work, hospitals go underfunded, 50% of children feel unsatisfied with their lives, working-class schoolchildren end up 2 years of academia behind, culture remain inaccessible, food banks feed our country, parents choose between eating and heating - all for GDP, which is guff anyway? This election flat out ask us to ask whether Parliament's GDP is worth your neighbour's child starving. Tough call. Tough call.
And let's take your economic argument to its end result. Did austerity make the country richer? Didn't austerity, um, stop GDP growth?
So basically, yeah, I'm not ashamed to say I trust Corbyn and Labour to fulfil the promise of a society that looks after its society, over one who thought starving our children and killing our NHS users was worth it to make our country poorer and our people hungrier.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Dec 12, 2019 14:35:07 GMT
I voted at 7.45 am and I was the only one in the polling station. I always do vote but frankly it's pretty pointless here - my MP is one Michael Gove (majority 24,943.) Tell that to Michael Portillo.
The act of voting is NEVER pointless. If more people vote for other parties than Tory but he wins, then - despite his majority - a campaign for Proportional Representation has a leg to stand on. That majority can only get bigger if you don't vote. Assuming the opposition haven't put forwards strong candidates, a strong enough loss might convince them to try next time. It's somewhat pointless today - but a vote against him may be a small step in the right direction for tomorrow.
Anywho, if you all have twenty minutes or so, read the UN's report on 9 years of austerity. undocs.org/A/HRC/41/39/Add.1
Although the United Kingdom is the world’s fifth largest economy, one fifth of its population (14 million people) live in poverty, and 1.5 million of them experienced destitution in 2017. Policies of austerity introduced in 2010 continue largely unabated, despite the tragic social consequences. Close to 40 per cent of children are predicted to be living in poverty by 2021. Food banks have proliferated; homelessness and rough sleeping have increased greatly; tens of thousands of poor families must live in accommodation far from their schools, jobs and community networks; life expectancy is falling for certain groups; and the legal aid system has been decimated. The Social Metrics Commission found in 2018 that almost a third of children in the United Kingdom were in poverty. After years of progress, child poverty has been rising since 2011–2012, almost entirely in working families. The Equality and Human Rights Commission forecasts that 1.5 million more children will fall into poverty between 2010 and 2021–2022, bringing the child poverty rate to a shocking 41 per cent. People said they had to choose either to eat or heat their homes. Children are showing up at school with empty stomachs, and schools are collecting food and sending it home because teachers know their students will otherwise go hungry. And 2.5 million people in the United Kingdom survive with incomes no more than 10 per cent above the poverty line – just one crisis away from falling into poverty. The bottom line is that much of the glue that has held British society together since the Second World War has been deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos.
Personally, I can't speak for the Tories, but I hold the controversial view that inciting violence isn't humbug and child poverty is a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Nov 25, 2019 14:09:52 GMT
Great casting news about Imelda! She's going to absolutely knock it out of the park playing a real queen.
And once she's wowed us all as Dolly, apparently she's then playing some lass called Elizabeth.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Nov 25, 2019 13:53:57 GMT
Now that is high art with a capital H. No, this is precisely the reason why German theatre lovers flock to London in droves Sure, in London there's, you know, some of the best theatre in the world, but you get daily access to theatre as, um, 'daring' and 'artsy' as this, and honestly I’m a wee bit jealous. If they revive this I'm bloody flocking to Germany. We may laugh but the stylised wigs and costumes is a neat way of getting around any casting issues. Instead of faithful casting you go wild with the colourblind concept In theory that’s an interesting approach. In practice, they seem to have ended up with…
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Nov 17, 2019 12:44:30 GMT
I just don’t see why van Hove needs to have a crack at this. AFter all, we’ve already had the definitive European West Side Story…
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Nov 17, 2019 12:41:34 GMT
Interesting points. The TV overall viewing figures for Fleabag are poor, only 1-2 million, so it is a niche programme. But my guess is (like Mad Men which I commented on elsewhere) the percentage of the media and theatre elite (for want of a better word, Rufus Norris and his social circle for example) who watch it is very high. She is only Everyman for that very small demographic. Given their influence the amount of press coverage it gets as a result is way out of proportion compared with other TV shows with similar viewing figures. Fleabag viewing figures ended up in the 3-4m range once 28 Days and 4 screens are taken into account and that doesn't cover all sources. It has a strongly 16-34 audience so it's being consumed differently. It’d be wrong to say Fleabag’s not successful, because it is (it’d also be wrong to say it’s not deserving of success). As you say, those viewing figures aren’t representative wholly. However, Jan’s right – its success has been squared by the amount of journalists and people in public positions for whom it’s relevant. The truth is between you two – Fleabag’s success goes beyond viewing figures, but the total figures are still nowhere near as big as loads of other shows, so its popularity IS disproportionate.
Clearly, people who write about fashion, or TV, or culture, all see themselves in Fleabag in a way they don’t in, say, a Jimmy McGovern show – of course those who see themselves reflected in a Jimmy McGovern show aren’t given a voice in fashion press, TV press, or cultural press, and by and large in the press at all. Fleabag’s success should be praised – and L337 is hugely talented and her talent deserves to be praised – but its success should go hand in hand with asking why it’s successful, or more crucially who is making it that successful. Why is it (and not Jimmy McGovern or This Country) exported? Who are our cultural writers, cultural commissioners, cultural gatekeepers? Maybe a show like This Country or Derry Girls would be a cultural hit if our cultural arbiters came from those communities. Maybe our BBC would export them if they wanted to show a richer country culturally. Mind, dressing like Fleabag’s cool, but dressing like a 90s Irish schoolgirl would probably get you arrested…
I think Fleabag the stage show is good with demonstrable flaws, many of which are simply bad writing lots of Fringe shows have – self-indulgent anecdotes to show the performer off, poor structure, succumbing to the seeming limitations (in perspective, in storytelling, in framing) of a one-person show. I imagine Fleabag the telly show is objectively better, but also REALLY appealing if her appeals to you actually relate to you. I think Fleabag the cultural touchstone is both deserved, but deserved by a lot more breadth of British telly, and IS somewhat disproportionate. As such, the stage show is getting undeserved raves, because the media love seeing themselves in Fleabag so write about it ad infinitum, so then the telly show gets relatively deserved raves. The coverage is still disproportionate. I hope that’s all fair.
(That said, thinking about it – the most popular show by viewing figures (which is also a theatre hit, but at stadia) is Mrs Brown’s Boys! No-one, however, writes about it, because its target audience is – shock horror! – working class. Mrs Brown’s Boys is about a self-hating woman who mistreats her loved ones whilst breaking the fourth wall. Mrs Brown’s Boys has the exact same plot and soul as Fleabag. Of its fans, no-one watches Mrs Brown’s Boys and wants to dress up like Agnes Brown, emulate her style. Arguably, therefore, Fleabag less successfully creates a fleabaggy character than Mrs Brown’s Boys)
P.S. If Fleabag was a fleabag, her success would be very different. People would see themselves in her, whilst raising their own eyebrows. Instead the emulation she’s gotten – the fancy dress she’s become – shows that from the title downwards, Fleabag has failed at creating a fleabag. She’s despicable, but aspirational; she’s messy, in a sterile world; she’s pathetic, but boy is she privileged! Rather than a truly insightful, character-driven, considered study of a messy modern woman, Fleabag is an ironic, sexy-Halloween-costume version of a messy modern woman.
So, three stars. L337 can put together a good set-piece, and is a very, very funny performer. Fleabag on stage is a good if underdeveloped story of a woman enjoying her freedom.
I imagine the name "Fleabag" stands in for "Phoebe-blag," suggesting the show's origin as a specific and individual celebration (and ultimately a critique) of one woman's right to do anything she pleases whenever she pleases, whatever society says, a kind of sociopathic alpha-female to match all the societal sociopathic alpha-males we see more frequently. Back when I first saw the Fleabag stage show, the TV show hadn't aired, so I was actually disappointed and surprised when the Boo plot kicked in, guilt-tripping the character towards forming a conscience.
So back when I saw "Fleabag" at the Soho, before the TV show came out, I thought that the critique of the character through the Boo plot was the phony bit, and all the comic reveling in privilege, and being cutting and mean to other people, was the essence. For this reason, I can't accept Nicholas' suggestion that her privilege is a flaw, but rather it is the whole point: that she is so privileged she simply expects us all to agree with every outrage, just as Trump and Johnson also expect us to.
Steve, your review is, as always, beautifully judged and warm-hearted. Opinions are, as the phrase goes, like arseholes – everyone’s got one, and Fleabag’s got a massive one – so I’m happy that you’ve loved it through all its incarnations – but I do think it’s interesting that your kneejerk response to its Soho debut was, well, my response but kinder – that Fleabag is more interesting a character when less ‘everyman’ – and you wouldn’t have given it five stars before season two and Hot Priest developed the character. Your interpretation of her as Trumpian-ish is fascinating, and one I kind of understand, but as you yourself say, there is the caveat that THIS script is either too sentimental (she wants to be everyone and appeals to our community) or too sociopathic (undermining those appeals through Fleabag’s specificity, class, and characteristics such as cruelty which are harder to empathise with). What I think would have elevated THIS 90-minute script is to have Fleabag revisit some of her crueller moments and replay them as bluster (proving her sentimental), or have Fleabag revisit her most tragic moment and laugh it off (proving her sociopathic); this version falls between two stools for me – and, putting words in your mouth, somewhat did for you until Hot Priest. Is THIS Fleabag a more nuanced character? Or did L337 make her a more nuanced character through two series of expansive telly, and this is the Sparknotes version?
Incidentally, though, I 100% agree on L337’s talents as a performer (I am being a Tw*t calling her L337, but I do think she’s actually funny in that film, so it’s sort of praise!) – personally I’d love to see her both given a naff Hollywood film to elevate, and also another character piece, either Macbeth or Lady Macbeth, a character so different to her persona but which she as an actress could definitely bring depth to and which would show a different side to her. One reason I’m being relatively kind on this show is because of the opportunities it gave to just watch her perform. Hell, forget Macbeth, give her a silent movie.
P.P.S. Actually somewhat following that, I also read an American article the other day (can’t remember where sadly) about the decade in telly. It praised Fleabag, obvs, but made brief comment that its global takeover came with its more contemplative and richer second series (their words, at last in gist). I think in the UK it’s somewhat similar, and Hot Priest took over here too in a way series one never quite did (am I right, is that fair?). Maybe, therefore, everyone’s right! The reviews are right that it’s a cultural phenomenon – because whilst it maybe wasn’t always, now it is. Its fans are right that it’s a major artistic success – because by the time of its finale, it had become one. And like its initial critics who rightly criticised, I’m right that this stage show isn’t actually much cop – because it took a telly version and second series and a new take on the character to make it shine. In short, I’m right, but Hot Priest is more right.
|
|