Polari: Taking the Stage

At the end of last year you may remember that I wrote a review* of a night at Polari, Paul Burston's Gay Literary Salon at the Royal Festival Hall on London's Southbank. It's essentially a platform for LGBT authors or works to be read for a friendly and interested audience. At the first Polari I attended this was the basic set up but I noticed that the couple I went to more recently have had a great performance aspect to them with cabaret artistes and singers nestled in amongst the authors. I don't know whether these were anomalies or whether this is the way most nights are conducted. Either way it's a great place for audience members to watch a wide range of performances encapsulating poetry, music, novels, plays and more. Plus it's great for everyone that the opportunity to discuss the works and to offer feedback is there also. Last time my article was from the point of view of an audience member. This month Paul kindly gave me the opportunity to perform from my own writing so I've now experienced Polari from another perspective which I'd like to share here! 

I haven't performed, properly, in a blooming long time. Way too long. Acting was always kinda 'my thing' but in doing the whole getting-out-there-and-making-things-happen-for-myself shebang I veered off course and created projects entirely unsuitable for me to perform at - a comedy club (me!? please, don't make me laugh...excuse the PUN...See!? This is exactly what I mean), a play about a sixty year old woman stuck on the loo (don't even say it) and a play about a fifty year old, 6'2" pre-op transgender lady (...). So it's fair to say that I was terrified. I wanted to do it, because I knew I could, but my head kept filling with memories of jokes falling flat and unsuccessful auditions turning me into a quivering wreck. Although it was sort of the good kind of fear. You know the kind that happens before you do something you know you're probably going to be quite proud of? So the knowledge of that future is already present, mingling with and sweetening the panic. But obviously you're still scared. Taking one look at me Paul commented wryly, "You're nervous? Yes, because we all know what a horrible, judgemental bunch the Polari audiences are!" and suddenly everything was almost okay. 

I loved performing at Polari. As I got up on stage I looked down upon the audience and saw smiling faces looking expectantly but kindly towards me. No one was checking their watch or gazing over at the bar. They were all giving me a chance. There's something about that atmosphere that buoys you up. That's why it's important that people learn the conventions of theatregoing, that comperes know how to create a mood, that shows are correctly and honestly marketed and why drunken comedy nights are always a pain. The joy of live theatre is the same as its downfall. It relies on the interaction between an audience and a performer. Not necessarily anything they say or do to one another but the energy that they offer towards and receive from each other. People come to Polari because they want to hear these works, to find a new author they love or to find out what their favourites are up to. They come because they want all that and they want it in an interactive, warm and theatrical setting.

I read from Rachael's Cafe** which hasn't been performed since last year and by a male actor at that. To have the opportunity to present the work in a different way and to hear what people made not of an entire production but of just the words themselves was enjoyable and also very helpful. The whole event taught me a great deal about reading one's own work, public speaking, preparation and about sharing small amounts of a piece rather than the full play. A highlight for me was meeting actor Bette Bourne whose performance in Resident Alien in Edinburgh a few years ago was absolutely unforgettable. 

So! Moving on from me, me, me! It took me a while to calm down back into audience mode but, once I did, I was rewarded with an array of different performances. Will Davis read his short story about a superhero coming out (which left the audience crying with laughter), Karen Mcleod performed two tales from her blog (one hilarious, one sad but beautifully written) and MrMistress performed her burlesque routine 'The Gay Messiah' (special note must go to what must have been the time consuming and delicate task of exchanging high heels for plastic penises). Let's not forget Barbara Brownskirt who stormed the stage to perform her hilarious poetry. Finally the lovely Steven Appleby took us through a little talk on his career as a cartoonist and finished his performance by turning the audiences' secrets into cartoons live on stage. 

What was particularly nice for me this time around was that, as well as performing, I got to meet everyone involved and to talk to them about what they were up to. It was great to hear what everyone else was working on rather than just seeing them through the one piece they were performing that day. As usual Paul made the whole event fun and silly without losing the focus on being there to listen to each other. Once again I thoroughly recommend Polari and would like to thank them so much for having me! 

*http://tinydanser-mytheatreblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/broadening-my-london-horizons-polari-my.html

** www.littleflytheatre.com

PS. Thank you to Jon C for his blog on Polari! 

http://jon-doloresdelargo.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/midwest-trans-gay-superheroes-messiah.html

Smiling in the Newspaper (Canterbury Times, Jan 2013)

This happened a little while ago but I totally forgot to post it up here. Just in case anyone's interested though this is a feature on Sam Gardner and my comedy club that appeared in January in the Canterbury Times (swish!). It's quite hard to read so I've included a typed up version below. 

The Canterbury Times, January 28th 2013
Leisure Feature, Joe Bill

It has been on the end of both curt criticism and the odd disapproving tut in the past, but University of Kent’s stand-up comedy teaching module is having the last laugh. Two graduates of the drama and theatre studies course are looking to take the comedy world by storm, having bagged an Edinburgh star for their third anniversary special. Sam Gardner, who studied the MA stand-up comedy module, and Lucy Danser, who studied the creative producing for theatre module, run an up-and-coming comedy club out of The Parrot pub in Canterbury.

The pair will celebrate their third year in charge of Chatback Comedy this month after going full circle and securing a performance from Norwegian comedian Daniel Simonsen.The performer, who won the Best Newcomer Award at the 2012 Edinburgh Festival, also happens to be the headliner from the very first Chatback Comedy show back in 2010.
Lucy, 25, said: “Myself and Sam were housemates at university and I’d always loved and been involved with the stand-up comedy scene in London and at the Edinburgh Festival. “Sam was offered the opportunity to hold a one-off comedy night at The Parrot, where he worked, so we decided we’d pool our skills and knowledge and do it together. It was a great success, completely sold out and we even had to turn people away. The Parrot agreed we could hold it as a regular monthly event and we’ve been doing so for three years. The pub has actually changed hands twice in that time, but we’ve stayed.”

The pair were schooled by Kent tutor Dr Oliver Double, himself a former stand-up and a prolific comedy-writer, and it was his course that inspired the pair to create the club. “We opened the club because, despite the fact there was the country’s only stand-up comedy course right here in Canterbury, there was nowhere these acts could go and perform alongside [professional] acts working the circuit, on the next level up from them. They could go to see big names in London and there was their own [student] night Monkeyshine run by Dr Double, but nothing in the middle, so we opened Chatback.”

Lucy and Sam have managed to mix students with professional stand-up comedians at their nights by bringing in a few big names but also allowing open-mic slots for local comics or comedy students to get a five-minute set. “It’s been great for new acts to meet professional comedians, to get tips and feedback on their material and experience performing in a different style of club. We have a very loyal audience and we’ve seen it grow and change over the years. Early on we had a lot more friends and students. Nowadays we have people from all over and from Canterbury, which is wonderful.”
Chatback has attracted the likes of TV regular Milton Jones, Britain’s Got Talent star Kev Orkian and the face of Viva TV, Eric Lampaert. “We’re based on the London-style comedy club. The atmosphere is buzzy, the acts are new, exciting and often on the cusp of becoming more widely known on television shows. The comedians mingle with the audience and there is always a friendly, chatty, happy feel. The Parrot is unique and comedians love to play gigs there because it’s so friendly.”

Lucy, who is also a trained actress, believes the Canterbury comedy scene has improved dramatically since they started on Chatback. “The Parrot is our resident club, but over the years we’ve held gigs in Whitstable, on the UKC campus and further afield. We’ve definitely noticed a big surge in comedy in Canterbury over the past few years. Clubs have popped up, some for a long period of time and some just briefly. Many pubs have begun holding open-mic nights, too, which is great because there are lots more places to try out material for new comics.” Chatback has also gone into the Gulbenkian theatre on the university campus to put on children’s comedy shows and workshops.

Changes are afoot for the young Chatback team, with one half of the duo looking to follow in the footsteps of his famous comedy tutor. “At the end of this current season Sam will be leaving the company to train to become an English and drama teacher,” said Lucy. “We haven’t ruled out him returning after he’s finished and is super-qualified, but for the next couple of years I’ll be running the company along with some of the existing members of the team.”

And the crew have a few ideas of their own. "Our plans are to continue The Parrot gigs and the kids' comedy at the Gulbenkian but to also open a club in London and to tour with our new format show Stand Up & Slam! - a fusion between performance poetry and stand-up comedy. It's awesome! There are a couple more ideas still under wraps, but we have big plans." 

• Visit www.chatbackcomedy.com for information on forthcoming shows. 

Too Many Pies?

I've been a little slack with posting this month - my apologies for that are infinite. I've spent a huge amount of time that I could be writing mulling over what I should be writing about. Or more specifically, what I should be doing with my life which I will later write about. 

This is because every interview with an actor, article about a successful writer or or comedian's memoir seems to say the same thing. It doesn't matter whether they made it overnight or whether it was a thirty year long, hard slog: they all say the same things. Work your arse off, develop your talents and focus. 

It's the last one that gets me. Although I'm a bit sporadic and sometimes undisciplined I do work hard - often eschewing weekends and adequate sleeping patterns to get things done. I attend masterclasses, workshops and more to develop my talents in various creative fields. I'm lined up to take acting classes again (more on that in another blog) so, although I could improve on this, I'm certainly in the game. 

But what does 'focus' mean? I focus on the things I'm doing when I'm doing them. Usually. Yes, I'm being facetious, I know that's not what they mean. They mean "Hey you, if acting's your thing then get a flexible job and spend the rest of your time and money on becoming an actor". They mean "If writing's your thing, set up a writing schedule. Then get a job that fits into this or go wild, get a crazy ass job and write all about it". Successful producers, casting directors and agents have tales packed full of internships, scaling the ladder from entry level PA jobs and spending mornings calling and recalling every company in Contacts. 

So as I sit here in London with a file full of producing notes for an upcoming production in Brighton, email confirmations for acting auditions, plans for a meeting in Canterbury for my comedy club and a deadline to update a radio script I wonder, "Are my fingers in too many pies?"

On a first reading of the previous paragraph I imagine the answer will naturally be yes. And if we're going to subscribe to the concept that it's only by really truly focusing on your one true love that you'll 'make it' in that field then the answer is still yes. How can I possibly be serious about anything if I'm willing to entertain other possibilities? If I want to be an actor why am I dabbling in playwriting. Or vice versa? But is this rock steady devotion to one goal really an option nowadays? 

I appreciate that in the days of repertory theatre or, at least, of fairly regular work it made sense to direct all your energy into one activity. However these days, the majority of UK actors constantly working on refining their art will be doing so by creating the work themselves, attending classes or performing unpaid. The rest of their time will be spent making a living in a way often unassociated with acting: telemarketing, teaching, temping, promotions etc. Ian McKellen recently bemoaned the fact that 'the current generation of actors won't develop into good middle-aged performers because they won't have been able to live from their work'*. It's not quite as bad for all creative professions but it is still pretty difficult to work full time as a writer, freelance producer or dancer. 

Look, I understand that if you're serious about becoming an actor there's a big difference between taking on a job that you're happy to ditch when a good gig comes along and committing yourself to something like writing a play or producing an event. I can see the arguments that, as mind numbing and painful as it might be to hang your life on the line and work and pray for that big opportunity to come along, it has to be done. It's the sacrifice you make for wanting to do something so crazy with your life. 

But then I flip the coin and I realise that, by taking on different roles in theatre and/or film, these individuals are making sure that they are constantly immersed in the industry, that they know exactly what's going on, who's who and understand the business from all angles. In fact aren't they, to some degree, recreating the opportunities that repertory theatre afforded actors? When they'd start off as lowly stage sweepers and rise through the ranks of the company with single line roles right up to starring in each and every production. When they'd be witness to every great actor's performance, every director's quirks and every script's nuances. 

So, should we be maligning or applauding those who are too impatient to put all their eggs in one basket? Is it hurting my chances or increasing them? Or in this crazy world we call show business are there really way less rules than we make out? Is it, at the end of the day, each to his own? I hope so. 

*http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-news/9678384/Sir-Ian-McKellen-there-will-be-no-more-British-acting-greats.html

Seth MacFarlane at the Oscars - Sexist Schmexist.

This is my late addition to the Oscar furore. I've been scribbling thoughts down since the night but I found it hard to pull all the strands together with the cacophony of crazy opinions whirling around out there in the ether. Human beings love a bit of hysteria don't we? Hype, hysteria...for some reason we'll use any excuse to turn into sheep and blindly follow the flock. Or we're extremely vocal in opposing the hype, thereby immediately becoming part of it. Either way, through a combination of facebook, twitter, reddit, blogging, radio, opinion TV shows and more, the Western world is insistent upon asserting our right to free speech at absolutely every turn. 

In fact it's the idea of free speech that seems to cause controversy from all quarters. With half of us clinging onto this right for dear life and the other half getting more and more sensitive to language and opinions expressed in the media it's, frankly, all starting to get a bit silly. This is why, more than anything else, once again the topic most debated after the 85th Academy Awards was not the content of the winning films but the performance of its host Seth MacFarlane. 

I'll say right here that I'm not an advocate of entirely free speech. Or at least not the decision to use it regardless of the consequences. I've written before about how unnecessary it seems to purposely create bad feeling, offence or else solely for it's own sake. I know others believe that it's important to have the option to do that and, while I respect their opinions, for me it's just as horrendous to purposely upset and target others for no real gain as it is to stifle their speech.

Having said this I really think it's time that people stopped laying in wait ready to take offence. I don't think every comment needs to be deconstructed to see whether it's possible to infer a negative intent from it, I don't think that people should be attacked for accidentally or purposely utilising a word that doesn't fit into others' definition of 'acceptable' and I don't think that making the discussion of appropriate language a subject for academic debate really helps change anything at a grassroots of society level. On that note I understand that catching people out early helps to expose and pinpoint potentially harmful ideas before they become lodged in society's subconscious. I just think we need to stop being quite so didactic. 

I think Seth MacFarlane, on the whole, sucked at the Oscars. I don't think he held his own, I thought his humour was crass and juvenile and yes, he talked about women in a pretty ignorant way. But this man is famous for creating Family Guy and the movie Ted. Both can also be described using the adjectives above. What exactly were people expecting? That he was going to suddenly morph into a sycophantically sweet, highbrow, suave Hollywood host? There were so many other options they could have gone with if that's what they wanted. It's too late to feign surprised outrage now. 

As is usual with the web there is already so much out there to try to deal with in this blog so, to directly address a few things in more detail, I'm using one of the many anti-MacFarlane articles that went viral soon after the event. This one is from BuzzFeed*, was viewed by over 700,000 people and I found it on a friend's facebook wall under the title 'horrific'. For me it's a clear example of how our society seems to garner so much of it's information and opinions in the guise of badly informed hype. 

9 Sexist Things That Happened at the Oscars

1. The Boob song happened

Yes, the boob song was crap. It wasn't funny, it wasn't original and yep it seems a bit to weird to talk about boobs rather than the fact that the films were innovative pieces of art with heartrending stories and strong actresses. But, to be fair to MacFarlane, he's a comedian, he's not there to say what everyone else is saying and it was framed as a joke, as a bad decision to perform at the Oscars, in a scene that drew to attention his juvenile humour. Plus, why all the outcry over men objectifying women? Do we not devote hundreds of pages both online and in magazines to photos of Ryan Gosling's naked torso? Do we not flock to the cinemas to see beautifully sculpted males in topless roles? I can assure you that the first time I saw a film with Brad Pitt in it I was shocked he could actually act because all I'd ever seen, heard or read about him in mainstream media focused on his face, torso and lovely little bum. How would we feel if it'd been a song about penises in film? Would it still be sexist? If no then...why not? If yes then relax, it could've just as easily have been penises if a woman was hosting. But we chose a man so, y'know, deal with it. 

2. The Prospect of George Clooney getting with Quvenzhane Wallis was discussed. 

No it wasn't. This is what Seth MacFarlane said, "To give you an idea just how young she is, it'll be 16 years before she'll be old for Clooney". That was it. Now once again YES IT IS A TASTELESS JOKE. But, and I swear this'll be the last time I say this, that's the style that we accept Seth MacFarlane brings to his performances. So on that basis what's the big deal? It's not an actual suggestion that George Clooney has ever, will ever or should ever take a nine year old to bed. I'm sorry to have to say that but that's essentially what everyone freaking out is insinuating. If anything it's a joke on Clooney. Hence why, immediately afterwards, it was him to whom MacFarlane 'apologised'. It was a comment on how his girlfriends are way younger than his age. It was making fun of George Clooney, a Hollywood stalwart, and to infer anything else from it is ridiculous. Seriously. Try to articulate exactly what you think Seth MacFarlane was suggesting. 

3. There was a 'joke' about domestic violence. 

Sigh. He said "Django is a movie where a woman is subjected to violence, or as we call it, a Chris Brown and Rihanna date movie". So everyone is making a big hullaballo about - 'Domestic Violence isn't funny'. Of course it's not funny. MacFarlane wasn't suggesting we laugh at the idea of Rihanna being beaten up. He was drawing attention to how ridiculous it is that Chris Brown, a known abuser, has a successful career and a continued relationship with the same woman. You know what's worse than making a joke about Chris Brown? Perpetuating his career, producing his albums, promoting his performances, selling his songs, publishing interviews with him. If a man can publicly be known as having attacked his girlfriend and maintains a career in a high profile industry where he, like it or not, appears as a role model and has great influence then that's when we should worry. 

4. Jennifer Aniston got called a stripper. 

Jennifer Aniston and Channing Tatum came on stage and MacFarlane said 'Of our next two presenters at least one is honest about being a former exotic dancer'. And Channing Tatum used to be an exotic dancer. Soooo...not sexist. Because Channing's a guy. So rather than calling Aniston a stripper he was simply bringing up the fact that one of them definitely was a stripper. Not really funny either. A bit weird. But not sexist. 

5. Seth MacFarlane made fun of women for dieting. 

So? They do. He said, "For all those women who had the "flu". It paid off. Looking good." I think it was entirely unnecessary but it's not a lie. The scrutiny of women on the red carpet at the Oscars is huge and, for that reason, women do crazy stuff in Hollywood to try and look good. I think men probably do too but it's not as widespread or obvious. But why not make fun of it? In the big wide world it is a little bit silly. 

6. He also said 'Zero Dark Thirty' was evidence that women are difficult. 

He didn't 'say' that. He made a joke about it. That doesn't mean he thinks it's true. It probably means the opposite. The humour in the joke came from the fact that it's a super heavy movie about torture, so to boil it down to that explanation is both ridiculous and amusing. Lots of us laughed. We were all female. It was one of the better jokes actually. Couldn't make that joke about a guy. The lead role is a lady.

7. And then he talked about the Kardashians having facial hair. 

BOMBSHELL! I'm not going to defend him here. That's mean. Not funny. Unnecessary. I can't think of a way not to take that personally either for the Kardashians or for women in general who are selfconcious about possibly having facial hair. Don't perpetuate the idea that something about a woman in unnatural or ugly. And there's not really another way this could have been taken. 

8. There was this questionable joke about Jack Nicholson's house.

They said there was going to be an orgy at Jack Nicholson's house. This was either a completely random joke or it's been suggested that it was an allusion to the fact that Roman Polanski raped a girl at Jack Nicholson's old house. There's not really enough evidence to assume the latter so it seems silly to get offended on the basis that it 'might be'. Also I don't think it's sexist. Rape is pretty bad so I don't think we can assume he was condoning it which, I think, is probably the only way it could be sexist.

9. MacFarlane said it was fine that no one could understand Selma Hayek, because all they want to do is look at her. 

He was calling her beautiful but he was also kind of suggesting that she had no other discernable use or skill so yes I can see that this would have been sexist if it was actually what he said. What he actually said was, "Well we have finally reached the point in the ceremony where either Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz or Selma Hayek come on stage and we have no idea what they're saying but we don't care because they're so attractive. Please welcome Selma Hayek." You know Javier Bardem's a guy right? Right? 

I think it's clear that a lot of MacFarlane's jokes sucked. There was a bit of an unevenly weighted focus on women and their appearances which I'm glad has been flagged up. However in responding so melodramatically to his performance what critics have actually achieved is to create lots of copy and content for magazines and the internet, to draw attention to the Awards ceremony and MacFarlane that's better than any paid for publicity could ever manage and, essentially, hand power over to him to continue to garner attention, unearth his supporters and raise his profile doing exactly what he's doing. 

*http://www.buzzfeed.com/hillaryreinsberg/sexist-things-at-the-oscars