Hello all!
I'm a contributor on the Gay Stage now and I will be for a while I hope! I'm writing a blog for them about the fact that my play Rachael's Cafe was warmly received into the LGBT community despite the fact that I'm not LGBT nor did I specifically write the play for any community. When I started writing about this fact The Gay Stage editor Daniel Marshall told me that I had hit on a subject that was quite 'en vogue' at the moment, that being the discussion of whether the LGBT label is a help or a hindrance. Please, if you can take the time, I'd be thrilled if you'd read it.
http://www.thegaystage.com/2012/02/marketing-playthe-lgbt-way.html
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Celebrity CULTure
Today, in an article about the West End production of One Man, Two Guvnors, the Telegraph Theatre's section reads as follows, 'Instead of going for another star name to replace Corden, the theatre has promoted his understudy, something that rarely happens in the theatre'.
Why is it so surprising that a Casting Director would choose an experienced stage actor to portray a leading man rather than search for a star name - read television or film star - to take the role? The answer is fairly obvious at first glance. Yes, they might pay out more for the star name and they might, perhaps, find it tougher to find the perfect actor to fill the part when limited solely to casting a big name, but boy won't they notice the difference when the booking line opens! Basically, regardless of the play or the rest of the cast, the inclusion of one celebrity is generally enough to make a major difference in ticket sales.
I hate this cult of celebrity. By that I mean the idea of celebrity as it appears in our society nowadays. Not the concept of celebrity, or the fact that it exists, I believe it's perfectly natural for humans to elevate someone above themselves: for reasons of admiration and respect for that person's character, talent or skills. The French term, une cause célèbre, literally means a 'celebrated case', so it makes perfect sense to me that we celebrate the actor who entertains and affects us, the musician who moves us or the scientist who opens up the world just a little bit more for us. But it seems to be the case that human beings are hard wired to turn into suckers who follow celebrities blindly. While those celebrities such as Judi Dench and Stephen Hawking tend to inspire people to train in their craft or devote themselves to a cause, the more mainstream celebrities -television and film stars, pop stars, reality TV stars (basically anything that you can put the word 'star' onto the end of) - seem to turn us into mindless sheep. Whether we're popping into the hairdressers to get a 'Rachael', spending our hard-earned cash on achieving just the right TOWIE orange hue or seeing teenage girls queuing for hours in hysterically sobbing masses to meet the YouTube 'heart throb' who made an online video called Luke gets Herpes and other fun STDs, we seem to be losing the ability to make calls and decisions for ourselves.
Perhaps the real reason I'm so anti-celebrity is because of the way that it has infiltrated our theatres. Why is it that people will go to see a show they wouldn't dream of seeing if it didn't feature their favourite movie star? James Corden might have raked in great audience figures and both critical and audience acclaim, but were people going to see the show because they were interested in the writer or the narrative or the style, or because James Corden was in it? Were they going to see a play or a one-man show with back-up? One audience member who went because he adored the original play told me that he hated the NT version, that the narrative was continuously broken as Corden strode to the front of the stage at regular intervals and performed the script as...himself. Almost, he said, as a one-man stand-up comedy show. Yes the audience adored it, they were there to see Corden give a tour-de-force performance, but they certainly didn't experience the play they were ostensibly there to see.
So, in a business sense, I can totally understand how our culture's adoration of celebrity is helping British Theatre. But are we producing theatre or showcase opportunities? And does it matter or am I just whining?
As an Actress, neither famous nor currently working, I'm aware that this meditation on celebrities taking over theatreland is bound to come across as bitter. It's true that it's scary to think that no matter how hard you devote yourself to the theatre, you're likely to miss out on ever playing the big roles if you don't develop a recognisable face and name through other mediums. But I beg of you not to take my comments that way. First and foremost I am a theatre lover and seeing a great performance on stage thrills me almost as much as giving one. The reason I wanted to be an Actress and Writer was to take part in creating the kinds of worlds and performances that had moved me so much. So my comments below are meant as a factual look at the way in which the appetite for celebrities is affecting the potential of the writing and performing happening in our theatres:
'You know, you know,' he said. 'The one with James Corden in it'.
'Oh yeah.' She now knew the show he was talking about but no idea what it was about or where it was on.
'I want to see it,' the Uncle went on. 'But it's fully booked until it goes to the West End. But the new production doesn't have James Corden in it because he's going to Broadway.' He really knew his stuff. 'Which means,' he went on. 'That basically it won't be as good'.
WHAT? Why? Why does it mean that? Does he want to see the show or James Corden? Why doesn't he just go to see Corden do an arena gig? And so, on the morning after the Press Night of the West End production of One Man, Two Guvnors, I want to pay tribute to the success that has been the brave decision to cast an outstanding, but unknown, stage actor in a part written for just that. Fiona Mountford, of the Evening Standard, gave the new production four stars and says 'Whisper it softly, but I found the show even better this time around, without Corden's occasionally distracting presence.' Charles Spencer, of The Telegraph, also gave the show five stars and said 'Owain Arthur proves Corden’s equal...his hilarious monologues to the audience about his gnawing hunger and mounting confusion somehow seem even funnier' and Mark Shenton of The Stage point outs that with Arthur in Corden's role the show 'isn’t quite as dominated by the character as before, and a true ensemble therefore gathers not so much behind him as around him.'
Yes, Corden was good. But it seems that Arthur is better. Better suited to the part at least. What a shame he didn't have it from the start.
Why is it so surprising that a Casting Director would choose an experienced stage actor to portray a leading man rather than search for a star name - read television or film star - to take the role? The answer is fairly obvious at first glance. Yes, they might pay out more for the star name and they might, perhaps, find it tougher to find the perfect actor to fill the part when limited solely to casting a big name, but boy won't they notice the difference when the booking line opens! Basically, regardless of the play or the rest of the cast, the inclusion of one celebrity is generally enough to make a major difference in ticket sales.
I hate this cult of celebrity. By that I mean the idea of celebrity as it appears in our society nowadays. Not the concept of celebrity, or the fact that it exists, I believe it's perfectly natural for humans to elevate someone above themselves: for reasons of admiration and respect for that person's character, talent or skills. The French term, une cause célèbre, literally means a 'celebrated case', so it makes perfect sense to me that we celebrate the actor who entertains and affects us, the musician who moves us or the scientist who opens up the world just a little bit more for us. But it seems to be the case that human beings are hard wired to turn into suckers who follow celebrities blindly. While those celebrities such as Judi Dench and Stephen Hawking tend to inspire people to train in their craft or devote themselves to a cause, the more mainstream celebrities -television and film stars, pop stars, reality TV stars (basically anything that you can put the word 'star' onto the end of) - seem to turn us into mindless sheep. Whether we're popping into the hairdressers to get a 'Rachael', spending our hard-earned cash on achieving just the right TOWIE orange hue or seeing teenage girls queuing for hours in hysterically sobbing masses to meet the YouTube 'heart throb' who made an online video called Luke gets Herpes and other fun STDs, we seem to be losing the ability to make calls and decisions for ourselves.
Perhaps the real reason I'm so anti-celebrity is because of the way that it has infiltrated our theatres. Why is it that people will go to see a show they wouldn't dream of seeing if it didn't feature their favourite movie star? James Corden might have raked in great audience figures and both critical and audience acclaim, but were people going to see the show because they were interested in the writer or the narrative or the style, or because James Corden was in it? Were they going to see a play or a one-man show with back-up? One audience member who went because he adored the original play told me that he hated the NT version, that the narrative was continuously broken as Corden strode to the front of the stage at regular intervals and performed the script as...himself. Almost, he said, as a one-man stand-up comedy show. Yes the audience adored it, they were there to see Corden give a tour-de-force performance, but they certainly didn't experience the play they were ostensibly there to see.
So, in a business sense, I can totally understand how our culture's adoration of celebrity is helping British Theatre. But are we producing theatre or showcase opportunities? And does it matter or am I just whining?
As an Actress, neither famous nor currently working, I'm aware that this meditation on celebrities taking over theatreland is bound to come across as bitter. It's true that it's scary to think that no matter how hard you devote yourself to the theatre, you're likely to miss out on ever playing the big roles if you don't develop a recognisable face and name through other mediums. But I beg of you not to take my comments that way. First and foremost I am a theatre lover and seeing a great performance on stage thrills me almost as much as giving one. The reason I wanted to be an Actress and Writer was to take part in creating the kinds of worlds and performances that had moved me so much. So my comments below are meant as a factual look at the way in which the appetite for celebrities is affecting the potential of the writing and performing happening in our theatres:
Sienna Miller confessed that she wasn't prepared for as big a role as Miss Julie in After Miss Julie when she played it on Broadway. The newspapers agreed, The Guardian claiming that 'Miller doesn't quite convince as Strindberg's doomed heroine' and the Wall Street Journal that 'she has no...business playing a classic stage role'. Ben Brantley of the New York Times pointed out that 'at the Donmar, Kelly Reilly, playing Miss Julie as a trembling debutante teetering perilously on her high heels, captured that imbalance to self-loathing perfection. Sadly, Ms. Reilly is not a saleable commodity for a Broadway that increasingly seems to take its casting cues from Us Weekly. Ms. Miller is.'The reason I write all this today is this. On the tube coming home late at night a few weeks ago I overheard an Uncle and his teenage Niece discussing the show they'd just been to and others they might like to see in the near future. Their obvious enthusiasm for theatre made me smile and I couldn't help eavesdropping. At one point the Uncle expressed his interest in seeing One Man, Two Guvnors. The Niece had no idea what he was talking about.
Zach Braff, best known as JD from Scrubs, has just brought his self-penned play to the London stage in which he stars. The Times called it "the most aimless, pointless, immature play I have ever seen" and The Guardian said "What promises to be a savagely black comedy turns into a muddled, meandering affair that reeks of self-gratification." Quentin Letts, of the Daily Mail, hits the nail on the head when he points out that there are good comic moments and gags but that overall Braff simply isn't ready, he 'lacks the confidence' to have written and starred in a play and that overall 'the play tastes more of fashion than heart'. Why wasn't Braff told to develop his play more, perhaps take on a co-writer or perform some smaller parts first? The reason is that, once celebrity takes over, you can no longer easily disappear into a character which is the exact thing that most roles require for them to reach their full potential. Celebrity also seems to attract the idea that one can do anything and that training or practising is no longer needed, meaning that Braff, a comparatively new writer, has his play in the West End while full-time, experienced writers who devote 100% of their time to doing so are struggling to make ends meet and funding their own plays on tiny tours. Why do we feel that Braff has more to say in a play than an unknown who has spent their life experiencing things we can't even imagine?
'You know, you know,' he said. 'The one with James Corden in it'.
'Oh yeah.' She now knew the show he was talking about but no idea what it was about or where it was on.
'I want to see it,' the Uncle went on. 'But it's fully booked until it goes to the West End. But the new production doesn't have James Corden in it because he's going to Broadway.' He really knew his stuff. 'Which means,' he went on. 'That basically it won't be as good'.
WHAT? Why? Why does it mean that? Does he want to see the show or James Corden? Why doesn't he just go to see Corden do an arena gig? And so, on the morning after the Press Night of the West End production of One Man, Two Guvnors, I want to pay tribute to the success that has been the brave decision to cast an outstanding, but unknown, stage actor in a part written for just that. Fiona Mountford, of the Evening Standard, gave the new production four stars and says 'Whisper it softly, but I found the show even better this time around, without Corden's occasionally distracting presence.' Charles Spencer, of The Telegraph, also gave the show five stars and said 'Owain Arthur proves Corden’s equal...his hilarious monologues to the audience about his gnawing hunger and mounting confusion somehow seem even funnier' and Mark Shenton of The Stage point outs that with Arthur in Corden's role the show 'isn’t quite as dominated by the character as before, and a true ensemble therefore gathers not so much behind him as around him.'
Yes, Corden was good. But it seems that Arthur is better. Better suited to the part at least. What a shame he didn't have it from the start.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
OSCARS: STICKS AND STONES EH?
Sticks and stones. I'm not going to recite the old rhyme. We all know it. This, therefore, makes it all the more mystifying to me that we seem so loath to apply it to our own lives. Why, in a world full of so many tangible things that can hurt us, are we insistent upon taking offence at words?
Yes, language can hurt. I'm not denying the power of words. As someone hoping to make a living from writing and speaking words that'd be, at the very least, a stupid thing to do. I know that books and plays have moved people so powerfully that they've sent facist dictators and communist countries into panics of censorship and burning, I know that blasphemy and swearing are offensive to many people and I totally agree that it's appropriate to teach children to use words wisely. Like I say, I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be boundaries, that words should be used willy nilly or that we relax the rules so as to attempt to diminish the potential power of words. What I'm saying is that 'taking offence' at jokes and the way in which people choose to express themselves is pointless, limiting, antisocial and downright childish. Not everybody in the world is articulate. Whether it's due to education, society, communication difficulties or a generation thing, everybody makes a verbal faux pas at some stage. It doesn't mean they don't mean well.
There are 7 billion people alive in the world. We span all ages, races, genders, religions and political ideals. We are not all going to agree. That's a given. I'm going to find something funny that Ahmed in Iran is going to find blasphemous. Ahmed is going to find something important that Oscar in Australia will write off as mere twaddle. And Oscar is going to find something sexy that Valerie in the US is going to find revolting. Some of you are going to find the fact that I used the generic name Ahmed for an Iranian man just a little bit racist. Probably. I'm sure someone will. What I don't understand is how, knowing this, we still race to debate, discuss and demand apologies after any joke or comment is made that can't be immediately identified as a non-offensive, all-inclusive statement.
I watched the Oscars. I saw Chris Rock made a speech about how easy it was to earn millions of dollars doing funny voices for animations. I laughed. And laughed. Rock took a risk, said something quirky, honest and with good humour. In doing so he lit up the stage, provoked a reaction and livened up the night. I identified. Working in the arts, though it has its challenges, doesn't exactly stack up next to the trials and tribulations of a brain surgeon. Let's remember that and not take ourselves too seriously. That doesn't diminish the skills, talent or commitment of the actors who make us smile and laugh at the animations we flock to see in our millions. But apparently some 'believe that Rock overstepped some boundaries in dissing fellow actors while presenting an award meant to honor their work'. Translated: Some people can't take a joke.
I'd actually say that I'm fairly conservative. I wouldn't say I 'rock the boat'. So when Billy Crystal glibly said “I loved that movie (The Help)…when I saw it, I wanted to hug the first black woman that I saw. Which from Beverly Hills is about a 45 minute drive", a little bit of me went all Guardian reader panicky. 'Can he say that?' 'Isn't it racist?' 'Is he undoing all the good work that's happening this moment by Hollywood paying homage to black actors?' No, no and no. You know how when you have a really close friend, you can say anything to them and they still know you love them? Yeah. That's kind of what's happening here. Why does Crystal need to tiptoe around the subject of race? He already said he loved the movie. His joke, if we're going to really investigate it, says that he feels positively towards black people. Also, if we're saying it wasn't funny, that's fine. It's fine because at least it was based in truth. Beverly Hills is not known for it's high population of black people. That's a comment my sister made recently whilst standing in Beverly Hills. That's something I, coming from a very multicultural part of London, noticed immediately when spending a week there. 45 minutes is an exaggeration of course but that's what comedy is. Taking the truth and exaggerating. Embellishing. So what's the issue? According to the twitter/blogger sphere:
There are black people still very much considered a lower class in South Africa. There are murders and corruption of black people happening in England. There are hate crimes taking place against black people in America. There are kids suffering from race related bullying. So tell me why Billy Crystal's vaguely amusing but admittedly sub-par joke based entirely in truth, and in no way hostile, is in any way distasteful, disruptive or dangerous to our society. Please, tell me.
PS I like how Brande Victorian put it: 'Maybe I’m naive but I actually saw that joke as more of a commentary on the lack of black women in Hollywood—you know the very issue we’re screaming and kicking about every day...Overall, I think people are being a little too sensitive about Billy Crystal’s routine last night and we’re starting to find anything that touches on race to be racist. Pretty soon that double standard of black people being able to crack jokes about white people, but white people not being allowed to say anything about black folks is going to come back and bite us—hard.' **
* http://news.softpedia.com/news/Oscars-2012-Chris-Rock-Offends-with-Animation-Joke-255179.shtml
** http://madamenoire.com/141224/billy-in-blackface-racist-oscar-routine-isnt-a-big-hit/
Yes, language can hurt. I'm not denying the power of words. As someone hoping to make a living from writing and speaking words that'd be, at the very least, a stupid thing to do. I know that books and plays have moved people so powerfully that they've sent facist dictators and communist countries into panics of censorship and burning, I know that blasphemy and swearing are offensive to many people and I totally agree that it's appropriate to teach children to use words wisely. Like I say, I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be boundaries, that words should be used willy nilly or that we relax the rules so as to attempt to diminish the potential power of words. What I'm saying is that 'taking offence' at jokes and the way in which people choose to express themselves is pointless, limiting, antisocial and downright childish. Not everybody in the world is articulate. Whether it's due to education, society, communication difficulties or a generation thing, everybody makes a verbal faux pas at some stage. It doesn't mean they don't mean well.
There are 7 billion people alive in the world. We span all ages, races, genders, religions and political ideals. We are not all going to agree. That's a given. I'm going to find something funny that Ahmed in Iran is going to find blasphemous. Ahmed is going to find something important that Oscar in Australia will write off as mere twaddle. And Oscar is going to find something sexy that Valerie in the US is going to find revolting. Some of you are going to find the fact that I used the generic name Ahmed for an Iranian man just a little bit racist. Probably. I'm sure someone will. What I don't understand is how, knowing this, we still race to debate, discuss and demand apologies after any joke or comment is made that can't be immediately identified as a non-offensive, all-inclusive statement.
I watched the Oscars. I saw Chris Rock made a speech about how easy it was to earn millions of dollars doing funny voices for animations. I laughed. And laughed. Rock took a risk, said something quirky, honest and with good humour. In doing so he lit up the stage, provoked a reaction and livened up the night. I identified. Working in the arts, though it has its challenges, doesn't exactly stack up next to the trials and tribulations of a brain surgeon. Let's remember that and not take ourselves too seriously. That doesn't diminish the skills, talent or commitment of the actors who make us smile and laugh at the animations we flock to see in our millions. But apparently some 'believe that Rock overstepped some boundaries in dissing fellow actors while presenting an award meant to honor their work'. Translated: Some people can't take a joke.
I'd actually say that I'm fairly conservative. I wouldn't say I 'rock the boat'. So when Billy Crystal glibly said “I loved that movie (The Help)…when I saw it, I wanted to hug the first black woman that I saw. Which from Beverly Hills is about a 45 minute drive", a little bit of me went all Guardian reader panicky. 'Can he say that?' 'Isn't it racist?' 'Is he undoing all the good work that's happening this moment by Hollywood paying homage to black actors?' No, no and no. You know how when you have a really close friend, you can say anything to them and they still know you love them? Yeah. That's kind of what's happening here. Why does Crystal need to tiptoe around the subject of race? He already said he loved the movie. His joke, if we're going to really investigate it, says that he feels positively towards black people. Also, if we're saying it wasn't funny, that's fine. It's fine because at least it was based in truth. Beverly Hills is not known for it's high population of black people. That's a comment my sister made recently whilst standing in Beverly Hills. That's something I, coming from a very multicultural part of London, noticed immediately when spending a week there. 45 minutes is an exaggeration of course but that's what comedy is. Taking the truth and exaggerating. Embellishing. So what's the issue? According to the twitter/blogger sphere:
@kimkane1 It bothers me that none of the writers stopped to think about the feelings of the other black actors and actresses in the room. It bothers me that some in the audience were so de-sensitized that they laughed out loud.
@thewanderingjew: Will Billy Crystal apologize for the racist joke? #oscars
@SALLevation: #BillyCrystalRacist #ThatsAll
@ch3ryl: @billycrystal shows his age in making a #racist joke about wanting to "hug a black woman" post The Help re: @OctaviaSpencer #oscars
emsmiley: So, according to #BillyCrystal, there are no black people in Beverly Hills...racist much?? #oscars" Very uncomfy moment.
'Billy Crystal controversially joked that he wanted to 'hug a black woman' after The Help' The Daily Mail
There are black people still very much considered a lower class in South Africa. There are murders and corruption of black people happening in England. There are hate crimes taking place against black people in America. There are kids suffering from race related bullying. So tell me why Billy Crystal's vaguely amusing but admittedly sub-par joke based entirely in truth, and in no way hostile, is in any way distasteful, disruptive or dangerous to our society. Please, tell me.
PS I like how Brande Victorian put it: 'Maybe I’m naive but I actually saw that joke as more of a commentary on the lack of black women in Hollywood—you know the very issue we’re screaming and kicking about every day...Overall, I think people are being a little too sensitive about Billy Crystal’s routine last night and we’re starting to find anything that touches on race to be racist. Pretty soon that double standard of black people being able to crack jokes about white people, but white people not being allowed to say anything about black folks is going to come back and bite us—hard.' **
* http://news.softpedia.com/news/Oscars-2012-Chris-Rock-Offends-with-Animation-Joke-255179.shtml
** http://madamenoire.com/141224/billy-in-blackface-racist-oscar-routine-isnt-a-big-hit/
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Transland
This year, as some of you will know, I wrote, directed and produced a play called Rachael's Cafe. It was, in short, a one hour one-man play created through interviews with its real life protagonist. This protagonist happened to be a pre-op transgender living on the Bible Belt in Indiana, USA where she runs an 'inclusive' cafe. I wanted to write a play, but I didn't set out to write a 'transgender' play.
Admittedly, though not involved in it myself, I have always been drawn to exploring, through theatre, the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) scene. My previous directorial role was for Torchsong Trilogy, and I'm an avid fan of other similarly focused productions, but this is entirely subconscious and I certainly wasn't looking to get further involved when I stumbled across the raw material for Rachael's Cafe.
Transgender is, anyway, quite a step away from the LGB bit of LGBT. While the first three deal with sexual orientation, the latter deals solely with gender rather than with any sort of sexual preference. For this reason it is a little uncomfortably lumped in with the rest causing great disparity in peoples' general understanding of what exactly it means to be transgender.
Having spent hours interviewing the real Rachael Jones, meeting and talking with a variety of transgender people around the UK, shopping for the necessary underwear and make-up, teaching a man to walk in shoes and dealing with a very straight actor's issues regarding getting to grips with his feminine side to such a degree, I have to admit the entire concept still perplexes me a great deal. I completely comprehend that this is not a choice for the individuals involved. Having witnessed the damage it can potentially wreak on an individual, a family, on a life, I know that wanting to change your gender is not a whim, a rebellion or a selfish act, it is for most an entirely necessary act and, for some, a matter of life and death.
I'd only met one transgender person before Rachael. I was 16 at the time and I remember that the main reason this person had been pointed out to me was because she was not passable, she was not the norm and I, in no way, truly got to know her as a human being. Looking back I now wonder how many people really did take the time to get to know her.
As I was working on the play two things struck me:
1. There are a lot of transgender people! Almost everyone I stopped to talk about the play with (whether in London whilst fundraising or in Edinburgh while flyering) knew a transgender person. Last week I took my car into the garage and my mechanic told me his best friend was transitioning, I went to my local pub in Canterbury and one of the regulars confided she used to be a man. Rachael was an anomaly, unique, to me but now I was learning that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the exact same scenario as her.
2. Transgender people were not enjoying the same amount of support or understanding as the Gay community. I think this partly comes back to the fact that transgender sits a little uncomfortably in the LGBT acronym, but it means that people truly do not understand it. From the LadyBoys of Bangkok to the fetishisation of the transitioning body, there is a very small box into which we try to squeeze the entire trans issue and it simply doesn't reflect the majority of these people who are trying to live as an average person whether that be male or female. I found that contacting gay magazines, communities and fundraising centres was easy to do and all above board. I found that there were a lot less of these outlets for the trans community and I found contacting dressing services for transgender people was incredibly difficult. Firstly there are not a huge amount of these services, secondly they seem to be scattered in basements and attics across London, thirdly they seem to open and close at the rate of knots and lastly there is a veil of privacy surrounding everything since so many trans people are 'in the closet'. We went to a wig company calling themselves the best in 'Gender Transformations' and yet the stylist spent the entire time commenting on the size of my actor's head, his large features and the fact he wasn't 'passable' as a woman. He was mortified, imagine if someone desperate to transition was in that chair? In the end, almost everything I managed to organise was done through word-of-mouth. I posted on forums, asked for introductions and people sent me their own clothes, wigs and shoes.
Once back from Edinburgh this year a television programme on Channel 4 suddenly appeared that seemed to change everything. My Transsexual Summer, featuring a host of pre-op, post-op and transitioning individuals, instantly brought transgenders to the fore. Issues such as visiting the local pub, looking passable and applying for jobs were tackled head on and the public started to be gently, and honestly, educated. This was followed up with the BBC's Coming Out Diaries and a flurry of articles in women's magazines as people suddenly rushed to tell their stories of transitioning and get it all out in the open.
I can only imagine the collective sigh of relief that transgender people all over the UK breathed as this series aired. And people being relieved, relaxed, feeling 'right' can only be a good thing.
Twitter: @rachaelscafe1
Facebook: rachaelscafetheplay
www.littleflytheatre.com
Friday, January 27, 2012
Why Realistic Fiction is My Genre...and a Worthy One at That
Ever since I can remember I've been crazy about fiction. From the first time my parents pointed at a yellow puppy and read out 'This is Spot, See Spot Run!' I was hooked. The books I grew up reading now make up a major portion of my childhood nostalgia. I'm still an avid reader and can devour whole novels in days, sometimes even hours, often illiciting anguished pleas from my mother to 'please pace yourself...make the book last!' as I hand her a dog-eared copy of a book that's been everywhere with me -the bath, the toilet, bed- in the 24 hours since we've purchased it at WHSmiths.
Stories are at the heart of what I love about working in, and experiencing, the arts. I spent four years at university shuddering through classes on performance art, descriptive novels and abstract theatre pieces. If it didn't have a narrative it rarely touched me. I needed the story as a structure on which to hang the emotions and/or techniques of the piece, to make them make sense to me.
I'll read most types of fiction whether it be sci-fi, the classics or something downright farcical. However, what really strikes a chord in me is realistic, contemporary fiction, whether this is in a book, a play or a film. I know that many people find it boring and pointless to while away the hours plowing through a stranger's descriptions of and points of view regarding family life, work problems, romantic crises and more, when the majority of us could just step outside and experience them for ourselves. I understand why many can't see the reasoning in reading about the world's issues under cover of fiction when they could research them more accurately in a non-fiction paper or book. I comprehend all these views and, for a while recently, they consumed me as I wondered what exactly I thought I was doing by wallowing in this genre. Was I really doing anything worthy in the Arts by fabricating people and situations, by adding more emotions and confusion and nonexistent events to those already piling up in the real world? Perhaps, I thought, I should be reading political journals, economic papers and case studies of domestic and worldwide events?
For me though the existence of fiction makes perfect sense. So much of the media we're confronted with on a daily basis is contaminated in some way. The newspapers all have their own angle, as do politicians, and any interview you read/watch with a celebrity, actor, musician etc. will almost always be tweaked to ensure it promotes their brand rather than their truth. Every quote, every expression, is carefully placed to alert the reader that this is a cool person, a good person, a sexy person etc. I find it less honest than fiction. For me fiction is the genuine communication of an author's feelings, ideology and experiences. Working through the filter of a fictional narrative means that concerns and emotions can be shared almost anonymously, being contributed to the story and/or the characters rather than to themselves. For this reason, for me, this kind of fiction represents the most truthful medium through which to study our world, because it's never promising to be the truth, only one person's truth, and that's a reflection of the way our world works.
The celebrated Sixties photographer David Bailey once said that 'It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer. You need less imagination to be a painter, because you can invent things. But in photography everything is so ordinary; it takes a lot of looking before you learn to see the ordinary'. I feel this way about literary realism. Though it may seem unimaginative and banal to rely on what's already here to create art, there are so many people in the world and so many situations, that there are never-ending opportunities to combine actions, reactions, opinions, situations, values, character traits and more. Each author brings a fresh perspective, perhaps taking the same sorts of characters and situations, but filtering their behaviours and outcomes through their own personal viewpoint and experiences. For example, if you're the parent of a disabled child and you read The Memory Keeper's Daughter you might find that the terrible words and behaviours of some characters in the novel are relevant to you, but are rarely communicated by people in your real life due to the nature and sensitivity of the situation. You could then pick up The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time and come across an entirely different look at the topic.
In my life time so far I have come across so many wonderful people who have been partly or wholly inspired, affected or comforted by the fictional literary realism that they hold closest to their hearts. Whether it's music, art, acting or singing that's involved, the medical and psychological industries are becoming more and more open to utilising therapies that deal with their patient's truths through artistic mediums. Obviously, there is something about being able to filter reality through a fictional construct that can help it make sense or become digestible. Jodi Picoult is an author who deals with the difficult moral and ethical dilemmas so many come across in modern day life and her devoted readership reflects the effect her books have on so many. George Orwell's 1984 is a book wholly relevant to today's Western society as a whole, expressing disdain, warning and concern in a way that has retained its power over many years. Kafka's The Trial is still oft quoted as a true reflection of 'the system', the phrase 'Kafkaesque Nightmare' most recently used in an online forum to describe a frustrated woman's dealings with London Underground. 'The Colour Purple' lets us experience the emotional effects of being a black woman in the Deep South and, though humorous, Pride and Prejudice gets right down to the bones of the Victorians' preoccupation with wealth and status.
Some fiction is just that. Pure fiction. And some is simply the ramblings of a warped mind. Read intelligently, don't cut yourself off from the real world (e.g. the social miscreants who seem to read Catcher in the Rye as a call to commit misdeeds) and understand that you're reading fiction. But always be open to catching the message of the author, understand how human this character is, how wise that comment - enjoy the fiction and digest the truth.
Stories are at the heart of what I love about working in, and experiencing, the arts. I spent four years at university shuddering through classes on performance art, descriptive novels and abstract theatre pieces. If it didn't have a narrative it rarely touched me. I needed the story as a structure on which to hang the emotions and/or techniques of the piece, to make them make sense to me.
I'll read most types of fiction whether it be sci-fi, the classics or something downright farcical. However, what really strikes a chord in me is realistic, contemporary fiction, whether this is in a book, a play or a film. I know that many people find it boring and pointless to while away the hours plowing through a stranger's descriptions of and points of view regarding family life, work problems, romantic crises and more, when the majority of us could just step outside and experience them for ourselves. I understand why many can't see the reasoning in reading about the world's issues under cover of fiction when they could research them more accurately in a non-fiction paper or book. I comprehend all these views and, for a while recently, they consumed me as I wondered what exactly I thought I was doing by wallowing in this genre. Was I really doing anything worthy in the Arts by fabricating people and situations, by adding more emotions and confusion and nonexistent events to those already piling up in the real world? Perhaps, I thought, I should be reading political journals, economic papers and case studies of domestic and worldwide events?
For me though the existence of fiction makes perfect sense. So much of the media we're confronted with on a daily basis is contaminated in some way. The newspapers all have their own angle, as do politicians, and any interview you read/watch with a celebrity, actor, musician etc. will almost always be tweaked to ensure it promotes their brand rather than their truth. Every quote, every expression, is carefully placed to alert the reader that this is a cool person, a good person, a sexy person etc. I find it less honest than fiction. For me fiction is the genuine communication of an author's feelings, ideology and experiences. Working through the filter of a fictional narrative means that concerns and emotions can be shared almost anonymously, being contributed to the story and/or the characters rather than to themselves. For this reason, for me, this kind of fiction represents the most truthful medium through which to study our world, because it's never promising to be the truth, only one person's truth, and that's a reflection of the way our world works.
The celebrated Sixties photographer David Bailey once said that 'It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer. You need less imagination to be a painter, because you can invent things. But in photography everything is so ordinary; it takes a lot of looking before you learn to see the ordinary'. I feel this way about literary realism. Though it may seem unimaginative and banal to rely on what's already here to create art, there are so many people in the world and so many situations, that there are never-ending opportunities to combine actions, reactions, opinions, situations, values, character traits and more. Each author brings a fresh perspective, perhaps taking the same sorts of characters and situations, but filtering their behaviours and outcomes through their own personal viewpoint and experiences. For example, if you're the parent of a disabled child and you read The Memory Keeper's Daughter you might find that the terrible words and behaviours of some characters in the novel are relevant to you, but are rarely communicated by people in your real life due to the nature and sensitivity of the situation. You could then pick up The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time and come across an entirely different look at the topic.
In my life time so far I have come across so many wonderful people who have been partly or wholly inspired, affected or comforted by the fictional literary realism that they hold closest to their hearts. Whether it's music, art, acting or singing that's involved, the medical and psychological industries are becoming more and more open to utilising therapies that deal with their patient's truths through artistic mediums. Obviously, there is something about being able to filter reality through a fictional construct that can help it make sense or become digestible. Jodi Picoult is an author who deals with the difficult moral and ethical dilemmas so many come across in modern day life and her devoted readership reflects the effect her books have on so many. George Orwell's 1984 is a book wholly relevant to today's Western society as a whole, expressing disdain, warning and concern in a way that has retained its power over many years. Kafka's The Trial is still oft quoted as a true reflection of 'the system', the phrase 'Kafkaesque Nightmare' most recently used in an online forum to describe a frustrated woman's dealings with London Underground. 'The Colour Purple' lets us experience the emotional effects of being a black woman in the Deep South and, though humorous, Pride and Prejudice gets right down to the bones of the Victorians' preoccupation with wealth and status.
Some fiction is just that. Pure fiction. And some is simply the ramblings of a warped mind. Read intelligently, don't cut yourself off from the real world (e.g. the social miscreants who seem to read Catcher in the Rye as a call to commit misdeeds) and understand that you're reading fiction. But always be open to catching the message of the author, understand how human this character is, how wise that comment - enjoy the fiction and digest the truth.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Actors Vs Comedians: Finding Work is No Joke
Everyone likes to laugh. Well, not everyone. I’ve met the odd few who prefer to sit miserably sulking in a corner but, for the most part, laughing is a particularly popular pastime. It expresses happiness, it works those ab muscles and, doctors tell us, it’s fantastic for our health. So it’s no wonder that during these past few war-themed, politically murky, recession filled years, stand-up comedy has wriggled its nimble little self into almost every facet of the creative entertainment industry. Switch on the television and, within minutes, you’ll be faced with a grinning comedian headlining a campaign for insurance. Stephen Merchant for Barclays, Jason Manford for Churchill, Omid Djallili for MoneySupermarket.com. Comedians also have sitcoms covered (Ricky Gervais The Office, Jack Dee Lead Balloon, Simon Amstell Grandma’s House, Hugh Dennis Outnumbered, Miranda Hart Miranda),theatre (Lenny Henry Othello, Comedy of Errors, Matt Lucas Prick Up Your Ears, Omid Djalili Oliver) and even television dramas (Miranda Hart Call the Midwife,Peter Kay Doctor Who.)!
So where does this leave actors?
We’re all realistic enough to appreciate that getting your face on the TV often makes you a much more desirable casting option to a theatre. From my first foray into this industry I learnt the importance of actors putting aside their pride for a day, bagging a commercial and then flitting back to the theatre whilst living off the advert’s repeat fees. With this base covered, comedians are now in the front line for much of the subsequent TV, film and theatre casting plus continue doing their live work.
The differences between the working ways of actors and comedians are the basis of why this is becoming an issue. Many actors just act. They form part of a chain,becoming the characters visualised by another craftsman, a writer, and are shaped by a director. Actors audition for roles and, when they’re not cast in something,they’re generally, uh, ‘resting’. They have a branding, a USP, to some point, but really their job is to lend themselves to whatever character or situation they are playing and assimiliate into the production. Comedians, providing they’re proactive,can perform, paid or unpaid, every night of the week around the country, accessing new audiences and building up fans continuously. Comedians are very lucky in that they develop a persona and brand that defines them throughout their career, and gives casting directors a much easier job of comprehending where they might fit into a production.
My concern is that the appetite for the fast, easy, recognisable appeal of the stand-up and the attachment of their name to a project will reduce the opportunities for actors to hit our stages and screens with subtle, developed and moving performances. Perhaps its time for the actors themselves to fight back? Maybe its time for them to adapt their way of working, promoting and branding to compete with the new kids in this brave new world? Only time will tell.
So where does this leave actors?
We’re all realistic enough to appreciate that getting your face on the TV often makes you a much more desirable casting option to a theatre. From my first foray into this industry I learnt the importance of actors putting aside their pride for a day, bagging a commercial and then flitting back to the theatre whilst living off the advert’s repeat fees. With this base covered, comedians are now in the front line for much of the subsequent TV, film and theatre casting plus continue doing their live work.
The differences between the working ways of actors and comedians are the basis of why this is becoming an issue. Many actors just act. They form part of a chain,becoming the characters visualised by another craftsman, a writer, and are shaped by a director. Actors audition for roles and, when they’re not cast in something,they’re generally, uh, ‘resting’. They have a branding, a USP, to some point, but really their job is to lend themselves to whatever character or situation they are playing and assimiliate into the production. Comedians, providing they’re proactive,can perform, paid or unpaid, every night of the week around the country, accessing new audiences and building up fans continuously. Comedians are very lucky in that they develop a persona and brand that defines them throughout their career, and gives casting directors a much easier job of comprehending where they might fit into a production.
My concern is that the appetite for the fast, easy, recognisable appeal of the stand-up and the attachment of their name to a project will reduce the opportunities for actors to hit our stages and screens with subtle, developed and moving performances. Perhaps its time for the actors themselves to fight back? Maybe its time for them to adapt their way of working, promoting and branding to compete with the new kids in this brave new world? Only time will tell.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Happy New Year - The Scene at Home
The scene: Mum has put the household on a New Year's Diet.
Dad: Did Mum explain this diet to you? I don't know what I'm allowed to eat now.
Lucy: You may have an oatcake. Or a piece of fruit.
Dad: All day?
Lucy: No. At lunchtime you may have a salad.
Dad: A chocolate salad?
Lucy: No
Dad: That doesn't count as salad?
Lucy: No.
Dad: I don't like this diet.
Dad: Did Mum explain this diet to you? I don't know what I'm allowed to eat now.
Lucy: You may have an oatcake. Or a piece of fruit.
Dad: All day?
Lucy: No. At lunchtime you may have a salad.
Dad: A chocolate salad?
Lucy: No
Dad: That doesn't count as salad?
Lucy: No.
Dad: I don't like this diet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)