Moving home

The last time I wrote for this blog was in April 2012. Describing how much has changed since then would be difficult, and probably pretty boring.

Instead, I've created a shiny new blog where you can see what I'm up to now. It continues to feature my ramblings like this site did, but also my more frequent projects.

If you've stumbled onto this blog somehow, as those nice stats tell me a surprising amount of people do, please check out JonGuyCooper.com and let me know what you think!

Thanks,
Jon Guy Cooper

Review: Roll on the Day

This review was originally written for The Public Reviews.

Roll on the Day – Etcetera Theatre, London

Writer: Roberto Trippini
Director: Vik Sivalingam
Music: Laurence Mark Wythe
The Public Reviews Rating: 4/5

Despite being a small production, the opening ten minutes of Roll on the Day manage to display almost everything which will go on to make the musical such an enjoyable show.  From the outset, it is clear this production will utilise all the opportunities a small stage offers.

A tense introduction from the keyboard of Tom Turner sets an ominous tone to contrast with the first of many charismatic and light-hearted songs led by stars Amersackie Osakonor and Sean Keating. This theme of contrast continues as Keating’s single-minded male British stereotype clashes against Osakonor’s more developed, emotional and yet still refreshingly entertaining portrayal of a man not disheartened by a bitter struggle in Nigeria and move to London.

Despite the characters being each other's antithesis in many ways, the actors manage to portray a true sense of friendship. It’s this, along with their ability to engage the audience with charming songs and eye contact, which keeps everyone smiling consistently despite the looming peril.

Kendra McMillan successfully rounds off the talented three person cast with an endearing turn as a strong willed art enthusiast. However, the position of Turner and his keyboard, just behind the minimalist yet effective set, and his obvious dedication to the music he provides leaves him seeming like a fourth character.
 
As the story continues and more of the lead’s journey is revealed, the strength of the songs and lyrics remains one of the best aspects of the night. However, a few of the rhyming lines do begin to feel forced, even if it detracts nothing from the overall enjoyment of the play. The dark undertones, subtly maintained at the surface by the music and lighting, come to forefront in a genuinely surprising twist which allows a different side of each actor’s talent to be seen. It's clear all along that Osakonor is going to be the stand out of an exemplary cast, but after this change in tone he really shines when showing his character’s reactions and desperation.

While it may have little of the West End portrayal’s grandeur, there are clear influences from Les Miserables within this play. The themes of a struggle for redemption in a new life and an inability to escape the ghosts of a past are wonderfully portrayed in a modern example of an illegal immigrant in a less than forgiving British society. It is this setting in contemporary London which breathes true life into the musical as the city’s views and values are questioned by the believable actions, thoughts and dialogue of all three characters.

Towards the end of the production, the mood finishes its shift from the jovial and sweet hearted beginnings to a darker, more action packed conclusion, but herein lays the singular true flaw of the play. Just as the action peaks and the music climaxes, the cast separate and bow to the audience. It would be impossible to continue the plot with just these characters, but the ending does still feel rushed. While it's nice to have some ambiguity, there's barely any indication here on where the plot lines would have been taken.

However, with this exception, Roll on the Day is a wonderful and well told story, endlessly enhanced by a charismatic cast and engaging music. Not only that, it's actually willing to point out issues within British society while maintaining an honest and enjoyable mood. After seeing this musical, it's easy to think the entire country could benefit from doing the same.

Runs until 15th April

Find the original review, and many others, here: http://www.thepublicreviews.com/roll-on-the-day-etcetera-theatre-london/

The right kind of patriotism

Building a sense of patriotism in England isn’t the easiest thing to do. It’s even harder if you try to do it without sowing the seeds of nationalism. But, if it is going to happen, the Olympics are as good a chance as any to start it.

The trouble is, as difficult as England may find feeling unified; Great Britain struggles even more as political parties build entire manifestos around the idea of the demise of the union.

Today, both Great British football teams found out who they’ll be facing in the early stages of their Olympic competitions. This may not be the biggest stepping stone towards the start of the games, but it’s one that could get people thinking.

How often does England actually feel proud of its football team?

Maybe this is a misreading of most people’s feelings, but it seems we’re more often embarrassed than inspired by those representing our country in the sport (the last time I was proud while watching England play football involved Alan Shearer scoring).

With failed foreign managers kept in place for years solely due to the expense incurred to fire them and a selection of players more noted for their personal disputes than their teamwork, there isn’t a lot to look up to.

Therefore, this could be a chance to build a new allegiance and find pride in a more deserving team. After all, there’s a bigger issue at stake here.

Never before has it looked more likely that Scotland will take further steps in distancing themselves from the United Kingdom and positioning themselves as a relatively independent country.

And why not, right?

On the face of it, the arguments for separation are plentiful. If the Scottish people want to live in an independent country, they should be allowed to, and England will save a lot of money from no longer funding their higher education and other services.

I used to make these arguments a lot but the situation changed after a few things become clear.

Scotland currently has a system which is unsustainable without central government funds. While it’s all well and good to say they should be allowed independence if it’s voted for, thousands of individuals will suffer if vast changes to health and education are forced in due to a lack of money.

Secondly, from the English side of the argument, when everything is taken into consideration, we really don’t stand to significantly benefit financially from the departure. The main point behind this is, of course, oil.

However, the biggest issue has nothing to do with money. The most important advantage England gain from a diverse United Kingdom is simple. It’s democracy.

Political map of the 2010 General Election

We may not realise it, but England is an overwhelmingly Conservative country. Without Scotland and Wales, the party would have won almost every election in the UK’s recent history.

Other than densely populated areas within cities, opposing parties to the Conservatives rely heavily on the other nations of the United Kingdom to gain seats in parliament.

While Scotland may need us to sustain their current education and health systems, we need them for something much more. Without them, we’re in danger of becoming a one party country for the foreseeable future.

Assuming there aren’t too many people reading this who want to give the Tories free reign over English politics for decades to come, we’re going to need a little bit of unity and Great British patriotism to keep things together.

Therefore, it’s probably a good time to get behind the Team GB footballers and take some pride in them. Unfortunately, the other option is the embarrassment of our national team and a single party political system.

Review: An Ideal Husband

This review was originally written for The Public Reviews.

An Ideal Husband – Rosemary Branch Theatre, London

Writer: Oscar Wilde
Director: Charlie Ward
The Public Reviews Rating: 3/5

An Ideal Husband is a wonderful testament to Oscar Wilde’s wit and perception of society. In the programme, Charlie Ward declares his aim to strip the play of its paraphernalia and let the extraordinary characters shine though. In this goal, he has been entirely successful. With an almost complete lack of props, scenery and backdrop, this show's success has been pinned on nothing but the source material’s endearing charm and the cast’s ability to portray it.

On the first account, there was never any chance of disappointment. Wilde’s unique mastery of the English language, especially through dialogue, has given those behind the performance an opportune base to build a play around. The setting of a society experiencing great change and a revolution of woman’s rights is delicately balanced in the background of each character’s life.

When it comes to the cast to deliver the material, they do so with complete confidence. Every member of the team looks perfectly comfortable in their role and Kieran Simms’ Lord Goring, a disconnected man, unashamedly willing to pass on his views of society, is portrayed with an astoundingly obvious enthusiasm.

However, there is a divide in the performances on display and it's fitting with An Ideal Husband’s central theme. In every account, Sheridan Johnson, Emily MacDonald and Rose Robinson completely outshine their male counterparts. They provide enjoyable, but also engrossing and believable, turns as each of their characters. Johnson is the stand-out of the night, bringing chemistry and pace to the role of the morally questionable Mrs Cheveley, making her character as bizarrely likeable as Oscar Wilde would have wanted. As she strives to blackmail the increasingly desperate Robert Chiltern, it becomes so easy to root for her to succeed, despite the worst intentions she brings.

The problem with the male leads does not lie with whether they are enjoyable to watch. They are rarely anything but. It's more that they are not consistently believable in their roles. Their speech is slow and their movements are unwieldy to match. It doesn’t often detract from the overall feel of the play, but by the end of the first act, Sunny Moodie's Robert Chiltern looks uncomfortable not just from the growing pressure to sacrifice his morality, but from an inability to move around the stage in a natural fashion.

Beyond this, most cast members should be commended on their ability to hold an audience with no assistance from a set, lighting and sound. The desired goal of a stripped down performance is a noble one but there's a constant feeling that a little help would give the play a welcome extra dimension.

In the second act, as the motivations and actions of each character are questioned, Wilde’s writing is again the driving force of success. There is little action on display and a lack of context to reinforce the plot's true themes. When the lights dim, the audience is left slightly uncertain of if the story has actually concluded.

Despite this, at no point is the plot or acting boring. It is impossible not to be entertained by the dialogue and how it's represented. The problem is that, as the basic storyline progresses, there's little development of the sub-plots or the context of what is happening in these characters’ lives.

Muckle Roe’s production of An Ideal Husband is in no way an insult to the work of Oscar Wilde. In fact, it is a great vessel for his story. It just adds little to what is already on offer, other than an impressive female cast and a clear confidence from all involved. There are a lot of reasons to see this adaptation, but few to make it a definitive portrayal of the political comedy.

Runs until 7th April

Find the original review, and many others, here: www.thepublicreviews.com/an-ideal-husband-rosemary-branch-theatre-london/

Tarnishing the Brush

The battle of the religiously aligned buses took another step forward today as the Guardian discovered Christian organisation, Core Issues Trust, had booked advertising space for a “Post-gay and proud” campaign.

This was the latest strike in a fight which started back in 2008. The There’s probably no God slogan was plastered across buses in the capital before the obvious reply of There definitely is a God was displayed in the same places.

After this, the charity Stonewall spread their message, Some people are gay. Get over it!, across London and upped the ante by bringing exclamation marks to the whole debacle. This action had a sincere and well-intentioned goal but the trouble was always going to be that no intolerant human would actually be swayed by the advert.

There are few people who would argue with its meaning, but those who would were never going to find a change of heart on the side of a bus. Beyond this, Stonewall must have expected a response from the people they were publicly intimidating.

That response lies within the proposed Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it! campaign, which brings two exclamation marks with its message. By this point, it’s becoming clear that only the TFL coffers and those who enjoy a good argument are benefiting from the posters.

The bid to advertise was put forward by Core Issues Trust and was supported by the, inappropriately named, Anglican Mainstream, an extremist group.

CIT's objective of using therapy to "help" homosexuals live a heterosexual life is atrocious. It has united Christians, atheists and pretty much everyone else who isn’t part of CIT or Anglican Mainstream in appropriate disgust.

However, this ridiculous slogan won’t ever reach the streets of London thanks to the impending elections. In a bid to raise his image with the voting people who don’t carry prejudice around with them, Boris Johnson has used his power as the head of TFL to block the campaign.

While this is a wonderful indication of London being an open and accepting society, there’s now a fear that this action will only go to give the campaign, and the homophobic organisations supporting it, more advertising than they could have hoped for.

This has already been seen as Mike Davidson, CIT's leader, has started brandishing claims of censorship at the Mayor: “I didn't realise censorship was in place. We went through the correct channels and we were encouraged by the bus company to go through their procedures. They OKed it and now it has been pulled.”

While the end of this story is yet to be seen, TFL can be sure of making more money as charities with very specific aims fire back at each other.

Away from the issues of advertising, there’s one thing which can be seen in certain reactions to the events. This is, most people of Britain are ashamed of any prejudice found within its society, except for when it’s shown towards Christians.

This observation comes from someone who has used the homophobic and ignorant brush to paint all Christians many times in the past. However, I’ve  recently had a rather drastic change of opinion.

This hasn’t been a change of opinion on anything spiritual. I am still proud to say I have no idea what started our universe, or what happens after we die. It has simply been the obvious realisation that prejudice towards religious individuals is just as bad as every other prejudice so often berated by the left-leaning sections of society.

It’s hard to imagine anyone who claims to be proud of London’s diverse population arguing the merits blaming the entirety of a group for the actions of an ignorant few, yet reactions to today’s news include:

• “Christian's piss me off. I will kill them all.”

• “Not Christian, Ex-Christian (due to intelligence), Get Over It (Grey Bearded Man In Sky Does Not Exist).”

• “Religion: The root of all evil. As usual.”

• “I'm offering free therapy to those poor, afflicted souls who have succumbed to temptation and find their lives blighted by an invisible sky fairy or variation thereof.”

 

Yet, when horrifying attacks are planned and carried out against our society by the extreme minority of the Muslim community, do any tolerant people believe it’s right to mock their entire belief system?

When the EDL march through cities waving slogans of racism and xenophobia, does any right-thinking individual make claims about wanting to kill all white guys?

No, they don’t, because it’s prejudice. But, for some reason, we often feel it’s OK to mock and threaten Christians for their beliefs when a few individuals do something completely despicable.

Maybe it’s because atheists and agnostics see themselves as underdogs to Christians in British society and imagine their insults as the loveable actions of the informed and plucky good guys.

Whichever way it may be justified, I can’t support it any more than I can support the harm caused by xenophobic groups or the actions of malicious individuals who distort the Christian ethos beyond recognition.

Anyone in London, or the rest of the UK, can be proud tonight that most of the country stood up against homophobia and pushed a leader to take a positive action.

On the whole, our society is not only one of tolerance (a term I've never felt really fits well with its intention), but more importantly, one that is proud of its diversification and ability to defend those who are being attacked.

However, this tolerance and pride in our difference must be extended to those who represent all faiths, even the one with the most supporters. Everyone occasionally falls into the trap of blaming the whole for the actions of the few (I’ve done it countless times), but it mustn’t be accepted.

Brain Paddick, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Mayor (who I cannot support enough) got it completely right when he responded to today’s events with this statement: 

“From personal experience as a gay Christian, I can tell you that it's much better to be out than in. We should be celebrating the diversity for which London is known, not denigrating it. As mayor I want to make London a place that is welcoming to all people, including Christians.”