Friday, 13 April 2012

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.

Thursday, 12 April 2012

Review: A Christmas Carol

This review was originally written for The Public Reviews.
Writer: Charles Dickens
Adaptor/Director: David Hutchinson & Anna Schneider
Musical Director: Philip Ryder
The Public Reviews Rating: 4/5

The Greenwich Playhouse is a wonderfully atmospheric theatre and best lends itself to productions which are carried by the abilities of cast and creators.

This results in its shows walking a far thinner line between triumph and failure than most. Knowing this, it's a joy to see Sell a Door’s A Christmas Carol place itself firmly on the right side of that line.

The piece is a remarkably close adaptation of the Dickens’ classic, despite being set in the midst of the 2008 banking crisis. From the opening scene of Jacob Marley’s funeral there are hints of what will make the entire play so enjoyable.

The captivating plot is accompanied by songs overseen by Philip Ryder, who is tonight's stand out performance. He sits alongside the stage with his keyboard, supplying outstanding music and sound effects which perfectly set the tone for each changing situation.

As the story delves into Scrooge’s character and the world he inhabits, the wealth of young acting talent becomes apparent. Every cast member shines through their acting, singing or even dancing and it's clear how well they work together as a group.

Lee White manages to raise himself up above the rest of the impressive group. His performance of the optimistic employee, father and husband set against a bleak existence conveys not just passion, but comedy too. On top of this, he briefly imbues the play with horror and intensity as Jacob's ghost.

By the time the three ghostly spirits begin to invade Scrooge’s night, Anna Schneider's clever writing has allowed the cast to insert a huge amount of fun into what could be a very depressing tale. However, the problem with this performance also lies in the writing. 

Although a few obvious references make it clear these events are taking place in modern day London, little effort has been made to update the characters or story lines. The dialogue occasionally feels jagged against the setting and, by the end, it feels as though the show would have benefited if it had been left in its original design.

This problem is easily forgotten amongst the effective use of such a simple stage. The intelligent use of dances to distract the eye from the blackboard backdrop changes keep the pace moving quickly and it's with surprise that the performance reaches its heart-warming conclusion. Toward the final scenes, the young cast once again display their enthusiastic abilities and outshine Stephen Barden’s occasionally flat portrayal of Scrooge.

A Christmas Carol is never going to be a new story to tell but, despite this production’s failure to differentiate itself, this is an incredibly enjoyable way to witness the tale. The intelligent writing, charismatic group of performers and incredible music secure the exact kind of Christmas feeling everyone is looking for at this time of year.

Runs until 15th January

Find the original review, and many others, here: www.thepublicreviews.com/a-christmas-carol-%E2%80%93-greenwich-playhouse-london/

 

Friday, 18 November 2011

How to Improve Britain #2: Hugh Grant, Prime Minister

Over the years the public has called upon many celebrities to take the reigns of the country. From Stephen Fry (Sure, why not?) to Jeremy Clarkson (Please, no) there are plenty of common faces who would have a lot of backing should they ever decide to make a career change and go for the top job.
Possible Prime Ministers in debate.

These people are desired for the charisma, views and ideals they present when in the public eye. Fry has commented widely on religion and free speech while Clarkson apparently has some interest in transport.

However, I am willing to throw all of my support behind a different celebrity, one who does not court the media so frequently or lovingly. I want to see quintessential Englishman Hugh Grant as our Prime Minister.

Since July, when Grant published The Bugger, Bugged, the actor has been involved in one of the biggest media and political events in years. He managed to turn the tables on phone-hacking journalists by secretly recording Paul McMullan's comments on illegal activity which was acknowledged by politicians.

In the month's following, Grant became a figurehead in the fight against Murdoch's News Corporation and even appeared on Question Time, giving a level-headed and composed performance far above that of most politicians on the show.

It was this composure and dedication which first made him appear as a worthy candidate for leadership. Anyone who has seen Love Actually will know he can play the role. The film proves, if he was in power, Britain would have a far greater interest in politics and the love life of its leader.

"Anything to put off actually running the country."
If you were looking for more tenuous links between his characters and an ability to lead, they are abundant. From About a Boy's effective 30 minute time management system to Notting Hill's ability to admit to mistakes ("Oh, sod a dog. I've made the wrong decision, haven't I?").

Sure, being a unexpected dad may leave him with less time for the whole running the country thing. But as the only real requirement of the Prime Minister is one weekly lunch with the Queen, he could probably fit it in. Anyway, if you do choose to believe the papers which he hates so much (and I am not saying you should), the new addition to his life may be taking up less of his time than it is his money.

Past all this, the true reason I believe in Grant is down to what he has achieved. I do not know a single person who doesn't at least like him and I know a few who love him. However, this adoration is impressive as he has never seemed to want or need it.

Hugh Grant is a man who is liked, without wanting to be liked. And that is what a leader should be. Powerful, strong and committed in the face of anger.
The future face of Britain?

All too often leaders risk harming the country in order to appease mass voters and this fear of not keeping public opinion high holds us back. Having a Prime Minister who could maintain the populace's admiration without pandering to their occasionally misinformed wants would make Britain a far better place.
 
A leader should do what is best for those they lead, whether they are praised for it or not and Grant has shown he has the ability to do this.

Beyond his abilities to lead, having a famous face at the front of our nation would allow us to re-brand ourselves. Unfortunately, a lot of Grant's earlier characters encapsulate some of the stereotypes we might want to be moving away from but the confidence and thick skin he has become known for in his real persona are admiral qualities to build a country's image around.

Comments in the past of how acting wasn't a true goal and more a job he fell into hint at the desire for a change, so maybe this is not an unthinkable option. Overall, I just think we need a Prime Minister with the balls to ask "Who do you have to screw around here to get a cup of tea and a chocolate biscuit?"

But maybe I am wrong to back this particular celebrity. Let me know if there is anyone else I should be considering.

P.S. In case you were wondering, I also think Alec Baldwin should be President of the America.

Tuesday, 15 November 2011

How to Improve Britain #1: A Day of Darkness

Over the past months, my view of Britain has become somewhat more optimistic (as has my view of most things). I've seen some of the nicer places within the country and found some of the more impressive things it has to offer. However, there is still room for improvement.

I wanted to write about this room and thought I could start with something political like the country's view on immigration or something poignant like the flaws within the British press but then I realised there was something far more important which could make this a drastically better country. Here it is...


A Day of Darkness

The last few winters have supplied us with a fair amount of snow. Yet, despite the appearance of one of my Top 5 Happy Things and the ability to wear fingerless gloves, the British winter is still a miserable occurrence.

While I wrote this I sat in a second floor classroom (for the record, I should have been learning about how the inc- prefix works in shorthand) and looked out over a tree filled skyline. Unusually, the sun shone brightly and elegantly glowed upon the beautiful brown colours of the leaves. It was unreasonably depressing.
Even snow looks cooler in the Day of Darkness.

It was depressing because I knew by the time I got out of there, the only light available would be from dim, orange lampposts. On top of this, when I eventually made it back to my sleepy village, there wouldn't even be lampposts to light the cold streets. All this and I'm not even sure if it is technically winter yet.

It may be unreasonable to ask for evenings which are illuminated by drawn out sunsets until eleven pm all year round so, instead, picture something a little more dramatic in the depths of our winters.

Imagine the days closing in a bit more and giving us just one day of complete, all encompassing darkness. A day where everything was moonlit throughout and it felt not just okay, but obligatory, to achieve nothing other than a sense of enchantment. This day would give our winter something other than Christmas, New Year's Eve and snow to be carried by as temperatures drop.

Halloween could finally be as scary as it is in Buffy.
Envision being eight years old again and reaching the one day of the year when no sun light touches your life (without the help of the moon). Halloween wouldn't stand a chance of matching up to the magical feeling of that day and, obviously, the holiday would be moved to this Day of Darkness.

As you got older the day may mean a bit less and the magic may disperse but, in the right situation, with the right friends, great fun could still be had. Parties, picnics, a day of random games in the dark, it would be amazing to be able to waste a day away and not notice time passing. To just enjoy yourself and have normal life suspended by the lack of morning.

The day would have to be a public holiday for some reason or another. Maybe people couldn't work in the dark or maybe there would be some kind of religious reason. However it happened, the day would need to be celebrated with a total lack of work.

TV would be full of horror movie marathons stretching all through the day, with some more family friendly options thrown in for good measure.

Finally, every year, an over the top event, with disappointing celebrities and too many sponsors, would be put on. After a few years, even though it wouldn't have ever been any good, people will talk about how it has become so much as they have matured.

By the time you've grown up and had a family the Day of Darkness could have become nothing more than a forced, oversold, gimmick of a day when you have to put in a lot of effort to keep your kids happy. However, if you have managed to stay young at heart there would still be something special in the day. It could be a chance to remember how much you had enjoyed this day decades ago or a chance to forget about the responsibilities the world has pushed onto you and just have fun with the people you love.

The correct use of candles will make all bedrooms look like this.
Obviously there is no one who can make this day occur (as far as I am aware) but I still think it would help. To be honest, I just think the country needs a little more magic, something to look forward to in the cold of winter and a chance to feel young again once the years attempt to take away our youth and innocence.

So, what do you think of the Day of Darkness as a way to improve Britain?

P.S. The candle industry would boom. Who would want to use electricity on the Day of Darkness?

Friday, 11 November 2011

Review: Don't Dress for Dinner


This review was originally written for The Public Reviews.


Don’t Dress For Dinner – Palace Theatre, Southend

Writer: Marc Camoletti

Adapter: Robin Hawdon

Director: Bruce James

Reviewer: Jonathan Cooper

The Public Reviews Rating: ★★★½☆

Laughter flows consistently throughout Robin Hawdon’s adaptation of Don’t Dress for Dinner. A classic French story of the misadventures resulting from a married couple and their simultaneous affairs, the events of the play have been given a very English edge in the Palace Theatre Southend.

The most enjoyable aspects of the show are unquestionably the script and the charisma with which the cast delivers it. With an intentional detachment from reality, each of the five main actors excels at creating laughs through the use of the dialogue and their own comedic abilities.

If original writer, Marc Camoletti, could have a complaint with this adaptation, it would be due to the lack of consistency within the plays setting. The misunderstandings and drama that lead to the lies and comedy take place in the front room of a barn house two hours outside of Paris but little dedication is given to this. With the exception of a few well placed, and often hilarious, references, there is hardly anything within the play to pay homage to its origin.

The one room backdrop and regularly changing costumes tell more of a modern British countryside than anything French. However, this performance is not about attention to cultural detail and, to this end, the lighting and sound offer little towards the productions value.

What makes the show so enjoyable is its ability to create hilarity through rehearsed lines as well as through the improvisation of Ben Roddy and Damian Williams. There are some mistakes throughout but these allow for the greatest comedic moments to shine through while separating the proceedings even further from belief.

Damian plays the untrustworthy friend, secret lover and increasing drunk while bringing increasing joviality to his role. He breaks character only when the situation calls for his personal input unlike fellow cast member, Jacqueline Roberts, who occasionally finds it impossible to maintain composure when it would be preferable. He understands when his personality will benefit the show and offers the prefect level of over-acting for the situations.

There are no attempts or illusions of grandeur in this Don’t Dress for Dinner but, while there may be a few faults in detail, it does achieve something very important. It makes people laugh. Thanks to the charisma of the cast it is a very enjoyable play in which no two nights will be the same. In this world, there is a perfect place for simplistic, over the top and slightly slapstick humour and this is it.

Runs until 12th November.

Find the original review, and many others, here: thepublicreviews.com/dont-dress-for-dinner-palace-theatre-southend/