On Friday night, I went to see 'American Psycho' at the Almeida Theatre. I went along with high expectations and left largely satisfied. Patrick Bateman remains one of the truly iconic literary figures. A cultural icon for a generation bereft of meaning and anxious for the reflective details of a polished chrome surface or large glass table to fill in the gaps of living.
I read the novel, 'American Psycho' years ago and since then, I have read the rest of Bret Easton Ellis' work. He has a unique voice. He captures the madness of our age, the 'buy now, pay later' philosophy that permeates the lives of the under 40s. His novels are permeated with characters who can be understood but not liked. In 'American Psycho', the reader is confronted by vapid smiles, possession hungry creatures, anxious for their next expensive meal in the current trendy restaurant, mistaken identities and a unique range of business cards. Patrick Bateman is no better or worse than any of the other twenty something investment bankers who populate the novel. If anything, his response is the most honest to the apathetic accumulators who dance repeatedly to the same old tune who have sex simply to remind themselves that they still live and breathe. Love is a joke to be sold or represented in a three minute single. Attention spans are limited. Lives more profitably abused than celebrated. Dancing around white lines, shooting up to break down the boundaries of diffidence.
The film of 'American Psycho' by Mary Harron felt oddly lacking the first time I saw it in the cinema. A very sanitised adaptation of the novel. The casting of Christian Bale was an inspired choice and despite such over-the-top sequences as Bateman running around with a chainsaw, in retrospect, it still warrants a watch. It captures the essential truth of the novel. The horror is in the lifestyle choices and the fantasies that they engender. I have vague recollections that the ending although slightly different to the end of the novel succeeds in making the point, if it didn't happen, it soon could. 'This is not an exit' is one of the most desultory lines in any cultural product.
Since my exposure to the novel and film of 'American Psycho' and also to Bret Easton Ellis' other works, I have met the author twice at talks/signings at the Southbank Centre in London. During the Q and As after the talks, the author has had to field the usual questions regarding the so-called 'misogyny' in 'American Psycho'. He wisely rebuffs such accusations. In defence of Bret Easton Ellis, his characters are by their nature regularly superficial, unfeeling and driven by base instincts. I have never felt that he treats his female characters any worse than his male ones. They are not gentle, unrealistic, sentimentalists, they are archetypes of a vicious world where tearing apart small businesses in order to allow large companies to flourish and grow is part and parcel of everyday life. Mergers and acquisitions are not coital, they regularly result in destruction. Another thing that I noticed at one of the talks/signings was the entourage that Mr Ellis had. At one point, a slightly highly strung lady squealed rather loudly about how much longer the signing was going to take. Bret Easton Ellis as he has pointed out is part of the culture he seeks to dissect. He lives the life of a wealthy decadent but with one difference, he addresses the problems that this causes him. He does it through his writing.
The musical of 'American Psycho' at the Almeida Theatre is directed by Rupert Goold. It is a revelation. Its success and failings return to one question, do you like Patrick Bateman and if so, do you feel that he can be saved? The novel and film can be interpreted in any number of ways, although the novel certainly does not want you to walk away with a warm sentimental feeling. If the murders have not happened, they soon could and that's the scariest thought of all. The film implies the same. The musical achieves a similar effect but in a way that left me feeling even more empathetic towards Patrick Bateman's character. He marries if only in a dream and his choice of bride will ruin him. Marriage without love will ruin Bateman and the body parts will amass because of this fact. It will be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
One of the strong points of this production of 'American Psycho' is the mise-en-scene. The stark clinical minimalism of an 80s apartment with videos lining the bookcases rather than books and one expensive work of art leaning to one side of the stage being one constantly used set. Bateman's apartment is a metaphor for the fragmentary life he leads. He doesn't need any objects with sentimental connections. He is constantly out at nightclubs, restaurants and at work. Lighting is used expressively to complete the concept created by the sets. At points in the production where Bateman's thoughts become particularly murderous, projections to the side and back of the stage show childish images and more horrific sketched images.
The music is a combination of new songs with an 80s feel, synthesiser heavy and also songs from the same period performed by the cast, 'Don't You Want Me' being particularly impressive. As is the case with many musicals, lyrical or musical motifs repeat throughout this production. The first song called 'Clean' introduces Patrick Bateman, in a similar manner to how Bale appears in the film. Remember the eye mask as Christian Bale as Bateman comes out of the shower explaining his cleaning routine. The whole concept of 'cleanliness' as a complete rebuttal of anything impure or affecting within this musical becomes devastating. Patrick Bateman even has a slightly sympathetic side to his character possibly because he is played by Matt Smith and some of the lyrics of the songs. From my memories of the novel, Patrick Bateman's relationship with his secretary, Jean does not hold the seeds to his salvation that this musical tries to develop. It's curious how musicals need the simplicity of a love story or potential love story to hold the more unsavoury aspects of their narratives together. The Patrick Bateman of this production is therefore ultimately a tragic 'Everyman' figure.
To close, the characters, narrative and style of this musical remain close to the original novel, even where the narrative slightly veers towards the optimistic. It deserves to be more widely seen. A West End transfer should happen in the New Year. It is time for the West End to start to celebrate new productions. 'This is not an exit'.
Barry Watt - 22nd December 2013.
Afterword
'American Psycho' is currently on at the Almeida Theatre but other than Day Seats and Returns, it is sold out until the end of the season.
http://www.almeida.co.uk/event/americanpsycho
The novel of 'American Psycho' by Bret Easton Ellis is a cheery little read for those of us slightly jaded by a diet of superficiality and vacant smiles. It is currently published by Picador. The line 'This is not an exit' is copyrighted to Bret Easton Ellis and appears in 'American Psycho'.
The film of 'American Psycho' by Mary Harron was released in 2000 and is available on DVD. It works up to a point as a film.
'Don't You Want Me' is copyright to the Human League and remains one of the most iconic 80s songs.
BW
Sunday, 22 December 2013
Sunday, 1 December 2013
'Saving Mr. Banks' - Just a spoonful of substance helps the reality go down.
I went to see 'Saving Mr. Banks' at the Barbican today and I was emotionally violated by a film that touched every one of my feelings. I enjoyed the sensation at the time, although upon leaving the cinema and discussing a documentary that was on one of the BBC channels last night about P.L. Travers with my Mum (that I missed and will watch later), my view of the film may have slightly changed.
Let's start at the beginning, the film is a fictional account of the relationship between the author of 'Mary Poppins', P.L. Travers and Walt Disney. The relationship was a business based transaction as Walt Disney spent more than twenty years to get P.L. Travers to sell her film rights to the novel of 'Mary Poppins' to him. As a last ditch attempt, he invites her to Los Angeles, where Disney invites Travers to work on the script, design and general feel of the film (in a desperate attempt to get her to sell the rights to him). The film leaps between P.L. Travers' past as a girl and her present situation as an adult seemingly affected by many unresolved issues from her past. Emma Thompson plays the role of P.L. Travers with a subtlety and humanity that may or may not be a fair reflection of the actual author. Tom Hanks plays the role of Walt Disney and the same statement equally applies to him.
I need to express at this point that I enjoyed this film as a fictional work. In fact, it resonates as one of the finest films I have seen this year. It is framed as a narrative incorporating elements from 'Mary Poppins', the image of the wind dial and the alteration of wind direction implying change yet also suggesting that this has all happened before and will continue to happen. The film of 'Mary Poppins' uses the wind dial in the same way. Now where this film goes into another more vital and vibrant symbolic plane is through its usage of everyday objects and colours that help to link Travers' reality as a child with her life as an adult. For example, pears are a particularly important symbol in the film serving as a symbol of both satisfaction and failure. Her father gives a pear to P.L. Travers' mother as a child as a token of love then later in childhood, P.L. Travers is asked by her dying father to get him pears and proceeds to drop them. He is dead by the time she finally gets back from her pear hunting trip. Now true or not, apparently P.L. Travers asked the film makers not to use the colour red in 'Mary Poppins'. This ties in to the fact that P.L. Travers' father was an alcoholic who apparently died of some alcohol related disease (he is coughing up blood). Hence, her aversion to the colour red.
In terms of the characters, one quickly understands why P.L. Travers has issues with anyone tampering with her intellectual property as 'Mary Poppins' is effectively a pure example of catharsis. She used the novel and characters to effectively try to rewrite her past. Mr. Banks is effectively a symbolic representation of her father who she couldn't save. Mrs. Banks stands in for her mother, who ultimately seems to be long suffering (in reality, P.L. Travers' mother committed suicide after the death of her husband) but hard working. Mary Poppins is the positive force for change, the film implies that the figure may have existed in P.L. Travers' life in some form or other (an Aunt?).
Now, allowing for the positives, what happens to the film when you gradually learn that events that are being presented as factual are gradually revealed through other sources to be fictional? There's a great scene where P.L. Travers' mother asks her to look after her sisters and then wanders off to a lake to attempt suicide. She is saved by P.L. Travers who goes into the water after her. Also P.L. Travers as an adult remains a total enigma in many respects. Her character as suggested by this film is entirely informed by her childhood. Her love life is overlooked. Essentially, she is a little girl. Now Walt Disney also remains merely a two dimensional character. The fact that the Disney company were involved in this film may have slightly skewered the focus of this work. He comes across as being a genuinely nice guy, driven, slightly egotistical (he has pre-signed autographs in a cigarette case that he gives to people who ask for his autograph) but somehow, the photos at the end of the film reveal more about Disney than this film can. He deserves a more objective film, which will not be produced by Disney. I like this film up until the point that you step back and ask the question, how much of this is real? In many respects, I throw the same statement at 'Philomena' too. The ultimate divergence from reality apparently occurs at the end of the film when P.L. Travers attends the film premiere in Los Angeles of 'Mary Poppins'. She is shown to be deeply moved by the film in places, on account of its parallels with her own life but in reality, apparently she was crying owing to her belief that Disney had 'produced a film that was all fantasy and no magic'. (Please see my link to the article on 'Mary Poppins' that appeared in 'The Sunday Times' on 27th October 2013 in the Afterword to this blog entry).
My final thought, should you discard the truth and embrace a very entertaining Disney film or feel slightly sordid having seen a confectionery created with the express intention of deceiving to the same extent that it illuminates? The decision is yours... It's not pretending to be a documentary but real people are being distorted. It's a good film and that may be the only truth that matters. Perhaps?
Barry Watt - 1st December 2013.
Afterword
'Saving Mr. Banks' is out in all good U.K. cinemas at the moment. It's a co-production between Walt Disney Pictures, Essential Films and BBC Films.
'Mary Poppins' was written by P.L. Travers and was the first of six books featuring the character. Her adventures can be found in various editions including those produced by Harper Collins.
'Mary Poppins' - The film was released in 1964 and stars Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. A Walt Disney production. Well worth seeing.
The 'Sunday Times' article is reproduced on the following website. It is copyright to the 'Sunday Times' where it first appeared on 27th October 2013.
http://dancelines.com.au/disney-added-spoonful-saccharine-mary-poppins/
Valerie Lawson's Dancelines is copyright to Valerie Lawson (She owns the website reproducing this article).
BW
Let's start at the beginning, the film is a fictional account of the relationship between the author of 'Mary Poppins', P.L. Travers and Walt Disney. The relationship was a business based transaction as Walt Disney spent more than twenty years to get P.L. Travers to sell her film rights to the novel of 'Mary Poppins' to him. As a last ditch attempt, he invites her to Los Angeles, where Disney invites Travers to work on the script, design and general feel of the film (in a desperate attempt to get her to sell the rights to him). The film leaps between P.L. Travers' past as a girl and her present situation as an adult seemingly affected by many unresolved issues from her past. Emma Thompson plays the role of P.L. Travers with a subtlety and humanity that may or may not be a fair reflection of the actual author. Tom Hanks plays the role of Walt Disney and the same statement equally applies to him.
I need to express at this point that I enjoyed this film as a fictional work. In fact, it resonates as one of the finest films I have seen this year. It is framed as a narrative incorporating elements from 'Mary Poppins', the image of the wind dial and the alteration of wind direction implying change yet also suggesting that this has all happened before and will continue to happen. The film of 'Mary Poppins' uses the wind dial in the same way. Now where this film goes into another more vital and vibrant symbolic plane is through its usage of everyday objects and colours that help to link Travers' reality as a child with her life as an adult. For example, pears are a particularly important symbol in the film serving as a symbol of both satisfaction and failure. Her father gives a pear to P.L. Travers' mother as a child as a token of love then later in childhood, P.L. Travers is asked by her dying father to get him pears and proceeds to drop them. He is dead by the time she finally gets back from her pear hunting trip. Now true or not, apparently P.L. Travers asked the film makers not to use the colour red in 'Mary Poppins'. This ties in to the fact that P.L. Travers' father was an alcoholic who apparently died of some alcohol related disease (he is coughing up blood). Hence, her aversion to the colour red.
In terms of the characters, one quickly understands why P.L. Travers has issues with anyone tampering with her intellectual property as 'Mary Poppins' is effectively a pure example of catharsis. She used the novel and characters to effectively try to rewrite her past. Mr. Banks is effectively a symbolic representation of her father who she couldn't save. Mrs. Banks stands in for her mother, who ultimately seems to be long suffering (in reality, P.L. Travers' mother committed suicide after the death of her husband) but hard working. Mary Poppins is the positive force for change, the film implies that the figure may have existed in P.L. Travers' life in some form or other (an Aunt?).
Now, allowing for the positives, what happens to the film when you gradually learn that events that are being presented as factual are gradually revealed through other sources to be fictional? There's a great scene where P.L. Travers' mother asks her to look after her sisters and then wanders off to a lake to attempt suicide. She is saved by P.L. Travers who goes into the water after her. Also P.L. Travers as an adult remains a total enigma in many respects. Her character as suggested by this film is entirely informed by her childhood. Her love life is overlooked. Essentially, she is a little girl. Now Walt Disney also remains merely a two dimensional character. The fact that the Disney company were involved in this film may have slightly skewered the focus of this work. He comes across as being a genuinely nice guy, driven, slightly egotistical (he has pre-signed autographs in a cigarette case that he gives to people who ask for his autograph) but somehow, the photos at the end of the film reveal more about Disney than this film can. He deserves a more objective film, which will not be produced by Disney. I like this film up until the point that you step back and ask the question, how much of this is real? In many respects, I throw the same statement at 'Philomena' too. The ultimate divergence from reality apparently occurs at the end of the film when P.L. Travers attends the film premiere in Los Angeles of 'Mary Poppins'. She is shown to be deeply moved by the film in places, on account of its parallels with her own life but in reality, apparently she was crying owing to her belief that Disney had 'produced a film that was all fantasy and no magic'. (Please see my link to the article on 'Mary Poppins' that appeared in 'The Sunday Times' on 27th October 2013 in the Afterword to this blog entry).
My final thought, should you discard the truth and embrace a very entertaining Disney film or feel slightly sordid having seen a confectionery created with the express intention of deceiving to the same extent that it illuminates? The decision is yours... It's not pretending to be a documentary but real people are being distorted. It's a good film and that may be the only truth that matters. Perhaps?
Barry Watt - 1st December 2013.
Afterword
'Saving Mr. Banks' is out in all good U.K. cinemas at the moment. It's a co-production between Walt Disney Pictures, Essential Films and BBC Films.
'Mary Poppins' was written by P.L. Travers and was the first of six books featuring the character. Her adventures can be found in various editions including those produced by Harper Collins.
'Mary Poppins' - The film was released in 1964 and stars Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. A Walt Disney production. Well worth seeing.
The 'Sunday Times' article is reproduced on the following website. It is copyright to the 'Sunday Times' where it first appeared on 27th October 2013.
http://dancelines.com.au/disney-added-spoonful-saccharine-mary-poppins/
Valerie Lawson's Dancelines is copyright to Valerie Lawson (She owns the website reproducing this article).
BW
Thursday, 28 November 2013
Bob Dylan - Hiding in plain sight.
Last night, I attended the Royal Albert Hall to see Bob Dylan. Of all the singer/songwriters I admire, I have seen him the most often and without a doubt, predictability is something that he cannot be accused of.
Upon arrival in the auditorium, the usher was clearly anxious to reinforce the fact that cameras were not permitted. He added that this would be a strictly enforced policy even before the concert started and sure enough, it was. Within seconds of a couple of gentlemen sitting down, they were involved in a dialogue with the same usher over their usage of a camera. Now, the phenomenon of not taking photos and videos at Dylan gigs is not a recent occurrence. Having said that, looking at the lighting setup last night, if you could get a decent photo or video in those conditions, you would have to be a professional photographer. The lighting seemed to be generated by what looked like large Anglepoise lamps and a couple of low level stage lights. Occasionally, more extravagant lighting effects were generated but this seemed to be the result of back projection. The old faithful 'eye' symbol that Dylan has been using for many years as a back projection was apparent for the majority of the gig.
So why would Dylan and by extension, many other artists not want their images captured for public perusal (The Eagles are apparently even worse)? In defence of artists, there must be nothing more disconcerting than the flash of a camera (I remember getting Anna Friel's autograph outside the stage door where she was performing 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' and as she came out the press etc literally overwhelmed her with their cameras, she seemed positively happy to simply sign an autograph for me). Cameras are intrusive. They block the sight lines of other audience members and disrupt the performers. Bob Dylan is 72. His stage performance has changed significantly over the years. He rarely plays guitar and now regularly sits at a keyboard. Having said that, from a performance perspective, his occasional sojourns to centre stage armed simply with a harmonica is exciting to behold. He has the stance of a fighter (he boxes) and as he ages, he actually seems younger and happier. He does not like his photo taken. I like to think this has as much to do with his need to be remembered in the moment.
In terms of my concert experience last night, it was the first time that I have attended a Dylan performance with an interval but I guess, it is physically demanding pushing yourself non-stop year in year out. Also the gig started at just after 7.30 pm, so thus it was over by 10 pm. I respect the rationale behind an early start time. Maybe, it is also accommodating for the audience who are ageing with Dylan? I have been a fan for twenty one plus years. I am nearly forty. I heard his music for the first time in 1992. It's an odd and uniquely thrilling sensation to share the lives of people you admire over time. You are reminded of your own mortality but not in a negative way. The changes in your mental and spiritual outlook influences how you regard the work produced by the artists that guide you through life.
By admiring your heroes, you learn to accept yourself. After all, they reflect you and your needs. You don't want to be them, you want to understand them and learn from them. It's fascinating to realise that they need you as much as you need them. Audiences of all artists and mediums are essential ingredients in the creative process.
So what did I learn last night? I learnt that Dylan's current set list is more rigid than in previous years with only the odd variation in song from night to night, probably to stop him from getting bored. I guess this gives him the opportunity to experiment with the songs' arrangements. 'Tangled Up In Blue' and 'Simple Twist Of Fate' were both subject to lyric variations. Dylan is one of only a handful of artists who toys with his songs. He seems to see them as pliable and indeed, it does suggest quite rightly that songs and indeed, any creative work should not be viewed as finished. Interpretation cannot be predetermined. The meaning of one song can change from person to person and indeed, the songwriter probably feels differently about his creations as the years go on. Dylan focused his set list on his current album 'Tempest' and clearly he enjoys performing songs from his more recent albums. He only played about a handful of songs from his 60s and 70s output. I was overwhelmed as ever by 'All Along The Watchtower', which remains the most astonishing song owing to its seeming simplicity yet complexity in live performance. It is melodically and lyrically a masterpiece and in performance is like a piece of clay that is moulded into unique forms based on the musical arrangement. Dylan, if you want to perform a 60 minute version of this song, I will be there, salivating in the corner. A final lesson from last night, perhaps, darkness befits a living enigma, arguably the most important living singer/songwriter. Thanks, Bob for everything!
Barry Watt - 28th November 2013.
Afterword
Anglepoise lamps are copyright to Anglepoise.
The Eagles are a little known American band. Perhaps, best known for their 'Hotel California' album which is copyrighted to Asylum Records.
'Breakfast at Tiffany's' was on the Theatre Royal Haymarket in 2009. Very good performance from Anna Friel and a nice adaptation of the story by Truman Capote.
'Tangled Up In Blue' and 'Simple Twist Of Fate' both appear on 'Blood On The Tracks' (Columbia Records).
The album 'Tempest' is copyright to Columbia Records and is well worth a listen.
'All Along The Watchtower' first appeared on Dylan's album 'John Wesley Harding' and has been covered by pretty much everyone since. Arguably, the most versatile song of all time. Discuss... ;-)
BW
Upon arrival in the auditorium, the usher was clearly anxious to reinforce the fact that cameras were not permitted. He added that this would be a strictly enforced policy even before the concert started and sure enough, it was. Within seconds of a couple of gentlemen sitting down, they were involved in a dialogue with the same usher over their usage of a camera. Now, the phenomenon of not taking photos and videos at Dylan gigs is not a recent occurrence. Having said that, looking at the lighting setup last night, if you could get a decent photo or video in those conditions, you would have to be a professional photographer. The lighting seemed to be generated by what looked like large Anglepoise lamps and a couple of low level stage lights. Occasionally, more extravagant lighting effects were generated but this seemed to be the result of back projection. The old faithful 'eye' symbol that Dylan has been using for many years as a back projection was apparent for the majority of the gig.
So why would Dylan and by extension, many other artists not want their images captured for public perusal (The Eagles are apparently even worse)? In defence of artists, there must be nothing more disconcerting than the flash of a camera (I remember getting Anna Friel's autograph outside the stage door where she was performing 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' and as she came out the press etc literally overwhelmed her with their cameras, she seemed positively happy to simply sign an autograph for me). Cameras are intrusive. They block the sight lines of other audience members and disrupt the performers. Bob Dylan is 72. His stage performance has changed significantly over the years. He rarely plays guitar and now regularly sits at a keyboard. Having said that, from a performance perspective, his occasional sojourns to centre stage armed simply with a harmonica is exciting to behold. He has the stance of a fighter (he boxes) and as he ages, he actually seems younger and happier. He does not like his photo taken. I like to think this has as much to do with his need to be remembered in the moment.
In terms of my concert experience last night, it was the first time that I have attended a Dylan performance with an interval but I guess, it is physically demanding pushing yourself non-stop year in year out. Also the gig started at just after 7.30 pm, so thus it was over by 10 pm. I respect the rationale behind an early start time. Maybe, it is also accommodating for the audience who are ageing with Dylan? I have been a fan for twenty one plus years. I am nearly forty. I heard his music for the first time in 1992. It's an odd and uniquely thrilling sensation to share the lives of people you admire over time. You are reminded of your own mortality but not in a negative way. The changes in your mental and spiritual outlook influences how you regard the work produced by the artists that guide you through life.
By admiring your heroes, you learn to accept yourself. After all, they reflect you and your needs. You don't want to be them, you want to understand them and learn from them. It's fascinating to realise that they need you as much as you need them. Audiences of all artists and mediums are essential ingredients in the creative process.
So what did I learn last night? I learnt that Dylan's current set list is more rigid than in previous years with only the odd variation in song from night to night, probably to stop him from getting bored. I guess this gives him the opportunity to experiment with the songs' arrangements. 'Tangled Up In Blue' and 'Simple Twist Of Fate' were both subject to lyric variations. Dylan is one of only a handful of artists who toys with his songs. He seems to see them as pliable and indeed, it does suggest quite rightly that songs and indeed, any creative work should not be viewed as finished. Interpretation cannot be predetermined. The meaning of one song can change from person to person and indeed, the songwriter probably feels differently about his creations as the years go on. Dylan focused his set list on his current album 'Tempest' and clearly he enjoys performing songs from his more recent albums. He only played about a handful of songs from his 60s and 70s output. I was overwhelmed as ever by 'All Along The Watchtower', which remains the most astonishing song owing to its seeming simplicity yet complexity in live performance. It is melodically and lyrically a masterpiece and in performance is like a piece of clay that is moulded into unique forms based on the musical arrangement. Dylan, if you want to perform a 60 minute version of this song, I will be there, salivating in the corner. A final lesson from last night, perhaps, darkness befits a living enigma, arguably the most important living singer/songwriter. Thanks, Bob for everything!
Barry Watt - 28th November 2013.
Afterword
Anglepoise lamps are copyright to Anglepoise.
The Eagles are a little known American band. Perhaps, best known for their 'Hotel California' album which is copyrighted to Asylum Records.
'Breakfast at Tiffany's' was on the Theatre Royal Haymarket in 2009. Very good performance from Anna Friel and a nice adaptation of the story by Truman Capote.
'Tangled Up In Blue' and 'Simple Twist Of Fate' both appear on 'Blood On The Tracks' (Columbia Records).
The album 'Tempest' is copyright to Columbia Records and is well worth a listen.
'All Along The Watchtower' first appeared on Dylan's album 'John Wesley Harding' and has been covered by pretty much everyone since. Arguably, the most versatile song of all time. Discuss... ;-)
BW
Saturday, 16 November 2013
Shunga: Sex and pleasure in Japanese Art at the British Museum - A Gilded Lily for the Discerning Adult.
Last Sunday, I attended the 'Shunga: Sex and Pleasure in Japanese Art' exhibition at the British Museum with my partner. It was Remembrance Sunday, a little after 11am and the exhibition was reassuringly and surprisingly busy. It was an eye-opener in every sense.
'Shunga' is used to describe a body of art works that were created in Japan between 1600 and 1900. They are essentially erotic illustrations and paintings depicting various sexual practices. Unlike most forms of later pornographic material, they are quite explicit. They are also delightfully imaginative. I also felt that they probably speak volumes about the culture that produced the works.
As I walked around the exhibition, my partner and I gazed at the various works and I was just as interested in the demographic of the visitors who had chosen this day of all days to embrace their desires and needs or those that they had overlooked as time passed. There were people of all age groups. I am sure that there were some children too but the acts of carnal desire etc would have meant little to them except providing some quite distinctive illustrations of their possible futures. So perhaps, there is an argument for taking children along to erotic art exhibitions if only to point out that there is nothing obscene about sex if it is consensual and you are over the age of consent? It also enables the parents or guardians to illustrate that the images offered in the media and indeed, by this exhibition are just that, representations of archaic acts that are simply repeated. The other people attending the exhibition included tourists who had clearly had this exhibition recommended to them or else had simply stumbled on this exhibition, having been led to the British Museum and had some time to use up prior to their afternoon visit somewhere else. Then there was the elderly couple of ladies who gazed at the images joking with each other.
I enjoyed the range of images on offer and the fact that they were available like many forms of explicit material discreetly and surreptitiously. The Japanese Government of the time did not condone the art form, although it was regularly marketed as an aid for newly wed couples. What intrigued me about the art works on offer was the range of stories depicted in these images, some suitably fantastical, woman being abducted by an Octopus and then enduring the sensation of said Mollusc performing some bizarre variation of cunnilingus on her. Then I noted, the detail of the backgrounds of the sexual acts. The attention to detail applied to the storage units and cooking utensils. Then as everyone noticed, it was interesting how many of the compositions included images of maids, babies and animals looking on as the respective couples continued their acts clearly not aware or else delighted that these willing and unwilling voyeurs were there to see the balletic exertions. One interesting fact came out of the exhibition that I feel needs to be aired. Apparently, Chinese art of the time depicted the male and female anatomy more realistically and to size. Japanese art from this period is about excess. Huge penises being the order of the day. One artwork playing up the 'fictional' penis competitions where men would measure up their members against each other. How little has changed over time and indeed, even between cultures.
A final point, the sexual acts on offer were many and varied. All sexual preferences were catered for. After all, these works were often commercial and where there's a demand, there must be a supply. Something for everyone in this closet industry.
I recommend this exhibition, particularly if you want to explore the delights of a form of art that does not need to hide its eroticism behind dark curtains. I can imagine school trips to this exhibition. Okay, maybe not but if you wish to see an influential style that inspired the likes of Picasso then you could not wish for a more thrilling couple of hours in an austere setting.
Barry Watt - 16th November 2013.
'Shunga' is used to describe a body of art works that were created in Japan between 1600 and 1900. They are essentially erotic illustrations and paintings depicting various sexual practices. Unlike most forms of later pornographic material, they are quite explicit. They are also delightfully imaginative. I also felt that they probably speak volumes about the culture that produced the works.
As I walked around the exhibition, my partner and I gazed at the various works and I was just as interested in the demographic of the visitors who had chosen this day of all days to embrace their desires and needs or those that they had overlooked as time passed. There were people of all age groups. I am sure that there were some children too but the acts of carnal desire etc would have meant little to them except providing some quite distinctive illustrations of their possible futures. So perhaps, there is an argument for taking children along to erotic art exhibitions if only to point out that there is nothing obscene about sex if it is consensual and you are over the age of consent? It also enables the parents or guardians to illustrate that the images offered in the media and indeed, by this exhibition are just that, representations of archaic acts that are simply repeated. The other people attending the exhibition included tourists who had clearly had this exhibition recommended to them or else had simply stumbled on this exhibition, having been led to the British Museum and had some time to use up prior to their afternoon visit somewhere else. Then there was the elderly couple of ladies who gazed at the images joking with each other.
I enjoyed the range of images on offer and the fact that they were available like many forms of explicit material discreetly and surreptitiously. The Japanese Government of the time did not condone the art form, although it was regularly marketed as an aid for newly wed couples. What intrigued me about the art works on offer was the range of stories depicted in these images, some suitably fantastical, woman being abducted by an Octopus and then enduring the sensation of said Mollusc performing some bizarre variation of cunnilingus on her. Then I noted, the detail of the backgrounds of the sexual acts. The attention to detail applied to the storage units and cooking utensils. Then as everyone noticed, it was interesting how many of the compositions included images of maids, babies and animals looking on as the respective couples continued their acts clearly not aware or else delighted that these willing and unwilling voyeurs were there to see the balletic exertions. One interesting fact came out of the exhibition that I feel needs to be aired. Apparently, Chinese art of the time depicted the male and female anatomy more realistically and to size. Japanese art from this period is about excess. Huge penises being the order of the day. One artwork playing up the 'fictional' penis competitions where men would measure up their members against each other. How little has changed over time and indeed, even between cultures.
A final point, the sexual acts on offer were many and varied. All sexual preferences were catered for. After all, these works were often commercial and where there's a demand, there must be a supply. Something for everyone in this closet industry.
I recommend this exhibition, particularly if you want to explore the delights of a form of art that does not need to hide its eroticism behind dark curtains. I can imagine school trips to this exhibition. Okay, maybe not but if you wish to see an influential style that inspired the likes of Picasso then you could not wish for a more thrilling couple of hours in an austere setting.
Barry Watt - 16th November 2013.
Saturday, 2 November 2013
Morrissey - The Nation's Favourite Grandson.
Today, I finished reading 'Morrissey: Autobiography'. Having finished the book, which has caused some rumblings in the world owing to the decision made by the publishers, Penguin, to release it under their 'Classics' imprint, I am left with the same feeling I had when I started, his life is in his songs. The revelations begin and end within the bridge/verse/chorus structure, which occupy his creative mind. In the Acknowledgements, Morrissey tellingly emphasises this point:
Whatever is sung is the case.
(Page 470 - 'Autobiography')
The Autobiography reads like a dissection of his current life, using the past to explain how he is where he is today. What is most fruitfully revealed is a man who wants something that he only seems to get on stage. The audience are his fuel, his meaning for being. Everything else that matters to him is only hinted at. Just his love of the audience, music, unwavering veganism and his love/support of animals/birds/fish shines from the pages of this tome.
In many respects, he remains the blank canvas onto which his listeners and audience members project their own needs and aspirations.
Having briefly expressed my view of the 'Autobiography', I feel it worthwhile to expand upon Morrissey's significance to me, as everyone has an opinion of Morrissey whether they like him or not.
I got into Morrissey in a quite haphazard way. I remember taping a radio recording of Morrissey's Drury Lane concert in 1995 for a friend's brother and being intrigued by his vocal style and lyrics. I remember being particularly struck by the song 'Jack the Ripper', with its moody intensity. I remember being told that Morrissey had been the lead singer in a band called The Smiths when I stupidly heard my first Smiths' song in the Student Union bar of Greenwich University and had stated 'that guy sounds like Morrissey'.
Through my growing interest in Morrissey, I purchased a fanzine called 'A Chance To Shine', where I made contact with a friend I am still in touch with today (Louise had placed an advert in the Contacts section). I was pleased to discover that mutual tastes in music often mirror other mutual interests. Through our friendship, she has introduced me to other types of music, particularly the band Love and Scott Walker.
I finally saw Morrissey live in 1999 at the Forum in London, his set was just under eighty minutes and I seem to remember at least a couple of stage invasions. The phenomenon of stage invasions is curiously only really apparent at Morrissey gigs. The sight of predominantly men clambering over the security to grab, hug and touch Morrissey's hands is still a potent sight. He regularly condones the act and only seems to edge away when the advances seem too aggressive. I have seen other Morrissey gigs since and I was unlucky enough to have a ticket for one of the London Roundhouse gigs he didn't perform owing to illness. Indeed, one of the frustrations of being a Morrissey fan is the realisation that the chances of his cancelling a gig go up exponentially the longer the tour. But I guess this is to be expected, as your body can only take so much.
The fanaticism surrounding Morrissey is scary. There are monthly nights dedicated to Morrissey and The Smiths at The Star and Garter pub in Manchester, where only Smiths' and Morrissey music is played. Seeing so many men dressed elegantly with freshly groomed quiffs is a surprisingly engaging sight. Oddly enough, I have never felt the need to try consciously to look like Morrissey, although occasionally by accident, I do! (I was once told this at a Morrissey night).
As I have grown up with Morrissey, I have witnessed him change from someone inspiring and possibly, an Everyman figure to someone who seems filled with hate and vengeance. His views range from intelligent and funny to vindictive and deliberately controversial. His musical output obviously seems to reflect this progression in some respects, although his lyrics still retain a sense of humanity when they are not steeped in a veil of self-pity. Don't get me wrong, I believe he is entitled to explore his feelings in any form he chooses, yet if you are feeling down, certain songs will make you feel even worse. Also there are times when I just want to hug him.
Reading the 'Autobiography' has left me with the same view of Morrissey, he is a great singer/songwriter, a pervasive performer on stage and possibly the most insular person off-stage. He stated once in an interview with Jonathan Ross (if I recall correctly) that he could count his friends on one hand and he wasn't joking. His sexuality as it always should have been is his concern. The 'Autobiography' hints at relationships with both men and women. The only sensation I feel upon reflecting upon this 'Autobiography' is his deep need for a child, but his own child not an adopted child as a P.R. stunt, someone he can care for unconditionally.
Morrissey will always be the man who got away. I just wonder what he is escaping from.
Barry Watt - 27th October 2013
Afterword
'Morrissey: Autobiography' is out now and is published by Penguin Classics. My one quote was borrowed from the 'Acknowledgements' page on page 470.
'Jack The Ripper' appears on various Morrissey albums and on the single 'Certain People I Know'. It is on the live album, 'Beethoven Was Deaf' (HMV).
BW
Saturday, 5 October 2013
'The Last Yankee' - Clarity in the Throes of Illness.
Last night, I saw a play at the Print Room in London that reminded me why I love the theatre. 'The Last Yankee' by Arthur Miller was originally performed as a twenty minute one act play as part of a festival at the New York Ensemble Theatre in 1991. It was subsequently expanded to a two scene play and staged in New York and London in 1993. Thanks to my sister's play collection, I can confirm that it was staged at the Young Vic and starred Helen Burns, Peter Davison, David Healy and Margot Leicester (Zoe Wanamaker was also in the initial run of the show; she was subsequently replaced by Margot Leicester).
As the play is comprised of only two scenes, it is comparatively short but its potency still resonates twenty years after its first performances as a two scene play. 'The Last Yankee' is set in a state mental hospital in America. Two women are being treated for depression as inpatients, whilst their partners attend when they can to visit their spouses.
My first observation of the play in its current staging was the construction of the mise-en-scene. The audience walk around a corridor which has been constructed to resemble a hospital corridor with signs leading to the Reception area and the hospital rooms. Also such details as a map of the institution are included on the wall to heighten the audience's understanding of the size of mental institutions.
The first scene in the play is set in a waiting room, so when the audience reaches the performance space, we are invited to sit in rows around the space which is also notable because of an occupied bed in the corner (occupied as it later transpires by a stagehand who helps to set up the next scene as though a confused patient performing elaborate cleaning rituals. Also significantly, the occupied bed is mentioned in the original play, although the occupant remains stationary in the original 1993 productions of the play). The first scene is a dialogue between the two male characters in the play, Leroy Hamilton and John Frick talking about their partners, once they have overcome the initial tensions that often overwhelm men in waiting areas and other social situations. Small talk clarifying hospital procedure and reflections on the parking area leading to more profound and telling reflections of male attitudes to mental illness. Arthur Miller successfully evokes the male tendency to rationalise and understand even those things that cannot be rationalised:
Frick. I just can't figure it out. There's no bills; we're very well fixed; she's got a beautiful home... There's really not a trouble in the world. Although, God knows, maybe that's the trouble...
Leroy. Oh no, I got plenty of bills and it didn't help mine. I don't think it's how many bills you have.
Frick. What do you think it is, then?
Leroy. Don't ask me, I don't know.
(Scene 1, Page 4)
The focus on the male attitude towards their wives' illnesses is touching and accurate. They cannot solve anything that doesn't have a physical basis through monetary transactions or material means. Yes, they can pay for their wives to be treated but ultimately, they cannot step in and improve their wives' lives directly. They can only offer support.
The second scene which breaks down into three distinct sections, one involving the two wives talking (Patricia Hamilton and Karen Frick) then Leroy and Patricia conversing followed by an ensemble section. As the two women talk, it becomes apparent that Patricia's character is gradually reaching a state of contentment, not shared by Karen Frick. This is suggested by a conversation when Karen seeks advice from Patricia (who she is clearly devoted to) as to where to shop for daily necessities. Karen keeps forgetting and worries about getting things wrong.
As Patricia states to Karen:
Patricia.... I'm wondering if you've got the wrong medication. But I guess you'll never overdose - you vomit at the drop of a hat. It may be your secret blessing.
(Scene 2, Page 18)
Patricia does not suffer from the same indecisions, having stopped her medication for twenty one days (her choice). The audience subsequently learns that Patricia's brothers committed suicide providing a strong causal link to Patricia's depression (or maybe, that's simply my male assumption?)
The section where Leroy and Patricia explore their previous lives together and where they are now contains one of the most telling and beautifully expressive exchanges in the canon on play writing:
Patricia. There was something else you said. About standing on line.
Leroy. On line?
Patricia. That you'll always be at the head of the line because... (Breaks off.)
Leroy. I'm the only one on it.
Patricia.... is that really true? You do compete, don't you? You must, at least in your mind?
Leroy. Only with myself. We're really all on a one-person line, Pat. I learned that in these years.
(Scene 2, Page 28)
The acute realisation that ultimately all of our struggles are with ourselves is the point at which progression can be made. Prior to this, we are dependants, circling our families seeking answers and reassurances. When we step outside of the pattern of dependency, we become more adept at exploring our own needs and feelings. Support is necessary but not at the expense of our own feelings and values. In many respects, this section of the play is the crux of the playwright's intent. The primary lesson of the piece.
The subsequent section in which all of the characters are together and Karen dances, reveals the essential truth that Patricia and Leroy's marriage is ultimately more growth promoting that the Frick's relationship where Karen feels under appreciated by her husband. John Frick's seeming embarrassment of his wife is heart wrenching as she tap dances.
'The Last Yankee' in its current incarnation at the Print Room starring Andy De La Tour as Frick, Paul Hickey as Leroy, Kika Markham as Karen and Matilda Ziegler as Patricia, perfectly realises the fluidity and beauty of Miller's prose. The play is an ensemble piece, so highlighting individual performances would be detrimental to the audience's appreciation of the play. It's a play about mental illness, relationships and ultimately about the force within that keeps us going. You choose the force... Love, survival, God or something else? It's your life.
(Barry Watt - 5th October 2013)
Afterword
All quotes are extracted from 'The Last Yankee' by Arthur Miller. The play edition published by Methuen Drama in 1993.
'The Last Yankee' at the Print Room finishes tonight. I hope that it transfers somewhere else. It's brilliant.
B.W.
As the play is comprised of only two scenes, it is comparatively short but its potency still resonates twenty years after its first performances as a two scene play. 'The Last Yankee' is set in a state mental hospital in America. Two women are being treated for depression as inpatients, whilst their partners attend when they can to visit their spouses.
My first observation of the play in its current staging was the construction of the mise-en-scene. The audience walk around a corridor which has been constructed to resemble a hospital corridor with signs leading to the Reception area and the hospital rooms. Also such details as a map of the institution are included on the wall to heighten the audience's understanding of the size of mental institutions.
The first scene in the play is set in a waiting room, so when the audience reaches the performance space, we are invited to sit in rows around the space which is also notable because of an occupied bed in the corner (occupied as it later transpires by a stagehand who helps to set up the next scene as though a confused patient performing elaborate cleaning rituals. Also significantly, the occupied bed is mentioned in the original play, although the occupant remains stationary in the original 1993 productions of the play). The first scene is a dialogue between the two male characters in the play, Leroy Hamilton and John Frick talking about their partners, once they have overcome the initial tensions that often overwhelm men in waiting areas and other social situations. Small talk clarifying hospital procedure and reflections on the parking area leading to more profound and telling reflections of male attitudes to mental illness. Arthur Miller successfully evokes the male tendency to rationalise and understand even those things that cannot be rationalised:
Frick. I just can't figure it out. There's no bills; we're very well fixed; she's got a beautiful home... There's really not a trouble in the world. Although, God knows, maybe that's the trouble...
Leroy. Oh no, I got plenty of bills and it didn't help mine. I don't think it's how many bills you have.
Frick. What do you think it is, then?
Leroy. Don't ask me, I don't know.
(Scene 1, Page 4)
The focus on the male attitude towards their wives' illnesses is touching and accurate. They cannot solve anything that doesn't have a physical basis through monetary transactions or material means. Yes, they can pay for their wives to be treated but ultimately, they cannot step in and improve their wives' lives directly. They can only offer support.
The second scene which breaks down into three distinct sections, one involving the two wives talking (Patricia Hamilton and Karen Frick) then Leroy and Patricia conversing followed by an ensemble section. As the two women talk, it becomes apparent that Patricia's character is gradually reaching a state of contentment, not shared by Karen Frick. This is suggested by a conversation when Karen seeks advice from Patricia (who she is clearly devoted to) as to where to shop for daily necessities. Karen keeps forgetting and worries about getting things wrong.
As Patricia states to Karen:
Patricia.... I'm wondering if you've got the wrong medication. But I guess you'll never overdose - you vomit at the drop of a hat. It may be your secret blessing.
(Scene 2, Page 18)
Patricia does not suffer from the same indecisions, having stopped her medication for twenty one days (her choice). The audience subsequently learns that Patricia's brothers committed suicide providing a strong causal link to Patricia's depression (or maybe, that's simply my male assumption?)
The section where Leroy and Patricia explore their previous lives together and where they are now contains one of the most telling and beautifully expressive exchanges in the canon on play writing:
Patricia. There was something else you said. About standing on line.
Leroy. On line?
Patricia. That you'll always be at the head of the line because... (Breaks off.)
Leroy. I'm the only one on it.
Patricia.... is that really true? You do compete, don't you? You must, at least in your mind?
Leroy. Only with myself. We're really all on a one-person line, Pat. I learned that in these years.
(Scene 2, Page 28)
The acute realisation that ultimately all of our struggles are with ourselves is the point at which progression can be made. Prior to this, we are dependants, circling our families seeking answers and reassurances. When we step outside of the pattern of dependency, we become more adept at exploring our own needs and feelings. Support is necessary but not at the expense of our own feelings and values. In many respects, this section of the play is the crux of the playwright's intent. The primary lesson of the piece.
The subsequent section in which all of the characters are together and Karen dances, reveals the essential truth that Patricia and Leroy's marriage is ultimately more growth promoting that the Frick's relationship where Karen feels under appreciated by her husband. John Frick's seeming embarrassment of his wife is heart wrenching as she tap dances.
'The Last Yankee' in its current incarnation at the Print Room starring Andy De La Tour as Frick, Paul Hickey as Leroy, Kika Markham as Karen and Matilda Ziegler as Patricia, perfectly realises the fluidity and beauty of Miller's prose. The play is an ensemble piece, so highlighting individual performances would be detrimental to the audience's appreciation of the play. It's a play about mental illness, relationships and ultimately about the force within that keeps us going. You choose the force... Love, survival, God or something else? It's your life.
(Barry Watt - 5th October 2013)
Afterword
All quotes are extracted from 'The Last Yankee' by Arthur Miller. The play edition published by Methuen Drama in 1993.
'The Last Yankee' at the Print Room finishes tonight. I hope that it transfers somewhere else. It's brilliant.
B.W.
Saturday, 6 July 2013
'The Bling Ring' - Like totally sick...
'The Bling Ring' (15) is director's Sofia Coppola's new film and the production credits reads like a family tree of the Coppola family. But I state that neutrally... Make your own mind up about the film. It's a film based on 'true events' as documented by a 'Vanity Fair' article. The fact that these two facts are emphasised adds an ironic touch to this film. The film documents the activities of a group of young people dubbed 'The Bling Ring' owing to their propensity for the superficial accoutrements and accessories of a morally bankrupt generation. Essentially, in order to obtain the celebrity lifestyle that helps them to be the 'in crowd', they steal from celebrities. But tellingly, they steal only those items which they feel will help forward their status. Money is stolen when it can be found but this serves to fund their escalating drug habits.
A couple of the characters including Emma Watson's character are brought up by a mother who espouses new age philosophy with her daughters. Most notably, as they get up the mother gives them a life affirming statement to chew on, prior to sending them out into the outside world. Amusingly, later in the film, the mother clearly obsessed with 'The Secret' by Rhonda Byrne, offers a 'vision board', which is covered with images of Angelina Jolie and the girls are asked to identify the actresses' key qualities. They choose the superficial; Angelina Jolie's 'hot husband' and her 'hot body'.
My enduring memories of the film are the scenes of larceny and the ironic fact that the celebrity generation with its endless need to feed the public with every detail of day to day life on social media sites has left them vulnerable to attack. Indeed, the group pretty much just slide a glass door to get into certain properties. Also Paris Hilton apparently used to keep her key under the door mat. You may as well just wave a sign saying 'Rob me'. Additionally, there is one young man who is part of the group who in many respects serves as the counterpoint to the others. He initially questions the unlawful entries and robberies then it becomes clear that the beauty of high heel shoes and clothes are as much of a lure to him as to his friends. His repressed homosexuality is apparent for all to see but never acted on as he explores his boundaries and becomes more and more addicted to cocaine.
This is a highly successful film, tearing through the superficialities of a consumer society, so obsessed with image that it fails to perceive the damage it is causing to the touchscreen, Prada kids with their vastly reduced capacity to feel. The music soundtrack adding to the hedonistic ride. You leave the cinema with one extended finger raised towards the fashion industry and another finger raised in the direction of the media. 'The Bling Ring' is like totally sick...
Barry Watt - 6th July 2013
Afterword
'The Bling Ring' (15) is currently showing in most cinemas.
A link to the 'Vanity Fair' article, 'The Suspects Wore Louboutins' by Nancy Jo Sales is included below and the article is copyright to the author and to Conde Nast.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/03/billionaire-girls-201003
Prada is copyright to Prada.
A couple of the characters including Emma Watson's character are brought up by a mother who espouses new age philosophy with her daughters. Most notably, as they get up the mother gives them a life affirming statement to chew on, prior to sending them out into the outside world. Amusingly, later in the film, the mother clearly obsessed with 'The Secret' by Rhonda Byrne, offers a 'vision board', which is covered with images of Angelina Jolie and the girls are asked to identify the actresses' key qualities. They choose the superficial; Angelina Jolie's 'hot husband' and her 'hot body'.
My enduring memories of the film are the scenes of larceny and the ironic fact that the celebrity generation with its endless need to feed the public with every detail of day to day life on social media sites has left them vulnerable to attack. Indeed, the group pretty much just slide a glass door to get into certain properties. Also Paris Hilton apparently used to keep her key under the door mat. You may as well just wave a sign saying 'Rob me'. Additionally, there is one young man who is part of the group who in many respects serves as the counterpoint to the others. He initially questions the unlawful entries and robberies then it becomes clear that the beauty of high heel shoes and clothes are as much of a lure to him as to his friends. His repressed homosexuality is apparent for all to see but never acted on as he explores his boundaries and becomes more and more addicted to cocaine.
This is a highly successful film, tearing through the superficialities of a consumer society, so obsessed with image that it fails to perceive the damage it is causing to the touchscreen, Prada kids with their vastly reduced capacity to feel. The music soundtrack adding to the hedonistic ride. You leave the cinema with one extended finger raised towards the fashion industry and another finger raised in the direction of the media. 'The Bling Ring' is like totally sick...
Barry Watt - 6th July 2013
Afterword
'The Bling Ring' (15) is currently showing in most cinemas.
A link to the 'Vanity Fair' article, 'The Suspects Wore Louboutins' by Nancy Jo Sales is included below and the article is copyright to the author and to Conde Nast.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/03/billionaire-girls-201003
Prada is copyright to Prada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)