Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

Review - Anthony & Cleopatra 11th July, The Globe, London

Thursday, July 13th, 2006

We never see the early meetings of Mark Anthony & Cleopatra, nor really hear of the time following as their romance flowers. We join the action at its peak and are witness only to its denouement. Ultimately, the play is a story of decline.

Two declines, in fact. The decline of a republic - Rome, as it becomes imperial under Octavius - and the second triumvirate and of the central relationship. Good! In the cycles of history, eras of decay are always far more interesting than those of construction.

Like any breakdown, the play is complex, fragmented, precisely unpredictable yet frustratingly inevitable. In short, a play about love as it is, a play for grown ups. (Which is not to say, given the choice, one would choose it over the more immediately satisfying idealism of the jail-bait duo in Romeo & Juliet.)

Of course, we know this even before the characters do. There is no narrative tension in A&C - we all know how it will end. We know Mark Anthony is a broken man as soon as we see him. Only he needs to wait until Actium to realise. We know Cleopatra will commit suicide, we know Octavius will seize power, we know Pompey will try to avenge his ill-remembered father, and many in the audience even know every line of verse along the way. The tension comes from elsewhere.

It is inherent in the precarious balance of head and heart for which the characters struggle, and I doubt I am sticking my neck out when I say particularly Cleopatra. And it is here that the Globe production fails, missing the point of the masterpiece.

Writing like this is not a gobbed-out catharsis, it is the exact opposite - it is control.

A novice play-watcher, I do not know if this is an error of actor or director or both, but error it decidedly is. There must be a hundred ways to play Cleopatra, most of them valid, but surely to play her in a perpetual tantrum, as Frances Barber does, is to lose much. It flattens her character. By being always angry, she never is. Whether or not Barber has sufficient self-regard, stage-presence or even the voice to pull off such an effort - which per haps she does not - is not the point. Even if she had succeeded in seeming truly, frighteningly angry, to do so all the time would be to waste the shock that would come with a more sparing deployment. Ultimately, like Pirelli tyres, power is nothing without control.

Another problem with this approach is that putting all her acting eggs into one basket of terminal crossness, when it doesn’t come off, when she goes for power but finds it lacking, her performance at times touches on camp. Frustratingly Barber seems to have settled for getting the laughs when she could be rooting us to the spot. Fine - laughter can be hard to achieve and she does it well. But, though I might know fuck all about putting on a play, I can read - there are so many gimmes in the script that she could have played a colder, calculating, and yes a more interesting Cleopatra and still had the audience in fits. In fact, like the anger, the sparing use of comedy would have made it funnier.

It is sad in a way because at times she shows glimpses of what she can do. Though she gets most applause for her slapstick beating of a messenger and most (male) attention for her feline physicality, the moments of her (so she imagines) raw abandonment with her women at the front of the stage are real highlights. Nevertheless one is still left ruing a missed opportunity. We should watch Cleopatra in a three-hour balancing act, traversing the deep abyss of her raw psyche. Here she may as well be traversing a paddling-pool.

This article concentrates on Cleopatra because she is the star of this show, and not just because she is the star of the script. But Anthony is played adequately, though with less charisma than the role should surely demand. Nicholas Jones plays him more like a befuddled middle-level manager than a “third pillar of the world”. The lack of electricity between the main characters is palpable, though this need not be a total disaster. After all, the regular hyperbolic outpourings of love required by the script certainly lead one to think that this relationship, like most, is little more than a mutual ego-massage - which is not to lessen its necessity or import, we all need it (increasingly!). The embarrassing divorced-dad style kissing would, in this case, work well, as the sort of understandable middle-aged desperation that curls the toes of reluctant onlookers.

I am tired now and want to go to bed, so let us dash through the rest.

And, I am sorry to say, for the rest, nothing less than crucifixion will do. Nail up the producer! Nail him up and burn the poor man’s threadbare, flea-infested, shit-stained casting couch. Enobarbus is a part which, from reading the script at least, might just be the most interesting male character. But not here, nowhere near - undervalued and quiet without being considered. But Enobarabus is as a soft fruit and champagne success compared to the stale Hofmeister and Monster Munch disgrace of the other male leads. Mecenas even made me angry, such was his non-performance. Was the man actually an actor or merely one of the GCSE students enjoying the show and slouching against the stage (and trying to look up Cleopatra’s skirt - no point, lads, trust me)? I don’t know his name but luckily for the lead soldier - i.e. the soldier!!- he was in no danger of having a beer can flung at him, for I was too busy laughing into it. O, rest you easy, my freedom-loving Britons, for thine mighty enemy is being lead apparently by the most insipid slinky-hipped mincer in the entire legion. The man was too busy trying to look mean and glowering while waving his wandy little wrist around to actually scare anyone. And as for Octavius, the soon to be emperor Augustus Caeser, the man who would rule the world, alone and on-high, for the next several decades. Well, yes, he was (quite) young in real life, but surely he didn’t need to look quite so much like the leader of the crappest gang at school. You know the sort: you could expect to see him on the school bus being picked on by boys in the year below. The only followers he had would stay out of the way and pretend to pick leaves out of bushes while the Year 7s kicked the shit out of him. Someone tell the actor that if you play a boy who will be king, you cannot forget the ‘king’ part. Weed!

So, disappointing, but not without merit (though almost entirely hers).

The Vox Polis Globetastic rating for Anthony & Cleopatra is thus: nice tits, but no cigar!

Flagging it up!

Tuesday, June 27th, 2006

There’s only one thing equally as annoying as having to see all this incessant flag waving on TV and cars that seems to be occuring recently, and that’s seeing lots of articles written about flag waving. For some absurd reason i’ve even taken the trouble to read some of them.

There’s been a huge amount of coverage in the MSM on why its good to wave flags, is it chav to fly the flag, why the rich dont wave flags, and why ethnic minorities are forced to fly the flag. All this is really no gage of patriotism or nationalistic feelings. Ive always believed that only those who are insecure about their nationalism feel the need to engage in flag waving.

Longer royalties for performers

Tuesday, April 18th, 2006

God botherer and tennis fan Sir Cliff Richard has given his support to a campaign for longer royalties for performers in the UK. Currently performers receive royalty payments for 50 years from the date of the recording of the work. Sir Cliff is asking for the royalty period for performers to be brought into line with that of songwriters who receive royalties their lifetime plus 70 years.

Frankly, I barely know where to start with how bad an idea it is. First off, to get an idea of who would really benefit from extended copyright (holding copyright is the legal tool that allows performers to collect royalties on a work so that’s what we’re really talking about) the British Phonographic Industry are leading this campaign. Not a coalition of aging artists struggling to make a crust but the recording industry (this Mail on Sunday article provides a nice glimpse into how much Cliff needs his next royalty cheque). It is the major music labels that really stand to gain from longer copyrights. A key trigger for this wave of campaigning is the impending end of copyright on some of the Beatles early recordings. ‘Love Me Do’ was recorded in 1962 and will enter the public domain in 2012. It goes without saying that the Beatles’ back catalogue is a major money-spinner and also that none of the artists involved are in any need of money.

The industry’s argument for longer copyright is that they need to have a guaranteed revenue stream before they’re willing to risk money on new artists but this doesn’t stand up to a lot of scrutiny.  The prevailing trend in music promotion and distribution is toward the internet - an arena with very low operating costs compared to TV, radio and print.  The Arctic Monkeys (whatever you may think of their musical merits) have shown that a cheap grass roots campaign can be very effective in launching new artists.  So, given that the industry are going to need less money in the future to promote new artists it’s not an unreasonable jump to suggest that in fact extended copyright only furthers to serve the purpose of further lining the pockets the biggest labels with money from the re-re-release of classic material.

The result of these legally protected revenue streams is stagnation, the labels have no economic push to seek out new music which makes life very difficult for new artists to reach a wide audience.  The entrenched positions of the major labels also allows them to dictate policy on matters such as DRM.  In light of this my suggestion for the future of copyright (both for composers and performers) is to significantly reduce copyright length.  5 years for recordings and 10 years for compositions seems reasonable.  Short copyright means that artists who have a create a popular work are able to make some money off it without being rest on their laurels indefinitely.  If someone wants to keep making money from music then they have to keep working at it, which if you think about feels genuinely fair.  Shorter copyright also generates material for samplists and remixers without the current legal minefield.  Finally, archivists can work freely without having to worry that their attempts to preserve culture are going to wind up breaching the DMCA, EUCD or [insert draconian anti-copying law here].

More on the French P2P legislation

Monday, March 13th, 2006

Today’s IHT has some reasonably thorough coverage of the proposed legislation to decriminalize online music sharing/piracy. Seen as this doesn’t seem to be going away I thought I’d add a bit more to my previous comments.

In my opinion, the IHT article fails to cover two points that are important in the debate. Firstly in it’s focus on reaction from politicians and the industry it fails to mention that the new leglislation is great for consumers. No longer will you have to wonder whether that track you downloaded will play on your brand X portable player. DRM does nothing for music listeners at all, it exists solely to protect big business and anything that bring it’s death closer should be welcomed.

The second thing that seems to have been forgotten in the furore is what effect the legislation will have on music distribution at a grass roots level. The proposed method of artist compensation under the new system is to divvy up a tax amongst the major labels with the size of the slice based popularity (there’s a conspicuous absence of technical detail on how to measure popularity in a downloading free for all). The labels will then continue to pay their signed artists according to whatever agreement they signed up to. My worry is that this results in is a system where consumers expect all music online to be free and almost all the money is still feeding to the major labels. If people looking for music online expect it to be free it makes it very difficult for individual artists or very small labels to operate a donation based system of compensation that bypasses the majors. Instead of damaging the big labels (which they seem to be very worried about at the minute) this could end up giving them a government sanctioned iron grip.

Either way, interesting times are ahead.

France considers legalising P2P

Wednesday, March 8th, 2006

French politicians are currently considering whether to legalise music and film downloading and implement a monthly fee to compensate for the lost royalties. The policy has met with opposition from the French government and (surprise, surprise) the recording industry. Some musicians have also come out against the bill. Consumer groups are in favour of the new proposal.

A downloading license has always struck me as being an ideal third way between the current state of affairs where illegal downloading is endemic and the artists get nothing and the course favoured by, for example, the RIAA of restrictive technology barriers backed by draconian laws.

Clearly there would be a number of issues which would have to be cleared up with any such scheme including:

  • How much does the license cost?
  • How is the money distributed?
  • Who has to buy a license?

Those certainly aren’t easy questions but if they can be satisfactorily resolved I believe that a download license could be a suitable method for paying artists in the Internet era.

Via The Register.

SuperSize my packaging

Tuesday, March 7th, 2006

The other day when hunger struck me after a long hard graft in the office I gave into the final biggest temptation that exists in the post super size world. I eat at Maccy D’s. But I didn’t just have a Big Mac. No I decided to gorge myself on a whole meal. Unfortunately they didn’t serve supersize anymore so I had to make do with a large one instead.
What struck me as I sat devouring this unnutritional, calorific meal, apart from the nauseous smell and rather chewy meat, was the amount of packing there is. Before I could photograph the table that had now become a (not so little) landfill site, the efficient staff cleared it away. It seems the staff have less to do now that fewer of us are willing to eat this cardboard food, where more often than not the packaging looks more edible than what’s inside.

The amount of packaging in a normal McDonald’s meal looks something like this. If we work on the basis that McDonald’s servers around 35 million customers a day, that’s a hell of a lot of packaging. Of course it’s not just McDonalds…how many of us have had similar stories to these folks?

The ring of truth II

Monday, February 20th, 2006

Further to our coverage of the plaudits Michael Crichton has been receiving for his “journalistic” abilities the International Herald Tribune are reporting on a meeting between Crichton and President Bush in 2005. Bush requested the meeting after reading (having read to him?) Crichton’s global warming denial fantasy State of Fear. Apparently the delusional pair were in “near total agreement”. I can only wonder what effect Jurassic Park will have.

The ring of truth

Thursday, February 9th, 2006

Michael Crichton has been awarded a journalism award for his novel State of Fear. The novel describes a fictional scenario in which:

[A] theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

The story then runs with the premise that global warming has been made up by a group of politicized scientists. At one point the theory of global warming is compared to eugenics to give you an idea of the tone. Crichton isn’t known for his journalistic skills and you might think that there’d been a mix up until you found out that the award is from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

“It is fiction,” conceded Larry Nation, communications director for the association. “But it has the absolute ring of truth.”

Now that’s something you couldn’t make up. More at the NY Times.

The music industry on DRM

Thursday, January 26th, 2006

The BBC have put a selection of questions on the subject of digital rights management (DRM) and file sharing to a panel of “top executives” in the music industry. The full set of questions and responses can be found on the BBC website. A selection of the best/worst responses can be found on The Rock Show site.

Pick of the bunch for me is from Peter Jamieson of the BPI on DRM:

DRM is the technology which makes all kinds of exciting new ways of listening to music possible.

Sigh…the management side of the music industry haven’t had an exciting idea for 40 years, the idea of them becoming gate-keepers for ideas in the future is repellent. The solution to the problem is to boycott DRM encumbered music until they see the error of their ways. Good starting points for this are here and here.

Please put us in your cave address!!

Sunday, January 22nd, 2006

Ive been trying to get Osama to plug our blog for a while…but he keeps saying we’re not critical enough of America.

BBC article