'Not your girl' is a phrase I stole from a t-shirt. I hold up my hands and openly admit to plagiarism, sorry H&M. I call this blog Not Your Girl for the same reason I describe it as 'free-thinking', it is a non-restrictive space where the thoughts and experiences recorded belong to nobody but myself - there is no editor, censoring or endorsement. Though it is independent, this blog cannot claim to be objective since what I offer are my interpretations. My aim is to document as many of my experiences as I can in a form that though personal is also widely accessible. If you have a quick scroll through the past articles I've posted you'll see that I write on a variety of things: social issues, lifestyle, theatre and fashion are sections I've covered recently. So there really is no niche, though please don't expect the unexpected because that's too much pressure on me to be wonderfully original. Maybe expect nothing and then be pleasantly surprised when there is something (life lesson #1?).
So World, meet Blog - I'm sure you'll get along.
Documenting the life and experiences of a writer, fun seeker and enthusiasm enthusiast
Wednesday 24 December 2014
Past Lifestyle Article: The word 'slut' - It's not okay
28/10/14
The term ‘slut’ is obsolete. I’m stating the ideal here. Why? Because the concept of being a slut is no longer relevant to the society in which we live. Google defines it as ‘a woman who has many casual sexual partners’. Of course, the idea of a woman having ‘many casual sexual partners’ shouldn’t even be an issue anymore (more on this later), but next to this definition you will find the words ‘noun derogatory’, which pretty much seals the argument that the word slut is outdated and should never have gained any legitimacy in the first place.
Historically, ‘slut’ was a synonym for prostitute and these connotations have trickled down into modern-day understandings of the word. Looked at in this sense, ‘slut’ places a monetary value upon sex, thus introducing the idea of someone being merely a sexual object, with accompanying adjectives such as ‘cheap’ and ‘easy’. A word like ‘slut’ is therefore part of a wider cultural vernacular which is derogatory to women.
In a society where many identify as feminists and the majority of us believe in gender equality, why can’t a woman use her body as she wishes and make her own life choices without fearing the judgment of her peers? Through years of women’s rights campaigning, I feel that there has been insufficient discussion of this topic; perhaps because of the tendency to discuss larger, more serious issues like educational inequality, unequal pay, abortion and rape. However, it is this basic attitude towards women, this fear of being judged, which often lies at the heart of these more weighty issues.
In 2012, Laura Bates founded the Everyday Sexism Project, which gives women a space to share their personal experiences of sexist behaviour in their day-to-day lives. This project is part of a larger movement involved with identifying, highlighting and debating these smaller, yet no less significant instances of sexism or misogyny present in everyday life. Being called a ‘slut’ will not necessarily ruin your life, but it is still an unpleasant and undeserved derogation, and a negative value judgement with wider social consequences.
The judgement behind a word like ‘slut’ is also, worryingly, wielded as a weapon to excuse rude or abusive behaviour by members of the opposite sex and, even to mitigate belief in a woman’s right and ability to say ‘no’ in sexual situations. Phrases like, ‘she was asking for it’, imply the same negative moral assessment of women’s behaviour and choice of dress as uses of the word ‘slut’. There should never be a scenario in which a woman’s appearance or actions justify the violation of her bodily integrity. Similarly, there should never be a situation in which using the word ‘slut’ is okay.
It could be argued that movements like ‘SlutWalk’ have sought to reclaim the word. In a translational movement of protest marches, which occurred in 2011, participants in ‘SlutWalk’ were protesting against the use of evidence about a woman’s appearance as an excuse for rape. The protests began in Toronto when a police officer suggested that “women should avoid dressing like sluts” as a precaution against sexual attention. While the message of the movement coincides with what I’m arguing for in this article, I don’t see its name as helpful. Instead of empowering women, or seeking to re-appropriate the word’s meaning, use of the word ‘slut’ in this context serves to support the label bestowed on women by misogynistic men and potentially trivialises a very serious issue.
This proves the point that women are often their own worst enemies in this matter. When a woman is called a ‘slut’ by another woman, we are, in effect, denying our right to sexual freedom and propagating the myth that there is a preconceived sexual norm to be followed. We are also saying that it is acceptable to place a label on another woman’s behaviour. It is significant that there is no strictly male equivalent of the term ‘slut’, which implies that this sexual norm applies exclusively to women.
So next time you find yourself thinking, or voicing the word aloud, think about the kind of society you want to live in. No one has the right to stand in judgement of another person’s life, especially when such a judgement is used to perpetuate an image of women as sexual objects, or to ignore a woman’s right to object to sexual advances. The elimination of such a demeaning word from our vernacular represents a key step in establishing a ‘new ordinary’ – a society in which women can be equal, safe, and free of judgement for the choices they make in their private lives.
Originally published: http://www.varsity.co.uk/lifestyle/7683
The term ‘slut’ is obsolete. I’m stating the ideal here. Why? Because the concept of being a slut is no longer relevant to the society in which we live. Google defines it as ‘a woman who has many casual sexual partners’. Of course, the idea of a woman having ‘many casual sexual partners’ shouldn’t even be an issue anymore (more on this later), but next to this definition you will find the words ‘noun derogatory’, which pretty much seals the argument that the word slut is outdated and should never have gained any legitimacy in the first place.
Historically, ‘slut’ was a synonym for prostitute and these connotations have trickled down into modern-day understandings of the word. Looked at in this sense, ‘slut’ places a monetary value upon sex, thus introducing the idea of someone being merely a sexual object, with accompanying adjectives such as ‘cheap’ and ‘easy’. A word like ‘slut’ is therefore part of a wider cultural vernacular which is derogatory to women.
In a society where many identify as feminists and the majority of us believe in gender equality, why can’t a woman use her body as she wishes and make her own life choices without fearing the judgment of her peers? Through years of women’s rights campaigning, I feel that there has been insufficient discussion of this topic; perhaps because of the tendency to discuss larger, more serious issues like educational inequality, unequal pay, abortion and rape. However, it is this basic attitude towards women, this fear of being judged, which often lies at the heart of these more weighty issues.
In 2012, Laura Bates founded the Everyday Sexism Project, which gives women a space to share their personal experiences of sexist behaviour in their day-to-day lives. This project is part of a larger movement involved with identifying, highlighting and debating these smaller, yet no less significant instances of sexism or misogyny present in everyday life. Being called a ‘slut’ will not necessarily ruin your life, but it is still an unpleasant and undeserved derogation, and a negative value judgement with wider social consequences.
The judgement behind a word like ‘slut’ is also, worryingly, wielded as a weapon to excuse rude or abusive behaviour by members of the opposite sex and, even to mitigate belief in a woman’s right and ability to say ‘no’ in sexual situations. Phrases like, ‘she was asking for it’, imply the same negative moral assessment of women’s behaviour and choice of dress as uses of the word ‘slut’. There should never be a scenario in which a woman’s appearance or actions justify the violation of her bodily integrity. Similarly, there should never be a situation in which using the word ‘slut’ is okay.
It could be argued that movements like ‘SlutWalk’ have sought to reclaim the word. In a translational movement of protest marches, which occurred in 2011, participants in ‘SlutWalk’ were protesting against the use of evidence about a woman’s appearance as an excuse for rape. The protests began in Toronto when a police officer suggested that “women should avoid dressing like sluts” as a precaution against sexual attention. While the message of the movement coincides with what I’m arguing for in this article, I don’t see its name as helpful. Instead of empowering women, or seeking to re-appropriate the word’s meaning, use of the word ‘slut’ in this context serves to support the label bestowed on women by misogynistic men and potentially trivialises a very serious issue.
This proves the point that women are often their own worst enemies in this matter. When a woman is called a ‘slut’ by another woman, we are, in effect, denying our right to sexual freedom and propagating the myth that there is a preconceived sexual norm to be followed. We are also saying that it is acceptable to place a label on another woman’s behaviour. It is significant that there is no strictly male equivalent of the term ‘slut’, which implies that this sexual norm applies exclusively to women.
So next time you find yourself thinking, or voicing the word aloud, think about the kind of society you want to live in. No one has the right to stand in judgement of another person’s life, especially when such a judgement is used to perpetuate an image of women as sexual objects, or to ignore a woman’s right to object to sexual advances. The elimination of such a demeaning word from our vernacular represents a key step in establishing a ‘new ordinary’ – a society in which women can be equal, safe, and free of judgement for the choices they make in their private lives.
Originally published: http://www.varsity.co.uk/lifestyle/7683
Past Lifestyle Article: Success at Cambridge?
7/10/14
For a university ranked first in the UK and fifth in the world, ‘success’ is a particularly weighted term. It is the force which continues to drive the University of Cambridge to academic excellence and both a burden and a source of inspiration to its students. Before joining the ranks of Cambridge students, most of you will have enjoyed the experience of being big fish in comparatively small ponds. However, come October, this will all become a distant memory as the pond becomes a veritable ocean filled with show-directing, newspaper-editing, politically-active geniuses who manage to have that essay nailed before you’ve even started the reading, despite taking on more extracurriculars than you knew existed. What you may not know about these people is that they’re probably doing all of this at the expense of sleep, quality of output, and other elements of the university experience.
Of course, there are those super-human beings who appear to balance everything perfectly, but these are rarer than you might think and, unless you thrive on such mayhem, don’t attempt to become one of these deities. As a Cambridge fresher, you’ve just spent at least the last two years of your life working tirelessly to get here; balancing academia, part-time work, extracurricular activities and work placements in a bid to secure your place at a top university. My advice to you now? Stop!
Yes, you may have been the best in your year and enjoyed the sense of achievement; you may even have done countless miserable things just for the sake of another accolade to add to your personal statement, but you’re here now and you no longer have to work so hard to fit a particular mould. This is the time to start living for you and not simply for the reward of a place at the university of your dreams. Be selective about the societies you get involved with and to what level you choose to engage with them. It’s up to you: it’s only your first year and you’ve already succeeded in getting a place at Cambridge, so resist the fear that you don’t deserve to be here.
First year is your chance to have fun, make new friends and try new things. You still have to work hard and sometimes it will feel like a struggle, but if you spend too much time worrying, you risk missing out on a wonderful experience. There’s help to be found if you need it and no one expects you to write anything earth-shattering in your first year. Try and let go of the compulsive need to be the best, or at least ease up on the competitiveness. One of the worst things you can do to your self-esteem at Cambridge is compare yourself to those around you; everybody here is brilliant in some way and it’s important to remember that you are too. When you do start to doubt yourself (and you inevitably will at some stage), focus on these simple truths: you sat the same examinations as everyone else, you went through an equally terrifying interview experience, and you have as much right to be here as the person sitting next to you in your lecture.
First year isn’t necessarily about being a success: it’s about having what you, personally, deem to be a successful university experience. So, take part in college swaps to your heart’s (or liver’s) content, skip a lecture to go to that audition and hit Cindies as often as you can. Keep on top of your work and relish the experience of being continually challenged, but don’t let it control you. Perhaps, for the first time in your life, you have the opportunity to work hard and play harder: seize it!
Originally published: http://www.varsity.co.uk/lifestyle/7464
For a university ranked first in the UK and fifth in the world, ‘success’ is a particularly weighted term. It is the force which continues to drive the University of Cambridge to academic excellence and both a burden and a source of inspiration to its students. Before joining the ranks of Cambridge students, most of you will have enjoyed the experience of being big fish in comparatively small ponds. However, come October, this will all become a distant memory as the pond becomes a veritable ocean filled with show-directing, newspaper-editing, politically-active geniuses who manage to have that essay nailed before you’ve even started the reading, despite taking on more extracurriculars than you knew existed. What you may not know about these people is that they’re probably doing all of this at the expense of sleep, quality of output, and other elements of the university experience.
Of course, there are those super-human beings who appear to balance everything perfectly, but these are rarer than you might think and, unless you thrive on such mayhem, don’t attempt to become one of these deities. As a Cambridge fresher, you’ve just spent at least the last two years of your life working tirelessly to get here; balancing academia, part-time work, extracurricular activities and work placements in a bid to secure your place at a top university. My advice to you now? Stop!
Yes, you may have been the best in your year and enjoyed the sense of achievement; you may even have done countless miserable things just for the sake of another accolade to add to your personal statement, but you’re here now and you no longer have to work so hard to fit a particular mould. This is the time to start living for you and not simply for the reward of a place at the university of your dreams. Be selective about the societies you get involved with and to what level you choose to engage with them. It’s up to you: it’s only your first year and you’ve already succeeded in getting a place at Cambridge, so resist the fear that you don’t deserve to be here.
First year is your chance to have fun, make new friends and try new things. You still have to work hard and sometimes it will feel like a struggle, but if you spend too much time worrying, you risk missing out on a wonderful experience. There’s help to be found if you need it and no one expects you to write anything earth-shattering in your first year. Try and let go of the compulsive need to be the best, or at least ease up on the competitiveness. One of the worst things you can do to your self-esteem at Cambridge is compare yourself to those around you; everybody here is brilliant in some way and it’s important to remember that you are too. When you do start to doubt yourself (and you inevitably will at some stage), focus on these simple truths: you sat the same examinations as everyone else, you went through an equally terrifying interview experience, and you have as much right to be here as the person sitting next to you in your lecture.
First year isn’t necessarily about being a success: it’s about having what you, personally, deem to be a successful university experience. So, take part in college swaps to your heart’s (or liver’s) content, skip a lecture to go to that audition and hit Cindies as often as you can. Keep on top of your work and relish the experience of being continually challenged, but don’t let it control you. Perhaps, for the first time in your life, you have the opportunity to work hard and play harder: seize it!
Originally published: http://www.varsity.co.uk/lifestyle/7464
Tuesday 23 December 2014
Past Fashion Article: Tartan: a brief history
24/10/13
A staple winter fabric, tartan has emerged top of the style stakes again this season. Seen in a variety of forms on the A/W catwalk ranging from classic (and somewhat reminiscent of a picnic blanket) at Celine, dark and heavy at Mulberry and in toned-down hues at Stella McCartney – there really are a million ways to wear it.
Contrary to popular belief, tartan is not exclusively Scottish at all; some of the earliest examples of tartan have been traced back to Central Europe, similar patterns were also found on mummies excavated in China from about 3000 BC. Tartan wasn’t actually a way to identify various Scottish clans until the mid-nineteenth century. Previously, tartan was simply a way of recognising which area of Scotland someone came from. The fabric’s appearance varied according to locally available dye and local weaving technique.
In a bid to control the Highlands, the British Parliament’s Dress Act of 1746 meant that those caught wearing tartan faced imprisonment and deportation. After the act’s 1782 abolishment, tartan became the symbolic national dress of Scotland. Following this, in 1815 the Highland Society of London named clan-specific tartans, which remained popular right through to the Victorian times when, because of its powerful aristocratic and military associations, the fabric became a symbol of refinement. The revival of the tartan trend owes a significant amount to the New York Metropolitan Museum’s latest fashion exhibition on the history of punk. Tartan resurfaced again in the 1970s as part of the punk movement to represent the exact opposite of what it once had in the Victorian era. As a result of the Met exhibition, designers such as the fashion-guru Karl Lagerfeld, have paid homage to tartan in their latest collections, causing tartan to move into high street stores and into our autumn/winter wardrobes once more.
Originally published: http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/fashionbeauty/0030773-tartan-a-brief-history.html
A staple winter fabric, tartan has emerged top of the style stakes again this season. Seen in a variety of forms on the A/W catwalk ranging from classic (and somewhat reminiscent of a picnic blanket) at Celine, dark and heavy at Mulberry and in toned-down hues at Stella McCartney – there really are a million ways to wear it.
Contrary to popular belief, tartan is not exclusively Scottish at all; some of the earliest examples of tartan have been traced back to Central Europe, similar patterns were also found on mummies excavated in China from about 3000 BC. Tartan wasn’t actually a way to identify various Scottish clans until the mid-nineteenth century. Previously, tartan was simply a way of recognising which area of Scotland someone came from. The fabric’s appearance varied according to locally available dye and local weaving technique.
In a bid to control the Highlands, the British Parliament’s Dress Act of 1746 meant that those caught wearing tartan faced imprisonment and deportation. After the act’s 1782 abolishment, tartan became the symbolic national dress of Scotland. Following this, in 1815 the Highland Society of London named clan-specific tartans, which remained popular right through to the Victorian times when, because of its powerful aristocratic and military associations, the fabric became a symbol of refinement. The revival of the tartan trend owes a significant amount to the New York Metropolitan Museum’s latest fashion exhibition on the history of punk. Tartan resurfaced again in the 1970s as part of the punk movement to represent the exact opposite of what it once had in the Victorian era. As a result of the Met exhibition, designers such as the fashion-guru Karl Lagerfeld, have paid homage to tartan in their latest collections, causing tartan to move into high street stores and into our autumn/winter wardrobes once more.
Originally published: http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/fashionbeauty/0030773-tartan-a-brief-history.html
Past Theatre Review: Puns and Roses
9:30pm, Mon 20 Jan 2014, Corpus Playroom
I’ll be the first to admit I was sceptical about attending an event entitled Puns and Roses – if this was the best wordplay that could be summoned from the minds of the Cambridge comedy elite, the audience was in for a shocker. Fortunately the show far exceeded the bleak expectations set by the name.
Charlie Palmer opened the show and acted as compère throughout, introducing each act and showcasing his own comedic talents in between. Some of the gags were a little unoriginal but when delivered with Palmer’s awkward charm, went down well with the audience. Palmer attempted to warm up the audience by initiating a game of “audience battle-ship”, which did get the audience engaged despite creating temporal chaos and not really having the desired comedic effect. Wilf Bagnall enjoyed a successful comedy debut managing to get laughs from most of his gags, particularly his suggestions for new TV shows - “Nigella’s Whose Line is it Anyway?” had me in stiches. By far the most bizarre moment of the night was presented by Josh Erde, when rounding off his act with an impression of a cat he had been feuding with over the vacation. The highlight of the night was undoubtedly the final performance by Milo Edwards, the material was well-judged and up-to-the-minute: the sketch about Coronation Street’s Hayley and Roy Cropper was well-handled, followed by a hilarious piece vocalising “what the French really think of the English” complete with a terrible accent and a rather awkward meeting with the Queen – brilliant stuff .
The format of the show worked well with Palmer’s mini-sketches breaking up the individual acts, each of which was short enough to maintain interest, but long enough to give the performers time to develop their gags. As expected with a show of this nature there were a few occasions that were a little “hit and miss”, however, the performers were constantly perceptive of audience mood and so were able to effectively smooth over any dud moments with absolute minimal awkwardness. All in all a great night out packed with fun and intelligent comedy from some of Cambridge’s most promising stand-ups.
7/10
Originally published: http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/culture/0031509-review-puns-and-roses.html
I’ll be the first to admit I was sceptical about attending an event entitled Puns and Roses – if this was the best wordplay that could be summoned from the minds of the Cambridge comedy elite, the audience was in for a shocker. Fortunately the show far exceeded the bleak expectations set by the name.
Charlie Palmer opened the show and acted as compère throughout, introducing each act and showcasing his own comedic talents in between. Some of the gags were a little unoriginal but when delivered with Palmer’s awkward charm, went down well with the audience. Palmer attempted to warm up the audience by initiating a game of “audience battle-ship”, which did get the audience engaged despite creating temporal chaos and not really having the desired comedic effect. Wilf Bagnall enjoyed a successful comedy debut managing to get laughs from most of his gags, particularly his suggestions for new TV shows - “Nigella’s Whose Line is it Anyway?” had me in stiches. By far the most bizarre moment of the night was presented by Josh Erde, when rounding off his act with an impression of a cat he had been feuding with over the vacation. The highlight of the night was undoubtedly the final performance by Milo Edwards, the material was well-judged and up-to-the-minute: the sketch about Coronation Street’s Hayley and Roy Cropper was well-handled, followed by a hilarious piece vocalising “what the French really think of the English” complete with a terrible accent and a rather awkward meeting with the Queen – brilliant stuff .
The format of the show worked well with Palmer’s mini-sketches breaking up the individual acts, each of which was short enough to maintain interest, but long enough to give the performers time to develop their gags. As expected with a show of this nature there were a few occasions that were a little “hit and miss”, however, the performers were constantly perceptive of audience mood and so were able to effectively smooth over any dud moments with absolute minimal awkwardness. All in all a great night out packed with fun and intelligent comedy from some of Cambridge’s most promising stand-ups.
7/10
Originally published: http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/culture/0031509-review-puns-and-roses.html
Past Theatre Review: Funny Girl
7.45pm, Tue 12 to Sat 16 Nov 2013, ADC Theatre
With the original 1964 Broadway production being nominated for no less than eight Tony awards including Best Musical, Funny Girl is a tried and tested classic reimagined for the twenty-first century in CUMTS’ new production.
Funny Girl tells the story of Fanny Brice – a role which earned Barbra Streisand the Academy Award for Best Actress in the 1968 screen adaption – who dares to dream of performing on a Broadway stage despite being deemed “not pretty enough”. However, in our modern day culture when stars are churned out overnight and fame is fickle, Fanny finds accomplishing her dreams much harder than she expected, especially when she enters a complex romance with suave charmer Nick Arnstein.
The brilliant CUMTS production of Funny Girl reworks the original story in a number of ways; Fanny’s search for fame is modernised using the medium of a TV talent contest, the characters themselves feel current and identifiable and present day props and costumes are used. This creates an interesting juxtaposition with the original music – performed wonderfully by the twenty-one piece band – which has a distinctly classic Broadway sound. Rather than creating a disconnect between setting and sound the music contrasts nicely with the ideas being portrayed (along similar lines to the time/music contradiction in Spring Awakening), prompting such questions as whether, by allowing theatre stars to be created overnight by reality shows, we are allowing the essence of traditional Broadway to slip away.
Another daring directorial decision is to have four different actresses (often on stage at the same time) playing Fanny. Although in particular scenes this becomes a little confusing, I think that for the new, more current messages the production seeks to capture and convey about the nature of celebrity, the quadruple casting works well. It serves to show the somewhat sobering fact that dreams are not exclusive to the dreamer, identical situations exist everywhere and therefore in order for Fanny to realise her goals she must fight even to be noticed amongst the fame-hungry masses.
Rather than the four leading ladies battling it out for the spotlight, each have their individual moment which gives the show a refreshing sense of variation as well as perfectly complementing the other performances. The standout moment for me personally was Lily Grieve’s beautiful rendition of the song “People” which expresses the feeling of loneliness that comes as the price of independence. Rory Boyd put in an excellent performance as the hapless yet lovable Eddie Ryan, displaying comic flair as well as showcasing a wonderfully unique voice. Quick mentions to Catriona Stirling for a lively depiction of the insufferable Mrs Strakosh and Alistair Phillips for a convincingly slick Nick Arnstein.
Classic songs, combined with the high quality of the performances, not only make Funny Girl a must-see production but also a thoroughly enjoyable night out. From the outset the stage presence of the cast is electric, especially in moments such as “Henry Street” (which features a cup song) when the comparatively large scale of the production becomes apparent. Best of all everyone involved seemed to be having a genuinely good time – I dare someone to rain on this parade.
9/10
Originally published: http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/theatre/0031053-review-funny-girl.html
With the original 1964 Broadway production being nominated for no less than eight Tony awards including Best Musical, Funny Girl is a tried and tested classic reimagined for the twenty-first century in CUMTS’ new production.
Funny Girl tells the story of Fanny Brice – a role which earned Barbra Streisand the Academy Award for Best Actress in the 1968 screen adaption – who dares to dream of performing on a Broadway stage despite being deemed “not pretty enough”. However, in our modern day culture when stars are churned out overnight and fame is fickle, Fanny finds accomplishing her dreams much harder than she expected, especially when she enters a complex romance with suave charmer Nick Arnstein.
The brilliant CUMTS production of Funny Girl reworks the original story in a number of ways; Fanny’s search for fame is modernised using the medium of a TV talent contest, the characters themselves feel current and identifiable and present day props and costumes are used. This creates an interesting juxtaposition with the original music – performed wonderfully by the twenty-one piece band – which has a distinctly classic Broadway sound. Rather than creating a disconnect between setting and sound the music contrasts nicely with the ideas being portrayed (along similar lines to the time/music contradiction in Spring Awakening), prompting such questions as whether, by allowing theatre stars to be created overnight by reality shows, we are allowing the essence of traditional Broadway to slip away.
Another daring directorial decision is to have four different actresses (often on stage at the same time) playing Fanny. Although in particular scenes this becomes a little confusing, I think that for the new, more current messages the production seeks to capture and convey about the nature of celebrity, the quadruple casting works well. It serves to show the somewhat sobering fact that dreams are not exclusive to the dreamer, identical situations exist everywhere and therefore in order for Fanny to realise her goals she must fight even to be noticed amongst the fame-hungry masses.
Rather than the four leading ladies battling it out for the spotlight, each have their individual moment which gives the show a refreshing sense of variation as well as perfectly complementing the other performances. The standout moment for me personally was Lily Grieve’s beautiful rendition of the song “People” which expresses the feeling of loneliness that comes as the price of independence. Rory Boyd put in an excellent performance as the hapless yet lovable Eddie Ryan, displaying comic flair as well as showcasing a wonderfully unique voice. Quick mentions to Catriona Stirling for a lively depiction of the insufferable Mrs Strakosh and Alistair Phillips for a convincingly slick Nick Arnstein.
Classic songs, combined with the high quality of the performances, not only make Funny Girl a must-see production but also a thoroughly enjoyable night out. From the outset the stage presence of the cast is electric, especially in moments such as “Henry Street” (which features a cup song) when the comparatively large scale of the production becomes apparent. Best of all everyone involved seemed to be having a genuinely good time – I dare someone to rain on this parade.
9/10
Originally published: http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/theatre/0031053-review-funny-girl.html
Past Theatre Review: Shoot Coward
8pm, Corpus Playroom, Tue 29 Oct to Sat 2 Nov
Shoot Coward! brings three plays from Latin America never before seen on the British stage. With minimal set and only two actors featuring in each performance the experience is intensely raw and personal. There are no visual distractions so focus remains entirely upon the dialogue which can leave the audience feeling a little awkward (in the best way possible) and exposed at times when the plays are dealing with particularly difficult but equally riveting themes.
The first and longest play, Secret Obscenities by Chilean playwright and psychologist Marco Antonio de la Parra, opens with the meeting of two flashers on a park bench, as they begin talking it becomes clear that they not only share many deep-seated psychological problems and dark passions but also a questionable past. The key theme explored by the play is guilt – the mental damage it inflicts and the lengths we will go to in order to absolve ourselves of it, regardless of the cost to our dignity and moral standing. Both the playwright’s psychological background and national history is apparent throughout, as the script encompasses Freudian theories as well as Marxist ideas set against one of the most horrific periods of Chilean history – the 1973-1990 military government (look it up before you go: as usual, Wikipedia proved my saviour).
The play does lose pace a little towards the end before the final twist (it’s a good one) resulting in a fidgety audience; this isn’t helped by the somewhat repetitive movements of the actors around the stage. However, Tris Hobson delivers a convincing version of near-insanity compared with Jake Thompson, who delivers more in the quieter sections of dialogue, resulting in mutually complementary performances.
Pace is not a problem for the second play, Bony and Kim, which with its snappy dialogue and lively characters kept the audience thoroughly engaged throughout. A pair of seasoned Puerto Rican criminals find fame when they begin robbing fast-food restaurants; they quickly lose any sense of the reality of their actions and find out that celebrity does not mean invincibility. A relatively current cultural issue is well handled and poignant questions posed relating to the way in which celebrities are created, and their effect on the impressionable public. Megan Dalton and Lili Thomas display a remarkable connection as well as adaptability and genuine talent for storytelling in the title roles.
Last but certainly not least comes the captivating tale of a conversation between an ill-fated matador and a rather intelligent bull. The story of Looking into the Stands tackles concepts such as the afterlife, trust and where the line is drawn between animal and human. The opening scene is a vivid display of physical theatre which allows the audience to begin to build conceptions of the characters based on their movements which are challenged later on in the play. Again both roles are brilliantly acted, with flawless accents and initial chemistry well maintained throughout.
Overall Shoot Coward! is well worth the time and money: the density of material alone is enough to provoke discussion and reflection on the heavy matters explored. With the tagline “three plays from Latin America”, I 'd d have liked to have felt much more immersed in the culture, but this was made up for by the enthralling performances.
7/10
Originally published: http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/culture/0030848-review-shoot-coward.html
Shoot Coward! brings three plays from Latin America never before seen on the British stage. With minimal set and only two actors featuring in each performance the experience is intensely raw and personal. There are no visual distractions so focus remains entirely upon the dialogue which can leave the audience feeling a little awkward (in the best way possible) and exposed at times when the plays are dealing with particularly difficult but equally riveting themes.
The first and longest play, Secret Obscenities by Chilean playwright and psychologist Marco Antonio de la Parra, opens with the meeting of two flashers on a park bench, as they begin talking it becomes clear that they not only share many deep-seated psychological problems and dark passions but also a questionable past. The key theme explored by the play is guilt – the mental damage it inflicts and the lengths we will go to in order to absolve ourselves of it, regardless of the cost to our dignity and moral standing. Both the playwright’s psychological background and national history is apparent throughout, as the script encompasses Freudian theories as well as Marxist ideas set against one of the most horrific periods of Chilean history – the 1973-1990 military government (look it up before you go: as usual, Wikipedia proved my saviour).
The play does lose pace a little towards the end before the final twist (it’s a good one) resulting in a fidgety audience; this isn’t helped by the somewhat repetitive movements of the actors around the stage. However, Tris Hobson delivers a convincing version of near-insanity compared with Jake Thompson, who delivers more in the quieter sections of dialogue, resulting in mutually complementary performances.
Pace is not a problem for the second play, Bony and Kim, which with its snappy dialogue and lively characters kept the audience thoroughly engaged throughout. A pair of seasoned Puerto Rican criminals find fame when they begin robbing fast-food restaurants; they quickly lose any sense of the reality of their actions and find out that celebrity does not mean invincibility. A relatively current cultural issue is well handled and poignant questions posed relating to the way in which celebrities are created, and their effect on the impressionable public. Megan Dalton and Lili Thomas display a remarkable connection as well as adaptability and genuine talent for storytelling in the title roles.
Last but certainly not least comes the captivating tale of a conversation between an ill-fated matador and a rather intelligent bull. The story of Looking into the Stands tackles concepts such as the afterlife, trust and where the line is drawn between animal and human. The opening scene is a vivid display of physical theatre which allows the audience to begin to build conceptions of the characters based on their movements which are challenged later on in the play. Again both roles are brilliantly acted, with flawless accents and initial chemistry well maintained throughout.
Overall Shoot Coward! is well worth the time and money: the density of material alone is enough to provoke discussion and reflection on the heavy matters explored. With the tagline “three plays from Latin America”, I 'd d have liked to have felt much more immersed in the culture, but this was made up for by the enthralling performances.
7/10
Originally published: http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/culture/0030848-review-shoot-coward.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)