Review: As You Like It (RSC, Stratford)

by Emily Duff

As You Like It, directed by Maria Aberg, music by Laura Marling

As You Like It is one of Shakespeare’s best known comedies. My A2 English class travelled 3 hours to see the Royal Shakespeare Company’s performance of it on 20th April. Now, you may not know this, but 23rd April is Shakespeare’s birthday. We hadn’t really anticipated that Stratford, on a sunny weekend two days before, would therefore be absolutely heaving with Shakespeare fans, theatre go-ers and people dressed as Tudors. After eventually finding a parking space at the Park and Ride (a new experience for several of us…“you park…and ride the bus?!”), we made it to the Royal Shakespeare Theatre.



Nicolas Tennant as Touchstone
and Alex Waldmann as Orlando
(rsc.org.uk)

The performance was fantastic. The play opened with the thrust stage covered in leaf debris, slowly swept about by a moody Orlando. Behind him, a rotation with tall wooden pillars symbolised oppression and the confines of the court run by a drunken and tyrannical Duke Frederick.

 The court characters certainly looked the part; they were dressed in formidable black gowns and suits, but their stylised hand jive failed to impress me. Neither did the rectangular pit full of fragments of rubber that started off as the wrestling pit and then just seemed to cause mess and get in the way for the rest of the first act.

Everything changed however, once the characters reached the legendary Forest of Arden. The wooden pillars on the rotation moved to become trees and the characters were all dressed in bright colours with patterned jumpers, wellies, beanie hats and guitars. The festival theme, including the Duke Senior kitted out as an aging rock star, certainly added to the magical atmosphere, where all rules are suspended, especially when the priest entered as a drugged-up Jamaican with dreadlocks.

Pippa Nixon as Rosalind
(rsc.org.uk)

Pippa Nixon played Rosalind-turned-Ganymede and she was a very good man, if that can be a compliment. Her funniest moment was when she discovered her love was in the forest and pulled down her trousers asking, “What shall I do with my doublet and hose?”

Oliver Ryan was the melancholy Jaques, brilliant merely because he was so fantastic at being sad when everyone around him was celebrating. Phoebe was played by Natalie Klamar and was hilarious as the shepherdess who falls in love with a woman pretending to be a man.

However, two actors stole the show for me.


First was Alex Waldmann as Orlando. From a girly point of view, he was certainly nice to watch, especially when wrestling. But he also conveyed the complete and utter adoration that Orlando has for Rosalind, while being manipulated and flirted with by Ganymede, who (in this production at least) he doesn’t realise is his love in disguise.

Joanna Horton as Celia
(rsc.org.uk)

I found Joanna Horton, as Celia, best of all, though. Celia is often a character left in the background. Horton, however, was able to use the spaces where she doesn’t speak to great effect, creeping behind trees, sitting on a fridge and lying on the ground in an attempt to eavesdrop. She made the most of all of her lines and brought Celia out from the shadows and into the limelight.

I was a little bemused by the deluge of rain that suddenly fell during the wedding celebrations but my class assure me that this was a lovely symbol of nature affirming the love the various couples felt for each other and allowing it to develop in a wild environment.

Also, the continual dropping of half-eaten pears, half-finished beers and various ribbons and papers all over the rubber bits (that had been spread across the whole stage during the interval) meant that although the performance was funny, interesting, and captivating, it left me wanting to sweep everything into a big bin bag.

rsc.org.uk

 

See Fay Davies' review of James McAvoy and Claire Foy in Macbeth.

Read More

Review: "Get Lucky" by Daft Punk

by Hugh Summers 

Earlier this week, Daft Punk revealed the lead single from their upcoming album, Random Access Memories, which is set to be released this May. The album is said to show the human side of these robots, as we drift more away from humanity and more towards technology.

This could be a very interesting turn for the French house music duo as almost all of their songs are electronic. Yet, after hearing their new song, I must say that I was simply blown away. It’s been eight years since Daft Punk’s last album, Human After All, and many fans are ecstatic to see the duo back in the charts. 

As for the collaboration, Daft Punk first met Nile Rodgers at a listening party in New York for their 2001 album, Discovery, and apparently became friends from that point onwards. The duo eventually invited Rodgers to the Random Access Memories recording sessions at Electric Lady Studios in New York City, which, coincidentally, was the studio where the first Chic (the band for which Nile Rodgers was the guitarist in the late 70s/ early 80s) single had been recorded. Pharrell Williams had first heard from Daft Punk about the project at a Madonna party they were attending, and offered to be part of the collaboration.

The song itself falls within the genre of disco/ funk with hints of the classic Daft Punk robotic electronica towards the end. The piece has a great bass line throughout and funk guitar rhythms from Nile Rodgers which, with the drums and vocals, form an absolutely fantastic song; I would certainly recommend giving it a listen!

Read More

Portsmouth Point Poetry: 'A Considerable Speck' by Robert Frost

by Gregory Walton-Green

In Robert Frost's poem, 'A Considerable Speck', the narrator, having written on a piece of paper, sees a ‘mite’ run across the page. He first thinks of stabbing it, then realises it is intelligent, so he lets the scared ‘mite’ rest. Then the narrator tells us he didn’t save the mite because of a general principle of equal kindness, but because it had done him no harm. He ends the poem by saying he is glad to find signs of intelligence in any form on pieces of paper.

A speck that would have been beneath my sight
On any but a paper sheet so white
Set off across what I had written there.
And I had idly poised my pen in air
To stop it with a period of ink
When something strange about it made me think,
This was no dust speck by my breathing blown,
But unmistakably a living mite
With inclinations it could call its own.
It paused as with suspicion of my pen,
And then came racing wildly on again
To where my manuscript was not yet dry;
Then paused again and either drank or smelt--
With loathing, for again it turned to fly.
Plainly with an intelligence I dealt.
It seemed too tiny to have room for feet,
Yet must have had a set of them complete
To express how much it didn't want to die.
It ran with terror and with cunning crept.
It faltered: I could see it hesitate;
Then in the middle of the open sheet
Cower down in desperation to accept
Whatever I accorded it of fate.

I have none of the tenderer-than-thou
Collectivistic regimenting love
With which the modern world is being swept.
But this poor microscopic item now!
Since it was nothing I knew evil of
I let it lie there till I hope it slept.

I have a mind myself and recognize
Mind when I meet with it in any guise
No one can know how glad I am to find
On any sheet the least display of mind.

Different Interpretations

The title itself is somewhat oxymoronic: how can such a small object be of any importance? We are first led to believe it is only noticeable due to its contrasting against the paper; next we are told it is significant because it could think when we expected it to be a thoughtless, lifeless speck of dust. However, perhaps it is considerable only for what it signifies: we know logically that this intelligent mite cannot have existed, therefore, what does Frost wish the miniscule ‘mind’ to be a metaphor for? It may be a reference to the thoughtless process by which humans run around their lives helplessly, achieving nothing. On the other hand, the mite is said to have mind, but is it using it? Is Frost a serious threat to the mite? Many suggest that this poem is Frost’s way of showing his lack of sympathy with the view that kindness should be doled out to everything equally. Could Frost be encouraging us, in the final verses, to think for ourselves and not to follow the crowd, unable to make our own decisions or have any originality?

Some view this poem as Frost boasting of his benevolence towards his critics: this poem was written at the height of Frost’s career, he viewed critics (the mite) as having little power over him, as inconsiderable when he was so successful. He may be saying that he views it as refreshing to have a critic tell him an honest opinion, but views it as no threat to his writing prowess. Indeed, much of the language seems contemptuous, such as Frost describing how the mite ‘seemed too tiny to have room for feet’ and that Frost is far above the ‘Collectivistic regimenting love/with which the modern world is being swept’, portraying himself as far superior.

Yet can we even be certain that the narrator reflects Frost’s own opinion? It is entirely plausible that Frost is mocking the haughty stance and the moral high ground the narrator occupies. For example, the narrator ends the poem with a self-congratulating statement: ‘I have a mind myself and recognise/ Mind when I meet with it in any guise’, and yet he failed to recognise the mite for what it was for a considerable time, indeed, he never would have noticed it was his page of writing not so blank! There is clear irony here, as the narrator who claims that he has considerable intelligence has failed to write very much at all, unlike Frost. The fact that the mite finds the ink loathsome hints that perhaps the writing is of a very poor standard, or even that the mite is afraid of what the writer is writing, not the writer itself. If we take the mite as representative of an apathetic follower of Collectivism, perhaps it is frightened by the intense individuality, analysis and productive use of mind by the narrator. To fully understand the poem, I believe we must weigh up these differing opinions, and try to select one that is fully compatible with the whole poem.

Form, Rhyme and Structure

The poem is split into three verses. The first, of 23 lines, simply tells a (somewhat odd) story of a mite that ran over a page of writing, in fear and desperation of the writer. The rhyming in the first verse starts off with 3 rhyming couplets, which all describe the narrator before he realises the speck is ‘a living mite’. Once he has realised the speck is intelligent, he follows its frantic actions, and the sporadic and jerky movements of the mite are reflected in the irregularities that form in the rhyme scheme.

The second and third verses explain why the narrator saves the life of the mite. The second verse makes a philosophical point about how the narrator disapproves of the growing attitude of acting kindly to seem better than your peers, even when the subject of kindness is undeserving, under the premise of explaining the reason people may think the narrator spared the mite. It then explains the actual reason, that he made his OWN judgement, that the mite should be spared, not out of a need to seem benevolent, but because the mite had done him no wrong. He sympathised with the mite in the first verse for its frantic lifestyle and the distress it suffered from its irrational fears, and so in the second verse hopes that it can find some rest.

The rhyming in the second verse is reminiscent of the sestet in a Petrarchan sonnet, as it has the rhyme scheme ‘abcabc’. This is the older form of sonnet, and the sestet was traditionally used to mark a turn in emotion in the sonnet, to reflect upon the earlier ideas. This follows the meaning of the second verse where the narrator becomes pensive on the subject of Collectivism and also that he has the capacity to empathise with other intelligences. In the final verse, the narrator return to his own opinion, but switches his focus from the ‘speck’ to ‘mind’ and, after boasting of his ability to detect ‘mind’, he tells us how he is surprised and happy to discover intelligent writing, although it is unclear whether he means in his own work or in others. 

Here, Frost returns to using rhyming couplets, which links the poem back to its beginning; this circular pattern also highlights how this final verse causes us to re-interpret the poem and its subject. The use of a rhyming couplet at the end of a poem, to put the rest of a poem in a different light, is a classic technique, used by Shakespeare in his sonnets. This emulating of Shakespeare is enforced by the use of pentameter throughout.  Frost moves from a specific example to a generalisation, making a wider philosophical point. He suggests most people who write no longer think for themselves intelligently.

Read More

Photography Club: Blossom

by Grace Goodfellow

Photography Club, run by Mr Stone, meets every Friday lunch time.

Read More

"Wrenching Ballads of Disintegrating Love": George Jones

George Jones (centre) with Roy Acuff, 1950s
"His recordings that will endure are about
the permutations of sorrow"

George Jones, seen by many as the greatest male country singer since Hank Williams, died on April 26, 2013, aged 81.

 "George Jones was twenty-four, had been singing in gutbucket bars in Texas for years and was already a twice-married former housepainter, shoe-shiner and soda-truck driver when the up-tempo "Why Baby Why" became his first top-five country hit, in 1955.

However, it is the slow songs, wrenching ballads of disintegrating love, like "A Good Year for the Roses" and "She Thinks I Still Care" that serve him best. "He Stopped Loving Her Today" is a camp dirge to unrequited love that, in Jones' hands, becomes the song that many consider country music's greatest (see below). It's the way he lingers on a word, kneading it for a sadness you didn't know was there, which transforms ordinary, even trite lyrics into something intensely moving. Couple such phrasing with the sprawling registers and pellucid sound of a voice that lost none of its nasal timbre as it deepened with age, and you have a formidable instrument for expressing despair.

 . . . The same morose impulses that imbued his music with lush, sorrowful feeling, could plunge Jones into real despondency that he found difficult to shake. His description of what it was like for him to sing a Hank Williams song applies to most of his repertoire: "It makes you sad because you're singin' all those sad words, about how a man can hurt a woman and a woman can hurt a man, until you're just like the people in the song, and you're living it and and their problems become your problems, until you're lost in the songs and it just takes everything out of you." 

. . . The great passion of Jones' life was his third wife and duet partner, Tammy Wynette, who described him as "one of those people who can't tolerate happiness" . . . His recordings that will endure are about the permutations of sorrow: the ways people adjust their hopes as time grows shorter, how you get through a life you never planned on, the way abiding misfortune feels and how you get used to it, what it's like to be left behind. And what he means when he says of record companies "They've taken the heart and soul out of country music" is that they've removed the pain."

(from In The Country of Country by Nicholas Dawidoff, 1997)


"He Stopped Loving Her Today" (live performance, 1993):

In his earlier, less varnished style, "Please Take The Devil Out of Me", 1958:

See also: Earl Scruggs: Bluegrass Legend and Levon Helm: A Tribute.

Read More

Perfect Storm

by Mark Richardson

It's downloads now. Sure, sometimes CDs, but mostly it's iTunes, or Amazon, or streaming via YouTube or Spotify. All that lovely music, often just a click away. What's not to like? Good question. But with change can also come unexpected consequences, and the change that I am thinking about here is to do with artwork: the cover. First it was the CD: tiny, so the artwork had to be tiny, and was rarely inspected in any case by the listener. Now, the over may appear on a screen while the music is playing, but is rarely looked at. And why should anyone? It's just a smudge, a vague blob that might appear somewhere but with no real value or interest.

But, of course, it wasn't always like that: vinyl LPs had two (or more) sheets of 12 square inches of card to protect them, and, especially during the 1960s and 1970s, designers were allowed immense freedoms to capture the attention of a potential record buyer. Amongst those designers, Storm Thorgerson and Hipgnosis, the company he co-founded, stood out from the rest. Thorgerson died last week, and his passing was worthy of BBC TV evening news, and for a moment his most famous creation, the cover of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon blazoned out from screens across the country.

Of Norwegian parents but born near London, Thorgerson found himself at school with some of the founding members of Pink Floyd, and his interest in art and design soon led him to become a designer of their albums. From there, he and his company became involved in an extraordinary number of designs for a wide range of records, including  ones by Yes, Genesis, Led Zeppelin, 10CC, Peter Gabriel, Black Sabbath and The Scorpions. They were usually marked by a determination to produce images that were a mixture of reality and the absurd, catching the eye but also drawing attention to the content too.

As he said, "I like photography because it is a reality medium, unlike drawing which is unreal. I like to mess with reality...to bend reality. Some of my works beg the question of is it real or not?" Which is oddly different from his most famous creation, which is a prism refracting light. True, it doesn't quite refract light like that in reality, but it doesn't really fit his description. But there are others that certainly do, some of them playing on our perceptions, such as a 10CC cover where the cover itself is being pulled into the photograph of the band on the cover.

The best? Not that, nor the Floyd cover, but the series of covers for one of the least well known Led Zeppelin albums, In Through the Out Door. It was sold in a brown paper bag, and inside the cover had black and white photos of a man drinking in a New Orleans bar (lovingly and expensively recreated in great detail in the studio in London). Sounds very ordinary, but in fact the album turned out be be printed in a series of six, and in each case the scene was taken from a different perspective in the bar. Furthermore, the black and white cover would change into colour if it was wetted (which, not surprisingly, is not something you would normally experiment with if you have just bought the album!) but there was no reference to this on the cover at all. Bonkers! I've only seen the sleeve online, but how great that the business could allow in those days such madness!

So what's the perfect Storm? Grudgingly, I suppose, that Pink Floyd cover. It reminds us oldies of how wonderful it used to be to sit listening to LPs and, at the same time, devour the outside and sometimes the inside of amazing, entrancing, baffling, and sometimes just plain weird LP covers.

Read More

Film Review: Argo

by Will Hine

(source: fact.co.uk)

Set in the dusty capital of 1980’s Iran, Ben Affleck’s Argo is a gripping account of the extraction of US diplomats from an extremely hostile part of the world. With a deep historical context, Argo sets the scene with an introduction briefing the audience on the history of the nation. A time and part of the world ravaged with an overturned throne, an aggravated, politically disillusioned populous with a great hatred of the United States Argo sets the hostility of the scene using technique to place the audience with the 6 diplomats, smothered by the crowds of the grand bazaar, for instance. Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) is an ex-fil agent working for the CIA, and upon the storming of the US embassy in Iran by an enraged mob, he must devise a plan to extract the US citizens from the Middle East without getting caught; with failure being an embarrassing international incident for the United States, as well as the deaths of Mendez and the stranded diplomats. Perhaps the more gripping angle of the story is that it is based on a real-life case, declassified by Bill Clinton in 1997.

Affleck’s attention to detail is paramount in Argo, and benefits the quality of the picture tremendously. From the vintage Warner Bros. logo in the opening title, to Mendez’s eureka moment coming from watching grainy footage of Battle for the Planet of the Apes with his son on a bulky television set, it does a tremendous job to immerse the audience into 1979/80. The footage of the classic sci-fi flick is not the only testament to 70’s film. The clutter of sci-fi memorabilia in his son’s room perhaps nods to an audience member with fond childhood memories of a similar scene. It can be noted that Argo sits so well into 70’s Americana that it could quite easily fit into the period of film itself. Everything from music to questionable facial hair is accounted for in Argo.

(source: Daily Telegraph)

During scenes in Tehran, the Iranian capital, the gripping narrative is coupled with some memorable set pieces, including a nervy, hair-raising scene in the Grand Bazaar as well as the interrogation by a paranoid Iranian militia officer at the international airport. It’s real edge-of-the-seat cinema; a gradual build up is countered by the blind panic and rush of the final third of the film leading to an explosive conclusion.

A neatly executed antidote to an otherwise serious film, aspects of Argo include comedic value. From Mendez’s mixing with Hollywood filmmakers, several jokes are made making general assumptions of Hollywood as a whole; it’s clear these have comical significance to those within the industry but these are appreciated by the viewer, too. The dry humour of the co-operating Hollywood industry man Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) in coming up with the groups’ in-joke, ‘Argof***yourself’ gives the film not only a lively personality but a likeable one also.

At times, the plot can seem a little too good to be true, and that’s because it is. As mentioned in the opening, Argo is ‘based’ on a true story. It wouldn’t be a Hollywood film if it didn’t have its historical inaccuracies (Braveheart…), but ignoring this fact the film conveys a strong narrative and moreover brings this feat of American engineering to the world. During the credits of Argo, real pictures from the time are set next to their in-movie parallel stills; this has been put in place to ensure the audience understands the shocking reality of what really went on in the Iranian capital.

Overall, Argo is a white-knuckle thriller with an engaging script, a hard-hitting context and a tense storyline, whilst keeping its feet firmly on the ground with elements of comedy. Argo is an immensely enjoyable picture and sets a new benchmark for Ben Affleck’s career in directing.

Read More

Photography Club: Spring

Today's warm, sunny weather made it seem as if Spring had finally arrived after the bleak and extended winter of 2012-13. Elicia Seebold celebrates the joy of Spring.

See Spring by Nick Graham. See Spring and All by William Carlos Williams, with a commentary by George Laver.

Read More

The Sky is the Limit

by Callum Cross

Sky boss Dave Brailsford
(wiki commons)

This term, "the Sky is the limit", in cycling has now been coined in reference to anything that Team Sky want they get. They “want” the Tour de France, so they go out and get the best riders and give them lots of money to ride very hard on the front.

Now, this is a well proven tactic in stage races, more so this year that 2012. Ritchie Porte was given more responsibility early on this season, the team kept the same old method of riding hard to prevent attacks. Lately, however, this method has shown great weaknesses in the “one-day classics” races. These races cover more than 200kms in one day and tend to be very competitive. It is said that anyone who starts can win. However, Team Sky have tried their hardest to put a lid on that and use the same old methods. This has failed rather dramatically, most recently in Leige-Bastonge-Leige. The team were trying to control a 240km race from the beginning and their whole team ran out of energy and missed the key breaks on key climbs. So how about the rest of Team Sky’s Classics season?

Well in the early cobbled classics, great things were expected of them, with top riders like Great Britain’s Ian Stannard and Geraint Thomas; however, with Thomas crashing out of 2/3 races and failing to make the lead group in the other cobbled race, very little came from the early classics. This left the Ardennes Triple, the three toughest one-day races in the world, with climbs hitting gradients of 33% and covering over 230kms, each spread over 10 days. Sky sent their best climbers and punchers; however, they were made to look like a dysfunctional wreck. With one podium and one top 10 in the 3 races (both by young Columbian Sergio Henao) this was a very disappointing classics season again (after a dismal 2012 as well).

This begs the question: why does Sky spend all of its money on one type of rider?
That is a hard question to answer but I think it can be split into two reasons. Firstly, Sky’s boss, Dave Brailsford, is meticulous and, as one-day races are so unpredictable, he would rather not get involved. Why waste resources on races you aren’t guaranteed victory in? After all, who wants to be second? My second reason is: money. Seeing as the big tours are where the most money is at, he has to win these races to help pay some of his expensive riders' wages. Despite BskyB’s huge amount of sponsorship money for the team, I’m sure that it couldn’t be enough by itself to secure some of those riders.

I suppose that last paragraph defends Sky and explains why they did so terribly this classics season but, in my opinion, there shouldn’t be excuses and Sky should adapt their style to be more adept at riding all races not just the controllable ones.

Read More

Sur le Pont d'Avignon

by Sally Filho



An expectant audience awaits Portsmouth Grammar School's
forthcoming production of The Exonerated at Festival d'Avignon 2013

The often mispronounced lyrics of this simple XVth century French song belong to Everyman’s knowledge of Gallic musical culture, together with two lines of Piaf’s ‘Non, rien de rien’ and half a line of ‘La Marseillaise’.  A group of students from The Portsmouth Grammar School will propulse  inter-cultural exchange between GB and France to a significantly higher plane this summer by taking a play performed in English to the world-famous Avignon Festival in July: exciting, daring and daunting it is, fun it should be, mundane it won’t be.

The Avignon Festival is a huge affair with an estimated one million spectators and participants involved over three weeks.  In the OFF Festival alone (the equivalent to Edinburgh’s ‘Fringe’), 1,000 companies take part and 1,600 plays and theatrical events are produced. The overall budget for this exhilarating Festival bursting with ideas and buzzing with invention is 13 million Euros. There are 3,500 performing arts professionals who also organize meetings, lectures and debates, thus creating a unique and splendidly creative event in European cultural life.  The Festival boasts itself to be “The Biggest Theatre in the World” and it probably is! There will be over 500 journalists present and, if they have any sense, some will wish to write about us.

We are playing ‘The Exonerated’, by Jessica Blank and Erik Jensen, which tells the true story of six wrongfully convicted survivors of death row.  This is verbatim theatre as the text is entirely taken from actual interviews, court summaries, testimonies, police records and, principally, statements from the six ‘exonerated’.  The play is thoughtful, funny at times but mostly intensely absorbing.  Moving from monologues and scenes set in courtrooms and prison cells, the six interwoven stories engage the spectators on a memorable emotional journey as well as evoke a depressing picture of a deeply dysfunctional criminal justice system.  We believe that the very knowledgeable Avignon Festival theatre-goers will enjoy its impact.  It will be, I believe, a French première after notable successes in the States and Great Britain. 


So Portsmouth will be represented in this International yet so very French occasion, and I am quite sure our pupils will do us proud.  The original lyrics of ‘Sur le Pont d’Avignon’ actually went ‘Sous le pont d’Avignon, on y danse, on y danse’, for under the arches  were popular drinking places where one could indeed dance, be merry and indulge in all sorts of pleasurable and illicit activities.  Our merriment will of course limit itself to what is right and proper; if we dance at all, it will be on the old bridge, not under it, or in the shadow of the impressive Palais des Papes.  There will be no need for any of us to be exonerated for any crime committed or intended, nor will we mention Trafalgar.

Read More

Show Your Parents You Love Them --- By Not Buying Them Gifts.

by Katherine Tobin

Traditionally, in our family, we don’t buy gifts for Mother’s and Father’s Day. This is obviously not because I feel any less thankful for them, or love them any less, but just because the sentiment of a card is enough to show thanks to one another. However, for many people, Father’s and Mother’s Days are days to spoil and treat their parents to chocolates, toys and multiple gifts. I am not saying this is wrong, but it is a subject that interests me.

 For, in this day and age, it seems to me that days such as these have been exposed to over-commercialisation, leading to what can only be seen as a pressure to conform to these modern standards. It is, of course, not wrong to show appreciation towards someone, but I get the feeling every year that many people feel obliged, rather than eager, to buy people gifts to celebrate. We seem to feel the need to do the accepted thing and celebrate just one day a year, rather than the whole year round, as we know we should. A certain weight hangs over your head because you realise its Mother’s or Father’s Day tomorrow, and you haven’t bought them a month’s supply of chocolate or an inconsiderately sized teddy bear, when they’d probably rather receive a hug and a home cooked meal every now and then instead.

I’d imagine it is a bit of a disappointment to be a parent and to be praised for one day every year, rather than every day. For me, it is this problem that puts a downer on the whole event – the lack of spontaneity. It is as if, every year, the day is forced upon the general public, and in return you are forced to conform. The shelves of shops begin to fill and the thought looms in the back of your head, until the night before when you (out of sheer desperation) give in and buy one of the over-priced, over-sold gifts that the nearest corner store has to offer. But why? Is it social pressure, or do we feel the need to tell our parents we love them only once a year?

Another of these situations arises on the 14th February (Valentine’s Day, of course). This day is widely known for its commercialisation, the build-up in stocks beginning soon after the New Year is over and done. And, of course, it’s a great way to tell someone important to you that you love them. But it seems almost tacky nowadays to say ‘I love you’ on Valentine's purely for this reason. Why is it so important that it is this day, despite there being another 364 days out there, that we take our partner, spouse etc out for a meal or shower them with compliments and gifts? It seems almost that people nowadays feel the need to be forced down that road, rather than it being a spontaneous, enjoyable experience. Again, the weight of a judging society bears down on the shoulders of many, and, ultimately, the whole message is taken out of the day.

Although I am not overly pessimistic on the issue, it is a little worrying to see people so gladly subscribe to this kind of event, and how quickly the popularity for it has increased. Social agenda dictates that these events are made to be celebrated, and I think that these days should be appreciated, but, rather than bowing so much to social pressure, you should enjoy the day for the people, not for what gift you can give them.

Read More

Review: Macbeth (Trafalgar Studios, London)

by Fay Davies

James McAvoy and Claire Foy in 'Macbeth' at Trafalgar Studios

Sitting in the theatre, before the performance had even started, I was worried. I was worried because I thought no one would ever stop talking. Consisting primarily of groups of students like us, the audience was emitting a constant excited chatter that I didn’t believe could ever cease. Occasionally there would be a sudden panicked hush – a false alarm – but it would be followed by an inexorable resurgence of noise. In the end I needn’t have worried, as we were successfully silenced in exactly the way Shakespeare intended: ‘thunder and lightning’. Without any warning, there was an outrageously loud thunderclap. The room darkened and three ‘witches’ appeared out of trap doors. They delivered the famous opening lines. They were wearing gas masks.

The gas masks are an important point. This production of Macbeth plays out in a post-apocalyptic Scotland, after some kind of war. It is modernised, but it worked well: the dress and setting were suitably dull, worn and battered, so as not to look jarringly contemporary. It created a background of destitution and desperation, against which the measures of Macbeth and his wife seemed more credible. The change did not violate Shakespeare’s original; it merely gave some subtle added relevance to a current audience.

The abrupt beginning was not the only shocking moment of the play. It was a visceral production throughout - from the occasional overenthusiastic spit, to Macbeth’s graphic and audible on-stage vomit, to the drawn out strangulation of Lady Macduff (in which I began to feel concerned for the actress’s wellbeing). Of course, it wouldn’t be Macbeth without obscene amounts of blood. There was blood splashed onto hands, splattered onto faces and smeared onto clothing. At the moment of Macbeth’s death it rained down from above, gradually flooding the floor and staining the stage red.

The peak of this was, undoubtedly, at the end of the play. The body of Macbeth had just slumped (very realistically) down a trap door, followed by a victorious Macduff. Seconds later, Macduff emerged from a second trap door brandishing an alarmingly lifelike reproduction of James McAvoy’s head. He continued to wave this head around for the remainder of the play, directing attention away from the last few bits of speech. A large proportion of the audience probably have no idea how the play actually ended.

I don’t know a great deal about acting, but it seemed to me that the actors managed the play brilliantly. Seeing a play brings the words to life in a way that reading it cannot do, and I found myself surprised by lines that I had not noticed before. But there were some unexpected elements. For me, Lady Macbeth (played by Claire Foy) shouted too much. I imagine Lady Macbeth to have rigid self-discipline and cold determination, and I think this can be portrayed most powerfully by quieter, calmer speech. Instead, a kind of insane desperation took prominence. Macbeth’s thoughtful and anxious side (which helps to redeem him from being purely evil) was underplayed by James McAvoy, in favour of more of a boisterous arrogance. As a soldier this befits him, but makes it harder to sympathise with him as he falls into torment. It didn’t help that Macbeth was made to kill Macduff’s son on stage – as Shakespeare wrote it, he is not even present for the murder.

The small size of the theatre did make it harder to ignore the rest of the audience and their largely inappropriate laughter - but it was a worthwhile sacrifice. The very closeness of the actors, ceilings and walls gave the perfect kind of intensity. It was an intensity that inspired, for the most part, a terrified hush. Occasionally this hush was interrupted by genuinely comic moments, but the cast always managed to recapture it. It was this capacity for variety, perhaps, that made this production so accomplished. It was a powerful, fiery performance overall.

See Emily Duff's review of the RSC's acclaimed production of As You Like It.

Read More

Formula One 2013: Bahrain Grand Prix and the Season So Far

by Tim Bustin

Paul di Resta
(Wiki Commons)

Turning on the news this Saturday was a repeat of what was seen a year ago: controversy over the Bahrain Grand Prix going ahead despite riots and protests over democracy and the view that the Grand Prix is being used to cover rights abuse by the government. In response to these views, Bernie Ecclestone said "I don't think it's for us to decide the politics, good or bad. It's a good circuit, a good race, and we think everybody's happy so we're here."

And what a race it turned out to be. Friday’s practice showed surprisingly good pace from the Force India drivers, but on Saturday’s qualifying it was Mercedes’ Nico Rosberg who took his second ever pole position, with triple and current world champion Sebastian Vettel and the two Ferrari cars right behind him, as Lewis Hamilton was forced to take a 5 place grid penalty from fourth to ninth after his gearbox needed changing and Mark Webber (Vettel’s teammate at Red Bull) taking a 2 place penalty.

Scottish driver Paul Di Resta of Force India and his teammate moved up to fifth and sixth on the grid after these unfortunate penalties but it was great news for them. The two McLarens have had a poor start to this year’s season and nothing changed in qualifying, with British driver Jenson Button barely making it into the final qualifying session and only getting tenth, whilst his Mexican teammate Sergio Perez only managed twelfth, meaning Hamilton’s replacement at McLaren has had the worst debut for the team in years. All this made for a tense start at the 2013 Bahrain Grand Prix.

Lights out and Rosberg got off poorly at the start, defending hard against Vettel at the first corner. Vettel’s attack allowed double world champion Fernando Alonso to sneak past him as Rosberg desperately tried to pull away from the 21 cars trailing him. Vettel quickly regained the place on Alonso but as all this was all going on, drama was happening behind. Paul Di Resta had somehow managed to gain a place on the Ferrari of Felipe Massa, whilst Hamilton’s start hadn’t helped him in the slightest. The driving was incredibly close on the first lap throughout the grid but at the front more than most. Rosberg had to continually defend hard against Vettel but once DRS was allowed (allows the cars to have less drag and so increase their speed on certain sections of the track if they’re within one second of the car in front), Rosberg was “a sitting duck”.

Vettel stormed past, quickly followed by Alonso. The same thing happened time and time again to Rosberg throughout the entire race. Vettel however, similar to his performances in 2011, dominated the rest of the race, with no bother from any of the other drivers. Alonso somehow developed a problem with his DRS and quickly pitted to get it fixed (the system is simply a flap on the rear wing, which in his case had jammed). After getting back out, the same thing happened again and another unwanted pit stop combined with the loss of DRS meant Alonso could only achieve eighth in the race.

For the rest of the race, excitement lay at every turn.

  With Perez desperately trying to prove himself, he diced with Button for position, until Button got so fed up he forced Perez off the track. Obviously angry, Button was probably keen to avoid repeating the events of Malaysia’s race, where Vettel had batteled with his teammate Webber.  A last lap fight saw Hamilton take fifth from Webber, whilst his teammate Rosberg only managed ninth, after what seemed like such a promising race for him. Di Resta equalled his best ever F1 performance of fourth, the podium finish snatched away from him in the last couple of laps. The Lotus cars of Kimi Raikkonen and Romain Grosjean completed the podium, with Vettel on top by a very comfortable margin. Perez actually managed a fairly decent sixth, out doing Button in tenth.

Whilst it’s far too early to predict the outcome of this season, certain points can be made about the performance of drivers and teams. Lewis Hamilton’s controversial and somewhat frowned upon decision to move from McLaren to Mercedes has been proved genius, with McLaren sixth in the Constructors Championship and Mercedes in fourth (with nearly 3 times the amount of points and that’s taking into account Rosberg only finishing half of this year’s races so far). Mercedes really have gone beyond any expectations, having 2 out of 4 pole positions, although it’s fair to say they’ve been of the pace of Red Bull and Ferrari. As for those teams, it looks as though one will emerge on top by the end of the season. Red Bull have done it for the last three years but with Webber and Vettel on bad terms with one another, who knows what will happen. As for Perez, well maybe McLaren should have taken on Di Resta instead.

Current Rankings and Points 
                                                                                      

1	Sebastian Vettel - Red Bull	77
2	Kimi Raikkonen - Lotus	67
3	Lewis Hamilton - Mercedes	50
4	Fernando Alonso - Ferrari	47
5	Mark Webber - Red Bull	32
6	Felipe Massa - Ferrari	30
7	Romain Grosjean - Lotus	26
8	Paul di Resta - Force India	20
9	Nico Rosberg - Mercedes	14
10	Jenson Button - McLaren	13
11	Sergio Perez - McLaren	10
12	Adrian Sutil - Force India	6
13	Daniel Ricciardo - Toro Rosso	6
14	Nico Hulkenberg - Sauber	5
15	Jean-Eric Vergne - Toro Rosso	1
16	Valtteri Bottas - Williams	0
17	Pastor Maldonado - Williams	0
18	Esteban Gutierrez - Sauber	0
19	Jules Bianchi - Marussia	0
20	Charles Pic - Caterham	0

Read More