Brian Micklethwait's Blog
In which I continue to seek part time employment as the ruler of the world.Home
MT on Steve Davies talk last night
Johnathan on Spot the Samsung connection
Antoine Clarke on the Norlonto Review is back!
Lorena on Cats without tails are not scary
Michael Jennings on Spot the Samsung connection
Lim Kim on Wedding photography (5): Photography!
Michael Jennings on Views from the Hackney Wick station footbridge
Simon Gibbs on Wedding photography (6): The Wedding and the Reception
6000 on Cats without tails are not scary
Stephen Smith on Cats without tails are not scary
Most recent entries
- Steve Davies talk last night
- Emmanuel Todd links
- the Norlonto Review is back!
- There are cranes and there are cranes
- Savoy cat
- Spot the Samsung connection
- Stairs Thing outside St Paul’s
- Cassette iPhone photographer
- Wedding photography (6): The Wedding and the Reception
- Testing again
- BMdotCOM insult of the day
- Views from the Hackney Wick station footbridge
- BMdotCOM mixed metaphor of the day
- Wedding photography (5): Photography!
- Phablet news
Other Blogs I write for
6000 Miles from Civilisation
A Decent Muesli
Adventures in Capitalism
Alex Ross: The Rest Is Noise
Another Food Blog
Antoine Clarke's Election Watch
Armed and Dangerous
Art Of The State Blog
Boatang & Demetriou
Burning Our Money
Chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry
China Law Blog
Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
Coffee & Complexity
Communities Dominate Brands
Confused of Calcutta
Conservative Party Reptile
Counting Cats in Zanzibar
Deleted by tomorrow
Don't Hold Your Breath
Douglas Carswell Blog
Dr Robert Lefever
Englands Freedome, Souldiers Rights
Everything I Say is Right
Fat Man on a Keyboard
Ferraris for all
Freedom and Whisky
From The Barrel of a Gun
Gates of Vienna
Global Warming Politics
Greg Mankiw's Blog
Guido Fawkes' blog
Here Comes Everybody
Hit & Run
House of Dumb
Iain Dale's Diary
Jeffrey Archer's Official Blog
Jessica Duchen's classical music blog
Laissez Faire Books
Last of the Few
Libertarian Alliance: Blog
Liberty Dad - a World Without Dictators
Lib on the United Kingdom
Little Man, What Now?
Loic Le Meur Blog
L'Ombre de l'Olivier
London Daily Photo
Metamagician and the Hellfire Club
Michael J. Totten's Middle East Journal
More Than Mind Games
Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
My Boyfriend Is A Twat
My Other Stuff
Nation of Shopkeepers
Never Trust a Hippy
Non Diet Weight Loss
Nurses for Reform blog
Obnoxio The Clown
On an Overgrown Path
One Man & His Blog
Owlthoughts of a peripatetic pedant
Oxford Libertarian Society /blog
Patri's Peripatetic Peregrinations
Police Inspector Blog
Private Sector Development blog
Remember I'm the Bloody Architect
Setting The World To Rights
SimonHewittJones.com The Violin Blog
Sky Watching My World
Social Affairs Unit
Squander Two Blog
Stuff White People Like
Stumbling and Mumbling
Technology Liberation Front
The Adam Smith Institute Blog
The Becker-Posner Blog
The Belgravia Dispatch
The Belmont Club
The Big Blog Company
The Big Picture
the blog of dave cole
The Corridor of Uncertainty (a Cricket blog)
The Daily Ablution
The Devil's Advocate
The Devil's Kitchen
The Dissident Frogman
The Distributed Republic
The Early Days of a Better Nation
The Examined Life
The Fly Bottle
The Freeway to Serfdom
The Future of Music
The Happiness Project
The Jarndyce Blog
The London Fog
The Long Tail
The Lumber Room
The Online Photographer
The Only Winning Move
The Policeman's Blog
The Road to Surfdom
The Wedding Photography Blog
The Welfare State We're In
UK Commentators - Laban Tall's Blog
UK Libertarian Party
Violins and Starships
we make money not art
What Do I Know?
What's Up With That?
Where the grass is greener
White Sun of the Desert
Why Evolution Is True
Your Freedom and Ours
Arts & Letters Daily
Bjørn Stærk's homepage
Butterflies and Wheels
Dark Roasted Blend
Digital Photography Review
Ghana Centre for Democratic Reform
Global Warming and the Climate
History According to Bob
Institut économique Molinari
Institute of Economic Affairs
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Oxford Libertarian Society
The Christopher Hitchens Web
The Space Review
The TaxPayers' Alliance
This is Local London
UK Libertarian Party
Victor Davis Hanson
WSJ.com Opinion Journal
Bits from books
Bloggers and blogging
Brian Micklethwait podcasts
Cats and kittens
Food and drink
How the mind works
Media and journalism
Middle East and Islam
My blog ruins
Signs and notices
The Micklethwait Clock
This and that
Category archive: Theatre
When journeying across the river to Vauxhall, as I often do, I now tend to take the bus, in fact I have been doing this ever since I got my Old Git Pass.
Which means that I have tended to miss out on shots like these:
The circumstance which caused me to shun the bus, despite the extreme coldness of the weather, was all the drama to do with the – see immediately below - cranes.
The Shard one reminds me that I have been watching a lot of Wagner on DVD lately, specifically Gotterdamerung (add double dots to taste). Operas like Gotterdamerung bring out the worst in European stage directors and stage designers. They tend to set the thing, not in the mythic world indicated by Wagner, but in a modern aircraft hanger, space station, hydro-electric power station, typically rather run-down or collapsing.
The architectural clutter in the foreground is provided by a piece of New Brutalism that is now being demolished. Reinforced concrete sometimes looks at its most dramatic when they are trying to remove it. It really puts up a fight, doesn’t it?
Earlier this evening, or last night if you think today begins at 12 midnight (and has thus already begun) rather than when you get up next day (in which case for me it has not yet begun), I went to a Comedy Improv Evening, at the Leicester Square Theatre, in a small downstairs room. It was a laugh, which is what you obviously want with comedy.
The format was clever. They had a interviewer guy, who interviewed a borderline comedy celeb, and then a gang of comedy improvisers improvised comedy, taking their cues from what the celeb said. Then another borderline celeb, then more improv. Then a final borderline celeb, and a fnal dose of improv. It added up to just over an hour.
So, for instance, comedian Nish Kumar, borderline celeb one, talked about how he got a bit bored seeing his face on a poster everywhere in Edinburgh. Yeah, I know, a not very subtle way of saying: I’m doing okay, I’ve got my face up on posters in Edinburgh. But it was okay. And the improvisers did a thing about how Stalin got bored with his face being everywhere.
Then they had one of those women who had high hopes for herself, having trained herself to do Shakespeare and such, but who now has a job selling eyebrow trimmers or something similar on a TV shopping channel. She was really funny, switching between herself, so to speak, and herself doing her shopping channel spiel. And then they improvved a bunch of act-ors selling each other eyebrow trimmers, in the style of a Shakespeare comedy. How we all laughed.
Those were just two bits I happen to remember. There was lots of other stuff, and never once did I sneak any looks at my watch.
The final borderline celeb was an actor who had been in various movies, doing scenes with famous actors, many of which were cut out of the final movie. Ah the joy of hearing about the misfortunes of others.
It worked well. The borderline celebs got to put their faces about and to be used to get an audience together, but without them having to do lots of rehearsing. And the presumably less well-known performers get a bigger audience.
My two favourite performers, among the gang of improvvers I mean, were Joseph Morpurgo, and one of the ladies, called, although I could be wrong, Idil Sukan. If Idil Sukan was actually a different lady, no matter, because they were all good.
Recommended. But, alas, there is no run for you to go to a later performance in. There was just the one show, and the one I saw was it. Besides which, if you go to another show of theirs, it would be completely different, what with everything being improvised.
At the website of these amusing people, there is, on page one, at the moment, the plug for the show I just saw, already linked to above, with pictures of the three borderline celebs. Where it says What Monkey Toast Is, they describe what they do. (They certainly do not describe what monkey toast is and why they’re named after it.) But where it says “Upcoming Gigs”, there is currently nothing. So, no more shows fixed. But I don’t believe that this will be their last.
I don’t know why they’re called Monkey Toast. I’m guessing comedy troupes are like race horses, in that they have to be called something or other, but the main thing is not to take a name that’s already taken. So, you call it Purple Bilgewater or Our Daughter’s Wedding (a real pop group of former times, that one) or The Funny Peculiars, or some other daft thing that if googled gets you nowhere, simply because you have to call it something and can’t spend all your time arguing about what. As the comedy troupes multiply in number, the names get dafter and dafter, like with the horses.
This posting might have been funnier and shorter if I had worked harder at it instead of just stream-of-consciousness-ing it the way I actually did. But that way it would probably not have been written at all.
A ONE man show is coming to Thame.
Devised, written and starring professional actor Clive Woodward, You, Me, Colin and Helen will be on show at The Players Theatre in Thame on Saturday for one night only.
The show is based upon Clive’s experience as an actor who has worked on major feature films such as The Kings Speech, A Bunch of Amateurs starring Burt Reynolds and Brighton Rock, starring Dame Helen Mirren, TV programmes such as Spooks, Midsommer Murders and Lewis as well as theatre productions, a TV commercial, BBC Radio plays and corporate acting work in role play, films and live events.
Poor chap, having a famous name (which as an actor it would be most inconvenient for him to change), but not being the one who is famous for it.
It reminds me of the guy in Office Space whose name is Michael Bolton. His friends urge him to call himself “Mike” instead, but he refuses.
“Clive” can’t be shortened, or really changed at all. Clivey? I don’t think so.
I get emails every time Clive Woodward gets an internet mention, which is how I heard about this.
Patrick Crozier has just dropped by and says maybe most acting people don’t know who Clive Woodward is. Apart from being Clive Woodward the actor. Maybe so. Thank you Patrick. You just destroyed the point of this posting.
At the top of a London Tube escalator, an appropriate juxtaposition, n’est pas?
Indeed. Another snap taken last night, just before the big advert below:
I like the whiteness, the hinges, the signs, the bike at an odd angle, and the fact that (see sign on the right) that it’s the Noel Coward Theatre.
Here’s the sign, closer up:
Alas, we are once again up against the limits of what my camera can do in artificial light, which this was. Underneath “overbury” it says: “A passion for perfection”.
That bloody Tom Peters has got a lot to answer for.
Incoming from “Tony et famille”, who live in Quimper, Brittany:
I caught Caesar the cat in the act of sneezing on the hot tin roof of our car in Quimper.
According to the date embedded in this picture, this took place as long ago as September 7th 2009, or maybe even July 9th 2009. Yet did the mainstream media pay any attention to this sensational circumstance, either at the time or since? I googled “cat on hot tin roof” but all I got was a lot of drivel about a play. No wonder blogs are taking over the media world.
If you would like to use the pic in your blog the usual fee of 50000 Euros will apply ...
Fine. I’ll settle up in a couple of years, by which time a single figure clutch of our British pounds should more than suffice to obtain the appropriate brick of Euros.
To all who are interested in this Draw Mohammed thing, which I most recently posted about here, I really recommend this piece, by a guy who runs an internet site where all the pictures and sculptures and so on ever made of Mohammed are gathered together. The point being that the claim that this is verboten is relative recent. Here’s one of the more decorous pictures, in which an implausibly sweet looking Mohammed takes his dictation, or whatever it was, from the Angel Gabriel:
There’s also quite a bit about the insane emails section of the site, where incoming psycho-emails from enraged Islamo-nutters (of whom there really do seem to be a great many) are collected for all to browse.
In among the comments, I found this, from “Big Bird”, who definitely speaks (in comment 40) for me:
I am an atheist so I don’t have a contestant in the invisible man sweepstakes but even a cursory attempt to compare the lives of Jesus and Mohamed will show there is no moral equivalency between the two. If Christians threaten others over a play then they are violating their teachings. If Muslims kill people for insulting their prophet then they are following their teachings.
Indeed. And that makes “their teachings” the fundamental problem, I would say. It’s no good concentrating only on the nutters who take these teachings dead seriously, and saying that this is the entire problem. The sane-apart-from-not-rejecting-their-teachings Muslims have also got to be told that this whole disaster is also their fault, arguably more their fault, because they are otherwise sane, and because, assuming for now that relentless claims to this effect are right, there are more of them than there are of the nutters. They are the ones doing the big, long-term damage, and they ought to know better. They keep “their teachings” alive and revered and hence liable, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, to be acted upon by anyone nutty. Or not so nutty, when the opportunity for some of serious conquest arises.
It’s like we’re dealing with a combination of God and Lenin. The aim should not be coexistence. It should be victory, over the whole thing. We should aim for a world where the number of and nature of the people who even say that they believe this stuff is small enough and harmless enough for it not to matter any more.
To me, the virtue of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is that, as well as insisting upon the right of all to be offensive with what they say and draw and paint, it keeps the argumentative pot boiling concerning the more serious aspects of all this. What’s going on here? What’s the big picture? What is to be done? Etc.
… I am ethically opposed to the idea of hero worship in cricket. For a start, the art of manipulating a small leathery object, whilst capable of great heights of refinement, weighs in pretty low on the bravery scale. Keith Miller’s famous quote involving Messerschmitts and arses is always worth an airing. If Miller was to be considered a hero, it should be for the things he did whilst perched in a cockpit, not his feats with a bat in the middle of a green field on a pleasant summer’s evening.
And it isn’t just that professional cricket involves no extremes of danger. This question of heroes goes right to the heart of why we watch cricket and why I have never bought an autobiography. A hero is someone you admire, indeed revere, as a person. When watching cricket, it is not Alastair Cook the man I am interested in. I care not where he went to school, what his first pet was called or whether he prefers low-fat margarine to butter. Without wishing to be rude, I don’t care what he thinks.
I am only interested in him in so far (and for as long) as he bats. On the field, he is playing the role of Alastair Cook, performing in a long tradition of public theatre. How he uses his bat, how he stands at the crease, how he runs, all these things taken together form the Alastair Cook of the mind’s eye. VVS Laxman may have some interesting things to say on global warming, but to be honest, I’m only really interested in his wrists and their neurological wiring. To say VVS Laxman is my hero would be a little like saying Hamlet is my hero.
Well put, except that the relatively recent arrival of helmets and all-over body padding has surely made quite a difference to such thoughts. Facing those West Indian fast bowlers without any such protections, as many did during the early stages of that terrifying dynasty, took a lot of courage. Heroism, even. But basically, I agree with Hughes. You hear all kinds of stories about how certain cricketers (and certain film stars) are (were) not at all, in regular life, as they seem(ed) on the field of play (stage).
The trouble is, although cricket may not be heroic, it sure as heaven can often look heroic. Rather in the way that classical music isn’t moral, but often sounds moral. And if you lose all feelings of hero-worship when you watch cricket (for cricket read your favourite sport), something is lost. Something childish and foolish, maybe. But something. Hughes himself admits that when he was a boy, his hero was ... Mike Atherton!
Next task: to find out what VV bloody S bloody Laxman has been saying about global warming.
Bite-sized pieces of drama that you can enjoy with a drink. At London Bites, experience some of our best British talent from new and established actors.
So there you go. And there I will go tonight, because a friend of mine has written and is performing a solo piece in it. Last night, the first night, it apparently went well and she got lots of laughs.
When Gordon Brown is finally removed from Number Ten, either by his despairing underlings or by us despairing voters, attempts will then be made by the regular journos to downplay the role played in this saga by the great Guido Fawkes. In fact, I already sense a process of bigging Guido up, so that he can later be knocked down. But as Guido himself pointed out, last Friday:
Examine the front page media agenda last month: Smeargate, Snouts in the Trough, MPs’ expenses and of course the developing “Gordon is bonkers” meme, all topped off nicely with a round of mea culpas on the inside comment pages from the shamed copy takers in the Lobby.
Exactly so. And let’s add Guido’s taxodus obsession to that list. That’s going to get very big in the weeks and months to come, especially if Brown manages to stay walking while ever more dead. The dead tree dog pack is now in full cry and closing in on its helpless prey, but Guido was always the Master of the Hounds.
To switch metaphors from fox-hunting to king- or Caesar-murdering, all the deadliest daggers in this drama have been being sharpened, week after week, month after month, by Guido. It wasn’t just McBride, Draper, Balls and co. It was everything, including the reason why Guido himself was for months the main story-teller telling all the other stories. Guido is undoubtedly the First Murderer in this drama, no matter what all the other murderers who are now piling in will try to say.
One basic reason for this is that First Murderer was always the ultimate role to which Guido aspired, at any rate in this particular drama. First Murderers never become kings themselves, but Guido has never - unlike all the still-vacillating politicians who are now, Brutus-like, working themselves up into the necessary mood of murderousness, or not as the case may be - wanted any political office beyond the office he has already contrived for himself. For him, Guido Fawkes is title enough.
But, when he gets bored with British politics, what will Guido Fawkes do then, I wonder? Do you think he might cross the Atlantic and take a crack at Obama?
Better yet, how about going global, and taking aim at the UN and related scams? The very Global Elite itself, amongst whom mere heads of state are, well, mere heads of state? That would be a worthy next foe for the great man.
As I mentioned in this earlier posting, Guido used to run something called the Global Development Institute, or some such forgettable thing. It’s now fizzled out, or is dormant. No matter. What this shows is that Guido already has the inclination to think globally. So how’s this for a slogan?: Guido (or whatever else he chooses to call himself for these different and bigger purposes) for part time ruler (see top left of this blog) of The World.
But before having a go at that, he should take a well-earned break.
And after writing all of the above, what do I find at Guido’s? American news.
UPDATE: Welcome to Iain Dale readers, with deep thanks to your Lord and Master.
Further relevant thing noticed: Guido is getting a lot of international media coverage all of a sudden. How do we all know that? Because Guido himself is linking to it.
Even Paul Staines is the wrath of his opinion, through and through corrupt political class driven Britain. But it was probably primarily the fun at the provocation that inspired him, his political blog - slightly - to name Guido Fawkes. Finally, write him friends and opponents of an exuberant lust for mischief and practical joke too.
Plus: The global option might be preferable to the American option, because going global wouldn’t oblige Guido to move from London. Going American would pretty much have to mean a base in America (from which to go out drinking).
Last Tuesday I saw a performance of A Midsummer Night’s Dream at the Rose Theatre, Kingston. Go here for information about the show, plus the usual placards-outside-the-theatre claims about how wonderful it is. I’ve not yet heard the interview with the director, but you can and I probably will quite soon, after I’ve written this.
The cast, like casts in Shakespeare’s time, was all male. Which I admired, but did not really love. I’m a heterosexual, and I couldn’t quite live with men doing Hermia, Helena, and above all Titania. The last Titania I saw was Helen Mirren on a DVD, and I’m afraid I missed the sheer gorgeousness of that, worthy though Titania was in this production. The fairies, on the other hand, worked splendidly. Bottom refers to them as “Monsieur” This and Monsieur That, and fairies played like nineteenth century fairies, as young girls, seem all wrong. The fairies were also notable for their beautifully choreographed ensemble, which featured not only lots of splendidly modern-dancish movement but also terrific musical effects achieved by equipping each of them with a mouth organ for the big set-piece scenes. With these they reacted in a manner that was arresting and vivid, yet utterly other-worldly.
In general, this was an enthusiastically performed piece of theatrical teamwork, and I can entirely understand all the rave reviews. But I’m afraid I liked this production rather less than I wanted to, if you get my meaning. I admired it, but there were two things wrong with it in particular.
First, there was a general lack of star quality. Some of the actors were pretty good, like Puck (played as Boy George in a short sticking-out ballet skirt), and Titania, and Lysander, and Hermia, although for me it all had the air of an excellent school play rather than a decent professional production. Others, most notably Oberon, were less good. None, and especially not Oberon, seemed to radiate that kind of star quality that you want in this play. The director clearly knew what the play is about, and knows that it is poetic and, well, Shakespearian. The set was a bit odd, but at least he didn’t set it in a lunatic asylum or a gymnasium or a power station. But something about the way they all spoke it made it all seem rather unmagical.
Or maybe the problem was the other musical contribution made by the fairies, which I resented more and more as the night went on.
Now I quite see what they were doing here. The text of the Dream is awash with musical references, and you must have music. (I was in a crappy internet-radio production of the Dream a while ago which did not have any music. Frankly, we were wasting our time.) But what the fairies did was accompany all the scenes set in their magical forest, but in which they did not hog the action, with little tinkles and tap-taps on percussion instruments of various kinds, which I found, frankly, more and more infuriating. If you are a theatre critic you know this play forwards, sideways and backwards, or you should, but I don’t know it that well. Shakespeare’s language is not the easiest to follow, and I need all the help I can get from the actors to make sense of it. Yet all the tinkling and tapping brought the whole thing, for me, crashing down into incomprehensible - or where comprehensible deeply unmagical - mush. I simply could not make out enough of what was being said. Some kind of quietly magical sostenuto and pianissimo harmonies might have worked well, because that might have left the spoken words unmolested. But not the tapping and the tinkling. Fairies, shut the fuck up, I wanted to yell. They were great, when they had the stage to themselves, because they didn’t interrupt themselves with their musical instruments, but instead integrated their mouth organing with their actions and reactions. But they destroyed everyone else with their deeply unmagical magic-noises. Even when the words could be heard, they weren’t allowed to resonate. You couldn’t absorb or enjoy them, because there would be that damn tapping or tinkling again. Shakespeare’s word-music and their actual music cancelled each other out.
At this point, I need to admit to having missed the whole of Act 1 Scene 1. When I and my companion got there the show had just entered the accursed land of tapping and tinkling, so I witnessed everything I saw of this production until the end, when the action returns to Athens, in this deranged tapped and tinkled state. So far as I was aware, it knew no better. But then, back in Athens, the tapping and tinkling ceased, and suddenly I could hear every precious word. Suddenly, because I was suddenly being spared the reality of such interruptions, I could have heard a pin drop, but I didn’t. Magic. Suddenly, it was A Midsummer Night’s Dream again. Which was not the effect they wanted at all. The forest should be magical and Athens prosaic. This version was the other way around. But at least there was some magic.
Maybe this was why the cast lacked star quality. Maybe they all had star quality in abundance, but it was tapped and tinkled out. Because at the end, they all started to look and sound like the stars they had not been previously.
Also, the final scene just happened to be done very, very well, with lots of excellent comic business (see the first comment here). But again, maybe they just left my ears free of distraction and I was able to enjoy excellent comic business that had been present throughout. So in the end, I was happy. But afterwards I found myself reckoning that this was a bit late.
If we shadows have offended, think but this and all is mended.
For me, thinking something poetic didn’t suffice.
… and Robin shall restore amends.
So, Robin, how about a fifty percent refund?
I read The Lebrecht Weekly so you don’t have to, but I do recommend his latest piece, a lovely portrait of Jonathan Miller, he from Beyond The Fringe, but more to Lebrecht’s point, the operatic director.
Miller is one of very few opera directors who can lay claim to lasting innovation. With a 1982 Rigoletto set among the 1950s mafiosi of New York’s Little Italy, he invented the time-shift opera - underscoring the drama by placing the work in a different period. ‘There were other directors who did opera in modern costumes,’ he concedes. ‘I think I was the first to update the context.’
This is no small achievement. Rigoletto is still in repertoire at ENO a generation later. His Armani-suited Cosi fan tutte is on its fourth revival at Covent Garden. He has four shows on the go at the Metropolitan Opera, New York, including a Pelleas et Melisande placed in Marcel Proust’s Paris and a Rosenkavalier taken out of baroque pantaloons and relocated to Richard Strauss’s living room.
‘By and large,’ Miller explains, ‘if a composer has conspicuously backdated a work, I get worried about historical kitsch. Put Rosenkavalier in 1911, when it was written, and you suddenly hear the shot in Sarajevo. The Marschallin goes around the house trying to stop the clocks. It’s not because she’s old – she’s 35 – it’s because she knows the old world is finished. Octavian will die on the first day at the front.’
Every production he creates is rooted in a philosophical rationale and a specific visual impetus. The time-traveller of modern opera, Miller as Doctor Who is an omnivorous intellectual with an eye for telling detail. His ENO Boheme has been shifted forward from the 1850s of Murger’s novel and the 1890s of Puccini’s opera to Paris in the year of hunger, 1932. ‘I’ve always been obsessed by the photographic world of Brassai, Cartier-Bresson and Kertezsz, men looking for work stacking their bicycles against a wall, lesbian girls looking through café windows. I cannot bear to see artists in smocks and berets in Boheme. These characters are not artists. They are rich young men living a couple of years in a squat before they go back to work in Daddy’s firm.’
Boheme is his first return to the Coliseum for 12 years and it is only with kindly tuts and shushes on my part that he is deflected from having a go at the company’s present management and slamming the door in his own face once again. Miller lacks some neurological barrier that stops the bile rushing unchecked from brain to mouth. His litany of those who did him wrong, or damage art, is limitless, acute and often unrepeatably hilarious. He dismisses ‘Jurassic Park singers’ of the Pavarotti and Domingo style, ‘over-applauded and overpaid, can’t act their way out of a paper bag’. The last boss of the Met, who booted him out after he tried to stop Cecilia Bartoli singing two extra arias, enters the Miller lexicon as ‘that Tony Soprano’. Lately, he lashed out at the casting of a West End Hamlet ‘with the man from Doctor Who’. He seems incapable of suppressing rage yet, in rehearsal, you could not find a gentler, more avuncular manner of connecting singers with their inner selves.
He found a way of stopping the formidable Anghela Gheorgiu from over-emoting in the last act of La Traviata. ‘I said to her: “Take it from me, I’m a doctor. Dying is a fulltime business. You haven’t time to do a lap of honour. Chances are you’re incontinent, anyway. Do stay in bed.” She resisted me. Then she suddenly started crying and talked about sitting beside her sister as she was dying …’
That’s well over half of the piece, but highlighting and copying is so easy. I kept on not wanting to stop.
Michael Flatley is hated by much of Official Opinion, because he is a successful artist who owes nothing to art critics. A classic Only People Love Him success story. Worse, his entire demeanour makes it clear that he knows this. They hate that. So he’s a twat to start with, in the eyes of Opinion Leaders. So, if he claims to have been healed in some officially disapproved of and rather down-market, daytime telly sort of a way, that means officially disapproved of daytime telly healing is twattery, right?
B&W’s basic remit is the silliness and frequent nastiness of religion. And religion is indeed an inherently absurd clutch of propositions, the enforcing of which on others is indeed an abomination. Religions only makes sense to people who don’t mind how absurd they are. Me, I can imagine no evidence that would make me believe in God, because the whole idea of God, as currently sold to me by religions big and small, is incoherent and impossible. A supernatural being? There can be no evidence of the supernatural, if you take the word literally. If it’s evidence, it’s natural, or we couldn’t register it. So, any “God” thus observed, doing weird and wonderful things in a way we can notice but cannot fathom, is just a superbeing, but natural, who outranks us biologically in a roughly similar way to the way we outrank flees, assuming we understand flees properly. Unless of course the observed weirdness is actually a baffling natural phenomenon that merely looks like a superbeing mucking about, like the Northern Lights or a Total Eclipse of the Sun or some such spectacular oddity. Or maybe some bizarre and super-secret contrivance being tested out in Nevada by the US Department of Defence.
There is nothing incoherent or impossible about a superbeing, a superhuman in the way that we are superflees. There is a definite sense in which the cleverest humans are now themselves becoming “superhuman” - all of us if you count things like computing and telephony and jet travel - i.e. compared to all the humans of earlier times. But “God” is, to me, literally, nonsensical, and to repeat: there is no evidence I can imagine that would change my mind about that.
The implication of B&W linking to a report about Flatley’s cure is that this alleged cure partakes of similar incoherence to the absurd God idea. But, it doesn’t. “Energy” healing may be hard to get your head around, and hard to describe, much as electricity or radio waves used to be. It may even, in this case, be a hoax and a fraud, at best a mere placebo effect. But that doesn’t make it logically impossible in the way that religion is.
Before you comment to this effect, in the unlikely event that anyone does so comment, I realise that “religion” includes lots of baffling but basically natural phenomena, like how religion makes the religiously inclined weirdly happy and how religion - especially communal religion - can improve your life and your credit rating if you only sort of go along with it, etc. It’s the bundling of the weird but natural with the completely and inherently contradictory that I object to, the muddling of science and faith. Science as in pondering the limits of the possible, definitely including possibilities that scientists have yet to observe or sort out, such as possible superhumans – super-super-flees? - who evolved with radically different biologies to ours in faraway galaxies, and such as cures that we can only describe as “miracle” cures because although they happened, we can hardly begin to explain why. And faith as in believing the inherently impossible, but not minding.
I’m interested in this because I am now working on a longish piece about how my sister was recently and “miraculously” healed of serious allergies by methods that sound somewhat similar to those that Flatley seems to have been healed by.
Mind you, the Michael Flatley official website is one of those annoying internet places which immediately starts making a loud noise without being asked to (I was listening to the early stages of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony at the time), so by my reckoning Flatley actually is a bit of a twat. But not because of Riverdance or because he got therapised by an alternative therapist.
In other words, one that I have decided is a quotation without anyone else deciding about it for me. It’s Michael Blakemore’s describing (from this - already mentioned here). wroting about the noted theatrical director of yesteryear, Tyrone Guthrie, pictured right:
He gave of himself in a multitude of ways, never bothering with image building or the creation of his own epitaph. Throw yourself into your work and all that would follow.
The more I read of Blakemore’s book the more enthusiastic I get about it, despite his politics being decidedly different from mine.
There are more interesting things than fiddling about with my little laptop computer happening in my life just now, but the most interesting of them are not really suitable for public - if you can call this that - consumption. Basically, my mother is 94 years old, and my siblings and I are now taking it turns to live in - or drop by twice daily at - her house. In my opinion, to write interestingly about interesting circumstances like these requires a certain ruthlessness about revealing - betraying? - what are usually considered to be private matters. You don’t go out of your way to reveal anything private or hurtful if revealed, except when you do, on purpose. But if you do it by mistake well, you do it. All’s fair in love, war and autobiography. That has to be the attitude of any autobiographical writer with any aspirations above and beyond blandly innocuous cheerfulness. Quite soon now, I may decide to cross this line. If I do, I may find that such fears are groundless and that my intimates turn out to be delighted to get regular mentions in a sort of low-grade autobiography. But that’s a decision I will postpone.
These thoughts have recently been provoked not only by my family circumstances just now, but also by me reading this work of high-grade autobiography. The author of this book, theatrical director Michael Blakemore, follows the convention of naming the people he likes and giving made-up names to those he doesn’t like, such as three lady drama teachers he took against when at RADA, whom he calls Miss Ecks, Miss Wye and Miss Zedd. But both kinds of revelation are, surely, somewhat risky. Those you dislike may be humiliatingly easy to recognise, by the dislikees and by all the dislikees’ most close associates. Those you like, and thought you were describing only very positively, may still take offence at something or other.
My mother has spent a life-time doing good works of various kinds, while carefully avoiding any semblance of personal fame. No matter how positively I might describe her, even in an obscure little blog like this one, she would probably disapprove. She would probably disapprove of me saying even that. So, nobody tell her about this, please.
And wouldn’t you know it? - this just had to be the one recent posting here which, for a while, I was composing with the publish button left in the on position. So, less deftly expressed versions of the above thoughts are already Out There. Which almost certainly won’t matter one bit. But it just goes to show, doesn’t it?