Years ago I saw a UK TV play or TV series about a school in a future world or other planet where the sun doesn’t shine and young pupils have to stand in front of a sun lamp for a certain amount of time every day.
I think there was a female headmistress, and a male teacher – and there was some kind of sinister subtext… I think the planet was about to die and the Head wasn’t facing the truth – or something like that.
For some reason I think it was on the BBC and might have been a single play – and it must have been transmitted sometime between 1982 and 1992.
That’s all I can remember.
If anyone has a clue what it could be – please tell me!!!
UPDATE: having watched the video a couple of times – the wife seems to be there for A. tits (obviously) but also for B. a twist ending – it’s THE BLOKE WHO IS THE BITCH…
In other thoughts – they missed a trick not getting Lana Del Rey to duet, play the wife and then run off with Rihanna at the end. ART!
Years ago Julie Burchill asked why violence against women was such a safe art ball to play – yet – say – racist violence wasn’t.
The answer is obvious – violence against women doesn’t threaten the social order… except when it’s committed by an out-group… and while the West has plenty of racists and plenty of times and places where racism is safe… at the moment there’s a strong enough anti-racist political movement for it to cause trouble (in art – if not in life – where things can be hidden and denied).
Sexual violence against women – in art (and in life if you can get away with it) is sexy.
It involves power & tits. *
*and we can always pretend it’s a morality play about things we strongly disapprove of – if pushed.
Sexual violence against men could be sexy – but most men won’t watch it – so it’s less likely to be mainstream (at least without an I Spit On Your Grave level of rip-roaring revenge).
So that brings me to Rihanna’s – Bitch Better Have My Money – video.
The acting is great.
Rihanna is amazing.
But – it’s undeniably sexist.
The men stay fully clothed.
The women get naked.
The man’s torture and death is implied.
The woman’s torture and near death is shown.
The woman has been described as a ‘rich bitch’ who has ‘white privilege’.
The man has been described as ‘that actor from Hannibal’ and ‘an accountant’.
It appeals to anyone who has ever been turned down by ‘that bitch’ and anyone who thinks ‘that bitch thinks she’s prettier than me’.
But it’s also a hymn to capitalism – where gangsters are our favourite metaphor for non-stop consumption and no one fucks with our money.
And because it’s what ‘the people’ really, really want (they buy it in vast numbers of their own free will) – it’s impossible to fight against… but it’s still worth mentioning that it’s part of our grubby dark side and it’s hardly edifying.
One omitted* to his wives and girlfriends, one lied to her employers and the press; one appeared to change gender, one appeared to change race; one is a glamorous Republican, one is a wary liberal. In acceptable opinion one is revealing her true self and the other is a lying impostor, but they’re both roughly doing the same thing – they’re rejecting the roles they were born into and claiming the roles they feel more comfortable with; to greater and lesser success.
Beyond the soap opera appeal (both their former spouses are under attack) this triggers our fears about status, ownership, territory, meaning, dominance, oppression, authenticity and facts because in less conspicuous ways it’s a thing we all do – we all have inner wants and we’re all stuck negotiating a social self. Caitlyn cheers us up because she’s been allowed to carve out a whole new persona without becoming an outcast – it’s a classic Transformation; like a favoured mortal ascending to Olympus. She’s the American Dream – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. She’s a consumer and up for consumption. A winner.
There are 3 flash-points:
1. Wronged wives.
2. The Pronoun Police who could – beep beep boop – drive anyone up the wall.
3. Feminists who want to talk about female biology and who don’t want to talk about ‘lady brain’.
Rachel doesn’t have an equivalent of ‘lady brain’ to explain herself. Ideas about ancient race memories have fallen out of fashion (mainly because they went hand-in-hand with theories about racial supremacy and race degeneration).
There are 3 possibilities:
1. Imprinting/Attachment – she really does identify so strongly with her black community that she can’t think of her real self without pain.
2. Double Bind/Projection/White Guilt – she has issues with self-hate and isolation that she extrapolates onto racial struggles.
3. By accident or design she realized she’d make her paintings and diversity work more marketable by posing as black.
That she could be motivated by any/all of them makes her a Tragedy. An attractive, intelligent woman who could have been great but who brought herself down by fibs. Audiences are outraged and disgusted. They use ridicule and insults. They call her racist and a thief. They say she erased them and used her privilege. They worry about her. They think she’s crazy. They think she may have a point. They want her punished and they want her redeemed.
Cait and Rach are the Identity Politics Zeitgeist – but their stories have a deeper resonance. Tragedy and Transformation – two patterns that reach back to the ancient world – and prove – that however much we change we always stay the same.
I was the winner of one of Allison and Busby’s newsletter competitions (it’s worth a sign-up folks – it’s a brilliant Independent publisher with some especially great escapist holiday reads) and I got this lovely loot in the post:
1. Deeds of Darkness by Edward Marston (a 1st world war murder mystery).
2. Monsieur Pamplemousse and the Tangled Web by Michael Bond (French gastronomic super-sleuthing).
3. Snapped in Cornwall by Janie Bolitho (murders in Cornwall).
4. The House at the End of Hope Street by Menna Van Braag (magical life turn-around).
Finally I’ve caught up with the UK touring version of Shrek the Musical.
Overall I loved it – here are my musings divided into pros (shreks!) and cons (drecks!).
1. Lord Farquaad! Played by Gerard Carey he steals the show.
2. The Dragon! Fiona! Donkey! – the characters are still as wonderful as the film.
3. A great, funny, heart-warming, book (that’s the script).
4. Witty lyrics (that’s the songs).
5. Some decent tunes.
6. A proper plot.
7. A life affirming message using fairy-tale characters as a metaphor for being gay and/or Jewish while working in Showbiz which is a metaphor for being fat and/or suburban while sitting in the stalls.
8. Dancing! Singing! Puppets! – all round fabulous production values.
1. Diction – I couldn’t hear half of the words despite the ear splitting volume.
2. Shrek’s Scottish accent drifted down South for most of the show.
3. Expensive merchandise (the company’s fault) and expensive snacks (The King’s Theatre, Glasgow’s fault) – some parents must be missing a kidney to pay for all the ears/teddies/ice-cream their kids required.
4. Many of the songs were too long and boring for a children’s show, which meant many adults (me! me! me!) being stuck next to a squirming, sighing, munching monster for what felt like days at a time.
5. Bland, generic music.
6. Too much smut for a kid’s show. I disapprove!
7. It was too long – at least 2 songs could have easily been cut.
8. Not enough development of Shrek and Donkey’s relationship. It was pretty much taken as read.
But the Shreks! outweigh the Drecks! So if you haven’t seen it – I recommend it.
UPDATE: I was wrong to snark (although it may be useful for blurb writers and cover designers) – having read them all – they’re all good.
Surprisingly : Ali Smith ‘How to be Both’.
I have managed to not read a single-one of this year’s shortlisted Bailey’s Prize books – so I can give my ‘what I would think in a bookshop’ first impression of them.
First off – every single book cover is either boring, seen-it-before or actively ugly. Putting that aside and ignoring most of the content we have:
The Bees – by playwright Laline Paull – about a rebel bee leading a double life in a collapsing bee colony… it’s apparently an allegory about race or the Monarchy… or anyway… something human.
Outline by Rachel Cusk – a creative writing teacher asks her students to tell her about the one thing they noticed on their way in (which sounds like A Chorus Line without the singing)… I’m sure I read an interview with Rachel in which she had marriage issues and lived in Norfolk.
A God in Every Stone by Kamila Shamsie – is an epic about about Empires falling and Nations rising and archaeologists digging stuff up. I think its main period is the First World War and its protagonists are mainly in Turkey, London and India – but it sprawls – so I may be wrong.
How to Be Both by Ali Smith – has a half decent cover – but one that’s entirely misleading – since it makes it look like a Retronaught novel set in the 1990s’ favourite decade the 1960s. Apparently it’s about a teenage girl now and an Italian Renaissance artist then – who are somehow connected in time – and who both are a bit both.
A Spool of Blue Thread by Ann Tyler is about an American family and is described as homely, spot-on and melancholy.
The Paying Guests by Sarah Waters – promises to be genre trash (that’s a compliment) but I have bad memories of Tipping The Velvet having terrible plot development and the prose felt like I was being dragged backwards (I mean I literally felt that – which wasn’t entirely pleasant – although it must take some skill).
So what would I buy if I was in the book shop?
The Bees – it’s about bees – it’ll either work or be funnier than The Swarm (Oh my God – Bees! Bees! Millions of bees!).
The Paying Guests – it’s about taking in lodgers in the 1920s and has a lesbian romp and a murder and got denounced by The Guardian as ‘middle-brow’ – so clearly a winner.
I’ve fallen behind with my posts about ‘things I have done’ – I have random reviews and musings cluttering up the draft page from months ago – but last things first.
Tonight I went to see The Straw Chair by Sue Glover at The Tron (it’s on tour), directed by Liz Carruthers and produced by Liz Burton-King – for their own company ‘Hirtle’* – which – and for this I will adore and support them for all time – boasts that between them they have 100 years of professional experience. Because it should be a plus. People don’t die at 35. *
(*with Borderline – ages unknown).
And yes – I will still sound like I’m giving them snark – but that’s my style. I give myself snark.
The Straw Chair had a tiny wee set – representing the Island of Hirta – made out of astro-turf, bouncy stones (a la Classic Doctor Who) and a bed-sheet hung at the back… I couldn’t decide if I liked it – or thought it was too literal – or liked it but didn’t like the way the actors seemed to hold themselves back on it as if they were going to fall or stub a toe.
It also had a tiny wee straw chair – the only one on the island – which seems a bit daft since it was made on the island – so you’d think they could make another one… but maybe they ate it when they ran out of eggs (they mention eggs a lot… eggs and birds… birds and eggs… ).
I liked the sounds of the sea and seagulls that played at the start (and I swear I could smell the sea)… even if it’s a cliche it’s still a powerfully evocative cliche… and what else are you going to listen to in Ye Auldie Western Isles?
The play is set sometime between 1732 and 1745 and is about a young Minister and his new wife sent as Missionaries to St Kilda (Hirta) and encountering a kidnapped Edinburgh aristocrat, Lady Grange, who intended to expose her husband as a Jacobite.
The acting was a bit under-powered… but Lady Grange was magnificently played as Edina Monsoon (from Absolutely Fabulous) and while I’m not sure that’s the way the character was meant to go – it did work… you felt sorry for the poor spoilt cow stuck in the world’s worst rehab… Unfortunately it did leave the two leads a bit adrift with their po-faced lines about marriage and God.
The Minister’s wife was very sweet – but had one facial expression and a monotone through-out and I wasn’t sure why she needed to meet Lady Grange in order to find out she quite liked plucking puffins… or why the Minister needed to spend time on an uneducated Island to find out that Highlanders have weird ideas about fairies and Edinburgh is full of corruption.
Our heroine should have been painfully caught between three things – the natural rhythm of life on Hirta (represented by the servant Oona) – the sexy High Life of Lady Grange – and the piety of her husband (who was a wet fish of a Presbyterian – his character was crying out for a few good rants). In the end she did a bit of everything, nothing bad happened – and Lady Grange was left as she was found.
I wasn’t bored though. With a bit more welly in the vocals and the action I doubt I would’ve had time to ponder what it all meant.