real life: plays & the pretend

hullo world, hello blogger. it's been a while. i'm going to compare and contrast (as per a-level english) two different but relatively popular cultural events (a cultural flash?) that i've attended in the past year. and then throw in some art i encountered a little more recently.

first! flash:

natinal theatre's frankenstein

directed by danny boyle

starring benedict cumberbatch & jonny lee miller playing the monster & victor frankenstein in turns

(broadcast live to broadway cinema, nottingham)

the old vic's richard iii

directed by sam mendes

starring kevin spacey

(thanks to oli for offering me one of his £5 for 16 to 25 year olds)

in some ways, these two plays already share some similarities. big name directors returning to theatre, big name actors, both were sell out shows -- due to a combination of the above, and in the case of frankenstein the simultaneous artistic twist &, if we're being cynical, marketing gimmick, of having two main actors who play alternate roles.

there is, of course, the obvious to note: how both these sell-out shows were commercially successful in part due to their ties with the success of the cast and crew in the film industry.

this was played out particularly peculiarly interestingly in richard iii, particularly in its use of media.

we all thought kevin spacey, and the cast generally, were rather good (although i was a bit disappointed with one of the female leads, lady anne, i think - and this is often my experience of shakespeare, so perhaps it is difficult to play shakespeare's women well? without reducing them into stock characters or giving them complexity whilst remaining believeable? hm.), but the most memorable part of the play was kevin spacey on screen.

at one point in the play, we see spacey projected onto the screen at the back: richard is knowingly caught 'unawares' whilst in prayer. this is obviously calculated and part of his political image, and he goes on to make an announcement of sorts. it was cleverly done, and well thought out; spacey played the "oh hello. i didn't see you there, i was in the middle of being a devout & good" role. but it was so different from spacey on stage. on the stage his acting was big and bold, and on screen it was much more subtle & nuanced.

the two spaceys were believably the same character, but only just. spacey on stage was manipulative and scheming, but still often the butt of the joke, whether his own jokes or someone else's. on stage, however, the manipulation was more subtle, and also here the character of richard seemed much more in control. or, perhaps, it was here that spacey felt more in control, more comfortable. it was an interesting contrast, i think.

some of my fellow spectators thought this screened scene stole the show. it was clever, insofar as the publicity for the play features the above (first) image, and that is not dissimilar form the screened scene. i'm not entirely sure it it was the best bit, but it was definitely one of the more memorable spectacles. so, i wonder what else this says of about film and tv in comparsion to things like theatre - and how theatre has to evolve, update and adapt to stay in the fray.

i went to see frankenstein in part because of the buzz of the alternating roles and in part because i was curious to see how NTlive plays out. the national theatre broadcasts its productions live to theatres worldwide -- what would this be like? how similar would it be to going to the theatre? how different?

i saw frankenstein on a night when cumberbatch was victor & miller the monster. this is the obvious way around, i think, and i would have been curious to see it in the reverse. the opening was rather good, and i enjoyed the play overall. the most interesting about the experience for me was the live broadcast. the novelty of that in some ways overshadows that. that said, when i first started to write this blogpost, i briefly forgot whether i'd seen the play in person or not. perhaps our memories are cinematic too? psychoanalysis and film indeed.

so, on with the experience: arriving at broadway cinema, the atmosphere was much closer to that of theatre than a film. the fact that the cinema screen was packed out (completely full), the type of audience (demographics - particularly in terms of class & age), the fact that the audience arrived well ahead of time and the sort of chatter i heard.

before the play began, we were shown an introduction to national theatre live, which apparently broadcasts all over (so i'm not sure that they broadcast live to australia, with whom we share a 12 hour time difference), as well as preparations for frankenstein.

more interestingly, when that was over, and we waited for the play to begin, we were shown the audience in the theatre -- fidgeting, chatting, waiting. it was interesting to be presented the audience, having been in an audience like that myself; this is who you are, or who you are trying to be (seeing as weren't physically prenting). it was a strange experience, and it felt a bit illicit - we were present, but not physically present; we could see, but not see as the live audience did.

i can't imagine the live audience in the theatrewas necessarily thinking about how they were broadcast on screen (unless that broadcast image was shown to them too). i suppose the film cameras could've been obviously pointing at them, the live audience. and i wonder how much the presences of film cameras changed their experience.

the play itself. well, inevitably camera angles control how one sees (psychoanalytic film!) but in different way than with a film itself, since obviously the theatre audience is seeing the play from all sorts of different angles. in some way, the NTlive audience is at an advantage, being shown, the action from the 'best' possible but on the other hand, your eyes can't wander the way they would in theatre -- which is one of my favourite things to do, to look at the things that perhaps the audience isn't expected to pay attention to. and this includes the audience.

i can't remember now, if the audience applauded as the play ended. i think i suspected they would, but it didn't.

still from ian breakwell's auditorium

relatively recently, i went to visit a good friend of mine in sheffield. he took me around said fair city, and went to a fair few exhibitions, including the millennium gallery's ian breakwell: the other side. (rather densely, i've only just realised the significance of the name -- which like NT's frankenstein involves alternation!).

my partner in crime rather enjoyed the work, and we stayed to watch a video interview with the artist, which included the aforementioned work:

Auditorium (1993) [was] made in collaboration with composer, Ron Geesin. In this film Breakwell and Geesin studied audience reactions across the UK in a variety of theatrical settings, taking fly-on-the-wall photographs and video footage with sound recordings using parabolic microphones and 'bugged seats'. Their hypotheseis was that in dynamic live theatre the audience becomes part of a two-way performance, radiating an equivalent range of emotional expression to that emanating from the stage. They went on to work with and eventually record a 50-strong 'performing audience' at the Hawth Theatre.

source

it made me think of frankenstein & the national theatre live, a little, because of the emphasis / role of the audience. in researching (googling around) for this post, i came across this article (worth reading!), which concluded with the following, and it articulates the connection better than i could:

One of Auditorium's essential propositions is that when we are in an audience we are consciously or unconsciously performers ourselves: we are components of the event, not passive consumers of it. But the real ingenuity of this piece is the way it sets up a comparison between the screen audience and the live public watching it.

classic & contemporary

chinatown

i only seem to spend time here with my family, who have come from far away to eat fascimiles of our food culture.

it's curious to think how my most recent foray into the world of employment is in a role which in a sense foregrounds (and dare i say capitalises upon) something with which i have always had difficulty coming to terms with -- my cultural and racial identity.

as a small child, i spoke both cantonese and english. growing up, i went to an english-teaching school, and so my chinese fell by the wayside. now, i can converse in cantonese without a problem, but in reading and writing i can recognise random handful of characters (noticing the chinese subtitles whilst watching english-language tv in hong kong, deducing what means hwat) and write an even smaller handful (the three i am most versed in are those which constitute my name). this put me in a somehwat vexed position of feeling simultaneously privileged (some chinese kids i mixed with whilst growing up were in awe of my accent, my pronunciation) and out of place (my mother considers me to be her least culturally chinese child of the three). then, there was boarding school, chubby and aged thirteen. existing in a country where, by contrast, i looked different from the norm, but more confusingly was confronted with a culture which was both familiar and unfamiliar. and then the whole thing was repeated once i started boarding school, albeit from a different angle. the culture shock of the familiar & unfamiliar of britain (more on this term later, perhaps), for example, and a whole multitude of complications i am not going to tease out here.

&

people i met on the job:

a nigerian scientists who discussed his country with me, and chinese construction workers there -- how overall he thinks the chinese are good people, but some take advantage of their fellow countrymen. advertising well-paid waitress jobs to women, who are then made sex slaves. (this article is what reminded me to complete this post).

a christian iraqis, friendly with a lovely smile. interestingly, (or perhaps not interestingly, although it was a surprise to me nonetheless) he seemed to get on best with other middle eastern students

iraqi kurds, who, by virtue of the unviersity's ties with the kurdish government in iraq, were in large numbers. some eager, some playful. it's hard to sum up a group & the purpose of my role was a way to encourage the students not to stick in their groups. they got better at mixing, towards the end, and it made my heart glad to see it, but i can understand to some extent why initially they want to stick to their 'own'.

thai students, many of whom seemed rather shy, soft-spoken. there was one one girl who i think felt a bit out of place with the culture.

a chilean, with the best accent, a beard, and another lovely lovely smile.

a gay frenchman from marseilles. feeling not at home in his home country, ready to explore, find & make homes.

chinese students from the mainland, some of whom fit the stereotype.

a few students from the south of china, meaning they speak cantonese, as i do. i refuse to converse with them in chinese, claiming that the purpose of their time here is to 'practice their english'. this is true, but there is some embarassment on my part too.

a few japanese students, one of whom apparently likes to hear cantonese, enjoys the cadences. they are by and large charming, and rather japanese, without being, well, too typically japanese.

taiwanese students, with whom i have discussed their cultural and national identity. how different do they see themselves from the mainland chinese? later in the office i learn one student was upset to have been classed as 'chinese' by the administration, rather than taiwanese. this reminded me of a conversation i once had in a youth hostel with a man in his fifties, who didn't such political & cultural conflations; i didn't have the patience to eplain. i will always say i'm from hong kong but yes, i am chinese. different political situation, though.

a well-dressed frenchman, elegant and always suited. he probably could be a model. a german guy who looks like he is a model. a german girl whose friendliness and curly hair reminded me of an old friend.

a lady from tanzania, who was a nurse in her own country. she spoke to me about how beautiful the cities are (comparsions in infrastructure), her hometime, her life there. she has a sister here, in milton keynes, who she went to meet. she wants to bring her family here because life is good.

a lot of the chinese students, by comparsion, are here to study. to capitalise on the cultural cache of a british degree.

this is what i mean when i refer to classic and contemporary immigration. ultimately, immigration is almost always related to wanting a better life - whether it be to flee persecution, or simply studying abroad to get a better job at home. this is of course not to say that the two are equivalent, although they are comparable in a strange sense. that is why this post is called 'classic' and 'contemporary'. i don't know how alright it is, to refer to 'classic' immigration (people emigrating for a better material life) and 'contemporary' immigration (people emigrating for a better cultural life, or rather, cultural capital in bourdieu's sense?) . the differences here are important ways important, but equally so how the distinction in some respects seems a bit blurred by virtue of moving countries being a solution. i don't know if i am making sense here. out of practice.

&

and now, a new job, which challenges personal problems tied up with privilege, still. so much to learn, still.

scraps: a timeline of the incomplete

i have finished the wind up bird chronicle. and have finally broken the spell of temporary illiteracy. , and i now feel like i want to fall into some sort of reading coma and read as much as i can. i have even cancelled my lovefilm account in service towards this goal. (i am a silly and feel obliged to rent as many movies as possible in order to get the most 'value' for my money since my plan is 'unlimited'; this is despite the fact that the account was free for two of the three months that i had it).

my only problem is i'm not sure what to read next. i have at least three large 'to read' book piles at the moment. i think i will continue with northanger abbey, even though i am very much not a fan of austen - or rather, i'm not sure if i am not a fan of austen's work or if i am not a fan of how it is appropriated today. i suspect it is the latter, and should add that i have only ever read pride & prejudice when required to for GCSE english, and everything else is based on inference from films and the wider cultural discourse surrounding austen and her work. i strongly suspect that she is cleverer than the impression i have been given implies.

i particularly dislike the celebration of austen as somehow revolutionary because she gave documented the society of her time and gave 'voice' to the lives of women. honourable though these achievements are, i feel that generally the people who emphasise this do so in defence of (and in deference to) the triumph of the love plot, and the notion that the most rewarding thing a woman can do in her life is to marry. and in this sense, i can't help but reiterate my 16 year old self's impressions that such works are the chick lit of that time (and certainly the contemporary version draws heavily from austen).

so, i am reading northanger abbey: it is nice and short and more importantly for me, it is a (Gothic) parody. maybe i will come back to this when i have something better to express other than general frustration.

&

creation stories about having sex [sort of like this]

postcards from everywhere & anywhere; trying to capture art, small little pieces; museums (and 'giving' money); i've been there - souvenier - tourist

&

http://colormekatie.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-philip-iv.html --> gallery play: an intervention or engagement?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/15/sxsw-2011-internet-online --> pulsing

&

hello dear readers, what better time to blog when i can't sleep? (rather unfortunate given i have committed myself to waking early tomorrow). truthfully, what i have to say has been brewing and milling around in my mind all day anyway. sometimes i think of thoughts as snagging on something (like fabric from a woollen jumper on a nail - admittedly an image i must have stolen from tv/film having little experience of such things); it forces you to stop and unwind and unravel. today is not quite one of those days (even as i type i am yawning) - as i have said, it has been more of a brewing and bubbling.

in my blogger dashboard, i have a draft post which i have rather dramatically (arrogantly?) titled "the struggles of postcolonialism". the struggles i was speaking of, however, were not those relating to economic or material matters (material in the sense of conditions of living), but rather my own struggles with coming to terms with  something i've had difficulty resolving for much of my life: so much so that i'm not sure if i even know how to articulate what this thing is because it is manifest in much of what i am interested in.

the original post was a response to a paper i read (phen cheah's "given culture") which critiques notions of hybridity. this was at at time when i had decided my ideal life plan would be to go to graduate school in america, after which i would spend my post-doctoral years in various more interesting countries (and by 'more interesting', i mean less academically respected in comparison to some institutions of the uk and us -- it is only just occurring to me now to what extent certain power structures are reproduced academically altho i was aware of critiques postcolonial theory as 'centred '). it seemed both practical (in the sense that these universities would be perhaps less prestigous) and more importantly, more interesting (i would be able to work outside of said power structure to a limited extent). and while i do think that cheah's critique is dependant on too straightforward an understanding of hybridity ___

FEEL/MADE TO FEEL 'exotic'


"WEST"/global north south.


robert young: colonailism & the desiring machine


(academic/personal)

reproduction (&/of) feminist self-critque

source supposed reasons for lack of menstruation (and therefore ovulation & conception?)
i recently made the decision to start taking the pill. at 23, i am probably quite old in comparison to some young girls in the uk who begin to take hormonal contraceptives at age 16 and onwards. when i begin, this will be the first time i have used something other than condoms alone as contraception.

a lot of this is to do with a rather old-fashioned notion of purity -- i didn't want 'artificial' hormones to be affecting the 'natural' cycle of my periods. i am aware, this view seems to conflict remarkably with my feminist politics -- the idea of a 'pure' womanhood which will be disrupted by hormonal control seems to be a profoundly sexist one. after all, i'm sure (although i own up to not having done sufficient historical research, sorry guys) that the idea the pill disrupts the purity of one's womanhood was used by conservatives to argue against it. god forbid that a couple, and more specifically a woman, enjoy sex, and have sex for its own sake, rather than good old-fashioned reproduction. furthermore, the pill gave women control over conception, contraception gave women their education & employment (as they could choose when - or if - they had children), and the social & cultural impact of the pill is widely documented and acknowledged.



sourcewater massages to 'treat' hysteria, bringing about 'hysterical paroxysm' (or, an orgasm)
so why then, this internal resistance of mine to the idea of hormonal contraception? the notion of female 'hysteria' is one of a gender-specific madness, which has very ancient origins. there was the idea that hysteria was caused by a 'wandering' uterus, looking for its rightful place within a woman's body. the 'symptoms' of hysteria were wide-ranging, and hysteria was generally ascribed to any woman who was unwell, for reasons unknown, or who was un-well in behaving sufficiently 'womanly'. (wikipedia cites maines, who notes that 'a tendency to cause trouble' is one such symtom of hysteria; i should probably note that facts are lifted here and there from that great internet resources in this blogpost, and indeed, throughout this blog').

hysteria was sometimes treated by 'pelvic massage' in order to bring about hysterical paroxysm, or, in other words, an orgasm. hysteria, (i first came across this concept when i was quite young, through the film the road to wellville). in other words, was the pathologisation of a woman's sexuality, and indeed, of womanhood more generally.

to me, hormonal contraception (illogically & irrationally perhaps) can seem like a way of 'pathologising' the female. i suppose this is partly because, although i do have difficult periods, i view them as something kind of cool (note that i find rashes & most bodily functions cool too, so...), and maybe even worth celebrating. i remember eagerly anticipating my period whilst going through puberty: after all, it meant that i was finally a 'woman'! periods, in other words, are closely tied up to my idea of 'what it means to be a woman', even though this biological definition isn't something that i mentally ascribe to, emotionally it holds a lot of weight for me still, having grown up with difficulty negotiating gender norms. (i knew i was never going to be 'womanly' enough, because in postcolonial hong kong, this - to my mind - also included being white; but i still desperately wanted to be, aware that i was of the social rewards and acceptance this would grant me). and so, hysteria is particularly relevant to my case now.

this is because it's not even quite for reasons of contraception that i am considering this. i started taking antidepressants for depression & anxiety after the assault. i am taking sertraline, and the drug leaflets that came with one particular brand of box (american, i think; the brand i take differs depending on whatever the pharmacy has in stock, which varies according to availability, i imagine -- once there was a 'shortage' due to manufacturing issues, apparently) stated that it was sometimes used to treat something called premenstrual dysphoric disorder, abbreviated to pmdd.

further investigation led me to this rather useful website, which describes pmdd as "a condition associated with severe emotional and physical problems that are linked closely to the menstrual cycle". it comes and goes (and i'm sure there are other contributing factors) but at its worst, i get very depressed, cry for no reason, have difficulty sleeping,  feel a very specific type of tired (heaviness) that i only ever get when i have my period, and, the most contentious thing perhaps - . at its worst, i have possibly all if not ten out of the eleven listed symptoms on the aforementioned website. 

All of the symptoms need not be present and they may vary from month to month. At least 5 are required to make the diagnosis, including at least one of the first four.*

1. Very depressed mood, feeling hopeless
2. Marked anxiety, tension, edginess
3. Sudden mood shifts (crying easily, extreme sensitivity)
4. Persistent, marked irritability, anger, increased conflicts
5. Loss of interest in usual activities work, school, socializing
6. Difficulty concentrating and staying focused
7. Fatigue, tiredness, loss of energy
8. Marked appetite change, overeating, food cravings
9. Insomnia (difficulty sleeping) or sleeping too much
10. Feeling out of control or overwhelmed
11. Physical symptoms such as weight gain, bloating, breast tenderness or swelling, headache, and muscle or joint aches and pains

the website suggests that the contraceptive pill is also sometimes used to treat pmdd. and, after months of debating, i've decided to try it out -- my reasoning being that even if it doesn't help (i'm not sure the sertraline has), i will at least be able to regulate my periods & therefore anticipate moodswings etc. with better ease.



source"christ's wandering uterus"female hysteria, caused by the wandering womb seeking its proper place.
so, in the end, like hysteria, there are links with here mental health too.

i am not even entirely sure i emotionally believe in pmdd (which i have described to my friends as extreme pms). or at least, i don't believe in pmdd in relation to me. if a friend told me they had it, i would not doubt them, but with respect to myself... i find it difficult to imagine where the line between pms and pmdd is. is it a matter of not taking myself & my health seriously enough? certainly, the symptoms match up to mine, and more than one close friend has agreed with me that it seems possible. (my doctor's lack of interest, on the other hand, put me off somewhat).  i suppose, at the end of the day, the extent to which the symptoms affect how one lives one's life, to what extent it is a disruption

this is also how one can consider mental health issues. often, the characteristics of mental health issues seem to be to characteristics in mentally 'healthy' people, but are taken to an extreme, and an extreme where these behaviours become disruptive to their lives. for example, we all get down from time to time, and people commonly use the term 'depressed' but looking back now at my deeper depression, i can recall a time when the effort of getting out of bed, and even taking my own medication, seem to be a significant amount of effort which i didn't bother to make. this is what makes it seemingly difficult for people to understand as mental health an important issue.

and, certainly, it is only after having taken antidepressants for a considerable amount of time that i have been open to taking the pill for this reason, partly.i do, to an extent, value aspects of my possible pmdd -- to be able to feel things that deeply, and strongly, even pain is something that i consider valuable. and again, i have  that is another common trope of that those with mental health issues express. some people who are bipolar, for example, often refuse to medicate they value their 'manic' episodes. (i should point out my observations are merely anecdotal).

having said all that, someone close to me had an ovarian cyst in the past couple years; it was large enough to make her look pregnant. it, along with an ovary, had to be surgically removed. said someone started taking the pill, because the pill apparently can helps with preventing cysts.

so, perhaps my problem is that i am all too much separating my body and mind? i'm not sure. when i was asking a close friend of mine about his mental health, he spoke of it as predominantly genetic. mental illness was extremely common in his family; and in mine too, i undoubtedly have a predisposition.

i'll have to think (and bleed!) on it more, and perhaps wait for my heart to catch up with my head? (that old separation again...)

&

also, see lok's post on the issue.

current affairs

as for DSK, i don't even know where to begin with what to say. i have actually avoided the story somewhat as i fear it'll upset me. in any case, i wanted to point you all here, my tumblr, if you are interested in reading me work through issues surrounding coping with the assault.