Titanic the musical. I’d rather have been on the Titanic than watch that.
We went to see Consent last night.
It was… um… okay.
Like, it almost threatened to say something interesting about the nature of consent and about how people in the legal profession treat it like a game, a university debating club, totally detached from the consequences of their cases, but it never really had the courage of its convictions to really go for it. Instead it became too soapy and shouty and I found it very hard to care about the people involved.
I’m not one of those people who has to like characters to be interested in what happens to them, but they were all so awful that I just wasn’t bothered when they got upset.
Oh I quite liked it (didn’t pay for it though which may have sweetened me a bit)
Fun Home is fucking amazing by the way, assume it will transfer. Booked to go a second time, which I rarely do.
Fun Home - Terrific stuff. My only criticism would be that the most enjoyable part comes very near the beginning of it. Apparently Jake Gyllenhal was in the audience for the performance that we went to.
Lehman Trilogy - very good, albeit it is long. All three of the actors are great, but Simon Russell Beale is brilliant. It maybe falls away a bit right at the end, and it took me a while to really get into the ‘tell, don’t show’ nature of it, but if you can get a ticket, I’d definitely recommend it.
The Lieutenant Of Inishmore…
Saw this twice on its original theatrical run way back in the day as I enjoyed it so much. Enjoy all of Martin McDonagh’s stuff tbh tbf.
This is the blackest of black comedies, featuring extensive humour based on the troubles, torture and IRA splinter groups. Plus cat death. Packs in an impressive amount of stage gore too. Features yer Poldark man in the leading role - he didn’t take his top off, but his impressive guns were on display throughout
Think I marginally preferred it on its original run, but that might have just been down to the thrill of the new. This is still lovely, lovely, horrible stuff
Went to see the Jungle last night and would really love to see a more critical review. it gets five stars everywhere and nothing but praise.
It’s from the production company that went to ‘the Jungle’ to put on plays for the people living there, in what they call ‘theatres of hope’. So, unsurprisingly, the play itself pays homage to that type of DIY ‘creative’ intervention. I’m not personally convinced that things like artists spaces and theatres, all the street art etc. isn’t there more for the volunteers than for the people living in the camp.
The only NGO that gets mentioned at all is Help Refugees. Of course they’re a good organisation but they also had very little experience of delivering humanitarian assistance, and lacked legitimacy when it came to advocating to governments. According the ‘the Jungle’, HR was the only NGO with a presence in the camp, and larger more established orgs like MSF were nowhere to be seen. This is just inaccurate.
Another thing I found a bit overstated was how much the characters clung to their identities as ‘refugees’ and continually went back to what it is like being ‘a refugee’, as if all refugees strongly identify with this label and legal status and see it as central to their identity, which again I’m not sure is the case. many of the people who lived in the camp will not have been refugees, which is totally fine, and they are also entitled to claim asylum and exercise their rights, have a safe place to live etc. but the play kinda skirted around this and at time implied it was a bad thing to suggest people were just ‘migrants’. refugees are a type of migrant anyway.
the set design was also a bit gimmicky
basically it’s an AMAZING STORY about how BRITISH VOLUNTEERS went to HELP REFUGEES
i didn’t think it was amazing, but probably had drunk a bit of that five star kool aid.
a Dunkirk for lefties, maybe? *i have not seen Dunkirk.
i like your analysis db. that by the you’re following in the footsteps of the miners etc being dodgy, guess you meant because these volunteers could choose to leave at any point?
what bit are you referring to here?..
there was a part when the representative of the Eritrean community accused one of the volunteers of thinking of her as a ‘economic migrant’ followed by a bit of dialogue about how ‘anyone who crosses deserts…’ to go to Europe has the support of the volunteers.
there aren’t two discrete groups of people: refugees and “economic migrants”. like people dont get refused asylum on the basis that they were just seeking a “better life”. they might still qualify for other forms of international protection, for example on humanitarian grounds.
none of the people living in the camp had been given the chance to have their refugee status determined so it’s kinda silly to have unqualified volunteers even talking about what their status is likely to be.
cheers, i’d forgotten that bit.
maybe implying anyone who hasn’t crossed deserts… doesn’t have the support of volunteers. yup, dodgy.
read about that tom Watson campaign going against “failed asylum seekers”, you referenced in the politics thread it must have been. like you say here, it’s a false dichotomy. one new labour really played on, stoked up a cruel mentality. of course the tories were happy to continue; ‘in the uk illegally?’ bus ads and the rest.