Havenough

Capricious Thoughts on 9/11

2011-09-11T05:34:00.000-07:00

10 years on. Still not ready. People say that experiencing or witnessing the fall of the Twin Tower on 11 September 2001 is something that one will never forget. Yes that's true. I still remember exactly where I was and what I was doing the moment the first plane crash was reported in the news. Then for the next half an hour, I sat and watched before rushing back to the college to really try to understand what's happening.

Everyone in the college was up. People who had TVs in their rooms were sharing their TVs. Some were in the TV room downstairs but everyone was up and every door was opened. The next day we still couldn't believe that it was a reality. As the reality sank in so was the sadness. We were not there but we were still wounded, hurt by the lack of humanity the what we called human race had exhibited.

Before we knew, it is 10 years from the incident. At that time I thought maybe the world would get better as we re-evaluate our humanity. Did the world get better? I can't really say so. I would not say that I am a pessimist but rather I would classify myself as a reserved optimist who always try to have an optimistic outlook without committing to being overly positive. For I believe, the less you expect the less you would be disappointed.

10 years from that day, I look back and look around - more people were killed in wars, politicians are still about themselves, people who lost their jobs were eventually the people who forked out their tax money to bail the riches out whom were the people who caused that situation, people said harsh things about karma when the tsunami hit Japan, idiots like Alan Jones still dominating the radio waves propagating their idiocy to the general public, some people still care about themselves more than the environment etc.

When I was a kid I was told that we study history because we want to learn from the past avoid making the same mistakes. That doesn't seemed to have helped, at least according to what I observed throughout all these years. In the last few weeks, when I saw all the promos about the 9/11 specials, it really annoys me because thousands of innocent people died on that day and the human race had not improved. Our phone got smarter, our TV got smarter, everything we created got smarter but not our humanity, which is supposed to be the essence that distinguish us from the rest of the living organisms on this planet.

Everyday when I saw idiots like Alan Jones and Tony Abott who are all about themselves saying stupid things and breaking promises while condemning other people committing the same crime, my blood boils and I wonder how did we end up with a world like this? Not only in Australia that politicians continue to increase their own pay while cutting spending on essentials for the society, that's the same thing in the States when the Republicans just want to tear down bills so that the have an excuse to accuse Obama for not being able to fulfill his promises. What kind of mad world are we living in? Did 9/11 actually make us more selfish than opening our eyes to the world?

Maybe being a reserved optimist I am still not being built for this world. Or maybe if I was not trained to think critically when I was a kid, I would be a happier person. But at the end of the day where can humanity go? For me 10 years on, the world hadn't become a better place and it seems to me that the human race will never improve. Is this God's will? If so does that mean we will be seeing the arrival of the Four Horsemen soon? Maybe it's time for me to go and watch Supernatural Season 5 instead.

9/11 is a wound that will never heal. Or maybe I am still getting too sentimental on this day. Or maybe I should just go to sleep and forget about the human race.

No Just a Carbon Copy

2011-05-29T19:19:00.000-07:00

The recent outrage about Cate Blanchett speaking up for carbon tax was another indication of sensation reporting in Australia.

The carbon tax issue has been a long standing argument in the recent months with all the pros and cons tossing their woks and pans in the Hell Kitchen known as the Australian Parliament. Both sides have their “points” but who is here to judge? So since we cannot judge on who’s right or who’s wrong we toss the bomb on whoever is the easiest target. In this round, it is Cate Blanchett.

It has been said that actors should restrict themselves to the stage because they are better speaking other people’s words than their own. That is so out dated. Though not everyone transit well from acting to social or political commenting but speaking up for what one believes should not be a crime. Cate Blanchett has been pushing forward the green cause for many years – she has reinvented the Wharf, where Sydney Theatre Company resides as a green complex and never hides the fact that going green for the next generation is high on her priority list. That’s why I was not surprised to hear about her speaking up on this carbon tax. Whether I agree with it is another issue, but if you believe in it what not?

The accusation mainly came from the fact that she is worth 53 million and what would she knows about paying more taxes as a general urban family? That might be true, but that does not stop her from having her own voice and going around rallying for a cause that she believes in. People have to remember that as an actor, she worked hard to build up that 53 million. Most actors started off with a humble career and she definitely did not just become “Cate Blanchett” if she hadn’t worked hard since she graduated from NIDA. So why is she being punished for her cause because of all the hard work she put in in the past decade or so?

What makes Cate Blanchett different is that she is not just an actor who can only speak other people’s work like a carbon copy of the script. She is a person who can speak and articulate her thoughts well and professionally in real life. Anyone who’s watched her interviews and press conferences would have understood where she came from. Since she became the artistic director of Sydney Theatre Company she hasn’t stopped rallying to change the complex into a sustainability powerhouse to show case how to save energy and conserve the environment. So why does she have to stop now? And why is she being the evil queen simply because she believes in what is good for the environment?

Certainly not everybody has several millions at his / her disposal to make his / her residence green and sustainable, but then no matter you believe, support or dislike the carbon tax proposal that should not be used as a weapon against other people who believe in the cause – especially it is about our environment and our future generations. It is very different from people like Tony Abott who earns a lot more than other people, prefer to buy a house he can’t afford and send his kids to expensive private schools and then come back to the Parliament and said he wants higher pay because the current pay level cannot sustain his life style. If Tony Abott can be saved from this kind of stuff it is just hypocrisy to burn Cate at stake because she is supporting something that is close to her heart and good for the environment.

The whole crusade against Cate for me is like a witch hunt. But what disgusts me more is that this is a witch hunt to sell more papers and get higher ratings. Isn’t it great that we can finally find fault for a seemingly “do no wrong” Cate and burn her alive with ink as our fuel and pens as our logs? I personally think media who are fuelling this kind of sensational reporting should be ashamed of themselves but then these are the media with no conscience built in most of the time. I wish the Australian people do have the wit and intelligence to identify the flaws with this latest witch hunt and ditch those media as karma punishment.

From 'SeaChange" to "Rake"

2011-05-01T06:31:00.001-07:00

As an Australian actor, it is common knowledge that every one of us wants to be on a TV series or hit the jackpot of a great Australian movie. With the Australian movie industry not really going anywhere locally - considering all the box office bombs of local productions in the last few months - TV series seems to be the prize that everyone is going for.

Local productions are notorious for repeating the same old storyline and basing on previous materials, repackage them and thrown them onto the screen as new products. There were some good ones here and there. I totally enjoyed the first season of "The Secret Life of Us" and the first season of "Love My Way" was pretty good too. However, both of them seemed to have lost their steam after the first season. The following seasons became melodramatic and characters behaved ridiculously out of character. I tried "Tangle" but there was nothing grabbing my attention. In terms of cop shows, the subtleness of "East West 101" won miles against "Cop LAC" anyday. I'm never a fan of the "Underbelly" series because I don't believe in glorifying criminal acts on TV screens. Yes they met their demises in the end but that's because they had to since they were based on "true" stroies.

Up till this point "SeaChange" is still the Australian series that I watched again and again and still find it refreshing. I didn't get to see it when it was first aired but was highly recommended by my agent and friend. I checked it out from the library and BAM I was hooked on to it. I bought the whole series after I a job interview at ABC (a job which I obviously didn't get) and watched it all over again. It is still my favorite show to be put on my TV when I do my weekend ironing (I prefer to iron all the clothes for the week in one go) and I still tune in to Foxtel during its occasional rerun - that is how good "SeaChange" is.

What made "SeaChange" so great is its originality and the embracing of ethnicity with a bunch of colourful characters delivered by a superb cast. Chemisty among characters is just bouncing off the screen in every single scene and there is no one dull moment in the show. This is without a doubt mostly contributed to the superb writing from Andrew Knight and Deborah Cox. They created this imaginative small town and detailed it with one interesting story after another. It was just a work of magic.

After "SeaChange", there was nothing that really grabbed my attention. Writing in most shows were dramatic for sake of being dramatic, characters don't really make sense, the screen has become Anglo-centric again, ethnicity became a pinch of stereotypical comic relief. We got too many cop shows, too many medical shows, too many teenagers sleeping with each other shows and too many reality shows.

"East West 101" was a great production but sometimes far too serious that it inevitably gets you unnecessarily depressed. Life is depressing enough so if I have a choice I prefer to watch something that lightens me up at the end of the day. "Packed to the Rafters" was good but as a single guy whose friends are setting up their own families, I kinda became resistent to overly warm and cosy family dramedies. So there was a void for me for quite some time until my agent (once again thanks to her) mentioned "Rake" to me.

"Rake" is a legal dramedy about a dysfunctional lawyer who knows he is dysfunctioned but did not mourn over it. He instead tries to live the most out of it. He tries to fix problems just to find out that he complicated them more. There is no right solutions for him in life or professionally and he just lives with it. The main cast with Richard Roxburg, Matt Day and Adrienne Pickering delivered a superb performance and once again you really see an ensemble that lives off and bounces of each other. As the 8 part series proceeds, you find out more about these characters - you laugh with them sometimes, you shed a tear with them sometimes or you even despise them a bit sometimes. We used to say that audience loves flawed characters, but completely flawed characters nowadays are so cliche that when you met a bunch of characters who are lovable but flawed, you just get right into it.

"Rake" doesn't only have a great main ensemble cast, it has great guest casts such as Hugo Weaving, a never seen before Lisa McCune, Sam Neil, Rachel Griffiths etc who completely spice up your screen with firey performance that reminds you how many great talents this country has. It also has a lot more variety in ethnicity display. Yes most non-Anglo actors are still in the back e.g. among the jury, but it shows a greater diversity of people in a lot of its frames. It is completely refreshing to see something that great on Australian screen again. Oh one last thing, it is written by Andrew Knight - the guy who delivered "SeaChange" to us some years ago.

So check it out if you have a chance.

Creativity Versus Shock Factor

2011-04-05T01:32:00.000-07:00

As an artist I am all in for pushing creativity boundaries. However, nowadays it seems the lines of creativity and shock factor are getting more blurry every day.

We cannot deny that only with creativity that a society can continue to evolve and develop. It also helps to shape the cultural landscape of a community and not to mention it encourage the expression of ideas. However, when we are talking about expression of ideas, do we actually mean there should be no limits whatsoever? Or do artists, who claim to be the beacon holders of cultural development, get free passes to all ideas that are exempted from social scrutiny?

Bill Henson, recently know for a public spat with the authorities over the portrayal of a nude teen, is having a new exhibition opening this week. There is no doubt about his talent and he proved to be a top notch artist. One of the first responses to the exhibition is “if you don’t like about the nude teen thing in the past you will still not like this one and it will offend people”. Now I don’t know about that and can’t make any judgement on this particular exhibition as I have yet to see it. However, this kind of feedback does at times worry me. I am sure most artists, even I, will see things that are beautiful and hard to resist and want to share them with the world from our own point of view. However, we must also agree that, not everything we see is beautiful and socially acceptable for everyone. Does that mean we need to censor ourselves? No. I don’t think so, but I, personally, will think about what kind of impact would there be when these creations go public. Social convention is a complicated thing. As societies are made up by huge variety of people, conventions are developed so that these varieties of people can live together in a “mutually content” manner. There are conventions they I don’t agree and whenever possible get extremely passionate to fight against, but then at the same time I will also consider the impact on others. The issue with Bill Henson’s nude teen photograph is whether it encourages paedophilia in a public arena when people are fighting to protect children from invasive sexual advances. Bill and some other people may find them beautiful and I am sure they have their artistic values, but are they socially responsible? Or in this case, do artists need to be socially responsible?

Another thing that bugs me lately is a new show about brides competing in a reality show to be the top bride and for winning each week’s challenge they receive a plastic surgery to perfect themselves for the day. The catches are, all surgeries can be performed back to back within a few weeks and the groom wouldn’t know what their brides look like until they walk down the aisle on the wedding day. I am sure there are lots of people who are not happy with how they look like and would love to “improve” upon that. I was one of them but I never had the money or courage to do that. However, having back to back plastic surgeries within a short period of time? Even plastic surgeons said that under normal circumstances they will not do that because it is detrimental to health. The producer of the show said it is the creativity and beauty part they emphasise on and the contestants obviously are fine with that. So they don’t see a problem. Yes it may not be a problem if we don’t need to see that play it out on TV. Is this really creativity or it is just a cheap shock factor using creativity as disguise. Also how socially responsible is it to have the groom to wed a bride that could look completely different from the woman he originally proposed. One of the contestants said that she knows she can now be the “perfect” woman she wants to be for her groom. But for me, if my bride shows up at the altar looking completely different and plastic (trust me, so of them look hideous after the surgeries), I will be so shocked that I doubt whether I can marry her.

Some people may think that I am too conservative blah blah blah. But the fact is I don’t really give a damn on how other people see me and as an artists I do think I need to push my own creativity boundaries. However, at the same time I do think that artists have to be socially responsible, have the conscience to protect people who are vulnerable, instead of being so self-inflated to think that under the name of art you can be as shocking and as irresponsible as we wanted to. We may be able to do that if we run our own cult but let’s be honest, that’s not most of us. We can challenge conventions, social ideas, political issues etc. etc. but at the end of the day, we still need to be responsible so that when we push the boundaries, we have credibility under our belt to fight against the “authority”.

Tsunami and the Media

2011-03-15T20:52:00.000-07:00

The recent events in Japan reminded us how powerful the forces of nature are. In just one day, the north eastern part of Japan was turned into ruins with cries of the despair echoing in the air. The continued unfolding of the nuclear plant melt down didn’t add any optimism to the country’s wait-to-be revived economy. Pictures and videos of the earthquake and the subsequent tsunamis flooded our TV and computer screens. We all feel the horror with the people in Japan and have our thoughts with them at difficult times.

While it is supposed to be a natural human response to feel for the unfortunate and offer them whatever help they need, there are some “media personalities” that are willing to make fun of other people’s despair to elevate their own status. Two of the most notable ones were Alec Sulken who penned the animated satire Family Guy and the US comedian Gilbert Gottfried. Both paid for what they’ve done – Sulken was forced to make a public apology and for Gottfried, he lost his gig for Aflac. It seems that justice has worked this time on these people but the fact that there are media personalities publicly mocking and making fun of other people’s tragedies was just appalling. The even more appalling fact was that there were people supporting such acts claiming that “jokes should have no boundaries” and these joke “can actually cheer these people up”.

I have no idea where these ideas come from, but the fact that playing on other people’s misfortune as a funny pass time is no laughing matter at all. There are good jokes and bad jokes and the ones in question are definitely bad jokes. I wonder how these people will feel if their love ones passed away and someone cracking jokes about them in front of these people at their funerals. Or maybe we can wait till these people pass away and then tweet and joke about their deaths like “Thank God! No duck asses from Gottfried”.

We can’t expect media personalities to be saints, but if they consistently exhibit low tastes in their speeches or behaviours, they bound to pay the price for it. The whole notion of freedom of speech does not give people a free pass to go and say something to hurt others while they are already in pain. And other people’s argument of artistic expressions should have no boundaries is just an irresponsible expression of speech. How our society has become so unmoved and self-centred is something that needs to be addressed to. Is it the media or the overly tasteless artists who love controversy to earn a buck? If as media we do not condemn what is regarded as low taste, then the last frontier of decency and moral will be gone. What the human race will spiral into is beyond imagination.

I am not saying that we need to be overly politically correct either. I support freedom of speech and freedom of artistic expression. However what we are dealing with at the moment are disasters that costed thousands of people’s life. Since when deaths in natural disasters like this is a good subject for jokes? I am not talking about self-censoring here too, but my point is how low can one go nowadays to be considered as a decent human being if joking about other people’s deaths like this is acceptable? Where are our moral and social responsibilities to our society in this modern world?

And really for the Chinese parents who want New Zealand to pay you out because your kid died in the earthquake (as if there are no New Zealanders lost their lives), or those Chinese people who applauded on Japan’s disasters as a natural pay back of World War II, get a life! You not only exhibit bad tastes but also extremely low life behaviours that need to be spat out by the rest of the world!

Rabbit Hole

2011-02-16T20:48:00.000-08:00

Rabbit Hole is the adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize winning play of the same name. The adaptation was done by the original playwright David Lindsay-Abaire and now starring Nicole Kidman (in which Cynthia Nixon won a Tony Award in the same role on stage).

Obviously Rabbit Hole is a star vehicle for whoever plays Becca and nailed it. Cynthia Nixon did it and Nicole Kidman scored an Oscar nomination for the role and brought her right back up in the Hollywood game. So how does the play hold up in its silver screen adaptation?

Rabbit Hole is about grief. In the original play, 5 different characters of equal weight played out the grieving process. In the film adaptation, the weight seems to just fall on Becca. Other characters except maybe for Howie, played nothing more than a supportive role to Becca. This change of balance in fact affected the whole structure and story telling. In the play you have a comprehensive view of the different approaches of each character in dealing with the same incident. However, in the film, these were gone, and especially for Izzie, Becca’s sister, she became a mere plot movement in the film. This drastically reduced the dimensions originally offered by the play and became really simple story telling. Also, the adaptation seems to have fragmented the original tight structure of the play and made the story unnecessarily jumpy. And the over-emphasis of the “Rabbit Holes” in the film had to a certain degree reduced its great metaphor and connotation through information redundancy. There were other scenes that were originally narratives in the play being now shown to the audience. Some worked, some didn’t. For example, the scene about Becca slapping a mother in the supermarket was super and provided a lot of dramatic elements to the film. However the side story between Howie and another grieving mother didn’t work at all. It feels more like it was placed in the film as a dramatic bomb but it didn’t go off.

Performance wise, Nicole Kidman surely had done her homework for the role and played Becca really well. It could be one of her best dramatic roles since The Hours. However, if you don’t like her, this film will still not change your views about her, as the style is very Kidman. Nonetheless, it is always good to see her display a bigger emotional range in a very lovable character. Aaron Eckhart as Howie was solid. As with other characters, Howie’s role was much reduced unless it is a plot point for Becca to shine in the current or upcoming scenes. Nonetheless, I am glad that the pivotal “Howie break down” scene was still there and Aaron Eckhart’s performance in that scene was perfect. Dianne West as Becca’s mother also had a reduced role in the film but not to the extent that Izzie suffered. Critical scenes in the play were still there and the sometimes-warm sometimes-cold relationship between her and Becca was depicted with precision. Miles Teller as Jason, the teenager who caused the grief to the family was quite wooden to be honest. There were a few good moments, but on the whole somehow his character didn’t really work for me. Tammy Blanchard as Izzie really got nothing much to do in the film version. I feel sorry for her as in the play Izzie was such an important comic relief element.

On the whole Rabbit Hole is still a solid film. However, it has become more melodramatic than its stage counterpart. The good part of the original play is that it did not emphasise on the tear-jerking factor but let the audience feel and absorb into their grief. In the film version, there was just too much crying that discredited the characters and reduced their grief into simple one-dimensional moaning. There were great performances, but the film is just not as good as the play.

Harvey Normal?

2011-01-05T15:16:00.000-08:00

As we rolled into 2011, the first media warfare was not among media personalities but between big retailers and everyday customers. Gerry Harvey (of Harvey Norman’s “fame”) and his cohorts’ movement to call for GST for online goods purchased under $1000 had caused significant backlashes from the society. Gerry said he has expected unwelcoming responses but claiming that this is for the good of the society as people will lose their jobs if retail shops are not doing well. He even went on to condemn people who prefer to shop online “unAustralian”.

Being an international shopper (yeah I live for shopping) I have been telling my friends about how it sucks to shop in Australia all these years. You usually pay much higher prices for less satisfactory products. I was told that because Australia is far away with a smaller market so it is much more expensive to sell products – so the costs drove up the prices. If we are talking about High Street fashions and electronic products, I can understand that, but even for daily products, Australia is still way more expensive than other places. A pack of 4 AA batteries in Sydney can cost you easily up to AU$7 but in Hong Kong, a pack of 16 AA batteries – same brand and not counterfeit, is just around AU$5. The huge price differences caused me to stock up batteries every time when I visit my parents there. Another good example is video games. Video games in Australia are easily a third more to double the prices to their overseas counterparts – Hong Kong, US and Japan. So it is not surprising that people who have limited income, unlike Gerry who is a billionaire, will choose to shop overseas and online!

Another major issue with local retailers is the product model. I remember when I first moved to Sydney, I needed a mini hi-fi system as I can’t live without music. I went into a shop and asked for a multi-discs system. I paid AU$250 and got one but it was the same model that I had for 10 years back home (and of course obsoleted in the market 8 years ago). I was told at that time that it was the latest model they have. I thought it was absurd but then when I checked other stores, they were all saying the same thing. Similarly, with mobile phones, Australia is usually one or two cycles behind other markets unless it is a major product like iPhone and BlackBerry. I once tried to find a Nokia phone for a friend in Sydney when I went back to Hong Kong because it was a new model in Sydney so it was extremely expensive. I went around all the shops, all of them told me that the model is no longer available because it was phased out a year ago and replaced by newer models. So for tech savvy people who want the latest technology, of course shopping online is the best way to get the latest gadgets. If Harvey Norman or other retails stores are not stalking them, they surely cannot complain about people are not shopping from them.

Further, the range of products in Australia is far more limited as compare to overseas. In Sydney, you can only find three to four styles of soap dishes available, at around AU$10. However when you go overseas to places such as Japan and Hong Kong, you have aisles and aisles of soap dishes to choose from. They will come in different styles, sizes, colours and looks etc. And they are all a fraction of the price you pay in Australia. I usually get a lot of household items back from Hong Kong simply because I got something to choose from and they are so much cheaper even if you need to pack them into your luggage to bring them here. This is the same for skin care products where you have a lot more to choose from and at very reasonable prices.

So, with products that are cheaper, more current and with more choices, you don’t need an expert to tell these retail giants why Australians are leaving them to shop online. The claim made by these retail giants is like they are crying foul over the foul they created. Furthermore, when did these people care about other people’s jobs when they are just importing products that are made in China, India and South East Asia? If they care about people’s jobs, then they should sell more Australian made products and promote them to the world. And a bit of research would tell you that Gerry Norman was the person who in 2008 said charity is a waste of money as they help people who don’t deserved to be helped – who are usually people at the lower end of the society.

With so much hypocrisy jetting out like venoms from the fangs of a rattle snake, no wonder there are backlashes from the society. I’m amazed that these people could even come out and make those claims and present themselves as saviours for the working class. To be honest, if they are willing to cut their million or even billion dollar pay checks by 10%, we can already get a lot of products from their shops at a cheaper price, but would they be willing to do so? So don’t blame the customers for deserting your stores cos what goes around comes around. You desert the Australian workforce to get goods from overseas; customers desert you to buy stuff from overseas directly. That’s the free global market you guys have been championing in the past. You can’t just come back and say that it is wrong now because you couldn’t add another million to your bank account.

Uncle Vanya

2010-11-14T14:09:00.000-08:00

Without a doubt Sydney Theatre Company’s “Uncle Vanya” is one of the most anticipated productions of the year. With a stellar cast such as Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Richard Roxburgh, John Bell and Jacki Weaver, it has a lot to live up to.

Sydney Theatre Company’s production of “Uncle Vanya” is a standard Chekov play with a non-standard touch. All the things you can expect from a Chekov play such as the condemnation of the landlords, the mocking of the intelligentsia, the disapproval of industrialisation, and the life of living in the middle of nothing were all echoing around the walls of the theatre in the 2.5 hour production. However, you no longer see the actors dressed in white standard “Chekov costumes” and walking around in certain posts. Gyoryi Szakacs, the costume designer had injected a heavy dose of naturalism into the costumes – they were worn out and sometimes unsophisticated yet they cry the parts out loudly. This twist of costume design fits in nicely with the superb class that delivered one of the most natural performances you saw on stage this year.

John Bell plays the returned “Celebrity Professor” Serebryakov who, as with some modern celebrities just created hell after hell for the rest of the people in the house. He completely upset the balance of time and habits of everyone and took his young second wife Yelena (Cate Blanchett) for granted. Richard Roxburgh plays the title role of Vanya who wasted most of his adult life for a mere return of profit for his hard work and had to endure a mother (Sandy Gore) who completely ignored his contributions but looked up to Serebryakov. The play opened with Jacki Weaver as the Nanny and Hugo Weaving as the battered doctor Astrov. The opening scene immediately delivered to the audience what a cast of top notch actors can do. The restlessness Hugo Weaving displayed was a sharp contrast to the reminiscing calmness that Jacki Weaver was delivering and yet they just melted together into one strong daily conversation. Cate Blanchett as the unsatisfied trophy wife was an obvious misfit to the rural setting. The immaculate locks on her hair and her tailored fit wardrobe distinguished her from the plain looking daughter Sonya (Hayley McElhinney) and paved way for future disruptions to this quiet and extremely boring country household. She became the drop of water that triggered a series of ripple effects for the pool. There were several scenes between Cate and individual cast members that were just a pleasure to watch. Richard Roxbourgh told the sad story of the title role with great precision and his break down scene in the second half was just a showcase of what a great actor can do when he is in a company of other great actors with a great script. Hayley McElhinney was a good choice for Sonya as she did exhibit the helpless plainness Chekov described in the play. However, sometimes her words lack the unbearable lightness of life that one would expect and this was particularly obvious in her closing monologue. Also at times I found the over deployment of head movements during conversation quite distracting.

Andrew Upton’s adaptation had modernised the language to make the material more approachable, although at times it is less poetic as it should be. However, given the setting is in a rural household (and most characters are supposed to be uneducated), this was not a serious problem. The set by Zsolt Khell was smart and made great use of the stage space. It first opens up to display an extensive space but then as the story progresses, it closes in further and further and created a suffocating space for all the characters – which directly reflects the stifling of these people because of the arrival of Serebryakov. However, also because of this sophistication in the set design, the audience needs to be prepared for some longish idle time when the set is changed on stage.

On the whole, “Uncle Vanya” represents a fine night of theatre for those who love classic text and great performances. If you are not a fan of Chekov you will still find the material angry and at times too tooth-aching. However, just having a chance to see a group of great actors working together is pure enjoyment that you will relish for the rest of the night.

Sex and the City 2

2010-11-05T03:27:00.001-07:00

Sex and the City defined a generation of TV. It didn’t come as a surprise that the producers decided to make a movie out of it, as it is already a trend in Hollywood, although the series is far from being old. When it comes to the second movie out of the same TV series with the same characters, what more can they pull out of the hat is really a question.

A lot of people didn’t like Sex and the City 2, thinking that it is politically incorrect and trying too hard to magnify issues that are not issues but for the sake of being a feminist movie that provides a voice for women. Being a man, I really have no idea about what a woman’s voice should be (or less I will not be still single) but I personally do think Sex and the City 2 did have a better structure and script than the first movie.

The first movie cramped the timeframe of a whole series into one movie – so time moves quickly to show the changes of these women’s life in one year. Did it work? It didn’t. The characters became shallow and underdeveloped and issues dealt with were like damped fireworks that didn’t go off at all. Also the fact that they were dealing with the same old issues as they did in the last 6 years didn’t really help at all.

In the second movie, the time is more compact, and there were more development for all the four main characters. The plot was more tightly knit together as compared to the first movie. And the most important part was that the characters grew through time. They are dealing with a whole new lot of issues that compliment their characters. Samantha trying to beat menopause, Charlotte’s fairy tale world being torn apart by her kids, Miranda’s mid-career crisis and Carrie’s incompetence of dealing with marriage. These are real issues that fit well into the world and age of these characters and personally I think they were dealt with greatly.

I don’t really remember any memorable scenes in the first movie except Charlotte’s mishap at the resort. However, in the second movie, there were good scenes after good scenes being written for the main characters. The scene between Miranda and Charlotte on motherhood was extremely well written and acted. It proved once again Cynthia Nixon is an acting powerhouse. Every single reaction and line that she delivered in that scene was just right to the point. Under her influence, even Kristin Davis stepped up from a mediocre happy housewife into someone with a lot more layers for the audience to explore. Another remarkable scene was Samantha under arrest with her glamourous and confident veil removed. Kim Catrall proved that why she is one of the most popular theatre actors around the world. There were moments there were no words but expressions, and you can still see where the character came from. Even for Sarah Jessica Parker, the scene between Carrie and Charlotte out at the hotel front arch provided a much-needed injection of believability for this character. And the good part of this scene is her realization of she thinks she knew everything but in fact she knew absolutely nothing was an absolute gem (as that was the core of that character throughout the years but never really articulated).

Yes there were moments of political incorrectness (and sometimes they didn’t really work) but what I don’t understand is for the same dose of political incorrectness, if they showed up in movies like Hot Tub Time Machine and Hang Over, they will be funny and alright. But it is not so for Sex and the City 2. The jokes they exhibited in the movie are no worse than many of the others, so whether the critics in this aspect judge Sex and the City 2 a lot harsher I don’t know. The interesting thing about Sex and the City 2 is that it is dealing with women’s mid-life crisis as compared to a whole lot of other movies dealing with man’s mid-life crisis. I think that these issues were dealt with in good humour and some of the writing was beautiful. As compared to the first movie, it has a lot more substance than being just a fans movie. Is it really as Miranda said, “people pretend that they are not threatened by strong women and strong voices but they were in fact scared by them?” That’s interesting to know.

Some people say that Sex and the City 2 should be the end of the franchise as it lacks relevance to the current society. I only agree partially. I don’t agree that it lacks relevance. It just deals with issues that people prefer to pretend that they are not relevant or tricked themselves into believing that they are not relevant. However, I do agree that the franchise should end at this point unless they have more interesting issues to talk about in the next movie. At this point, I think it does wrap up the characters nicely both character-wise and story-wise.

Personally, I think Sex and the City: The Movie was a low for the franchise but contrary to most, I believe Sex and the City 2 managed to lift the franchise up back where it should be – dealing with real people and real issues with a tint of humour.

Flight

2010-10-29T07:03:00.000-07:00

“Flight” is a play by Russian playwright Mikhail Bulgakov. The play sets in the years of turmoil at the end of the Civil War during which a group of people were tied together by fate while trying to survive the ordeal. It could also be seen as a semi-autobiography of part of the playwright’s own life.

This version is a NIDA second year production interpretation (with a cast of first year acting students as the crowd) of the play using the huge space provided by the Parade Theatre. A lot of value was put into this production. Apart from a huge cast, every detail from costume, make up, props and sets and even changing of stage were thoroughly thought through (and some of them pretty cool). The actions played out on a slanted wooden platform with two levels of radiating contours stretching out from the centre – a simple yet very versatile performance space. However, it is also because of this design that the stage was littered with traps. There were many times that actors miscalculated the height of the steps and tripped over or nearly lost balance during the actions. They masked the mistakes skillfully most of the time but after several stunts you will start to worry who will be the next victim of the stage.

This is a huge production with a huge cast. The deployment of the first year students as crowds and other ensemble characters gave them a chance to get involved and be seen. However, it is also because of the huge number of actors on stage that actually affect the delivery of the play and this is particularly obvious during the first half. Unlike musicals in which the chorus was usually tightly written into the production, for plays, when you deploy a huge cast of actors onto the stage, they have to serve a purpose. This is exactly what was lacking in this production. A lot of time these background actors were on the stage doing what they need to do but then they lack a purpose. For purpose I mean not only as backdrop but also what they are supposed to do as characters on the stage, how they are going to enrich the actions and tell the audience that they are essential in the scene. This is where this production fell short. Even worse was that at times they became distractions to the main actions of the leads and you can hardly concentrate on the main actions because there were so many other actors doing this and that all the time. This gave the audience a fragmented and shattered experience that nobody benefited from. The second half of play was a lot better as it focused on the main characters instead (or finally) and gave the audience a better experience or a chance to escape into the characters’ world. I am not saying that NIDA should not use that many actors, but they have to use them correctly. I remember when I saw “Jarabin” and “All in Good Timing”, they too had lots of actors on stage, but each actor was integrated in the whole production that you didn’t find them distracting or ruining your experience. So if NIDA wants to do a huge production like this one again in the future, that is one of things they have to look into and improve.

The main cast delivered a satisfactory but sometimes offbeat performance. Strangely enough, as a drama school that should be focusing strongly on stage acting, there were some real voice projection issues in this production. It could be because the space is huge, but I personally did not remember there were such issues with other similar performances, especially considering productions such as “The Plough and the Star” (with Ian Roberts), which only had a few actors throughout, didn’t have such issues. Neither did I remember that graduates from last year had such issues on their agent’s day performance. Apart from the crowd sometimes drowning out the main characters, or sometimes loud background music deafening your ears during the lines, there were times that when the actors were upstage, you could hardly hear them (and I was in the seventh row from the stage). And there were also times that you could just hear them mumbling their words with “lazy tones” (e.g. missing out consonants) that you needed to figure out the lines with the context. However, the actor who played Khludov (I think his name is Ross) was brilliant throughout. The journey he brought us through with his character was well executed and you could actually experience the journey with him. Also the actor who played Paramon was great too. The monologue on “the importance of a dollar” was so well done that you just couldn’t help but being blown away by his commitment to the character. The other actors were not bad actors (I’d seen them all in last year’s Chekov and Sonnets) but it seemed to me that the aforementioned voice issues really took out a lot from them. I was surprised as some of them were pretty good with lots of potential when I saw them as first years last year in their rehearsal room performances.

“Flight” was an above average production. It has great potentials but the issues mentioned above taxed out a lot from it. The play certainly got a lot better in the second half but as I saw tonight quite a number of the audience left during the intermission (one of them in my group left too). However, I personally would recommend those who go to see it to stay and soldier on, as the second half is really where you see great actions playing out on the stage. Also, the high production value that was put into this play would make your money worth. At the end of the day it is after all not an average amateur production. However, if NIDA want to put on similar scale productions in the future, issues mentioned above must be rectified to make them more enjoyable.

Resident Evil: Afterlife

2010-10-27T14:40:00.000-07:00

There aren’t a lot of butt kicking heroines in the movies, Alice from the Resident Evil franchise is one of them. Created as a fictional character in which the first movie followed loosely the Resident Evil (or Biohazard in some regions) video game franchise about the T-virus transforming humans into the undead once bitten, Alice has been kicking butts and seeking revenge on the Umbrella Corporation that started the nightmare for the human race.

In the fourth instalment, Alice is fighting back again big time and reunited with some familiar faces that saw her through thick and thin in the previous instalments. The last movie, Resident Evil: Extinction was a disappointment for me as it [spoiler alert!] killed off one of my favourite characters in the movies franchise (although that character was quite annoying in the video games) and the tension was just not there. Also the abuse of certain characters in the video games translated into the movie didn’t really help either. So I was having quite a bit of reservation when I went into the theatre to watch Afterlife. Fortunately, Paul W S Anderson seemed to take notice of the flaws in the last movie and tried to make things right again with this one.

The movie set in LA that was already transformed into a zombie capital in which a small bunch of survivors tried to stay alive long enough to go to Arcadia, originally thought as a save haven in Alaska but turned out to be a travelling cargo ship picking up infection free survivors. Alice (Milla Jovovich) has reunited with Claire Redfield (Ali Larter) on her search for Arcadia and together they went to LA to search for survivors where Claire was reunited with his brother Chris (Wentworth Miller). The movie then played out as a survival horror as they battled to get out of LA and board Arcadia.

As with the other instalments in the franchise, the main characters are strong headed and they were help by a cast of disposable characters to ensure their survival. Performance wise, the three leads were up to their job and Milla as Alice has already established herself outside the video game franchise as the spokeswoman for Resident Evil on the big screen. Ali and Wenthworth as Claire and Chris Redfield actually provided a surprisingly great chemistry that really brought these two characters from the video games’ fame to real life (I didn’t like Claire in Extinction). The scene between them and Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts) was great and it did temporarily steal the limelight from Alice (especially when they threw in lines from the original video games). For all the other characters, they served the purpose of their roles in the film and they fulfilled their duties as they should.
Resident Evil: Afterlife is based on a video game, so it is an order to have the influence of the video games to satisfy fans. This is one of the weaker aspects in Extinction but in Afterlife, that was also redeemed. The movie was littered with homages to Resident Evil 2, Resident Evil: Code Veronica, Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5. The fact that now the plagas in Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5 had taken a more centre stage has modernised the zombie franchise to a different level as the games are now more than just zombies. The Executioner from Resident Evil 5 was just a pleasure to watch and his fighting scene with Alice and Claire was strongly influenced by Code Veronica. The movie also has a number of jumping moments that keeps you going like the game, which is nice.

Resident Evil: Afterlife is not your average horror movie. It is actually not a horror movie as actions have taken centre stage when it was translated to the silver screen. However, it is still extremely enjoyable if you are looking for an entertaining action movie with enemies running around stupidly in hordes and getting their body parts blown off by magnums and machine guns. The gore meter is not that high in Afterlife to be honest but they are more stylised, which I personally preferred. There are still scenes that didn’t really make sense but then making sense out of everything is not what the Resident Evil movie franchise best known for. Further with all your favourites from the video game franchise (protagonists, villains and enemies alike), it should be a cool night out with friends in the cinema.

Toy Story 3

2010-06-29T15:27:00.000-07:00

When I first saw the trailer for Toy Story 3, I was excited and sceptical at the same time. I was excited because it is my favourite Pixar movie franchise and sceptical because…well…you can see that from Shrek. The move of Toy Story 3 to 3D worried me even further as I thought do they need to do the Avatar gimmick (which I don’t think is a great movie anyway) to sell a well established franchise and its characters?

I went into the theatre, all worried and then 5 minutes into the movie I was completely blown away by the creativity and rich story that Pixar managed to create with our favourite characters. Toy Story 3 is about toys but it is not something that Pixar just toyed around to make another buck. It is about toys growing up with their owners and facing their own dilemmas and crisis in an innocent and “toyish” way. It is not just a kid’s movie as there are scenes that are so moving that even if you are a bloke you might want to bring a pack of tissue with you before you go into the theatre.

Toy Story 3 happens around 5 or 6 years after the second movie. Now Andy is all grown up into his late teens and going to the college. He and his family are facing the fact that the boy is all grown up and leaving home for a bigger world – and so are his toys. On the way to this part of the story, the toys have already lost some of their comrades to yard sales and “voluntary” disappearances (from those who move on to find new owners themselves). The remaining toys are the ones that Andy dearly loves and refuses to give away but keep them inside a chest in his room. The fact that Andy is moving out and clearing his room really caused a lot of anxiety for the toys and they are looking for resolution in their lives. The story just unfolds from this point onward.

Sounds familiar? Yes this is the phase that every grown up like us faced in our lives – what are we going to do with the toys that we once treasured but not as highly “regarded” by our parents? We all went through the heartache of watching our favourite toys being given away or being sold at yard sales. It is not a matter of we clinging ourselves to our childhood but it does feel like part of ourselves being torn away from us when this happens. This is an excellent territory that Toy Story 3 treaded into for Pixar created something so special that both adults and kids alike will enjoy.

Throughout the last 15 years, computer animation technology has improved a lot. When we look back at the first Andy showed in Toy Story, he was like a potato face with limited expression and human characters were largely avoided because of the technological limitations. Toy Story 3 exhibits a masterpiece that shows you – and all other movie makers – that technology advancement have to go hand in hand with rich storytelling to make a great movie. Late teen Andy is full of expressions and the details Pixar put in to tell the story about Andy and his toys growing up was so spectacular that they can rival real life actors’ performance. The voice over by great actors like Tom Hanks and Tim Allen without a doubt helped a lot to bring these characters to life.

Another great thing about Toy Story 3 is that after 15 years and with so many outings, Pixar still managed to deliver a creative movie that keeps on surprising you. The opening scene was breathtaking, creative and hilarious. The story between Barbie and Ken really took the movie by storm and sometimes sidelined Woody and Buzz. The lines given to Barbie and Ken will continued to ring inside your head long after the movie is finished. The innovative use of the detachable parts of Mr and Mrs Potato Heads just made you wonder “how did Pixar manage to continue to come up with such brilliant ideas after all these years?” Also the inclusion of Hayao Miyazaki’s Totoro and stayed true to that character really makes you appreciate the inclusive nature of the world Toy Story 3 created.

Toy Story 3 is not just another animation. It is a celebration of technology, character and rich story telling. I will highly recommend anyone who wants a good cinema experience to go and watch it. And for all the blokes, seriously, remember to bring a pack of tissue with you or ask for serviettes from the candy bar before you go in.

Oresteia

2010-06-06T21:29:00.000-07:00

Greek tragedies are hard to tackle, especially in modern days. Sydney Theatre Company’s production of Oresteia is another bold attempt in its 2010 season. The results? On the night that I went, 1/5 of the audience left during the intermission.

The problem to me doesn’t seem to be in the text and in fact I think the text is well adapted by Tom Wright. But the whole production and experience was so disconnected that you sometimes do wonder what on earth is happening on stage? The play reminded me heavily of a segment in “War of the Roses” – lots of powder spraying and fake blood spilling – for no reasons apart from the apparent killing of certain characters. That use of these visual aids didn’t disturb me, but annoyed me when you got such an overdose for no apparent reasons.

I digressed. Back to the play. It is the story after Troy was destroyed at a time when Argos was trapped in time and space wondering what happened. The women of Agamemnon waited for the return of their king for different reasons. And the story unfolds to tell a tale of family curses and revenge – in Greek tragedy style. The play was modernised with characters entering and leaving in one of the three elevators, which is quite smart. But the smartness ended here.

The opening monologue started off well and then descended into a series of disjointed and unconnected words from the actor that you would lose your concentration and stared into the space like the actor did. The same actor continued with unstable performance throughout the whole play and as a key narrator / character, it really disintegrated the binding elements that are essential to keep the play together. As a result you feel like the actors are just doing each of their own thing. There seemed to be no communications among the characters despite the fact that conversations were being carried out.

Then it comes the chanting…and lots of them. What were they chanting for? There were times they were justified but there were other times you just kept wondering and wondering and they stopped and suddenly turned into dialogues and monologues that weren’t necessarily related to the chanting at all. I know art is abstract but the degree of abstractness exhibited in this production completely fell short to its story telling.

Having said that, there were some really good performances from the actors who actually “got it”. Tahki Saul and Zindzi Okenyo were the stand outs in the whole production. They nailed their monologues and lines perfectly and delivered performances that inhabit their characters completely. However, their presence on the stage was not long enough and it moved back to absurdity once they were off stage. The actor who played Queen Clytemnestra was not bad either with a good range of emotion displayed rightfully at right places. The other actors did a fair to average job but the disappointment was Ursula Mills whom I felt she sometimes really had no idea what the words coming out of her mouth meant, and with only facial expressions of 4, 6 and 7 and gestures 9 and 11 to play with during the whole 2.5 hour, it is really a stamina test for the audience.

Oresteia is an ambitious production that was disintegrated by its own ambition. It is over-stylised and underperformed. I was not surprised that half of the row in front of me was gone when I returned to the audience that night as all three of the other persons in the audience I happened to chat with during the intermission also disappeared from their seats in the far left. In my opinion, if you want to over stylised a production, first you need to get the actors to understand the text completely and this is definitely not the case in Oresteia. And man God forbid we waste milk as they did – there are people starving in other parts of the world you know? If you have spare money and time, I think you might get more out of your money by having a sip at the Wharf Bar.

Viva La Bieber

2010-04-27T02:05:00.001-07:00

Modern media never failed to amuse us. After a year of going Gaga the world is hit by the storm of Bieber. Justin Bieber a teenage boy who just turned 16 with a voice hardly broken at all has raided the world with his cheeky smile, capturing the hearts of teenage girls.

The power of teenage girls is scary…really scary. From the wrath of “Twilight” to Justin Bieber, it just devoured and demolished everything on its way. In the case of Bieber, it happened last November in New York, and happened again yesterday in Sydney. Functions were cancelled because the crowd eventually proved to be too dangerous for the function to even start.

However what shocked me was the fact that parents were allowing their daughters of age 13 or so to go the city and sleep in public places overnight for their star chasing. Now we’d all been teenagers, but is the way teenagers, in this case teenage girls, behaving going to far? They are endangering themselves in the city, and some from interstate, to get a prime position for a function to be held 12 hours or so later. They even refused to listen to security’s advice to move back to the safe zone and broke into chaos. Now where are the parents of these teenage girls? Were they just happily having beacon and egg at home watching TV to see whether their 13-year-old daughters managed to get a front row seat? In a city where you can’t drink before 18 and can’t drive before 16, it is really appalling that 13 year girls were allowed to sleep in public places unsupervised overnight when it is supposed to be a school day. What is wrong with the parents of these girls?

Some advocates talk about can’t discipline our kids because that will make them dumb or hurt their pride when they grow up. So is this the result we got from discipline free parenting in this country? Or nowadays a lot of parents just don’t know how to teach or educate their kids about common sense?

I was at the Fox Studios enjoying a nice warm afternoon in a restaurant with a few other customers yesterday. There were some families there and of course you will expect to have screaming babies. I personally don’t like babies in restaurants but then they are too small to know anything and their parents do need to eat. Then in came a group with two 5-year-old girls. The moment they walked in, the girls started running around spitting on tables while their snobbish parents and friends were criticising seat arrangements in the restaurant. During the whole process they did not even attempt to stop the kids from spitting around. Customers around were appalled by what the kids were doing. One of the waitresses asked the kids to stop and the parents immediately shot her a stare. Eventually the restaurant moved tables around to accommodate them. Then they started criticising the menu while the mother called the girls to the table. Instead of asking them not to do that again, she praised the cuteness for their behaviours and wiped the remaining saliva around their lips. The poor waiting staff had to go around cleaning up tables again while enduring the criticisms from their parents. During the whole process there were no words of apologies for the girls behaviours. Instead the girls were praised for their behaviours.

I don’t know what these girls will grow up to be but judging from their parents, they will probably provide new force for the outrageous girl power we witnessed from the Bieber madness these two days. Whether they are doing the right thing, I don’t think their parents give a damn for whatever they are doing they will always be praised.

I don’t want to sound too biased about the whole thing but when we are living in a society with more and more teenage problems, who should be responsible? In my opinion it’s nobody else but the parents. If the Government or academics continue to call for non-disciplining of kids and regard it as bullying behaviours or irresponsible parenting, then do not complain about all the teenage problems we are having now. I am not saying that we should turn a blind eye to child abuse. In fact I am completely against it, but nowadays it seems that we are basically ruling by exception instead of for the good of the general mass.

Whose Business is this?

2010-03-29T15:10:00.000-07:00

One of the latest news in the Hong Kong media in the last few days is the “covered up” marriage and divorce of two well known artists. The guy is the second generation of a token music family and the girl is from the super Hong Kong girl group Twins. It has been rumoured for quite a while that they were going out but when someone leaked the information that they were actually married for 4 years and currently in the middle of a divorce, the Hong Kong media completely exploded. Eventually under the pressure of the media and with all the different “versions” of the story, they called a press conference and explained themselves. This is the second time that the Hong Kong media condemned artists for not telling them their marital status and being dishonest to them. Last year it was another super star Andy Lau who got stung by them – at the funeral of his father-in-law.

As a communication graduate who was taught to be a responsible journalist, I can never understand this fuss. I have accepted the fact that nowadays a lot of so called journalists are really not journalists. They are story writers who just write whatever in fashion for them without actually accepting their liability for what they wrote. Journalism is all about selling copies and getting rating today instead of providing a factual and neutral view for readers or audience to judge. I have accepted that. But calling artists liars because they didn’t disclose certain private information to you and then gang up against them, condemning them days after days and weeks after weeks? I am totally baffled by these “journalist” behaviours nowadays.

Certainly they are in a very public business. Entertainment business earns big money from the public. But that doesn’t mean that they have to surrender every single piece of information about them to everyone. A lot of times people said that “you do this business, you accept the consequence”. That is total crap to me as for my understanding; you are responsible to your employers not the general public. If the general public wants to put you on a pedestal, it should not be certain artist’s responsibility to live up to their expectations – especially about their private lives. They can be condemned of being liars if they front an anti-drug campaign but they are junkies themselves. But why is it that whether someone is married or not anyone else’s business?

For me, the most annoying part of this saga is that neither one of them had ever talked about their relationship in the public but then now being crucified for “not talking”. In a recent interview, the girl from Twins even said that she just didn’t talk about things. Whether it’s true or not she knows or if other people know then that’s fine. She doesn’t want to say yes or no to things to feed unnecessary media frenzies. Similarly, the guy had never admitted or denied anything about their “rumoured relationship” in the past 6 years. So calling them liars and condemning them of dishonesty is really beyond my comprehension. Further, if that traitor in their social circle didn’t leak the information to the press, nobody would have even known that ever happened. So why does it matter when it isn’t something that matters to begin with? Is it because the media itself is angry with them because their marriage managed to sneak under their radar for that long? So is this their way of getting back to them and “teach them a lesson”?

The most amusing part of this saga is that they condemn the artists about dishonesty but at the same time composed new stories about things as if suddenly they were sleeping under their bed in the last 4 years. Now I really want to know who the bigger liar here is – the artists who wanted to keep their marriage to themselves or people who wrote untrue stories to sell copies. This kind of blatant and shameless double standard really put me off the Hong Kong media in the recent years. If there is a stone to cast and someone cast the first stone, it is still fine. But in this case, there is no stone to cast at all, but they built a boulder to roll over and knock down others – that’s not on!

I am saying this not because I like those two artists. And to be honest, I am never a fan to either of them. But I just couldn’t believe that the Hong Kong media has gone to that low in their practices while at the same time waving the moral flag in the air calling foul. It is not surprising that a lot of established Hong Kong artists like Maggie Cheung and Faye Wong nowadays prefer to live overseas or away from Hong Kong and just go back to work if they feel like to. Just that magnitude of media intrusion and “judgment” is enough a reason for them to stay away as much as possible.

I know the current frenzy will die away as soon as the Hong Kong media found new targets and move on. But I just really feel for this couple that they even couldn’t grieve their marriage breakdown privately and being pressured to become “responsible” to something that is nobody else but their own business.

Sex, Lies and a Father Figure?

2010-03-25T20:13:00.001-07:00

It seems that these days we are facing scandals after scandals of prominent people in the media. First we have the undying saga of “the tiger living in the woods”, then we have “a cheating husband of a Hollywood darling and Oscar winner”, and now it is the “husband of a prominent acting agent and a lovable father figure in Australia”.

Now if all these people ever want to live a life as just another human being, they successfully did it – as they could have committed a sin as every other human being could commit on Earth. For Mr Wood and Mr James, they were involved with adults – not that their adulterous actions are correct or justifiable, but at least they are consenting adults. How messy they got, adults are dealing with adults. What distressed me most is the allegation of two powerful personalities – one leading actor and one major producer – trying to execute and cover up evil deeds against children worked on set. I don’t want to jump into conclusion that Robert Hughes is guilty as there is yet a trial on that. But I really dislike people taking advantage on helpless people and exercise their power to a magnitude that it helped to “conspire” and “perpetuate” such evil acts.

Everyone in the acting business knows that this is a tough business. Every time we got a job, we want to do our best to keep it (well maybe not all but most of us). So when a 6 year old who is on the set earning bread and butter for her family was experiencing such horrible thing, what could she do? According to the information she eventually sought help and advice from an elder cast member who was eventually told to shut up or “risk not working in the country anymore”. Now what interested me was why did that producer do that? Is it also just to keep the show running so he could earn a lot more out of it? If that’s so and if it was proved that the allegations are correct, the media industry should unite against this producer and throw him out of business too as he is equally guilty.

Another thing that kept me thinking was that if according to all the actors who came out to talk about this that Hughes’ behaviour is well known throughout the industry, why didn’t his wife know and take actions? As one of the most prominent agents of the country, surely there would be wind blowing pass her letting her know about this. So how could that kind of behaviour continued for so many years behind her back? I am not saying she had a part or she allowed this to happen, but then if she really didn’t know about all these, people surely had kept her in the dark very well. I could only feel sorry for her.

At this point it is really difficult for us to make judgement as there is no real judgement unless the case is officially filed and a trial is officially carried out. However, in due time hopefully the truth will come out as I do think that with such allegations, Hughes does have the responsibility to let the society know the truth because as I said, this is not private fun between two consenting adults behind his wife’s back but the exercise of power one a helpless kid in a wrongful manner. How many more people will come out and make further allegations is still unknown but I think not only for us but for just for human conscience, actions have to be taken. And should the truth prove Hughes is guilty, as I said earlier, the producer in question should be hung too.

As for all of us, as my friend said in his blog, if you are in the acting business or media industry and experienced harassment of such magnitude, do not hesitate to report it to the union: http://www.alliance.org.au/ as the more we tolerate such behaviour, the messier and more unprofessional the business becomes. Hopefully, bit by bit we can clear out the cancer cells in the industry and people who deserve to work will get work and not a bunch of conspiring evil wankers.

How Sweet is Short+Sweet?

2010-03-06T02:22:00.000-08:00

Been having a blast attending different shows at this year’s Short+Sweet. For those who don’t know what Short+Sweet is, it is the world’s largest short play festival. All plays are strictly limited to 10 minutes and it is also a competition among participants to see who put on the best play of the year. Short+Sweet has been around for 9 years and is going from strength to strength. Maybe one day it will become like Tropfest, something that attracts more and more international attention (at the time of writing, Short+Sweet is already starting up in Singapore, Malaysia and New Zealand).

I’ve never been in any Short+Sweet production but in the last two years got involved as one of the adjudicators. Still remember how flattered I was when I got the invitation. Many people asked me how come I got to be an adjudicator when I’ve never been involved in any production. Well not to blow my own horn, I do have a formal qualification in Theatre and am a fully trained dramaturg (though not many theatre companies can afford to employ us). But this is not about me it’s about all the people who bleed and sweated to put the festival together. Alex Broun has been at the helm as an artistic director the last few years and with him and Mark Clearly, the scale of Short+Sweet was just ever expanding.

Going to Short+Sweet is like going to a restaurant that provides only set menus according to the ingredients available on the day. So you are really in for some surprises from time to time. One week it could be really short and sweet, while some others they could be “Short+Missed”. Productions that managed to squeeze into the main program will usually be staged for a week. Audience will vote for their favourite play of the night and the judges will rank the plays according to (for me) writing, staging, direction and performance. Productions that got into the Wild Card sessions are more like in a sudden death judgement situation – one performance to determine whether they can enter the second round and thus from the second round to the Final Gala.

I had a great time judging on Short+Sweet. It is good to see so many people writing and putting themselves out there. However with the massive number of productions squeezed into around 8 weeks, you bound to have disappointments from time to time. For me disappointments can come in several ways:

Writing:

Mediocre and generic writing is one of the deadly sins in Short+Sweet. Sometimes you felt you have seen it all and the dialogues are as tasteless as filtered water. At times you will get plays that swore their heads off throughout the whole 10 minutes, and even after that you still don’t know why they needed to swear. I know this is Australia but do Australians just swear that much for the sake of swearing? I remember this year there was a production that uses the “c” word repeatedly. I am not against swearing or the “c” word specifically but then my company and I were looking at each other wondering what were they doing?

Staging and Directions:

This year I have seen a lot of productions using an extremely boring approach in terms of staging and directions. This is not limited to Short+Sweet but also to some amateur theatre productions. The most commonly seen approach is to just have people walking across the stage again and again for the sake of using the stage space. However, because they are walking to and fro that much, you just got distracted because you couldn’t figure out why they were doing so. Staging doesn’t necessarily means you have to use all the space available – use it only if it enriches your story telling. I remember in one of the productions this year, the two ladies were just using a small stage front area next to a double deck trolley most of the time and it worked extremely well. The other well-staged production involved placing the actors symmetrically on the stage. They only move out of their space when they needed to interact or when it was required to move the story forward. That was a pleasure to watch. However, there were quite a number of productions where they just have actors running around on the stage “doing their stuff” and after 10 minutes you felt more exhausted than they did.

Performance:

One of the common issues I found in Short+Sweet performances is the actors’ voice. Being a voice student for over 3 years now made me really pay attention to what came out of actors’ mouths. I remember in one of the productions, there were four actors. Two of them were spectacular but the other two were just awful whenever they opened their mouth. The words came out were mostly inaudible and one of them spoke so quickly that you just felt like popcorns were coming out of her mouth. There was another production where there were non-English speaking actors delivering lines in English. However, they were so heavily accented that it was quite difficult to understand what they were saying. Being someone from a non-English speaking background I know how difficult it is, but then when it comes to performing life, this is really something that need to be addressed – seriously. There were other productions that even when I was sitting on the second or fourth row, I couldn’t hear a word from the actors. Now I am not saying they need to yell cause I hate people just yelling for no reason and I’d seen too much of them on Australian stage and screen already. But clear articulation and projection are essential for all stage performers and I don’t think that is something a stage actor can get away with. To cite a good performance this year is the girl who was in the play about ranting. Her projection and articulations were clear but she managed to put so many dimensions and layers into the ranting that it was just enjoyable.

The Short+Sweet Final Gala will be held on 12 and 13 March this year and unfortunately I won’t be able to attend. But I am sure the program will be a wonderful and entertaining. It sounds like I am very critical when it comes to judging but I do think as a member of the local theatre and acting scene, I do need to be critical about our work so we can make improve each time. I enjoyed most of the program this year and there were certainly some really good stuff among them. So if you have missed Short+Sweet this year, remember to mark your calendar for next year’s festival. After all what is better than a night of aspiring theatre?

Spring Awakening

2010-02-20T19:42:00.000-08:00

Spring Awakening is based on a play written in 1891 about the transition of adolescence to adulthood. The exploration of life goals, love, sexuality and all other things that the grown up world refused to discuss with their kids apart from issuing orders after orders. It has a strong sense of breaking through the cocoon of adolescence and thus the use of rock music throughout the whole production completely reflected this dying urge of the main cast. The opening song laid the foundation of the whole story in a mellow, desperate but sweet song. As the story progressed, you just got hooked to how such an ill trained bunch of kids reacted to all the catastrophes of adulthood they experienced.

The Sydney Theatre Company (STC) production commands a huge young cast together will well trained actors. The result is a refreshing production that is probably not to everyone’s taste. On the Saturday night that I attended, I was surrounded by a huge token STC patron group – Anglo middle to upper class baby boomers (as you can tell from their high end fashion and lack of command with their bunch of newly purchased iPhones and Blackberries). After the first act and the intermission, some of them disappeared. The remaining ones were talking about they had no idea what’s happening and wondered what’s with the rock music and hysteric performance of the cast. Of course the only reason the ones left were still there because “they paid for the ticket, might as well sit through it”.

If you judge by their reactions, you would probably think that it is a bad production. In fact it is not. What amused me was that their reactions were exactly the way the adult characters in the musical behaved throughout the whole story – they couldn’t understand and couldn’t be bothered to try to understand. “We have kids so we deal with them in a way we understand ourselves”. I am not saying the adults were portrayed as bad guys, they were just good guys with bad reactions to the events in the story. They couldn’t help it because that’s what they knew best and they had to stick with them to make things work for them.

The story has its setting in a small community with two groups of teenagers – one from an all boys school and the other from all girls school – trying to grow up and find out what it is about life and their position in the world. Heading these two groups were our three leads – Melchior (Andrew Hazzard), Moritz (Akos Armont) and Wendla (Clare Brown). As they experienced their own torment of growing up, they also confronted the mis-happenings and issues of their friends. The cast gave an electrifying performance as the growing teenagers, with most of them playing to their ages. The energy level was high and they performed professionally with some of the more daring and challenging scenes on stage. The singing and dancing looked quite demanding especially when the stage has quite limited space for them to manoeuvre around and it was slanting downward at an angle on the stage front. The numbers were well sung most of the time although at times you do hear broken notes – not that they were not reached, just not crisp enough. But all the ensemble numbers were so well done that they made you want to move along with them. Overall the cast gave a very good performance that kept your rhythm pumping.

Set design wise, it comprises of a huge mobile wooden and metal structure with lots of ladders. So as you would expect, there were a lot of climbing – and I mean a lot – and some of them were done in the dark. Even certain stage exits were above the stage level so actors did have to climb to exit stage. I am sure the stage design passed the OH&S check but you sometimes do sweat for the actors when they did have to climb the ladders quickly to exit from the scene. Lighting was used very smartly to help the structure to reflect different areas or scenarios in the community. They also helped to command some of the more confronting moments in the story.

The score is mainly rock music with a lot of ear catching tunes for the younger generation. So do not expect the more operatic style of singing and songs as exhibited in Phantom of the Opera. As mentioned before, the style of song did match with the theme of the musical perfectly and in fact it will be awkward to replace it with another style. There were some demanding moments, such as one of Moritz arias and considering that most songs were done together with a lot of electrical shot like and vigorous dance moves, they were a lot more demanding than they looked. The live band on stage behind the main stage area delivered a very moving score throughout the whole performance and it was great to see them on stage at the curtain call as without them the story wouldn’t be told in the way it was meant to be.

In all “Spring Awakening” is really a good night out and the production value was very high. STC has to be commended for putting on something different and more in touch with modern theatre and stage instead of sticking to the old school programmes that people had seen for x-trillion times.

iPad: Stud or Dud?

2010-01-28T13:26:00.000-08:00

Without a doubt the latest media frenzy is the unveiling of the Apple iPad. Apple had already proved that they can turn ideas into great products with mass appeal. With the first revamp and resurgent of the Mac series computer to MacBook, iPod and eventually iPhone, Apple has gone from strength to strength. But could iPad break into a new market or create a new market? Let us take a closer look at the device.

There is no doubt that iPad is sleeky designed product to fit the bill of image conscious consumers. It looks like an upsize iPad but with the high portability offered by its distant cousin the MacBook Air in terms of its feather weight. The light weight means mobility without testing your body’s endurance, as compared to a lot of other netbooks and notebooks. The glossy touch surface and 9.7 inch screen offers a great visual touch interface that helped made iPhone a household name. Every aspect of its design seems to be flawless.

Software-wise, iPad can run all applications from the Apple Apps store as long as they are designed for iPhone. So now you can play iPhone games on a bigger screen and hopefully with more clarity with the polygons displayed on screen. It adopts the same accelerator and gameplay mechanism like iPhone, so you will be at home with it. The new introduction though is the iBook function. It is very obvious that Apple is keen to compete in the eBook market, which is growing quite steadily in recent years. Amazon’s Kindle is the current market leader with other companies like Sony also providing similar devices. The major difference of iBook from Kindle is that it provides a more beautiful screen on a simulation interface i.e. you flip the virtual pages (finished with a virtual page turning tone). 5 major publishers are already on board and Apple is keen to become the market leader as Steve Jobs said, “we are riding on the shoulders of Amazon’s success”. However, as enticing as it looks, iBook store is only available to the States at this point, so it will be less of a credible function to early adopters in other regions. iPad also supports the latest version of iWork from Apple. iWork is basically Apple’s struggling answer to MS Office. So it seems obvious that Apple is betting on iPad to popularise its own office applications. iWork itself is a nice bundle of software but for people who are actually using MS Office on Mac there seems to be little reason to shift over as there are still a number of compatibility issues of file formats between the two. Another major drawback is that despite you can browse the Internet with iPad, it doesn’t support Adobe Flash. That’s something really beyond comprehension as why would Apple not support something that is regarded as standard in the field? Boil down to this then it seems that iPad is just a bigger version of iPod Touch without a lot of new stuff to offer.

On the hardware side of things, iPad really didn’t offer much. It didn’t have a camera as iPhone does, it lacks USB ports that you can transfer files over (unless iPad can automatically synchronise with your Mac wirelessly), it doesn’t have a DVD drive so you can only watch things from your iTune collection (if you have one). I heard that you can dock the device on a separate keyboard instead of using the touch onscreen keyboard, but then to do that Apple will charge you separately. All these in fact will limit the appeal of the device as file transfer and synchronisation is no longer user friendly. Just imagine that you find something interesting, you have to use the iPhone (if you have one) to take the picture and then transfer it over to the iPad wirelessly in order to look at it on a big screen. Would majority of consumers do that? Previous Apple devices thrived on their easy to use interfaces. But now with such a clumsy set up, could iPad still appeal to their customers?

Function wise, Jobs said it is better than notebooks and netbooks. However, iPad actually has a lot less function than those devices as you cannot install software onto the iPad as you do with your netbooks and notebooks. That makes it a lot less versatile in terms of functionality. Maybe Apple didn’t want to create something that competes with its MacBook series, but then Job’s statement will be just comparing apples with oranges, which is quite misleading for the audience. If iPad is just an upsized iPod Touch with an eBook reader, its fate really depends on whether eBook is going to take off for Apple. For people who already have a Kindle and an iPhone, the appeal of iPad quickly diminishes unless they just want everything Apple. However, even so, the incompatibility of both eBook formats mean that people will need to spend a fortune of re-establishing their eBook collection on iPad, provided the iBook store actually holds those titles. Further, I am really sceptical about whether consumers who already have an iPhone would want to carry an additional device around with similar if not less functionality.

At this point iPad hasn’t really shown that it is a real winner yet. With all the issues that Apple may need to address eventually, iPad’s uptake could still be just restricted to hardcore Apple fans. It could become an alternative to netbooks or notebooks only if it can sync with Apple’s MacBooks, making it a must have on-the-go partner for both work and leisure. But even that it will mean consumers will have to be locked in to Apple products and no more. So it comes back to the question of apart from Apple fanboys, where is the market? The current fanfare and fireworks for iPad in the media are really merely fanfare and fireworks. The main issue here is: would iPad be a sustainable product after the initial thunder? Or it will just quietly go back to the back seat like MacBook Air?

Australian Ads - are they really value adding?

2010-01-11T01:31:00.000-08:00

Was walking along the main street earlier today. A bus stopped by at the lights. I looked over. On the side of the bus it wrote: “It can take 400 tons of food in one day. That’s a busload of kids!” The ad was then signed off by The Australian Wild Life Park in the city.

Now no offence, but when did kids became food equivalent for Jurassic leftovers and also, when did people start thinking that “Let’s attract kids to come and see it because it can eat busloads of them!” I find it absurd that an ad that is supposed to attract kids to go to the Wild Life Park actually uses wordings against the same target group. Or maybe the current generation of kids has now evolved into a state that they find things that will potentially cost their lives a lot more intriguing and just telling them what they are?

Been talking about how badly designed a lot of Australian ads are for many years and we still haven’t seen any improvements in the ads that ambush us everyday asking for our attention. I liked the program “The Gruen Transfer” on ABC, but then the focus of that program is more about the fun side of advertising. What I am more interested is “Why the hell would the creators think that certain certain ads will actually sell the products?”

One of the most commonly used themes in Australian ads is SEX. I have to put that word on caps lock because those ads scream sex in such a loud way that you sometimes forgot what they were trying to sell. I mean from ads about that particular “Nasal Delivery Technology” to NSW Government’s no-speeding public announcement, sex is everything and everywhere. The funny thing about that no-speeding public announcement was that they focus on guys who speed, so “Nobody thinks big of you”, of course referring to their sacred temple of genitalia. Now may I remind our constantly shuffling NSW Government that not only guys speed. If they have actually done their homework, they would know that there are quite a proportion of female drivers who speed. I do know a girl who lost her license in the first year after she got it just because of speeding alone. I don’t know whether females think that a big vagina is a good thing or not, but if they actually prefer a smaller and more delicate genitalia, then maybe this is an encouragement for female drivers to speed so they can keep down there “small” and tight – as that’s the way the man eater Samantha Jones preferred.

Also, if you are lucky to be home between 4.30pm and 6.30pm in Australia, I will recommend you to turn down the volume of your TV or surround sound system. This is the time when all the yelling ads are shown. I lost my memories of these ads completely until I live in Sydney. I was stunned by the frequency of these “COME BUY BUY BUY WE ARE 30% CHEAPER THAN HELL!” on the Australian TV. Yeah certainly when Sydney is less densely populated and the suburb is quieter, this will work or maybe these ads did sound like music in the air. But in modern Sydney where more people are packed up like sardines in apartment blocks, certainly we can give this format of advertising a miss right? What good to the world will these yelling do? They completely turn me off going to those shops and at the same time adds to the carbon footprint of my TV because it has to use more electricity to deliver these thunderous messages.

Adding to these are some of those “What the” ads. Ads that even after they are finished, you still don’t really know what they are trying to sell. Or the revelation came in a way that they prompt you to go back to the universities to obtain a PhD and still couldn’t understand the relationship between the ads and the products. One of the classic ones I remember was and ad about a young couple making out in a wheat field (yes SSSSEEEEEEXXXXX!) and during the process the girl took a jar of honey and put the honey on the guy, first bit by bit and then more and more and eventually pouring the whole jar on him. At the end of the ad, it said something like “no taste is enough” with an ending scene of Honey Soy Chicken chips. I remember when I first saw the ad in the cinema, I turned around to my friend and said “What the?” and then around me were people laughing and saying “That’s such a stupid ad!” Yes! We are all surrounded by these ads day in day out. Sometimes watching these ads are so exhausting that you just want to turn the TV off or leave the cinema until the real feature is on.

The other much talked about ad was the Commonwealth Bank ones. Now I never like that bank but then I won’t mind them putting some decent ads on to entice people like me who left them because of their bad services. Anyway, there was a series of ads that at the beginning they put on a mock up big budget “Raiders of the Lost Ark” kind of main feature (there are several versions of that too) and at the end, it cut to the boardroom showing an advertising company trying to sell the idea to the Bank for a campaign. One of the Board Members said, “Why don’t we just tell them?” Now as “ingenious” as it looks, my reaction was exactly: “why don’t you actually tell me what services you are selling instead of an empty ad like that?” Yeah we sure remember the ad, but did it add kudos point to the Bank? No.

It seems like I have lots of complaints about Australian ads. To be fair, not all ads are bad. I quite like the skim yogurt ad about taking in calories because of careless eating and you don’t have a choice of where it goes. The actors surely did a great job because every time I saw that ad, it still puts a smile on my face.

However, is the once in a blue moon kind of good ad enough to salvage this raging sea of bad advertising? Sure there are some really creative and talented people out there, so what were they doing that eventually flooded the market with corpses of bad advertising? Even worse is that some recycled ads from overseas that were made (and I saw) years ago are still better than a lot of new ads we have now on TV and in cinemas. Maybe the advertising bosses think that it doesn’t matter but how are they going to explain themselves when a campaign failed flat? Or maybe it is just a way to keep the Australian economy less rely on consumer market thus helping Australia to cruise through the Global Financial Crisis with less scratches.

From Samson and Dililah, Mao's Last Dancer to whatever?

2009-12-13T01:41:00.000-08:00

If you have watched last night's AFI Awards, you'll noticed the variety of nominations we had this year.

Samson and Delilah and Mao's Last Dancer lead the charge at the Awards ceremony last night and swept the floor. Baz Lurhman was hailing the variety of Australian TV and film industry and so as Peter Andrikidis mentioning the final representation of multicultural Australia in East West 101 (which won the best TV drama series beating Underbelly and Packed to the Rafters).

Now I don't want to be a sceptic but I do sincerely wish that this is not a single year representation but an on going one. The issue here is, would Mao's Last Dancer be made if it was not a multi-million copy best seller already? For those who had seen the movie will no doubt that Bruce Beresford did a great job for the book. As for Samson and Delilah, it was hailed first in an overseas festival and then rides its champion wave back to Australia. Another classic case of "it is successful overseas, so lets give it a go" mentality.

What would be interesting is that in the coming years, how multi-cultural Australia will truly be represented in the Australian TV and film industry. Are Indigenous actors still playing indigenous roles? Are Chinese actors still kitchen hands and restaurant owners (or hookers in the girls' case)? Are Japanese actors still tourists? Are Middle Eastern actors still terrorists and gangsters? In my opinion, only when we see that these groups and other groups of actors managed to break through this casting glass ball that have been binding us for years that we can say the Australian TV and film industry truly embraces multi-cultural or modern Australia.

How can we change this? By the collective force of all writers, producers, directors and actors. Short+Sweet is coming shortly and hopefully it will sweetly represent actors of all ethnicity beyond their ethnic constraints in terms of roles on stage. Also Tropfest is around the corner too. Have you thought of using the best actors without considering their skin colour?

East West 101 will be returning next year. It will be very interesting to see how it is going to further represent cultural diversities. Remember: cultural diversity is more than just putting actors of different cultural background on screen - what they do on screen matters more than just have them showing up repeating the same roles in the last 200 years.

It seems to be a good year for non-Anglo / ethnic actors in Australia, but how sustainable it will be is yet to be seen. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with for years but throughout these years, they are just discussions. Hopefully with more non-Anglo industry practitioners pushing this forward, Australian TV and Film industry can finally embrace what modern Australia is.

Is Sam Worthington Worth It?

2009-11-02T22:49:00.000-08:00

NIDA has been on some headlines for some not so exciting reasons lately. First we have the political storm raged by Lynne Williams at the school causing a number of experienced staff leaving the school. Then we have Sam Worthington’s recent rant against NIDA about how he was treated badly there.

Sam Worthington graduated from NIDA in 1998, the same year with Matthew Newton. As a high school drop out and bricklayer, he auditioned for NIDA and eventually got a scholarship to get in. According to him, it was not a great experience and he said NIDA didn’t teach him how to act but keep on telling him that his accent was bad and stuff like that. Now that he is a hot property in Hollywood, so he thinks it is time to payback by discrediting what NIDA had done for him.

To be honest, that’s not much you could expect from the one who worship the ill temper of Russel Crowe. Whether Sam Worthington is a good actor still takes time to prove but personally I am not particularly impressed. He managed to steal Christian Bale’s limelight in the latest Terminator movie was simply because of the bad publicity Christian been suffering and the “hot new guy” look Sam possessed. Without either factor, I doubt Sam Worthington would actually be as popular as he is now. I had seen him in Macbeth, which is not good at all.

Back to NIDA, most people who went through it or know how it operates will know that they deconstruct you during your first year and so that you become more versatile in terms of the craft. This is a process that some of the higher ego students could not stand and either break or eventually hate it. NIDA focuses on stage acting and those articulation and voice are of prime importance, but then this part of the training exposes all the bad habits and lazy sounds that many students may have, which eventually become another source of unpleasant experience if those students think that they are too good to be criticised. Whether Sam Worthington understood why he was trained like that could be the main reason of his recent rants. Or maybe he thinks he is as good as Russel Crowe that he just need NIDA as a spring board for him and that’s all and he doesn’t need to care about a thing they try to teach him.

What Sam Worthington did in my opinion is completely ungrateful. The first thing is if he didn’t get the scholarship and the admission, he would probably still be a brick layer in Perth or spending time in run down pubs trying to chat up girls with his “hot look”. Also without NIDA even if you are an actor, you may not get a second look. The NIDA brand is a good starter for a lot of actors as you get a lot more chances to prove yourself than actors trained elsewhere. What is so lucky about Sam Worthington was being able to involve in “Somersault”, a film that I hate and still can’t understand its relevance to good cinema, which provided him a platform to become better known than others. Also his “tough guy good looks” played a part in the whole Hollywood vehicle too. However without NIDA he could just be a nobody no matter how good he looks – and there could be a lot more better looking and better actors who didn’t get a chance because they lacked the NIDA brand behind them. So with Sam Worthington, such ungrateful words from him are unforgivable. How long would he last in the business, nobody knows. But if he brings that kind of ungrateful attitude to people who helped him in his career, one day we would be buried in his own career grave. However, it could also be the fact that he was misquoted as the article was from Telegraph. But either way we will just wait and see.

Women Beware Women

2009-10-19T04:19:00.000-07:00

Was a bit unsure before going into the theatre to see “Women Beware Women”. The version this year’s NIDA graduates were going to deliver was a late 17^th century text with a modern adaptation twist. The first half of the play used the Middleton text and the second half the adapted text by Howard Barker. So it is really playing on a dangerous mine field as any missing step can blow up the whole production.

The end result was a surprisingly good production. The premise of the play is quite “Dangerous Liaison”-ish. Wealthy with nothing to do woman playing an aristocratic game that backfired as the power of corruption proved to be too strong and devastating for everyone. Did anyone win? That is not the question as sacrifices were littered all over the place.

Rebecca Johnston as the plotting Livia delivered a marvellous free from any constraint performance. Her transformation between the two acts was right to the point and her eyes were telling all the stories that needed to be told. Annabelle Stephernson as the originally victimised Bianca showed how a will to turn the table could shake everyone to their core. From her original innocence to her later prowling for victim attitude, she demonstrated the transition of her character skilfully. Other memorable characters include Kimberley Hews who played the mother – in fact actually live the Mother character – throughout the whole play. Her gesture and speech had completely embraced the power of her make up and costume, delivering a character way beyond her age. Darren Sabadina’s Ward provided a lot of comic relief as the outrageous husband of Bonnie Sveen’s Isabella. The “marriage” was doomed right from the start and yet so delightful to watch. Martin Harper was a very solid Duke whose intrigue eventually got him tied up. It is a performance by a very solid ensemble cast. The text of both parts, though quite different in style, was delivered masterfully with clear articulations and precise emotional points. This is particularly important when you are performing the late 17^th century text in the first act as it laid all the foundation for part two, so if the story was not clearly told, it will completely destroyed the second act way before it started. The energy level of the whole performance was spectacular. You can actually feel the actors were at ease with the stage and enjoying themselves during the performance, which made it a very exceptional performance.

The stage was filled with rusty mobile structures accompanied by frequent swapping of props. The only constant on stage were the huge candles that were lit in the first act to provide a mystic and intriguing atmosphere for the actions. The candles though remain unlit in the second act, stayed on the stage providing a good sense of continuity for the story. The florescent lights that replaced the candles in the second act provided a good change of atmosphere for the outrageous and raw text in this act. Set designer Teresa Negroponte really managed to use some “simple” tools to help telling a complicated story.

In all NIDA graduates’ “Women Beware Women” was a surprising production that will leave an impression for you even after you left the theatre. Some may found the nudity and language a bit offensive but they surprisingly fit the tone of the play without making you feel awkward. “Women Beware Women” runs till 20 October 2009 at NIDA’s Parade Playhouse.

Rabbit Hole

2009-10-12T05:10:00.001-07:00

Saw NIDA’s graduate production “Rabbit Hole” twice already. When you feel you enjoyed something second time round even more than the first, you know you are in for something really special. That’s exactly what this production of “Rabbit Hole” was to me.

The cast is an unknown cast to the outside world but they displayed one of the best ensemble casts I had seen recently. Most of the cast members have to act beyond their age. One of them even put on pads to achieve so. However, what made it special was the precise performance delivered by these soon to be graduates.

The premise of the play was about grief – five characters five different ways of dealing with the same grief. It is a case of helping each other while drowning themselves from time to time. Becca played by Jacinta Acevski was a woman who left her successful job to become a full time mum but things didn’t really go the way she wanted. She’s still controlling, judgmental and at times cynical. Her husband Howie, played by Rick Donald, was broker who sought external help while grieving privately. To ensure that he could “help” his wife, he put on a strong face. Then came along Izzy, played by Gabrielle Scawthorn, the slightly eccentric party girl sister who found out she was pregnant. She was also a girl who wanted to be the centre of attention while tiptoeing around everybody’s grief. Becca and Izzy’s mother Nat, played by Shari Sebbens, was trying to scull through her own experience to help her daughter, only to find out that it complicated things instead. Lastly we have, Jason, played by Hugo Johnstone-Burt, who was seeking closure for the pain he caused.

What’s good about this cast is that they didn’t try hard to make believe. I mean of course it will be hard to compare them with Cynthia Nixon or John Slattery, but they delivered a performance that in my opinion went way beyond some of the professional productions I saw in 2009. The play emphasized on grief, but it did not exaggerate it. So crying was not an essential element for the characters for most of the part and it was exactly because of this that when any of the characters eventually broke down, the impact was much greater – and these actors dealt with those important turning points with perfection. Howie’s outburst as compared to his usual composure completely exposed the pain and brokenness inside him and how he failed to deal with it no matter how hard he tried. Izzy to a lot of people was a comic relief (and that’s probably why in the Ensemble production they had a comedienne to play her, which I thought was wrong) but she is more than that. She was in fact quite a binding factor in the family as a lot of events revolved around her without she actually acknowledging the attention she got at times. Gabrielle’s interpretation of the “shrug” in the original script was one of my favorite moments in the play.

The set of the play was beautifully done and reflects the social status of Becca and Howie. Also there was sufficient space to play out all the actions written in the script. However, the stairs to upstairs did look flimsy from time to time, and it does look dangerous when characters ran up and down it. The play also had a nice and suitable soundtrack and I liked the fact they had actual video footage on the TV screen instead of just putting out a soundtrack. Kudos to them for that. J

“Rabbit Hole” runs till 17 October 2009 at the Parade Studio at NIDA.

A Streetcar Named Desired

2009-10-12T04:14:00.000-07:00

Never really clicked with Tennessee Williams but Cate Blanchett is strong enough a reason for me to go to the theatre to see Sydney Theatre Company’s “A Streetcar Named Desire”.

It’s Cate Blanchett, so of course the house is full…except the two seats next to me. I sat right in front of the sound control box, which I thought was quite cool. The sound guy found me funny too as I looked so fascinated by the sound panel in front of him. The best thing of having two empty seats next to you is that you can then have all three seats to yourself when people around you are too uptight to free themselves up. So that’s what I did. I had the three wholes seats to me and could sit in whatever position I liked J

Back to the play. The set itself was quite different from my imagination. It is nothing like white washed or grey washed kind of structure but a two-level (which was indicated in the script) motel kind of structure. The lower level is where all the major actions took place. The major tone of the set is old wrapping paper kind of yellow with of course broken tiles and unmatched haphazard furniture to indicate the living condition of our main characters. On the far stage left is an iron staircase leading up to the Hubbells. However, the steps are so steep and narrow that every time they moved up and down, especially when Blanche was in her nightgown, I felt that one of them might trip over. It looked more like a potential health hazard than that damn radio that Joel accidentally threw at Cate.

Tess Schofield had done a brilliant job on Blanche du Bois’ wardrobe. It told the fall from grace story of her owner exactly the way it should. From the classic stylish suit in the first scene to the last scene where Blanche got nothing but a plain under-dress on, the status change of the character was more than obvious. As for Stan, it was just a set of beefcake outfit to show off the muscles to demonstrate the animalistic instinct of the character - really not much to do or say with that.

Performance wise, Cate demonstrated why she is one of the most sought after actresses in her generation. She basically lived the character in front of the audience. There was not much of Cate left on the stage. Every word she uttered just jumped out of the page in the exact way you would imagine the character to say it. The good part was that she was not over theatrical during the psychotic scenes, which made it a lot more believable. The way she tried to hold herself together while breaking down bit by bit through every single scene was brilliantly precise that you just wanted to see more of what’s going to happen next. Joel Edgerton as Stan had big shoes to fill. He was obviously buffed up for the role and he did have a few moments that he grabbed the essence of the character. However, it was really hard to match the now immortalised version by Brando. I am not saying that he is not good, but I just couldn’t see that kind of charm that came through from Brando’s version. That kind of baby innocent and “straight forward believe” charm that got Stella going back for more. Joel’s Stan is just rough edges all over the place, which worked really well most of the time, but then when he needed to woo Stella, he just didn’t really have it all. And in my opinion, this is extremely important to have that kind of baby charm with Robin McLeavy’s Stella. Basically Stella worked on maternity instincts. It was not an accident that Stella was pregnant in the play. When she described about Stan, it was his baby or childish side that attracted her – not just the animalistic features of her husband. Also when Blanche described about Stella to Mitch, she mentioned that Stella was older than she was, which I could be reading too much into it, but to me was also a hint of magnifying the maternity instinct of Stella. She thrived on maintaining the balance of the two kids in the house who were competing for her attention. And that was why when she went into labour, the balance broke and disaster struck. McLeavy’s performance was not bad, but maybe lacked the hint of maturity and maternity that I was looking for in this character. I always think that Stella was a really overlooked and difficult character as Blanche and Stan were such out there – and they have to be because they were competing with each other throughout the play. Tim Richards did a great job as Mitch. His yearning for Blanche and eventually heartbreaks were well portrait without over doing it. They were two lonely souls trying to seek refuge in each other, only to find out that the stake was much higher than Mitch could take. His dilemma between affection and ration was displayed skilfully by Tim Richard’s interpretation.

Liv Ullmann’s direction was on the whole precise and exactly what you would expect from a Tennessee Williams’ play. With such a bunch of good actors to work with I am sure work will have been easier. The good part was you don’t feel the performers competing with each other. That’s what’s essential for an ensemble cast.

In all, Sydney Theatre Company’s “Streetcar” was a great value for money production. You did think that the money is well spent and despite its length you didn’t really realised that time is a factor because you would be completely absorbed into their world.

My last line for the play will be: “Man I want to be that “Young Collector” guy. At least I got to kiss Cate while nobody did!”

Hey Hey or No Way?

2009-10-10T22:29:00.000-07:00

Have been trying very hard not to get myself into the recent media vortex of the “Hey Hey” skit that put Australia back on to the international media radar for all the wrong reasons. The main issues here are: “Is it offensive?” and “What constitute a good humour and what not?”

I’ve been reading all the posts, arguments and debates over the last week and all sorts of ammo were triggered – White Supremacy, Positive Discrimination, Excessive Political Correctness, and not to mention Racism. The issue here for me is more about: “Are we continuing to stereotype people unconsciously because we found ‘people who dance in an explosive wig with painted face’ funny?” There are lots of things that are funny to us because a) they are inherently funny b) because they are stupid c) because they are alien to us, and I think the when we are dealing with c) that’s where we are treading dangerous waters.

The “Hey Hey” skit could be funny without people realising the bad implications 20 years ago, but is it still relevant and reasonable in the 21st century where people are trying to correct their views and after making the famous “Sorry Speech” to the Aboriginal people? I think that’s where we need to ponder on. I found it very interesting that when they said that the group itself is multi-cultural and not white, it is not racist – that is such a common fallacy nowadays. This is because racism is not restricted to Anglo-descent or the Whities, but exists in all races. The skit might not be considered as offensive if they were actually done by African- Americans because they are having a good laugh of their own history. However, any other ethnic group will not have that kind of safety zone to play around with. This is because then you will be considered as poking fun at other people’s history. The intention may not be malicious, but the impact is completely different.

Harry Connick Junior’s reaction to the skit was very understandable. As an American, he grew up in a completely different culture, his music is very influenced by the African-American stream and probably he’d seen a lot more issues than we Australians did. Just imagine that if the Americans did a skit of “Aboriginal Hayho with didgeridoos “ do you think the Australian media will let that go so easily? The table could be completely turned and Australians will be condemning the American media for even allowing this kind of skit to go on air. So it is not surprising that Harry Connick Junior had such a huge reaction to this and the American media are furious about this. A lot of time we just need to put ourselves in other people’s shoes I think.

When people argue that it is “just for a good laugh” I think we need to think about is what we are laughing at. Shock values have been the recent favourites of a number of programs of late. It seems that any publicity is good publicity has been the token value for some producers in the media. Cultural sensitivity is a touchy issue and the balance is really difficult to strike. Earlier I mentioned that if African-Americans did the skit, it might not cause such an up roar. However, they might still be condemned of perpetuating stereotypes among themselves. The other night I was chatting with a friend and we were also thinking did we, as non-Anglo actors or media practitioners voluntarily or unconsciously perpetuated our stereotypes among our peers? We make fun of ourselves from time to time, but does it do more good or more harm to us and our peers? This maybe something we need to think about too.

And here I am not talking about Australia as a racist country. There is racism in Australia but I believe it is not more or less than any other originally homogenous countries. I had heard stories from my Indian friends when I grew up in Hongkong and knew how some people talked about the Indian population in Hongkong. However, it is unfortunate that in the past Australia has a more media savvy profile as a racist country. I do believe the age of White Supremacy is something of the history books, but as an increasingly multicultural country, we do need to figure out how we deal with or get to know cultures that we don’t know and understand them instead of “finding it funny, so let’s have a good laugh” because the consequence could be beyond one’s imagination, as in the “Hey Hey” case. And by this I am not talking about being overly politically correct either, because then we are throwing ourselves into another pool of murky water. For example, as a Chinese Australian, I do think that if we stop celebrating Christmas because we are scared of upsetting people of other faiths, then we should stop celebrating all festivities, including the Chinese New Year parade. Understanding and integration is a complex issue and it requires all forces to work together. Laughing at cultural issues apart from your own is always dangerous and no matter one likes it or not, there will be people who are not happy about it.

I am not here to tell people what is right and what is wrong, but one thing I really feel about this is “you have to be in their shoes to understand their concerns”. Simply thinking, “If I were them I will be ok with it” a lot of time doesn’t work because you will never be them – and that is clearly indicated in the grammar. And there is no point shooting missiles randomly around either because that will just induce more damages and opening up more wounds instead of having an issue healthily debated and dealt with. I personally think that the whole “Hey Hey” Saga will come to an end when its media value disappears because that’s what Australian and international media do nowadays. But did we actually learn something after all the mud slinging? That’s something to find out in time.

Be Informed Vs Be Directed

2009-09-10T18:13:00.000-07:00

There have been a lot of things going around in the media lately, and one thing really caught me was about how modern "journalism" in Australia is being carried out. I am sure everyone of us is proud that as Australians we have the freedom that many people from other countries may not enjoy. However, what seems to me is that the exercising of freedom has reached a point that people, even in the media, think that freedom means that they can do anything they want or they like.

Being a communication student who had studied media, journalism, writing, languages, theatre etc. I am quite appalled with the current so called "current affairs" programs. I still remember when I was studying at the communication school, my lecturers and all the elite journalists they brought in to teach us always reminded us that journalism is about "to inform" and not "to direct". You exercise your freedom of speech to inform people what is fact, present both sides of the fact and let people decide and exercise their freedom of speech and thoughts to continue the discussion if they want to.

However, in my opinion, this is not the case in the recent media saga that plastered all over my TV screen and news webpage. Personally, I am not in a slight bit interested in knowing certain people certain private lives, but I was appalled by all the presumptions and judgmental attitudes blatantly exhibited in the programs. I have watched both current affair programs but none of them impressed me. Both of them set the tone to the audience, present "facts" about what's happening, but during the process I wonder why every word they used, every interview they conducted and every part of speech they employed was just so judgmental? Where's the neutrality and objectivity that is required in journalism? I mean, having a girl who is proud of herself wearing mini bikinis in the public and parade them on page six to talk about how she felt degraded when others looked down on her is a bit absurd. She said she didn't need to justify herself but then why should other people justify their own views when they exercise their freedom of speech too. Isn't that a double standard in the whole judgment process?

Another thing is having a female "journalist" posing sensational questions and recording a sensational voice over didn't sound like I am watching a current affair program but a "Sex and the City" episode that went wrong. The blatant attitude of "let me cast the first stone so others will follow the suit" does not add a single sprinkle of trustworthiness in the reporting for me. The interview on another channel later in the week was no different. The blatant "Beat or Treat" attitude in the whole interview was a complete disappointment as I don't feel that I'm being informed of new information but being directed again to think in a certain way.

We will never know who is telling the truth unless we were there but none of us were. And to be honest, I don't think I need to know something that was supposed to have been dealt with 7 years ago now to destroy someone else life and career simply because I was directed by the so called "journalism" on TV and on the Internet. Other people's mess is other people's mess, they made the choice they dealt with them. At the time of writing more details from other people are coming out, but will we know the truth? Maybe or maybe not. But if the latest piece of information came in time before the serial broadcasting occurred, will it change the picture, maybe. The question is, how much more "face value reporting" do we need we before we realised that we are not being informed by most current affair programs but being directed?

I understand what moral standards or human values are correct or otherwise, and I don't condone a lot of behaviours because I believe in those values. However, I do think that I have the right, freedom and options to choose what I believe in without the media presenting a "one-sided reporting tsunami" on TV everyday. Sensationalism and controversies seems to be the way to go with modern Australian journalism and I think that's something I need to keep in mind, so that I won't become one of the casualties and lose sight of seeking objective views of events that actually matters.