Australia Day - Unity or Segregation?

Australia is in a good space. We are in a post extreme-right (white) government era and the extreme left is yet to fully recover from its previous fiascoes. The society is in a lively debating mode triggered by the previous extreme right cohort in power and it does not look like it is dying down any time soon. Though on different individual subjects the theme of debates are narrowed down to two major questions – “Who are we as Australian?” and “What is modern Australia?”

As a migrant i.e. not born and bred in Australia, after all these years I still got asked a typical question when meeting new people – “Where did you come from?” Mind you I don’t have a Chinese accent and neither do I have an Australian accent (yeah strangely I have an American accent although was brought up in a British colony). That makes me an alien and I need to declare my origins like a mutant. Do I mind that? Well yes and no as for me I do look different – I am not blonde, blue eyed and do not easily get burnt into a piece of crispy roast pork, but at the same time I do mind in the context of does my look count that much because honestly I hold an Australian passport, paid off my HECS (HELP) and pay taxes to the government every year. I basically finance the lifestyle choices of our politicians and government. 

This leads to the question of what is Australia Day – is it a day to celebrate or is it a day of moaning? This is a huge debate in itself as Australia Day commemorate the arrival of the British colonists, who then carried out extensive plans to exterminate Indigenous Australians with their supreme gun power and weapons (which strangely enough was first invented by ancient China). For Indigenous Australians, it is the start of the doom period and marks the dark ages to follow, especially for the Stolen Generation. 

Fast forward to 2016, the society is still recovering from the damage done by the extreme right government and finding its ground again. However, despite its downfall the extreme right (white) sentiments has never been louder. Thanks to what we called the Islamic States that is wrecking havocs across the globe. Arguments of shutting the border, closing ties and “stopping the boats (refuges)” are so loud that even the best noise cancelling headphones cannot shut them out. I can’t speak for other countries, but the question I have for all the extreme right parties in this country is – on this very day, aren’t you guys actually celebrating your own terrorist acts performed 200 years ago? If that is the case what makes you think you are the person to cast the first stone or to quote the ex-government’s own words “turn back the first boat?” 

I do not believe in lingering in the past but I am a strong advocate of learning from the past. That is why we have history classes. I do not condone the terrorist acts ISIS has been carrying out either but I do believe in ISIS does not represent all Muslims around the world. I know a lot of Muslims and have a lot of Muslim friends, none of them look like the lunatics you saw on the ISIS channel. So along the same line, not all Australians are racist too because I know a lot of them too and none of them talk or act like our ex-extreme right (white) government. Branding people by the looks and sound of a small subset is what is causing all the trouble. And most of the time this was done in the interests of another subset of the society. Also at the same time not acknowledging the past while acting you have every right to condemn the present does not make you a better person or country. 

I still remember the stories one of my Indigenous colleagues told me when I first started working in Australia. I learn about the Indigenous people through books and stuff but nothing prepared me to understand how much they had suffered to live in this country and just to fight for an opportunity to show people they are valuable to the society. The things her family went through, the injustice thrown upon them, people’s bias against their culture – you don’t even have to live it to understand it. Up to this date, I still tell myself I want to tell her stories on TV when I got a chance one day so people know what it is like and how much harder Indigenous Australians need to work to get to where they want to be. 

There is no doubt Australia Day has become a debatable day for celebration, but if we truly want to build a great modern Australia and a great Australian culture, acknowledgement of the past mistakes is vital. Culture is a collective ideology that is unconsciously reflected by the collective way of life exhibited by the constituents forming this ideology. Modern Australia is definitely no long an “All White All Mighty” country that it was decades ago. What made Australia great nowadays is the collective change the new first, second and third generation migrants have brought to this country, enriching it and moving it forward. Culture is never meant to be a static entity. Whether you like it or not it will continue to evolve and the most important thing during this evolution is don’t make the same mistakes your predecessors did. And the only way to achieve this is, again by acknowledging the wrongs in the past.

There is not point of living in the past but with this acknowledgement we can build a greater future. If one day our government decides to truly reconcile with Indigenous Australians and decides to truly embrace its current ethnic and cultural diversity, then it is the beginning of a true modern Australian culture – a culture that embodies the diversities among its constituents and normalises what is considered as different and queer in the past. Being different is no longer an issue as it will become the new normal – in my humble opinion, this is the direction Australia need to move to if it truly wants to become a great country.

The Rising Tide

Did a lot of catch ups with my movies and television over the Christmas and New Year break. One of the plans was to revisit the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe, which for me includes all the Ironman, Thor, Captain America and Avengers movies, all the Marvel One-shots and the TV series Agents of the SHIELD. I was not particularly interested in Norton’s Hulk so I left that alone. For Guardians of the Galaxy I saw it twice before the holidays so didn’t watch it again. As for Agent Carter, it is not available locally so I have no access to it. 

One surprising thing that happened during this process was that I was completely hooked to Agents of SHIELD. The TV series is about ordinary people helping extraordinary people to save the world. None of the Agents in the series has superpower like the Avengers but they were dealing with some extraordinary stuff behind the scene. The series intertwines storylines with the major Marvel movies making it extremely relevant to the marvel Cinematic Universe. 

Storyline aside, what really struck me was the number of naturally strong female characters the show presents, not to mention how culturally diverse the cast was. SHIELD in the comics is a multinational organisation set up to protect the Earth from home grown or extra-terrestrial terrorists, thereby the “Strategic Homeland Intervention Enforcement and Logistic Division (SHIELD)”. So it is natural that its agents should come from different parts of the world, and Joss Whedon, the executive producer of the show made sure it happened. There is nothing Anglo-centric here and most actors were able to just deliver their performances in their natural accents. This completely amplified what SHIELD is about and gave it its own identity. Apart from different accents, lots of different languages were spoken during the course of the series, adding a huge transnational flavour to the storylines (although I still find it funny when some characters attempted to speak Cantonese in completely distorted tones in one of the episodes). 

As mentioned earlier what the show most impacted me was the creation of a lot of really strong female characters. None of the female characters are damsels in distress waiting to be saved but go out and kick butts either through technology, gun fights and / or close combats. Skye, the ex-hacktivist can get into virtually any computers in the world including SHIELD, HYDRA (the terrorist group in the show) and different government agencies including the Defence force. Jemma (or Simmons) is like the cocktail master of all things biochemical and nothing escaped her sharp eyes for molecular and cellar structures. May (or The Calvary) is the “Bus Driver” who kicks virtually every single character’s butt in virtually every fight. She is also cool, calm and tactical. Bobbi Morse (aka Mockingbird) is a superspy who can fight and lie her way unscathed through any mob and situation. Even supporting characters like Agent 33 and Raina are determined and skilled female characters who know what they want and go for them. This group of strong female characters contrasts hugely with a lot of token female characters in a lot of action or superhero movies or series. I think that what makes Agents of SHIELD stands out as a series. For me it is certainly refreshing to see something so different and strong for a change.

Since the start of 2016, we already seen several misogynist scandals in the news, the Australian Immigration Minister sending a text to a colleague labelling a journalist a “mad fucking witch” only to have it accidentally sent to the journalist herself; the cricketer Chris Gayle belittling a female reporter by hitting on her and telling her “don’t blush baby” when the reporter is apparently disappointed by his unprofessionalism at the interview; and not to mention another Australian Minister acted appropriately to a staffer while overseas and send her photo to other people even after the news broke and eventually had her pictures and detailed published on a right-wing newspaper.

What we see here is a lack of respect from these people who are actually in positions of power in real life. These people represent a sector of our society that refuses to change and think that male domination should be a fact of life and the female population should continue to live with it and subdue to it. This kind of mentality without a doubt was contributed by how these people were brought up and the environment they were exposed to. 

However the real world is changing. 

I am very happy to see there are more and more strong female characters being shown in popular culture and media as this is a good way to gradually change the new generation’s view of the world. Would there still be idiots like those exist? Yes definitely these people would not go away and they would want to make sure their “legacies” live on. However, with the mass changing, these people will eventually become minorities and hopefully one day became so insignificant that similar actions would just be put down on a local level instead of achieving such a media fanfare. That is similar for cultural and ethnic diversity. I look forward to one day I am going to casting for a character in a TV series or movie project and not just a Chinese character in a TV series or movie project. If Grey’s Anatomy and Agents of SHIELD can change the character name because they cast an Asian actor to play the role, I am sure one day Australia will be able to do so. Just hope that I live long and or practice long enough to see this day.

Hamlet

Been looking forward to see Benedict Cumberbatch’s version of Hamlet. Living in Australia means you have to rely on the National Theatre Live program to see it, unless you could afford flying over to see it on stage live. Hamlet is arguably the most produced Shakespeare play in history. Like Hedda Gabler and A Street Car Named Desire for female actors (I avoid using the word actress) Hamlet is a role that most accomplished actors would have to attempt at some point. Not long ago we had David Tennant and now we have Benedict Cumberbatch.

This production of Hamlet opened quite differently from your traditional stage versions. It opened with Hamlet moaning for his father’s passing listening to some old recordings. The first ghost scene was nowhere to be scene. It is quite obvious that Benedict Cumberbatch is really commanding stage central. Nobody would doubt Benedict Cumberbatch’s abilities nowadays. He had proved his versatility across several media. However his version of Hamlet left me feeling like missing something. I tried to figure out why as without a doubt Benedict had given his all to the character and there were some really powerful scenes, but then at times I just felt it was missing something. Having thinking over about it again and again, I realised that it was because Benedict raised the emotional bar too high too early for the character. When bar was raised so high right from the beginning, it left the character nowhere to go for the next few hours. Benedict opened the scene with so much sorrow that it border lined hysterical in many occasions. When that happened, when the character really needed to go to that place, there were limited space to manoeuvre around. For me Hamlet is also a scheming intellectual. Yes he was driven by revenge and sorrow but he also exhibited his scheming and thoughtful side throughout the play. He was also funny (which Benedict managed to hit the marks) but also calculated. Benedict Cumberbatch’s version had put sorrow and rage at the forefront, which in my opinion had some crucial dimensions of the character. He kept the wicked sarcasms and nailed certain plot points perfectly but when it required deep thoughts and that cold intellectual thinking, the pull-back was just insufficient to present a contrast. So it just descended into a softer yelling of thoughts instead of real wheels turning in his head. That said, I still think Benedict tackle a lot of part extremely well, and I particularly like how he transited into the “To be or not to be” speech. The soliloquy had become so famous that I have seen so many productions the actors were just so intentionally setting the stage up to deliver the speech so they can “command the audience”. However what I really liked about Benedict’s version is that he just really transit into the speech without pretentiously warning the audience about its coming. That what I think is natural and in character. Some critics thought it came too early but the thing is it is a character’s chain of thought that happened within the context and story of the play, so it is only suitable for it to be delivered that. That kind of naturalness is what I really like about Benedict Cumberbatch’s version of Hamlet, despite the short comings I pointed out earlier.

As for the rest of the cast, the performance was quite uneven. Ciaran Hinds’ Claudius felt very unconcerning to me and it felt like there was a huge drift or gap between his character and the rest of the cast. He could be talking to another character but you didn’t really feel like he was there talking. Anastasia Hille’s Gertrude started off quite wooden but as the play progressed she really warmed up and I personally really like the warmth she radiated when she was interacting with the younger characters. That warm motherly feel made the character so much more realistic and likeable. Jim Norton’s Polonius for me was quite irritating and the best moments were when Hamlet showered him with unreserved sarcasms and eventually killed him. His relationship with his kids, and basically the whole Polonius clan just had no chemistry with each other at all. Sian Brooke as Ophelia was quite unconvincing for me. I couldn’t feel the innocence and fragility in her version of Ophelia and for me that was a big disappointment. I understand actors are not here to fulfil audience’s dreams but for me the absence of essential elements from a character was still a huge let down. I appreciate the National Theatre employed a British African actor as Laetres, which I thought is a huge advance in colour blind casting. However, the actor seemed to have a broken voice that really affected his performance. I don’t know whether it was his natural voice or his voice was damaged for the performance but that voice had severely taxed the performance as it commanded no stage presence. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were extremely memorable despite their short appearances here and there. But whenever they showed up they lit up the stage with appropriate level of energy, which I think was desperately needed at times.

In other areas, I was particularly impressed by the stage design of this production. From how the initial claustrophobic opening scene to the opening up to a much bigger and yet cold playground and then transforming into the derelicts of Act II was just ingenious. The agility of the stage and how some pieces of props changed characters throughout the play was just spectacular. Lighting and sound were weaved into the production smoothly. It is amazing how a simple change of tones in lighting transformed the same set into something completely different. Sound effects also echoed through the walls of the set making it extremely convincing when Hamlet said “Denmark is his prison”. The production design, lighting and audio teams really put together a world that seemed to have leaped out vividly form the pages. 

All in all this version of Hamlet was not a bad production, but it came short as a production that failed to present all the intricate dimensions written on the pages. There were too many characters and too many scenes with eyes wide opened and tears bawling from eyes, some of which did not need to be presented in such ways. It felt like a shallow drama wrapped under Shakespeare’s cloak but Shakespeare himself became quite invisible apart from the Elizabethan uttered from the performers’ mouths. I personally would like to see the production uncovering more layers of the play instead of just presenting a standard royal soap opera in Hamlet’s name because it just left me wondering even though I knew exactly what the story was about.