Harvey Normal?

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

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

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

“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

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

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

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.