Jeff Rawle on living life on the edge, not forgetting your glasses and the challenge of playing 10 prominent characters that influenced Margaret Thatcher.

Jeff Rawle, famous for his sinister role as Silias Blissett from Channel 4’s ‘Hollyoaks’ and Amos Diggory from blockbuster movie ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’, talked to me from a small room with a bowl of soup in front of him. It was his lunch break and the soup was kindly offered by the stage management team of the West End theatre where the play, ‘Handbagged’, will be shown this April since its move from the original Tri-cycle stage

.

(Rawle as Amos Diggory, father of Cedric played by Robert Pattinson from the Harry Potter movie) 

Rawle explained how excited he was to be back with the cast members from last year’s production directed by the Tri-cycle theatre’s own Indhu Rubasingham. ‘It’s the fourth day from a four-month break. It’s lovely! It’s a chance to have another go and revisit the proof reads. We have Moira Boffini, the writer, with us at rehearsals and tweaking things.’

Last year, the play sold out immediately due to its interesting nature, which looks at Thatcher’s historical and political reign. Rawle has the challenging task of playing 10 characters for ‘Handbagged’ which he described as ‘a funny, engaging and witty 80s play about Thatcher’s remarkable right into power and her relationship with the Queen and others like Ronald Reagan.’

Having had a fair share of playing multiple characters at the National Theatre’s ‘Cocktail Sticks’ and ‘The Power of Yes’, Rawle thrives on playing characters of different ranges and in this case that includes Jerry Adams, Geoffrey Howe, Ronald Regan, Dennis Thatcher, Prince Philip, Michael Heseltine, Neil Kinnock and Peter Carrington. “It is  almost impossible especially when you’re coming off and on stage in a fast speed. Sometimes you literally have three lines to change from one character onto the next. It’s fraught with disaster, especially coming on with the wrong hat or forgetting your glasses. Apart from Neil Kinnock, that is.’  Nonetheless, the hassle of grabbing his characters’ props on time hasn’t stopped him from loving them. He acknowledges Reagan’s talents with the camera and microphone as a former actor himself, but saw that Howe was closely aligned to his range physically and vocally. ‘I never voted Conservative but I thought he was sensible, erudite and a bit of a dark horse. He was the one who brought Thatcher down and spoke sense when he made that remarkable speech.’ Rawle even had the pleasure of working with Kinnock whilst filming Channel 4’s comedy show, ‘Drop the Dead Donkey.’ 

Rawle told me how he loves cooking and reading in his spare time. ‘Doing nothing is quite an art for me as I am always doing something.’ He described the trials and tribulations he experienced in his 40-year acting career where he learnt to follow good plays and writers, guessed where his next role was coming from and ‘live life on the edge,’ but not in the cool and wild sense. Yet, he is looking out for his next role, ideally something classic like Shakespeare. 

(Rawle as Silias Blissett from ‘Hollyoaks’)

As we ended our conversation, he gave me a personal account on how ‘Handbagged’ compared to Britain during the 80s. He said: “It makes you feel empowered after watching ‘Handbagged’ especially when you are old like me and had lived through it and on a day-to-day basis. I didn’t realise what was happening around me in a dangerous way and to sit back and watch it played out -10 years - in front of you is amazing. The Tri-cycle play is all razzle-dazzle and we deserve to be at the West End because we sold out quick last year.’ Be sure to get your ticket now. 

‘Handbagged’ will showcase at the Vaudeville Theatre from the 3rd April to the 2^nd August 2014.

‘The Big Debate: Should we contract our sex lives’ - Royal Court Theatre - Big Ideas Debate - March 2014

‘The Big Debate: Should we contract our sex lives,’ was a discussion amongst academics and play writers and their particular views of sexualizing partnership which took place at the Royal Court Theatre. This lively debate was organized following the theatre’s opening of the play, ‘The Mistress Contract’ by Abi Morgan. Libby Purves, presenter of BBC Radio 4 and columnist for The Times chaired the event and gave some interesting commentary to keep the debate’s juices flowing.

Alecky Blythe, the playwright for ‘The Girlfriend Experience’ drew on her interviews over the course of 18 months with self-made prostitutes from Eatbourne Brothel.  ‘Often these working girls felt they were relieving tensions through sex which was something absent at their client’s home’ and ‘keeping their marriages on track.’ As providers of conversation, hugs, sex and personality, Blythe also spoke of them as having distraught feelings and ‘broken cracks’ that came in cycles which was as hurtful as ‘splitting someone in half.’ Contracted sexual lives are evident here, but it was all a false hope based on how desirable they were to men, which they misconstrued as sexual empowerment. 

Professor Sophie Day, anthropologist at Goldsmiths (University of London) speaks from her ethnographic study during the 1980s. Much of the sex workers she had spoken to were realists and had a pragmatic approach towards their line of work which led some to believe, ‘when you say I do, it’s more of a promise… like a fairy tale romance of what might happen.’ When Day was asked about the debate, however she replied, ‘should we contract’ – I don’t know.’

Lynne Segal, Birkbeck University’s anniversary professor and academic in feminist theory and politics, had a slightly more aggressive take on the debate but gave an honest answer - ‘no.’ With much reference to Abi Morgan’s play and feminist philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir, she felt the mistress contract was an ‘illusion’ as she said, ‘ we, women are not here to titillate.’ She even spoke of female students today who become escorts to finance their education as a ‘worrying’ and ‘perilous’ act that should not be an option. 

 

(Left to Right: Purves, Day, Blythe, Segal and Tatchall)

Peter Tatchell, activist for LGBT, human rights and global justice based his judgments on his research in Thailand with male gay escorts who at their own free will prefer contracting their sex lives for earning potential compared to work at the rice fields. He suggests we abolish western practices and consider ‘flexible,’  ‘democratic’ and customized contracts that suit peoples’ circumstances extending to beneficiaries and next of kin which contracts them to certain ‘rights and responsibilities.’

There was a slightly rushed Q & A session that dealt with interesting topics including sex and the media, war and monogamy. A general consensus was not concluded on the debate, but from Blythe and Tatchell, they seemed fairly positive. To end the debate, Purves asked the audience a show of hands to those who ‘believe in monogamy… and to those who didn’t,’ and it was only a few wary hands that were left hanging at this point.

A Response to Alain de Botton ‏@alaindebotton Dating sites pretend to want to unite people, but in essence, they break them apart: http://www.philosophersmail.com/180314-relationships-match.php

Match.com has got it right and this fact is justified through the evidence. A high number of people, as much as 30% in 2010, who subscribed to the site found their marital partner yet how they came to finding them is not as clear cut as it would seem.

Match.com appears to put all your preferences through a filtering system that designates your profile with others, which matches yours. However, this is not the only way that members on the site have operated and used this. Match.com gives you the option to chose and search what to look for and there is much flexibility to be as ruthless or as lenient about the person you would like to meet.

Admittedly, as convenient it might be to meet someone who is your 'match', who likes to watch the same movies, read the same books or drink the same beers as you, these similarities are not enough to hold down a worthwhile relationship. Interests and hobbies work well in the short term as a temporary measure for a pleasant honey mood period, but it does not compensate for when it gets serious and house bills need to be paid, personal dramas develop and arranging child minders to look after the kids, for example.

It is an ideal to have someone who can match all your preferences whether it be personality, intellectual equivalent or simply interests alone. Compatibility is entirely separate thing and means more than associated interests. Compatibility is when one can structure a life around someone else who they genuinely care about and can see a future with. You can look at various examples in literature. Refer to Shakespeare's sonnets as he had much to say about love being blind (I am sure.) There is the prominent ‘Romeo and Juliet’ and what a mess considering the feud between their families. Another great example is the couple in Ian McEwan's 'Enduring Love' where the protagonist is an atheist scientist while is wife is his antithesis, an English literary academic that spends her time studying books of love and poetry by Keats. You may shake your head in disagreement and tell me that love stories are not true representations of reality, but one thing is certain and that is we do not chose who to love. Our emotions decide that (or chemical reactions, not pheromones, for the modern day scientist.)

There is a lot of value to be had from dating websites and match.com is just one option. Unfortunately, we also have to deal with the useless fakers on these sites but, there are obvious clues and alarm bells of those who take advantage looking for a fling or mere company. If one is head strong, they will see through the smoke screens and get out of the date fast. It is simple - if you don't think the person in front of you is compatible with you and even if it is your gut instinct, just walk away. You cannot rationalise a relationship nor can you calculate who you will be your perfect match. 

Perhaps, we should have a www.compatibility.com instead...

Nazi Looted Art: Where We Are Now

By Mary Grace Nguyen

George Clooney, the director and lead actor of recently released film ‘Monuments Men’, has shed light on a crucial debate previously discussed only by academics that has now flooded the public forum. This debate questions the process of returning Nazi-era provenance art back to their rightful owners, which includes Jews, art dealers, churches and anyone other than Aryan descent according to Nazi ideology. Clooney’s interpretation of a true story set in 1945 is of a task force of artists and historians from Europe and America who sought to protect and return stolen art. This was estimated at a fifth of the world’s art (250,000 pieces), to the value of $2.5 billion at the end of the war. Today, the value is astounding. Some looted artworks were found undamaged and stored under salt mines or hidden away in homes of dealers and thieves. Unfortunately, other masterpieces were recovered tarnished under heaps of debris and rubble from the war.

Nausikaä El-Mecky, fellow at Humboldt University Berlin and specialist in censorship and attacks on art said: “Art took up a disproportionately large part of the Nazis’ political agenda...on the day the Nazis invaded Norway and Denmark, Hitler was not poring over military maps, but over albums of art from European museums.” Hitler had planned the construction of the ‘Führer museum,’ a large complex that would encase the ‘spoils of the world’ as part of the Nazis policy to cleanse the world of ‘Entartete Kunst’ (Degenerate Art) yet, in actual fact, they did not destroy much art. Some were even sold to pro-Nazi art-dealers including French, Swedish and German auction houses to finance the war. Additionally Hitler showcased his ‘Entartete Kunst’ exhibition of stolen art in 1937. It toured Germany as part of the Nazis strategy to influence the country’s mindset and consider their degrading views of Jews, the ‘Other’ and the modern art world. However as El-Mecky states, ‘Nazi art policy was so confused and self-contradictory that it had very little to do with ideology,’ but geopolitical power and control.

The ‘Monuments Men’ is a fascinating story that bears the truth of those who sacrificed their lives to salvage the remaining pieces of culture and history. This has sparked much speculation into where we are, 70 years later, in returning Nazi looted art. In 1998, at the Washington Conference under Bill Clinton’s administration, 44 governments across the world agreed to the ‘Principles of Nazi Confiscated Art’ as part of an international effort to reclaim looted art. More art pieces are being revived and it was only made public in November 2013, 18 months after its discovery, that an estimated 1400 modern art pieces, worth $1.35bn, were discovered in the Munich apartment of the 81-year-old son of German art dealer Hildebrand Gurlitt, who traded art during the Nazi period. This includes unknown works by Otto Dix, Marc Chagall and the oil painting ‘Sitting Woman’ by Henri Matisse. More recently, on February 11th 2014, there were reports of a dozen more pieces found in Cornelius Gurlitt’s Salzburg home including unnamed paintings by Monet, Picasso and Renoir that he claimed were not looted art but legitimate purchases made by his father. This leads onto the next stage of the restitution process whereby verification and identification of who the art belonged to, prior to its capture, are ascertained. Yet, we are confronted with another difficulty; where does true ownership begin? Does the art go to those who signed and bought it from an auction house or go as far back as family members of the artist?

 (Henri Matisse's 'Sitting Woman')

Gurlitt’s lawyer has recently published an online statement of his client’s position that says he has no legal obligation to return any “so-called looted art” and had no knowledge that they could be qualified as looted art. The statement also said: “He is prepared to review...fair solutions together with the claimants ... at most 3% of the...confiscated works,” which is a small amount compared to how much consideration Gurlitt is willing to give to German institutions. His last sentence reads as, “Cornelius Gurlitt will gladly review appropriate repurchase offers made by German museums.” 

In the German Civil Code there is a statute of limitations in which the right to looted art is within thirty years after the first incident of theft, which has long expired. However, due to the resurgence of recovered art, on 7th February 2014, a new German bill was drafted by Wilfried Bausback, who presented this to the German Parliament. The new bill says: “The goal of this proposed law is to correct the current, unsatisfactory legal situation and to allow owners of objects that have been wrongly taken from them the possibility of restitution of their property from mala fide owners.” As well as replacing the original statute of limitations policy, it is meant to speed up the process for the victims of looted art.

This new bill may be a solution in moving forward the process of provenance art but not everyone will be able to celebrate the merits if it is passed. For one, it can be viewed as a contemptuous stance towards current owners (such as Cornelius Gorlitt,) who have built relationships with the pieces of art which, if justifiably proven, have to give them back. Art restitution lawyers will see a drastic change in their practice, from once not being able to bring some of their cases to court and see the deeper repercussions for their diverse clientele. This may put individual owners at a disadvantage as they may not be able to afford the legal fees in contrast to their richer counterparts, namely the auction houses, art galleries and museums, which are government owned and sponsored by wealthy corporations.

Yet, what are these establishments doing to right the wrongs of the Nazis legacy? Many of them have clear guidelines they adhere to. The Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) announced that on January 10th, they were publishing large volumes of ‘Entartete Kunst’ from 1941 – 1942 that was donated by the widow of Vienna-born art dealer, Heinrich Robert Fischer in 1996. However, research has shown that the document is incomplete and incorrect in some parts. 

The British Museum showed their active participation in provenance art cases by saying they had ‘been carrying out research into the provenance of their collections... in response to a government initiative ... following an approach by Lord Janner of the Holocaust Educational Trust in 1997...Results of the research taking place in museums and galleries across the UK can be seen on the government Cultural Property Advice website.” This website is a good starting point for victims who want to search for their lost art themselves.

The Auction House, Christie’s, however, has a different stance on the issue. In a press statement, they say they are ‘taking steps to prevent stolen objects from circulating in the art market.’ They also said: “as an additional check, Christie’s catalogues are also submitted to the ‘Art Loss Register’ before each sale...’ Yet, all of these hopeful words end with an unsettling tone as they say, ‘We have a contractual right ...to withhold Lots which we know or believe to be the subject of a potential title claim.’

(Otto Dix art pieces found at Gurlitt's home)

When art was recovered at the end of the war, they were presented to ally governments of countries where they were looted such as France or Holland. Despite this post-war restitution method, history has proved that government owned museums, galleries and private collections have not been warm to the idea of willingly giving away art and have responded in a cold bureaucratic way. Thousands of looted art pieces are still missing which, some specialists suspect are found and undisclosed to the authorities.

Beate Schreiber, founder of the Facts and Files Research Center said, ‘Germany is using its federal structure as an excuse’... ‘They have very little sympathy and are making some scandalous decisions.’ An example of this is through their delayed announcement of the discoveries found at Gurlitt’s apartment 18 months after the incident, which Irene Lawford-Hinrichsen, author of ‘Five Hundred Years to Auschwitz’, called double criminality.’

Holocaust victims and those traumatised by the war were unwilling to discuss lost art post-1945, yet since the 90s there have been more books published and advances in art provenance research. Unfortunately, despite the Washington Conference, we still do not have an international arbitrator. Perhaps this is a political issue that should be raised to the Ministry of Culture or the Prime Minister depending on the country. Possibly the best person who can make a difference is Angela Merkel, the current Chancellor of Germany. Due to the complicated nature of Nazi-era provenance art, some establishments are not allowed to make an official statement. The Jewish Museum of London, Sotheby’s and the Austrian Cultural Forum were unable to contribute any statement to this article as there are potential risks of offending those affected; war victims, art dealers, government authorities, etc., and many further developments they were not updated on. We can only hope that more Gurlitt cases are exposed which, will eventually give political leaders the impetus and motivation to act.

"F*** IT "- A Contemporary Ode to the Rose Petal Martini

F*** IT ": A Contemporary Ode to the Rose Petal Martini
Mary Grace Nguyen (28.02.14)

Muddled thoughts, unclarified
Rugged hair knots, tangled
Paper abound, suffocated
Stomach pains that promote nervous breakdowns

Another fleeting escape from work office politics
Dramas, micromanagement and megalomaniacs
Heart-felt strings of the Blue Danube
Instil calm and tranquility
Must march on, must progress
Write more, read more, dream more

The Magic Flute: Review English National Opera Coliseum, London - December 2013

The Magic Flute: Review English National Opera Coliseum, London7 November - 7 December 2013Director: Simon McBurney

Last night at the ENO’s Coliseum theatre, the staging was unconventional where an elevated orchestra was raised from the pit. The protagonist, Tamino (Ben Johnson,) walks up to the flautist, Katie Bedford, while our clown king, Papageno (Roland Wood,) approaches Soojeong Joo, who plays the glockenspiel, to prove that these musicians are playing their magical instruments. With Simon McBurney, artistic director of ‘Complicite,’ his version of Mozart’s ‘The Magic Flute’ is not what you would expect.  His aim for the audience was to  “see and hear,” much like 1791, two years after the French Revolution, when it premiered at the Theatre auf der Wieden, in Vienna. This integrated orchestra was the vision McBurney wanted to emulate, where music and action could interact - yet, this might have been an oversight, as those sat in the front paid extra, but they could only see half the stage. 

In its original creation, the musical genius had many things to consider - the era it bore, the Enlightenment, and not forgetting, his participation in Freemasonry. This had influenced opera convert, McBurney, to spur him on to re-create a version just as radical as Mozart’s. 

In McBurney’s production, before the lights had gone down, an enthusiastic Gergely Madaras plunges straight into conducting the orchestra. By the stage, in a glass booth, an artist makes visible movements chalking up the words,  ’Act 1, Scene 1’ at a snail’s pace, projected for the audience’s entertainment, during a long overture. This tedious gimmick was best left out.

‘The Magic Flute’ is famous for Mozart’s grand musical wizardry and, more importantly, the Queen of the Night’s famous aria,  ’the vengeance of hell boils in my heart.’  As a frequent operagoer, I was looking forward to hearing the hard-to-sing coloratura music being sung by a mystical and revengeful mother as a defining point of the performance. Instead we received the soprano (Cornelia Götz,) dressed down as an old cripple who struggled to hit those money-making notes and get off her own seat or in this case, an actual wheel chair. Götz had sung as the Queen of the Night many times, internationally, and tonight was not her best performance, but she wasn’t alone. Bestial and filthy looking, Monostratos, (Brian Galliford) was out of tune too, and not reaching his peak.

Heavenly cherubic delights came to the rescue, nonetheless, from the three boys dressed like wrinkled Benjamin Buttons, (Alessio D'Andrea, Finlay A'Court, and Alex Karlsson) as wise guides to Tamino. They deserved applause, but it may have been past their bedtime, as they were not seen at the grand finale. James Creswell, our voice of justice and principle, through Sarastro, was the antithesis of Götz and, whose caliber of voice was an astounding presence, hitting those basal tones well.

Johnson, a Ricky Gervais look-a-like, had distinctive vocals most representative when expressing love for Pamina, (Devon Guthrie) ‘this enchantingly beautiful effigy,’ a stranger that he gathers from a projection of her face on a collection of white A4 sheets, is the girl of his dreams. 

Unfortunately Gutherie’s voice was merely adequate, lacking the sparks needed for a lead role. Still, the performance managed to redeem itself with the cheeky couple, Papageno (Wood) and Papagena (Mary Bevan,) who proved to be best-suited. Bevan had unravelled from a covered up elder to a young cute minx, whose talented voice, in a duet with Wood, celebrated the idea of making babies in their song, “Pa,  Pa,  Pa…”  Wood had an uncanny resemblance to the TV bird catcher, Bill Oddie, who brought depth to his developed baritone role. His northern accent and woeful loneliness added a fine comedic pantomime attribute required to balance out a serious storyline.

Finn Ross, the video designer, and set designer, Michael Levine, should be mentioned for their exaggerated paper birds, unorthodox sets and technological visuals of immersing water and fire images against a suspended cast in the air. 

McBurney is an actor, writer and director, which explains his theatrical canon for ‘Complicite.’  Yet, at first, he did not like opera, and said, it was,  “obscure” and  “pointless,” until he was encouraged to by Pierre Audi, artistic director of London's Almeida. Having done his due diligence for ‘The Magic Flute’ beforehand, in an interview on Radio 4, he said he examined Mozart’s thought processes such as, “how is humanity going to evolve?  We have just had the French Revolution and there’s buckets of blood everywhere.”  Luckily, there was no bloodshed tonight, but a multiplicity of theatrical intrigue piled onto a delightful ensemble of high spirited music, engaging visual effects, and a diversity of animated cast members. Regrettably, there was nothing awe-inspiring to praise here. ‘The Magic Flute’ requires electrifying operatic voices and it seems that someone forgot to tell McBurney this, which is a big shame.

Birkbeck celebrates Chinese New Year

 

On Friday night, Birkbeck students at Malet place were welcomed by members from the Chinese society into a loud room filled with people who were curious about the celebration of Chinese New Year.

There were red paper decorations and lanterns hanging from the ceiling with a friendly atmosphere of various activities taking place. On one side of the room there were students getting their hands dirty in flour and vegetable corn filling, learning how to make Chinese dumplings for the first time. Next to them was a Chinese calligraphy section where others were taught the stroke order for writing the characters for ‘horse’ and ‘fortune.’  Another section was dedicated to the art of paper cutting (jianzhi) and on the right was the drinking corner, for those who appreciate Chinese alcohol. Tsingtao was in abundance and some took to the Chinese spirits better than others. There were spring rolls and pancakes available too, so that everyone was fully immersed in Chinese culture. At 9pm, the grand finale took place with the ‘Imperial College London Dance Team’ performing a Chinese Lion Dance. This was a spectacular performance of exuberant colours from two boisterous and skilful lions with Chinese acoustics and vibrant drums in the background.

This occasion was to mark the year of the ‘Wooden Horse’ according to the Chinese zodiac, based on a twelve-year cycle. If you were born on 1966, 1978 or 1990, your zodiac sign was the ‘Horse,’ which meant that 2014 would be a year of conflict but, conversely, many positive surprises as well.  Those born in the year of the ‘Horse’ were described as fast, energetic, and animated. Based on Chinese astrology, they thrive in social surroundings but enjoy being free and independent as well. In addition, they are competitive and, like horses, are heroic and victorious in battle. They move fast from one destination to the next, coupled with their ability to think quickly and make decisions on the go. 

 

The president of the Chinese Society, Zheng Chia said: “This year is the coming of the ‘Horse’, which, will bring a lot of success to 2014.” His vice president, Yibing Sun said: “the ‘Horse’ is strong and powerful, which is why 2014 shall also be a strong and powerful year for everyone.” Sarah Whitaker from Birbeck’s International Office helped organise the event in collaboration with the Chinese Society and partner university, the Beijing Institute. She said: “This is a great event taking place during International Week, and is the first time Birkbeck is celebrating Chinese New Year ever.”

Birkbeck is an international hub of interesting students who want to learn about other cultures which is something this event has clearly highlighted. The year of the ‘Horse’ is about galloping towards a prosperous 2014. In work and play, Chinese students will look at this ‘Horse,’ as a symbol of luck, for examinations and essays, perhaps, but let us hope it gives Birkbeck societies encouragement to organise more fun events just like these.