I read 22 Day in May by David Laws this week. It's a curious book. He's not a great writer but he's an engaging one nonetheless because you feel there's a real honesty in it. And there's something admirable about just not trying to justify or defend why he had to go. You can talk about your personal experiences in public life without having to talk about your actual private life.
I'm actually going to use the coalition agreements as the basis for my policy discussions. But I just wanted to make some basic observations:
The only options were confidence and supply or coalition between Lib Dems and Conservatives. Labour did not really want power. And in a sense this was always inevitable. For a coalition to be formed, it would always have to be a new broom rather than a propping up. Lib Dems who wanted to ally with Labour should have been hoping for a small conservative majority which could be toppled next time.
I'd forgotten that the election was fought over a £6billion phony war. The £6 billion itself was such a drop in the ocean that, whatever your views on timing for fiscal retrenchment, it was always worth doing it to please the markets. But the symbol also made the following budgets and spending reviews more likely.
The Treasury and the Bank of England came close to overstepping their constitutional role. I think their role in a hung parliament will need to be discussed more fully before 2015.
Laws talks about the importance of negotiating without knowing what role you might be given but I do think it's crucial that coalition plans include opinions on what roles you would want your party to have, if not the people.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Saturday, 4 February 2012
Bright Lights in More Cities
The last post made it clear I support devolution for England in some form separate from making MPs from the other nations have less voting power. This is because a) the English votes for English laws is a total mess to deliver and b) I believe very strongly in devolving more things away from Whitehall.
Instinctively I would have liked some kind of federal structure with equal powers for the assemblies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well regional assemblies for parts of England. However the truth is that there are not natural regions in England and any attempt to try and impose them would just kill attempts to devolve.
I also think that an English parliament is too big to be an effective form of distribution.
Which has led me to accept that we're going to need a hotchpotch system. This makes sense in terms of the nation (Northern Ireland is obviously a special case in certain areas, Wales's judicial system has always been the same as England's while Scotland's never has). So the question is where to devolve?
I'm increasingly coming round to Simon Jenkins's counties and cities argument.
I think the 'Marbella' argument is a good one. I think Jenkins's instinct is to focus on the counties bit, mine is to focus on the cities and to make them proper 'city regions'. Greater Manchester, West Midlands, Merseyside, Leeds City Region and Bosnia.
In terms of what I would devolve: everything the mayor of london has for starters including the police commissioner powers. I also like the Progress suggestion of being able to appoint a school commissioner. I wonder if there might also be a role for a health commissioner but that's an idle thought.
And this post explains much better than I can why it should be a mayor rather than an assembly (although there should be an assembly with a few more teeth than the current GLA). I would like to expand slightly on the point of accountability. It's not just that more people might know who the mayor is compared to an assembly leader. It's that it become more natural to think about the election in a local way. Council elections not only have terrible turnout but are also often used as polls on central government (I can't find any evidence on this through a lazy google but I have read it in a local government textbook. I bought it to impress the girls). But a mayor will make you assess them and their record and vote according to that, for both the mayor and the assembly.
I'm also pro the same devolution being given to counties, particularly those who are not in a major city region. What they call the directly elected leaders can be decided localyy (governors or if your Jenkins, high sheriffs, I quite like them being Earls and Dukes but then I suspect that will cause all kinds of havoc).
This will mean it's a bit scrappy (Leicestershire or Leicester or both?) but I think it's the most effective solution. And if some mayors have more statutory powers than others, well this is the UK, things are messy.
Instinctively I would have liked some kind of federal structure with equal powers for the assemblies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well regional assemblies for parts of England. However the truth is that there are not natural regions in England and any attempt to try and impose them would just kill attempts to devolve.
I also think that an English parliament is too big to be an effective form of distribution.
Which has led me to accept that we're going to need a hotchpotch system. This makes sense in terms of the nation (Northern Ireland is obviously a special case in certain areas, Wales's judicial system has always been the same as England's while Scotland's never has). So the question is where to devolve?
I'm increasingly coming round to Simon Jenkins's counties and cities argument.
I think the 'Marbella' argument is a good one. I think Jenkins's instinct is to focus on the counties bit, mine is to focus on the cities and to make them proper 'city regions'. Greater Manchester, West Midlands, Merseyside, Leeds City Region and Bosnia.
In terms of what I would devolve: everything the mayor of london has for starters including the police commissioner powers. I also like the Progress suggestion of being able to appoint a school commissioner. I wonder if there might also be a role for a health commissioner but that's an idle thought.
And this post explains much better than I can why it should be a mayor rather than an assembly (although there should be an assembly with a few more teeth than the current GLA). I would like to expand slightly on the point of accountability. It's not just that more people might know who the mayor is compared to an assembly leader. It's that it become more natural to think about the election in a local way. Council elections not only have terrible turnout but are also often used as polls on central government (I can't find any evidence on this through a lazy google but I have read it in a local government textbook. I bought it to impress the girls). But a mayor will make you assess them and their record and vote according to that, for both the mayor and the assembly.
I'm also pro the same devolution being given to counties, particularly those who are not in a major city region. What they call the directly elected leaders can be decided localyy (governors or if your Jenkins, high sheriffs, I quite like them being Earls and Dukes but then I suspect that will cause all kinds of havoc).
This will mean it's a bit scrappy (Leicestershire or Leicester or both?) but I think it's the most effective solution. And if some mayors have more statutory powers than others, well this is the UK, things are messy.
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
London, England, UK
I thought I'd take as my first issue a deeply wonky one- the West Lothian Question
I'm a Londoner from an English father and a Welsh Mother. Having said that my English father was brought up in the West Indies and my Welsh mother was brought up in York, Kent and New Zealand. And I was brought up in a whole bunch of different countries to parents who worked in the British Foreign Office. So it's not too surprising that I like to identify first as British. I support England in the football, Wales in rugby and the England and Wales team (technical title) in the cricket. London is the only place that I've ever felt was really home and I have a strong tribal attachment to it.
I want Scotland to stay part of the union. I think the UK benefits from being a mix of nations in one country. I don't see Scots as foreigners and have no wish to do so. I believe it is completely their choice and think a referendum is a sensible thing to do now. I don't believe Devo Max should be on the same ballot. I think that requires a broader conversation which does require input from the rest of the country. So I would suggest that action to solve the West Lothian question should be delayed until after the Referendum in 2014.
But action must then be taken and so the discussion should start now in earnest. It's not acceptable that Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs get to vote on issues that don't affect them. There is a democratic deficit in England and once the fate of the union is agreed then a sensible solution needs to be found.
This British Future blog post sets out the options and their popularity as currently polled. This is not a majorly discussed issue so I'm slightly surprised that only 14% had the grace to say they didn't know. I consider these numbers pretty soft all round. Nonetheless they are a good place to start.
24% say keep it as it is. That's not a ringing endorsement of the status quo. I'd say that when a quarter of proponents propose not doing anything then the alternatives need to be discussed in depth and found seriously wanting to not be taken forward.
34% would like to have English MPs vote only on English matters. I appreciate that this is neat and solves the need for a new parliament, elections and the general chicanery of politics which there is no appetite for. But I find it slightly amazing that this has survived so long as an idea as it's quite clearly nuts.
The powers devolved to the Scotland are different to those in Wales and Northern Ireland. London has slightly more powers than the rest of England. New mayors may also mean places such as Bristol and Birmingham have slighlty more powers. That gives a huge range of different parliaments depending on the subject being voted on. And so unless one party or coalition has a majority with all these different combination (UK, UK minus Scotland, UK minus Scotland & N. Ireland, England, England minus mayors) then it's not clear who should be the government.
If the UK has a Labour majority and England a Conservative majority do you have a joint cabinet with Labour getting the UK (PM, Chancellor, Foreign Office, Welfare) posts and the Conservatives getting the English ones (Health, Education, Home Office)? Do they have separate cabinets? Do the English have tax raising powers like the Scots do (or did)? If so do they need their own finance team. Do they work in the treasury?
All new solutions have plenty of unanswered questions. They require detail. It's called legislation. And it takes a while to iron out kinks. And it will never be a perfect solution. But I find the proposals above to be totally unworkable in a political reality where Wales and Scotland's political makeup is substantially different to England's.
So I believe there needs to be some form of devolution to England. That means, and this is a really hard sell, more politicans and more elections. It also means new overpriced assembly buildings and offices for a whole new set of bureaucrats. Surely this can't be the right answer?
I fear so. Actually I don't really fear it. I just fear trying to sell it. There's no reason why a new parliament building has to be bloody expensive but even if it is (and it probably would be) it's a building that is meant to last. To be a symbol of a political identity. There are worse things to waste money on and compared to how much the people inside will waste on bad policy in the lifetime of that building, its really is a pub's own brand of unsalted peanuts.
The bureaucracy is a stronger argument but it's worth pointing out that if you give England the responsibilities that Scotland and Wales do, then you get rid of the bureaucrats in London dealing with health, education, transport, planning, culture and environment.
And I believe they would do a stronger job by being part of a parliament that focussed only on these areas. Where your Transport Secretary wouldn't be moved to Defence Secretary or your Culture Secretary wouldn't have come from Energy. It would be a parliament focused on the provision for the most part of public services for the people of England. And having such a parliament would allow more budding politicians to have executive experience before they took on a Whitehall brief. Something it seems almost everyone agrees would be a good thing.
I've gone on a proper ramble now and probably lost anyone who's read so I'll leave it at I believe England should have a form of parliament. But I'm willing to have a go at more detail in a later post as to what that means in practice..
I'm a Londoner from an English father and a Welsh Mother. Having said that my English father was brought up in the West Indies and my Welsh mother was brought up in York, Kent and New Zealand. And I was brought up in a whole bunch of different countries to parents who worked in the British Foreign Office. So it's not too surprising that I like to identify first as British. I support England in the football, Wales in rugby and the England and Wales team (technical title) in the cricket. London is the only place that I've ever felt was really home and I have a strong tribal attachment to it.
I want Scotland to stay part of the union. I think the UK benefits from being a mix of nations in one country. I don't see Scots as foreigners and have no wish to do so. I believe it is completely their choice and think a referendum is a sensible thing to do now. I don't believe Devo Max should be on the same ballot. I think that requires a broader conversation which does require input from the rest of the country. So I would suggest that action to solve the West Lothian question should be delayed until after the Referendum in 2014.
But action must then be taken and so the discussion should start now in earnest. It's not acceptable that Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs get to vote on issues that don't affect them. There is a democratic deficit in England and once the fate of the union is agreed then a sensible solution needs to be found.
This British Future blog post sets out the options and their popularity as currently polled. This is not a majorly discussed issue so I'm slightly surprised that only 14% had the grace to say they didn't know. I consider these numbers pretty soft all round. Nonetheless they are a good place to start.
24% say keep it as it is. That's not a ringing endorsement of the status quo. I'd say that when a quarter of proponents propose not doing anything then the alternatives need to be discussed in depth and found seriously wanting to not be taken forward.
34% would like to have English MPs vote only on English matters. I appreciate that this is neat and solves the need for a new parliament, elections and the general chicanery of politics which there is no appetite for. But I find it slightly amazing that this has survived so long as an idea as it's quite clearly nuts.
The powers devolved to the Scotland are different to those in Wales and Northern Ireland. London has slightly more powers than the rest of England. New mayors may also mean places such as Bristol and Birmingham have slighlty more powers. That gives a huge range of different parliaments depending on the subject being voted on. And so unless one party or coalition has a majority with all these different combination (UK, UK minus Scotland, UK minus Scotland & N. Ireland, England, England minus mayors) then it's not clear who should be the government.
If the UK has a Labour majority and England a Conservative majority do you have a joint cabinet with Labour getting the UK (PM, Chancellor, Foreign Office, Welfare) posts and the Conservatives getting the English ones (Health, Education, Home Office)? Do they have separate cabinets? Do the English have tax raising powers like the Scots do (or did)? If so do they need their own finance team. Do they work in the treasury?
All new solutions have plenty of unanswered questions. They require detail. It's called legislation. And it takes a while to iron out kinks. And it will never be a perfect solution. But I find the proposals above to be totally unworkable in a political reality where Wales and Scotland's political makeup is substantially different to England's.
So I believe there needs to be some form of devolution to England. That means, and this is a really hard sell, more politicans and more elections. It also means new overpriced assembly buildings and offices for a whole new set of bureaucrats. Surely this can't be the right answer?
I fear so. Actually I don't really fear it. I just fear trying to sell it. There's no reason why a new parliament building has to be bloody expensive but even if it is (and it probably would be) it's a building that is meant to last. To be a symbol of a political identity. There are worse things to waste money on and compared to how much the people inside will waste on bad policy in the lifetime of that building, its really is a pub's own brand of unsalted peanuts.
The bureaucracy is a stronger argument but it's worth pointing out that if you give England the responsibilities that Scotland and Wales do, then you get rid of the bureaucrats in London dealing with health, education, transport, planning, culture and environment.
And I believe they would do a stronger job by being part of a parliament that focussed only on these areas. Where your Transport Secretary wouldn't be moved to Defence Secretary or your Culture Secretary wouldn't have come from Energy. It would be a parliament focused on the provision for the most part of public services for the people of England. And having such a parliament would allow more budding politicians to have executive experience before they took on a Whitehall brief. Something it seems almost everyone agrees would be a good thing.
I've gone on a proper ramble now and probably lost anyone who's read so I'll leave it at I believe England should have a form of parliament. But I'm willing to have a go at more detail in a later post as to what that means in practice..
Coming to the party
This blog is going to be an attempt for me to join the political discussions I follow so avidly from a distance.
And I'm planning to frame my interventions around this belief I have about politics. It's good to join.
It's good to join the discussion: both to try and persuade others and find your views shaped and finessed far more by having to defend them out loud.
It's also I believe good to join a political party. Because politics isn't about throwing bottles from the back, even if they are expertly crafted art nouveau bottles. You need to work with others and you need to give and take. So my New Year's Resolution is by the end of the year I will have joined a party. I just have to decide which one.
I view this decision like getting married. Technically if it all goes tits up you can leave but you're making the decision because you're confident it won't. It should be a commitment that lasts.
The problem is I'm not sure what party to join. It won't be the BNP and I'd be highly surprised if it was the Greens, the Socialist's Workers Party or UKIP. My opportunities to vote SNP or Plaid Cymru are limited in South London so really we're talking about the big 3. I've never voted Conservative but then there are plenty of things I have believed which I don't anymore so I'm very keen to give all 3 parties a fair hearing.
So I'm going to spend the first 6 months just pontificating about the issues of the day until the point where I have worked out what manifesto I would most like to see from a party. I'll then spend six months considering the parties and understanding what I would have to give up and through it discover what are the core issues I wish to keep. Then I'll make a decision.
Simples.
And I'm planning to frame my interventions around this belief I have about politics. It's good to join.
It's good to join the discussion: both to try and persuade others and find your views shaped and finessed far more by having to defend them out loud.
It's also I believe good to join a political party. Because politics isn't about throwing bottles from the back, even if they are expertly crafted art nouveau bottles. You need to work with others and you need to give and take. So my New Year's Resolution is by the end of the year I will have joined a party. I just have to decide which one.
I view this decision like getting married. Technically if it all goes tits up you can leave but you're making the decision because you're confident it won't. It should be a commitment that lasts.
The problem is I'm not sure what party to join. It won't be the BNP and I'd be highly surprised if it was the Greens, the Socialist's Workers Party or UKIP. My opportunities to vote SNP or Plaid Cymru are limited in South London so really we're talking about the big 3. I've never voted Conservative but then there are plenty of things I have believed which I don't anymore so I'm very keen to give all 3 parties a fair hearing.
So I'm going to spend the first 6 months just pontificating about the issues of the day until the point where I have worked out what manifesto I would most like to see from a party. I'll then spend six months considering the parties and understanding what I would have to give up and through it discover what are the core issues I wish to keep. Then I'll make a decision.
Simples.
Monday, 4 January 2010
Turner and the Masters
And finally- harder than the others because my ability to think about paintings is so limited in comparison so my thoughts are going to be far more limited.
First impressions are that I'm not sure I like Turner as much as I thought I did. There were some beautiful paintings such as Dido at Carthage which really are magnificent. But, and perhaps this is a point of the curation, looking at his work next to a variety of different painters I became quickly bored with his colour schemes. They attribute his sun light to Claude Lorrain and he uses it with greater skill, I feel then Claude. But it appears so often you grow a bit weary of it. When used adroitly it's quite staggeringly beautiful- but it's always a relief when he tries something different.
Often this is when he is trying to ape Rembrandt- the one master he doesn't seem to get near, although he arguably mimics his style far more than the others. I realise now I need to look more at Rembrandt. There's a painting of the Holy Family which is technically extraordinary in the way the light spreads from a lamp at the centre of the painting. The anachronism of the painting upset me though.
I tried hard to see where things were being copied but I often found it quite difficult to see, particularly in terms of style. Turner's colours are always honeyer, often I feel to the detriment of it. His paintings are also, and excuse my total ignorance on technical issues, deeper. They stretch far further back, giving everything a far grander scale and making the characters at the front seem smaller and more pawns in the scheme of the world. I think that's why I found his painting of trafalgar so effective. It just seems to go on and on, with huge boats and fighting and sails and so the bloodied floating corpses in the foreground seem ever smaller. Certainly compared to a lot of the other work I noticed how three dimensional the images were. So many others felt a bit like those childrens books where you stick on pictures onto a background.
The other thing that struck me is that he did a rather nice painting of another painter (Watteau I think) which had a sort of shambolic intimacy I'd never seen before and I hope there is more of his stuff out there. It is in some ways quite a large tableau, with paintings and easels and models and sketches but without his legendary sky it loses all sense of the epic but is none the worse for it.
Finally my favourite painting of the day belonged to someone I'd never heard of called Francis Danby. It is a giant angel, head above the clouds in sun and legs below in a dark, red ominous sunset. I can't even remember what the Turner it was being compared to but that was certainly one he lost (I put every two up in head to head. Turner won many but less then I thought he would).
I have to say though, as someone uneducated in art it was a real pleasure to have such an exhibition which really helped to try and look at art. My big regret was being a tightwad and not getting the headphones as I'm sure I'd have learnt lots more. So my new vow is to always take along either someone who know about art or the headset. Here endeth the lesson.
First impressions are that I'm not sure I like Turner as much as I thought I did. There were some beautiful paintings such as Dido at Carthage which really are magnificent. But, and perhaps this is a point of the curation, looking at his work next to a variety of different painters I became quickly bored with his colour schemes. They attribute his sun light to Claude Lorrain and he uses it with greater skill, I feel then Claude. But it appears so often you grow a bit weary of it. When used adroitly it's quite staggeringly beautiful- but it's always a relief when he tries something different.
Often this is when he is trying to ape Rembrandt- the one master he doesn't seem to get near, although he arguably mimics his style far more than the others. I realise now I need to look more at Rembrandt. There's a painting of the Holy Family which is technically extraordinary in the way the light spreads from a lamp at the centre of the painting. The anachronism of the painting upset me though.
I tried hard to see where things were being copied but I often found it quite difficult to see, particularly in terms of style. Turner's colours are always honeyer, often I feel to the detriment of it. His paintings are also, and excuse my total ignorance on technical issues, deeper. They stretch far further back, giving everything a far grander scale and making the characters at the front seem smaller and more pawns in the scheme of the world. I think that's why I found his painting of trafalgar so effective. It just seems to go on and on, with huge boats and fighting and sails and so the bloodied floating corpses in the foreground seem ever smaller. Certainly compared to a lot of the other work I noticed how three dimensional the images were. So many others felt a bit like those childrens books where you stick on pictures onto a background.
The other thing that struck me is that he did a rather nice painting of another painter (Watteau I think) which had a sort of shambolic intimacy I'd never seen before and I hope there is more of his stuff out there. It is in some ways quite a large tableau, with paintings and easels and models and sketches but without his legendary sky it loses all sense of the epic but is none the worse for it.
Finally my favourite painting of the day belonged to someone I'd never heard of called Francis Danby. It is a giant angel, head above the clouds in sun and legs below in a dark, red ominous sunset. I can't even remember what the Turner it was being compared to but that was certainly one he lost (I put every two up in head to head. Turner won many but less then I thought he would).
I have to say though, as someone uneducated in art it was a real pleasure to have such an exhibition which really helped to try and look at art. My big regret was being a tightwad and not getting the headphones as I'm sure I'd have learnt lots more. So my new vow is to always take along either someone who know about art or the headset. Here endeth the lesson.
Avatar
Given this is on everyone's lips I feel I should have lots to say on this but I have substantially less but here goes.
It is literally jaw dropping. The world they have created is utterly beautiful- particularly in the night scenes. The floating mountains, tree cities, insane creatures and luminescent night forest are so beautifully realised that you just want to give them rounds of applause at points. There are more shots of true unnatural beauty in that film then anything I've seen before. It has been lovingly crafted and visualised and the people who did it cannot get enough awards. They legitimise making the film and they make me recommend it to everyone.
I know a lot of people who are unkeen to see it. Because it's a stupid plot with evil capitalist, trigger happy marines, nice scientists and natives at one with nature who need a white guy to lead them to salvation. Mostly fair but (with the partial exception to the Dances with Wolves syndrome which I'll come back to) totally irrelevant. The vistas in Hidden are pretty uninspiring. The make-up in United 93 doesn't do it for me. The special effects in Slumdog Millionaire are average. It doesn't matter because it's not what those films are about. Likewise dialogue and to a certain extent plot.
I actually think both are serviceable. It's undeniably a bit trite all this at one with nature business when we're talking about a state of the art, budget blowing film. But it's not a terrible message and it wears it fairly lightly. It would much rather show you a cool plant in the forest or have a chase with 100 stone hammerhead rhinoceros then preach about anything. The last act drags a bit with too much fighting (but the fact that I often find battle sequences boring I'm fairly sure puts me in a minority) but the second act is just the most wonderful adventure. Unlike King Kong which definitely felt like it clearly had two monsters too many, I didn't really want to leave the second act.
Also I'd like to say how absolutely seamless it worked with humans. That was what really struck me. You really couldn't tell they were acting up against a blue screen- the two worlds meshed so much more seamlessly then anything I've seen before. I don't know if that was an IMAX effect (and if you're going to see it- see it in IMAX) but it really worked.
So yes, worth every penny. It doesn't want to make you think- it wants to make you go wow. And boy did it.
On the Dances with Wolves syndrome- it's legitimate. But I think it's unrealistic to expect audiences to be up for a story where humans are the bad guys full stop. Why it has to be a white guy while all the Na'avi are played by 'actors of colour' is a different question. I reckon the world's ready for whites to be the bad guys full stop. In the movies.
It is literally jaw dropping. The world they have created is utterly beautiful- particularly in the night scenes. The floating mountains, tree cities, insane creatures and luminescent night forest are so beautifully realised that you just want to give them rounds of applause at points. There are more shots of true unnatural beauty in that film then anything I've seen before. It has been lovingly crafted and visualised and the people who did it cannot get enough awards. They legitimise making the film and they make me recommend it to everyone.
I know a lot of people who are unkeen to see it. Because it's a stupid plot with evil capitalist, trigger happy marines, nice scientists and natives at one with nature who need a white guy to lead them to salvation. Mostly fair but (with the partial exception to the Dances with Wolves syndrome which I'll come back to) totally irrelevant. The vistas in Hidden are pretty uninspiring. The make-up in United 93 doesn't do it for me. The special effects in Slumdog Millionaire are average. It doesn't matter because it's not what those films are about. Likewise dialogue and to a certain extent plot.
I actually think both are serviceable. It's undeniably a bit trite all this at one with nature business when we're talking about a state of the art, budget blowing film. But it's not a terrible message and it wears it fairly lightly. It would much rather show you a cool plant in the forest or have a chase with 100 stone hammerhead rhinoceros then preach about anything. The last act drags a bit with too much fighting (but the fact that I often find battle sequences boring I'm fairly sure puts me in a minority) but the second act is just the most wonderful adventure. Unlike King Kong which definitely felt like it clearly had two monsters too many, I didn't really want to leave the second act.
Also I'd like to say how absolutely seamless it worked with humans. That was what really struck me. You really couldn't tell they were acting up against a blue screen- the two worlds meshed so much more seamlessly then anything I've seen before. I don't know if that was an IMAX effect (and if you're going to see it- see it in IMAX) but it really worked.
So yes, worth every penny. It doesn't want to make you think- it wants to make you go wow. And boy did it.
On the Dances with Wolves syndrome- it's legitimate. But I think it's unrealistic to expect audiences to be up for a story where humans are the bad guys full stop. Why it has to be a white guy while all the Na'avi are played by 'actors of colour' is a different question. I reckon the world's ready for whites to be the bad guys full stop. In the movies.
Aladdin
This really will be a short one. But technically it's the first piece of theatre I've seen this year so here goes.
Sadly Pamela Anderson had gone by the time we got tickets so we were left with Anita Dobson as the genie who I don't really remember from EastEnders so didn't mean much to me and although she gave it a good old go I have to admit it was annoying knowing that two days later we'd have seen Paul O'Grady. Now there's a performer made for Panto.
The other performer of note was Brian Blessed who is clearly insane. His voice is perfect for it and he's pretty good at getting the boos going as the baddy but then he'll riff, mumble a bit and then say I think that deserves a round of applause- which you always get in panto whether you deserve it or not. He was less involved in the second half and I think that's why it was so much stronger then. I had a feeling he had a tendency to adlib which is why it didn't quite fit- there was one moment where he called Widow Twankey a he and while Twankey was quick on the draw he clearly lost his place.
And that was actually what I took most from it. Widow Twankey was cracking- huge, saucy humour with good timing, sings competently and moves exceptionally well in those heels. And Wishy-washy was also clearly a panto pro, and very good at the end when they brought some kids on. And there was a policeman who was a great unicyclist and juggler and to me that is what panto is. It's music hall (or what I imagine music hall was like) and almost circus. And yet so much time was spent with two bland as can be leads poorly singing ballads and dancers who (for someone who's been watching a lot of Glee) seemed to be out of sync with each other. The little kids seemed more together.
It has however made me want to direct kids' pantos. I think the reason why they work is because they don't have to hang together particularly. No one minds if a character suddenly appears and juggles- because who doesn't want to see some juggling. Or some dancing or singing or freestyle rapping or crazy football skills. You can use it to cram all sorts into a show- and it did, it has to be said have the most fantastic set. So there's a part of me which love to write a panto for a school each year where I could pick up every little skillful and creative thing the kids have done and stuff it all into a dubious plot- put in a couple inneundos and lot it roll. Almost feels like an exercise worth trying.
Sadly Pamela Anderson had gone by the time we got tickets so we were left with Anita Dobson as the genie who I don't really remember from EastEnders so didn't mean much to me and although she gave it a good old go I have to admit it was annoying knowing that two days later we'd have seen Paul O'Grady. Now there's a performer made for Panto.
The other performer of note was Brian Blessed who is clearly insane. His voice is perfect for it and he's pretty good at getting the boos going as the baddy but then he'll riff, mumble a bit and then say I think that deserves a round of applause- which you always get in panto whether you deserve it or not. He was less involved in the second half and I think that's why it was so much stronger then. I had a feeling he had a tendency to adlib which is why it didn't quite fit- there was one moment where he called Widow Twankey a he and while Twankey was quick on the draw he clearly lost his place.
And that was actually what I took most from it. Widow Twankey was cracking- huge, saucy humour with good timing, sings competently and moves exceptionally well in those heels. And Wishy-washy was also clearly a panto pro, and very good at the end when they brought some kids on. And there was a policeman who was a great unicyclist and juggler and to me that is what panto is. It's music hall (or what I imagine music hall was like) and almost circus. And yet so much time was spent with two bland as can be leads poorly singing ballads and dancers who (for someone who's been watching a lot of Glee) seemed to be out of sync with each other. The little kids seemed more together.
It has however made me want to direct kids' pantos. I think the reason why they work is because they don't have to hang together particularly. No one minds if a character suddenly appears and juggles- because who doesn't want to see some juggling. Or some dancing or singing or freestyle rapping or crazy football skills. You can use it to cram all sorts into a show- and it did, it has to be said have the most fantastic set. So there's a part of me which love to write a panto for a school each year where I could pick up every little skillful and creative thing the kids have done and stuff it all into a dubious plot- put in a couple inneundos and lot it roll. Almost feels like an exercise worth trying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)