2016 - THE YEAR OF THE 'WORKING PEOPLE'

This time a year ago, I dreaded the thought that I might be writing a blog post on how, not one, but both of the two most ridiculous political nightmares taunting the West could emerge as realities. The Brexit and Trump winnings have finally concluded that liberalism and acceptance are converting themselves into concepts of the past. We are regressing towards a dangerous world of ignorance and selfishness, where racism and sexism don’t matter anymore because if the president elect can call Mexicans rapists and brag about grabbing women by the pussy then why can’t we all? The common denominator between 2016’s various branches of illiberal politics has been the façade that this new wave represents ‘working people’; the only way 2017 will be a more optimistic year is if we realise that this is all a lie.

My first question – who exactly are ‘working people’? Michael Gove provided the highly uncooperative response that they/we are the ones who have been failed by the EU, and about half the country qualify. But to me the ‘working people’ is more of a conceptual idea than an actual demographic. It’s the visionary white family on a low income who feel agonizingly alienated as they walk down their local high street only hearing conversations in Polish or Punjabi, unable to integrate because their town has been taken over by immigrants. They’re racist, but that’s fair, because they’ve been so totally failed by their hyper-liberal government (key word here: visionary, because these people do not actually exist).

Firstly, to assume all people with low-paid jobs are racist, unaccepting and ignorant is “both incorrect and patronising” (see Phil McDuff’s article expanding on this topic – it’s a really good read). Secondly, ‘working people’ is a construct invented with no relation to economic status, it seems to be more about peoples’ opinions and political stances. If you’re from an average background, but are left-wing, aren’t anti-immigration or come from an immigrant family yourself, do you count as part of this demographic? Most likely not. Essentially, ‘working people’ has developed as politicians’ code-word for xenophobes.

Are multicultural groups backing more refugees still 'working people'?
http://www.tombrake.co.uk/refugees_welcome

Both Trump and Farage played incredibly tactfully on this ‘working people’ disguise to draw closet racists out of their hiding during their campaigns. It’s a vicious cycle: politicians suggest racist and xenophobic opinions are acceptable for the working classes, so people begin to voice these opinions with less shame. The politicians can then maximise their own nationalistic rhetoric, most notoriously in the case of Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims, and the uproar is less severe since society has become just slightly more accustomed to the notion that these ideas are now becoming normal. The politicians aren’t being unfair – they’re saying what the ‘working people’ think. It’s a great way to draw in voters, and it’s what eventually resulted in the success of Donald Trump and Brexit.

The most upsetting part of this cunning politics is how disloyal it will prove to be over the upcoming years. Donald Trump’s plans to rob Americans of their health insurance and start a trade war with China will not benefit low-income white Americans. Brexit has already proved disloyal to those ‘working people’ who voted for it:  poster boys Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage have pretty much vanished from humanity and it’s already come out that £350 million is not going to the NHS. Those who believe this right-wing political wave will actually benefit the working classes must ask themselves when exactly was the last time the Tory government did something to help the poor.

"I want politicians who don't see the working poor as fucking peasants" - random guy on YouTube. We must remember just how and why the political car crashes of 2016 managed to happen, and not let the idea that this is what ‘the working people’ want stop our revolt against racism and xenophobia. ‘The working people’ is a concept constructed by the elite as a method of allowing prejudice into politics, do not accept it as a justification for bigotry. 

SHAKESPEARE REFASHIONED AT SELFRIDGES

http://www.selfridges.com/GB/en/content/article/shakespeare

It seems to be the rule that you only define yourself a true Londoner once you have adopted complete Oxford Street snobbery, remaining in a permanent state of frustration and despair at the crowds of tourists polluting what is said to be the capital’s best shopping street. And much as I would like to pretend my postcode starts with SW and I don’t live dangerously close to the M25, I don’t think I will ever acquire this genuine Londoner arrogance. The prime reason I’ll always have a bit of tourist in me? My childish affiliation towards Selfridges.

Usually I’m wondering round the luxury bag department, sheepishly picking up a Stella McCartney tote and using the classic ‘I’m putting it on my birthday list’ excuse to get away quickly when the sales assistant heads towards me. But recently, Selfridges has pulled me in for a reason much closer to home, with their new ‘Shakespeare Refashioned’ range of clothing cleverly inspired by the infamous English playwright. What initially caught my attention was the selection of lavish window displays in 'Act I', the first installment of the collection. These focused on what Sefridges describes as the 'lightness of comedy and romance', whilst the later additions to the rage, 'Act II', brought depth and mystery to the concept. The most relevant and interesting window display was by Han Chong, of Self-Portrait, whose representation of Katherine, the sharp-tongued and rebellious female protagonist from The Taming of the Shrew, visualised his image of the 'Self-Portrait woman'.

Katherine, from The Taming of the Shrew, in a window display by Self-Portrait
http://www.self-portrait-studio.com/

Though undoubtedly intricate and incredibly beautiful, the 'Act II' in-store collection was somewhat monotonous with relation to the selection of plays chosen as a stimulus - Romeo and Juliet being the most popular option throughout. On the contrary, Christian Louboutin and Isabel Benenato used traditional Elizabethan costumes as a muse for their more wearable additions to the range, which was a poignant and cleverly-worked idea. But the most exciting and crowd-pulling aspect of ‘Shakespeare Refashioned’ is the mini traverse stage on the lower ground floor, showing a stylish reinvention of Much Ado About Nothing by the Faction Theatre Company.

Having played ‘Benedick’ in Much Ado About Nothing myself, I was interested to see the performance reworked in such an unconventional setting – it’s not often that you go to Selfridges to see a piece of theatre. The show was simply fantastic, and I really recommend it to anyone who isn’t usually enticed by the complex, sometimes tiring nature of seeing a Shakespeare at The Globe.

Emma Thompson and Kenneth Brannagh in the 1993 film version of Much Ado

Much Ado About Nothing is easily one of Shakespeare’s funniest works, a humble yet effective plot where long-loathed enemies Beatrice and Benedick are set up by their cunning friends to fall in love, despite their childish bickering and Benedick’s determination to remain single for life: “when I said I would die a bachelor, I did not think I should live till I were married!”. This pairing was conducted with upmost comic value by Daniel Boyd and Alison O’Donnell, as they captured a unique imbalance of intelligence between the couple, Boyd playing a rather goofy, fickle Benedick and O’Donnell adopting a snappy, in some places sarcastic, Beatrice. It worked really well to itemise their differences at the start of the play, eventually concluding with the idea that perhaps opposites do attract.

I’ve always thought the key to professional Shakespeare (and perhaps just drama in general) is placing emphasis on subtext, not really the language in the lines themselves, in order to make it clear what is actually going on. With a lot of children in the audience, this was of crucial importance for the cast of Much Ado, and not one member failed to make their intentions and character clear, meaning the show flowed perfectly with no scenes left questionable due to sometimes unintelligible Shakespearean script. On top of this, the addition of multimedia showing news reports as well as tweets by the characters kept the show accessible, modern and most of all funny. It was a great way to set the audience up, maintain pace and support the lovable and memorable plotline.

If you’ve decided to embark on the mission to becoming a real Londoner and have rebuked Oxford Street once and for all, perhaps reconsider. ‘Shakespeare Refashioned’, and Much Ado About Nothing in particular, prove that sometimes the most enjoyable things to do in London can be buried… exactly where a tourist might think. The show finishes on Saturday 24^th September, and I really recommend catching it if you’re in the city and looking for some exceptional yet classic comedy.

Watch the trailer for Much Ado About Nothing at Selfridges http://www.thefaction.org.uk/news

EU IMMIGRANTS

Farage might aim to draw in would-be Tory voters with his 'non PC' attitudes and beer banter, but don't be fooled - he still went to public school.
www.bbc.co.uk

In 2015, Nigel Farage made himself known as the world champion for being able to blame pretty much anything on immigration. Feeling a bit under the weather? It's the immigrants. Boyfriend cheated on you? Immigrants. HIV positive? Probably immigrants. Though he did manage to attract voters through his down to earth wit and snappy straight talk, he also clarified that mechanically blurting 'immigration' like a broken record to justify just about every problem this country faces is not a great technique for convincing the public that you're a well-educated, well-rounded leader. But now, one year on, and Brexit campaign has adopted this 'immigration' chant as a sort of mantra, forgetting that this type of ignorance and misinformation was laughed that this time in 2015. EU immigration is by no means a great thing, and it is not beneficial for everyone, however leaving the EU for this simple reason would be a dangerous decision for our country to make on June 23rd.

Statistically speaking, immigration is good for our economy - immigrants pay more in than they take out. However, although this is a fact, it is not a figure that is going to calm a British worker who fears an immigrant is a preferable employee to them because they will accept a lower wage. Those who fear unemployment cannot be expected to relax by studying immigration on a nationwide level - people care for themselves, and this will always be the case. However, the current problem of job security due to EU immigration is minuscule when compared to what will be the case if we decide to vote leave.

CEO of easyJet is pointing out the prices of flights and holidays would rise outside the EU
http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/goodbye-cheap-flights-easyjet-chief-5683266

Presently, three million UK jobs are directly linked just to 'trade' within the EU's single market. There seems to be this false idea that all of our trade is with China and America, but this isn't really correct - in March 2016 51% of our imports came from the EU, tariff free. If we chose a strict agreement to leave the EU and prioritise what seems to be the main agenda now (restricting ourselves from the free movement of people), we would most likely sacrifice this place in the single market, meaning prices would go up significantly and those three million jobs would be put at risk. That would mean individuals who currently don't face the 'downsides' of the EU would start seeing their food bills rising, holidays becoming less affordable and and jobs being put at in peril. 

And, on the other hand, if we follow in Norway's footsteps with a looser agreement that maintains our access to the single market, it would most likely mean compromising with the other member states and accepting freedom of movement, like Norway currently does. In short, immigration wouldn't fall at all.

There are no guarantees that immigration will be cut after a Brexit vote
www.telegraph.co.uk

Brexiters need to remember that, if we leave, the public will not get a say on what 'type' of agreement we opt for - we won't be able to choose whether free movement stays or goes. Also, that £350m a week we would supposedly save by leaving? If we want access to the single market, it's going to cost - and The Guardian estimates emulating a deal like Norway's would only lose us 6% of the costs we currently pay. Brexiters nationwide should be prepared for a bargain that they did not vote for, and shouldn't be misled by the misconception that Britain will be able to stamp its feet and get what it wants when it comes to making awkward agreements with the 27 other member states upon our grand exit. 

Campaign leave has targeted those who fear for their job security with a false promise that EU immigration will be put to a final halt should we choose to leave on June 23rd. There's no guaranteeing that this will be the case. The EU's not perfect, but that doesn't mean we should neglect it here and now. We laughed at Farage in 2015, and I think it's laughable that our nation is now debating whether to leave the world's second largest economy almost purely for a distaste to immigrants that once was considered a joke. 

SADIQ KHAN

Getting a good picture outside Tooting Broadway tube station is obviously a tricky job

British bigots seem to have reached a new level of stupidity. Closet racists nationwide will mutter on about how Muslims need to be more ‘integrated’ and ‘accept the values of our country’, but can’t seem to calculate that a Muslim man being democratically nominated for a position of political authority is the ultimate pinnacle of integration. I am proud of Sadiq Khan, but it is disappointing to see the backlash against him already brewing amongst London’s most foolish.

Still being essentially a toddler, I sadly didn’t get my say in this election. Nevertheless, I didn’t want to just assume that, should I be able to vote, I would have voted Sadiq purely for my general affliliation to the left. At the end of the day, Mayor of London shouldn’t really be decided based on whether they’re Red or Blue, so I did a bit of researching around the issue. To be quite honest (perhaps I am uneducated but this is how it seemed to me) the biggest difference between Zac and Sadiq really was their skin colour and background - Sadiq’s dad was a bus driver, Zac’s father is described as an ‘Anglo-French billionaire financier, tycoon, and latterly a magazine publisher and politician’ on Wikipedia. A contrast, to say the least. But despite that rather large chasm between the rivals’ family backgrounds, there wasn’t a huge amount of variation between what they wanted for London – bar the fact that Sadiq is sceptical on the night tube.

The Guardian does point out that Zac is benefitted by his 'snappy first name'

To me, the lack of dramatic differentiation between the two candidates’ plans for the city, as well as the upcoming EU Referendum and the worrying American Presidential battle, was what made this election a bit of a race race. I say race race because the profiles and policies of both Sadiq and Zac seemed pushed into the shadows, the biggest difference between them being absolutely nothing to do with London.

And much like the difference between the candidates being nothing to do with London, the bigots’ hostility towards Sadiq is now nothing to do with London. It is to do simply with the embarrassing profile of Islam currently plastered all over Western media, and now ingraining its way into mainstream politics, a la Donald Trump. Katie Hopkins tweeted a few weeks ago that Islam is a #ReligionofMurder. A fifth of the world is Muslim, Katie, I think we would all be dead by now if it was such a Religion of Murder.

Zac's desperation sank to new levels four days before election day
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3567537/On-Thursday-really-going-hand-world-s-greatest-city-Labour-party-thinks-terrorists-friends-passionate-plea-ZAC-GOLDSMITH-four-days-Mayoral-election.html

Racists will argue that Sadiq Khan is a representation of the murderers of Lee Rigby, or the perpetrators of the Paris attacks. Sinking to the lows of Daily Mail readers when things were looking desperate, Zac Goldsmith himself conveniently included a picture of the 7/7 London Bus Bombing in his last-minute online plea for votes last week. Like I said before, when Muslims are told so forcefully and aggressively to ‘integrate’ if they want to show the world that Islam is not synonymous with terrorism, why are they then rejected when they do just that? British right-wingers love the monarchy, but when it came to Nadiya Hussain winning Great British Bake Off and being given the opportunity to bake for the Queen, she and her husband became worried for the safety of their children after receiving Islamophobic abuse on twitter. 

As it's often put so eloquently, religion is like a penis. It's okay to have one. It's okay to be proud of it. However, do not pull it out in public, do not push it on children, do not write laws with it, and do not think with it. Sadiq Khan is doing neither of those things. Racists will continue, but as a proud supporter of new Mayor I can only laugh at the fact that a city with a 60% white majority has outsmarted their embarrassing beliefs. 

MY SCEPTICISM ON MODERNISED SHAKESPEARE

The forest of flying chairs
www.thestage.co.uk

A couple of weeks ago I saw Polly Findlay’s interpretation of As You Like It at the National. A high-impact show that did have the audience wow-ing at a dramatic scene change involving a mechanical office being dragged skywards, turning chairs into an eerie and textured Forest of Arden, but nevertheless a disappointing recraft of such an enjoyable play. Both I and the original script sat hand in hand, both losing our plots together as we witnessed a sad example of not-so-big actors being outshined by a budget seriously out of their depth. Had Shakespeare not been…well…Shakespeare it could even be said that the director had been given an embarrassing script and a lot of time to think of something to cover up the shamefulness of the naked production.

But this isn’t an embarrassing script or a naked production. Back in the day of the playwright, Shakespeare was enjoyed in a smelly pit where lines had to be shouted from the side of the stage because actors had only rehearsed once or twice before appearing in front of the live audience. He still gained an enormous crowd, and still made it to being unquestionably the greatest English playwright of all time. For years people have enjoyed Shakespeare’s plays, and the Globe theatre still is an incredibly popular go-to theatre for London locals and tourists alike who want to experience Shakespeare as close to the original as we can get. So why do modernist directors like Polly Findlay feel the need to rely so heavily on special effects in order to drag in audiences and keep us entertained?

Perhaps the director thought the punchy rock music and red lights during the fight scene of As You Like It might contradict the stigma that Shakespeare is boring. In Elizabethan times, audiences would have been attracted to this play since transvestism was against the law, so cross-dressing was seen as shocking and rebellious. We all know this isn’t the case now, so maybe an exciting set change has to do the job that a man dressed as a woman dressed as a man would have done back in Shakespeare’s day. Or maybe the British public is too lazy to listen properly when they go to the theatre, so a complex Shakespearian script is simply too difficult to understand if we don’t have such visual aids as a shower of post-it notes as Orlando instructs ‘Hang there, my verse, in witness of my love.’

Michelle Terry and Simon Harrison in As You Like It at Shakespeare's Globe, 2015
www.thestage.co.uk

 I guess I sound quite party pooper, after all it could easily be asked why we wouldn’t want to utilise modern visual techniques to make Shakespeare exciting for a 21^st century audience when they’re ready and waiting to be used. Also, the whole act of going to the theatre isn’t as exciting now as it would have been when As You Like It was first performed. Elizabethans could enjoy the bear-baiting and bull-fighting that would have gone on next to the theatres, and the experience of being a ‘groundling’ (standing at the theatre) was undignified but a lot of fun. Now, theatre is expensive, cultural and generally quite serious. The Elizabethans would probably laugh at the way in which contemporary audiences enjoy plays with so much decency!

Despite this consideration, it still seems like there’s a bit of an elephant in the room with modernist Shakespeare. It’s great to re-set and re-costume everyone into modern-day dress, but by putting Shakespeare into a contemporary context aren’t we forgetting that the original script simply doesn’t make sense in the society of today? In As You Like It, Rosalind disguises herself as the male ‘Ganymede’, appearing on the line ‘I could find it in my heart to disgrace my man’s apparel and to cry like a woman’, but said ‘man’s apparel’ in the National’s production was just skinny jeans and a hoodie. Admittedly androgynous, but we can’t itemise a pair of jeans and a jacket as ‘man’s apparel’. Artistic license leads me to believe that as an audience member I should stop worrying about this and start enjoying the show, but the critical niggle forever whirring in the back of my mind can’t help commenting irritatingly on everything I see on stage.

Despite my ability to be a great bore and rant about why modernised Shakespeare just doesn’t work for me, I still have to say I did enjoy As You Like It. I mentioned the audience wow­­-ing at the dramatic scene change – perhaps I should make it clear that I wasn’t pretentiously sitting and tutting at this when I was at the show, looking down on the peasants who don’t understand the true meaning of Shakespeare. No, although I can be a bit of a bore I do still relish in high-budget shows that keep me excited with flashy lights and flying chairs. It’s just a shame that directors feel they’ve got to employ all these techniques to remind us Brits that Shakespeare really is worth going to see.

SONG OF RIOTS

http://www.ayoungertheatre.com/

Entering the relatively small theatre at the Battersea Arts Centre and the action has already begun: four men dressed in what looks like school gym kits play-fight boyishly on stage as the sold-out seats fill up progressively, leaving most wondering whether the scene is improvised or choreographed. I applaud the energy levels of the actors on stage – there’s a good ten minutes of high-energy lifts, dodges and tackles in this interesting introduction.

Song of Riots is a play that explores themes of childhood and maturity, using the poetry of William Blake as a running motif throughout the story. What I did understand: two teenage boys leave the comfort of their homes and parents to get into the city and acquire their freedom; one of them is the son of a Polish immigrant. What I didn’t understand: the other is a prince from a fairy tale. There was a lot of reference to kings and princes and royalty, but I just didn’t get that the plot was going to be quite that literal. Nevertheless, though in places difficult to understand, I enjoyed the performance and the messages it displayed.

Directors Christopher Siversten and Lucy Maycock made interesting use of a translucent sheet to separate the backstage area with the frontal region of upmost audience attention. Attached to a tall scaffold structure, the sheet gave the actors room to continue the action backstage whilst creating harmony with what was happening on stage. Nimble actors climbed around the structure and appeared from the top to add height to the performance, which made fast-paced scenes unpredictable and engaging.

Behind the translucent sheet Hanna Björck took both a narrative and musical role by guiding us through the plot with sung Blake poems and musical interludes, giving Song of Riots a sense of flow. The musical element to the performance gave it a semi-mythical feel, which when juxtaposed with the foul-mouthed shouting of Lucasz (Christopher Finnegan) provided the audience with a contrast between the sublime and the real.

My favourite scene from the play
Watch the full trailer for Song of Riots https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHy5kbAXd0o

 Prop use was kept to quite a minimum, and a truly Brechtian style was adopted when characters stripped right down to change their costume on the side of the stage. Anna Krotoska played a highly convincing role as Polish mother Magda, a kind woman mistreated by her adolescent son. But my favourite moment was definitely when the male characters all had a movement sequence in which they threw cups of powder paint over each other, creating a cloud of colour that hovered above the action.

Song of Riots is a play which demonstrates some scenes of true directorial ingenious and creativity. The plot is somewhat difficult to follow, but the fusion of physical theatre with lyrical narrative makes it highly original. ★★★☆☆

LUNGS

'I could fly to New York and back every day for seven years and still not leave a carbon footprint as big as if I have a child. Ten thousand tonnes of CO2. That's the weight of the Eiffel Tower. I'd be giving birth to the Eiffel Tower.'
http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/

‘Lungs’ is one of those shows where you feel like you shouldn’t be there. Not because it’s uncomfortable or awkward or off-putting, but simply because it’s so convincing that you feel like you’re prying into the lives of two real people, and shouldn’t they be left in privacy?  

The plot is humble but poignant, a couple prepare to have their baby in times when the Earth is under enormous threat from climate change and their relationship is under enormous threat from spontaneously combusting due to all the bickering that comes with producing offspring. No unnecessary frills – a simple and realistic plotline. I usually despise modern plays that try overly hardly to be ‘modern’ and really just end up making everybody cringe, but Duncan Macmillan’s script-writing is the complete antithesis to this. ‘Lungs’’ humour lies in the believability of the writing, as if Macmillan simply used real conversations and made the transcript into a play – it’s honestly that convincing.

The show has a cast of just two - Sian Reese-Williams rockets through her lines with an almost permanently panicky vocal tone, whereas Abdul Salis represents the calmer half of the couple who attempts to calm the situation and think in a more logical sense (to absolutely no end). Both actors were well-rehearsed and bounced off each other through all the complexities of the script, creating a speedy performance that stopped only for us to appreciate the more sentimental parts of the plot. There were no props or lighting changes to fall back on, but it wasn’t difficult to interpret the scene changes and one moment I particularly enjoyed was when the couple snapped into a club scene and took on an awkward upright stance when shouting at each other that they wanted to go home. Sex scenes were kept PG and showed simply the couple moving together then almost bouncing off an imaginary wall – we aren’t shown anything but we all know what was implied.

All in all, a highly enjoyable performance by the Paines Plough theatre company. ‘Lungs’ is on at the Southbank’s Festival of Love until July 18^th at the Roundabout theatre.