Tuesday 5 January 2010

Review - Me and Orson Welles


In a film bound to annoy grammar pedants (as it’s about a literary figure, one might have thought the film’s makers might have considered the fact that this might alienate their core audience - people who like the English language) teen-nip Zac Efron joins the cast of Orson Welles’s groundbreaking 1937 production of Julius Caesar. A strange marriage of Disney star and high-brow culture, this promised to be the first introduction for many fourteen-year old girls into the oeuvre of one of the twentieth century’s undoubted geniuses.


As you can tell, I had one major reservation about Me and Orson Welles – the presence of Zac Efron. Whenever someone tell me that they like Zac Efron (and a shocking number of people seem to feel the need to make this confession), I always wonder if they’re gently trying to break it to me that they’re a paedophile, or perhaps have the mental age of six. What if I, too, turned out to like Zac Efron after all my sneering?


This, of course, is exactly what happened. Not that I fancy Zac Efron – there’s still something weird about a grown woman fancying the star of ‘High School Musical’ (Yes, I know he’s the same age as me – the usual defence for this depravity), but not only did I happily watch him on screen for an entire film, I actually found his character incredibly likable. And he can act. Who’d have thought it?


Anyway, the film. Starry-eyed Richard (Efron) is desperate to be an as-yet unspecified something in the Arts. It definitely has a capital letter to him. He tries to chat up a girl so wet that later in the film she is actually found reciting ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ in front of – you’ll never guess it – a Grecian urn! Not only does she do this in public, but she also obviously doesn’t understand the complexities of poem and recites it with an awed breathlessness that made me want to throw things at her. Thankfully, although he gets her short story sent to the New Yorker, he basically forgets about her about half an hour after meeting her when he manages to blag his way into Welles’s cast by pretending he can play the ukulele, and starts making eyes at Sonja (Clare Danes) – the theatre’s general dogsbody – albeit an incredibly foxy one.


All the men in the cast want to get into Sonja’s pants, but she’s only interested in sex if it gets her somewhere. Despite the fact that this, predictably, breaks Zac’s heart a little bit (he’s 17 – he gets over it pretty quickly), Sonja’s sleeping her way to the top was treated with admirable moral apathy – she was neither a heartless femme-fatale, nor a victim being used for sex, but an admirably ambitious girl who knows how to get what she wants. And, the film suggested, she was going to achieve it too.


Christian McKay as Orson Welles is, as most other critics have pointed out, brilliant. Not only does he look spookily like a young Orson Welles, he also manages to convey Welles’s extremes without turning into a pantomime act. He convincingly negotiates between Orson’s monomania and tyranny and the chaotic, haphazard and nail-biting genius that made subjection to his tyranny not only bearable but desirable. Welles’s modern dress production had the cast in military uniforms and giving raised arm salutes to a Caesar who bore more than a passing resemblance to Mussolini - a brave and prescient political point to be making in 1937 – and cast himself as the play’s moral core – the liberal Brutus. Whilst one has to admire his deft political point, you can’t help thinking that the despotic Welles perhaps had more in common with Mussolini than he would have cared to admit.


The recreation of the first night of the play is the absolute highlight - a brilliant reminder of just how fantastic a director Welles was. The scene where the poet, Cinna, is submerged by an angry mob and disappears, utterly destroyed, elicited a gasp from its first audience, and, even though we’ve already seen it planned on screen, it loses none of its power to shock.


Unfortunately, having blown his chance at acting (and to be honest, he’s a pretty poor actor – he can’t even remember the most basic of lines) Richard ends back up with Gretchen, the Keats-spouting drip. Sonja managed to get her story personally to the editor, and she is getting published. According to the New Yorker, she is both witty and profound. Presumably she is better on paper than in life. One might think that both Richard and Gretchen might have learnt some sobering lessons about the arts world – the importance of networking (often over talent) and the complete lack of job security. However, this doesn’t seem to have blunted their misty-eyed enthusiasm, and the film ends with Richard declaring his ambition to ‘do something vaguely related to the arts’ (this is my paraphrase – his actual words were so vague that that woolly phrase is actually a clarification). At the same time, a pigeon (the New York, 20th century version of a dove) escapes the museum they have just left and soars upward, so presumably this heavy-handed symbolism means that his declaration is meant to be uplifting. Having had such vaguely realised dreams myself at the age of 17, I merely found it slightly depressing.

Sunday 13 December 2009

Copenhagen COP-15

I apologise wholeheartedly for my absence - despite numerous wifi hotspots and the safe haven of the Fresh Air Center (thanks Tck Tck Tck!) I had a rather unfortunate mishap with my beautiful macbook yesterday which involved it being soaked in water. Not due to police misbehaviour, I might add, more my own stupidity in jumping up and down through the carnival crowd of the Global Day of Action Demo.

No doubt, news of 900 arrests have been thoroughly reported within the British media. What perhaps has not been reported is the hundred thousand strong crowd who marched on the Bella Center where the conference is happening in a peaceful carnival with one message - to end climate chaos and seek a fair, ambitious and binding deal as a result of the conference. We were part of a spectacular international crowd who, despite the hundreds of languages spoken, all had the same message, and it was truly exciting to be part of such a significant movement. Various charities provided floats with soundsystems which rolled through the broad Danish streets pumping out Bob Marley and the Who. Actionaid and the Danish Communist Party provided the best tunes in my opinion!

Our mission was to reach the Bella Center for a candlelit vigil, but unfortunately the 8km walk was rather a slow burn and we did not make it in time. When we did finally make it there, we found French anarchists insisting that we return to save our comrades trapped on the bridge and facing police brutality. I personally did not witness any direct violent action, but from what I can gather, a small group of aggressive individuals hurled rocks at the police whilst wearing masks (an illegal act during protests in Denmark) and it kicked off. There are always certain groups who attend such events to exercise their civil liberties and seek violence. However, my belief is that the majority of the 900 arrested will have been swept up with the chaos of the action. I know at least two friends who were held for 9 hours outside in the below freezing temperatures without food, or water, and were forced to kneel on the ground.

Kettling was widely used, as were holding cages (which can be seen here) and police brutality has been widely reported within the community of activists. Naomi Klein wrote well on the mismanagement of the Global Day of Action in today's Guardian. It is a relief to see now that we have returned that some facets of the media have been fairly representing the activists. There has been a rather glaring disparity between the numbers provided by the Danish police and the organisers of the Day of Action; the former suggesting 30,000 whilst the latter suggested 100,000. Having spent the weekend before at the Wave in London (which had 50,000 attendees), I would say that Saturday in Copenhagen saw numbers closer to Tck Tck Tck's estimation.

It has been a surreal few days. I have spent more time in transit than actually in Copenhagen, and the NGO that I attended with as an activist have proven themselves to be frustratingly disorganised and very poorly managed. I believe that had I atended the COP-15 as an independent activist, I could have gleaned a more holistic overview of the conference as a whole, and been able to report more widely on the week's events. As it stands, the clout of the NGO got me through many doors, but the poor scheduling allowed no time for exploration, and this is where my frustration lies. I seriously hope that there will be some impressive eleventh hour negotiations and that Gordon Brown does push for the reduction of 30% on 1990 CO2 levels by 2020. As many of the placards read, there is no planet B, and it is imperative that an ambitious, safe and binding is reached.

Wednesday 2 December 2009

Review - Lutyens and Rubinstein Bookshop

So Borders is no more and no one in the book world seems to know whether to cheer or cry over it. There are two distinct schools of thought: 1) Borders was crap 2) Borders was crap but at least it was an actual, physical bookshop and it was only stocking what we bought anyway.

There appear to be three culprits 1) Amazon 2) Celebrity biographies (Jordan is an entire subsection to herself within this category of blame) 3)us.

As Franklin Roosevelt said, ‘in a democracy, we get the government we deserve’. We all buy our own books, and we buy shit. So we’re sold shit. Come to think of it, our government’s pretty rubbish too. Oh, and we’re destroying our own planet.

Now, to counter this, along comes Lutyens and Rubinstein. An independent bookshop! Hurrah! If it won’t reverse climate change it must at least mean that actually what we’re doing is sticking it to the man and experiencing a resurgence in independent shops for independent people. Except for the fact that independent bookstores which have been around for generations in Charing Cross are closing down around us, driven out by ever-increasing rental prices.

None of this is to knock Lutyens and Rubinstein – it’s quite a nice bookshop. It’s got a great name for a bookshop – if one you want to be careful to practice before announcing to anyone that you want to impress that you’re going there. It’s very Notting Hill (it’s even been featured in Vogue: http://www.vogue.co.uk/blogs/the-vogue-blog/articles/091026-lutyens-and-rubinstein-book-shop.aspx)– if it’s sticking it to the man it’s doing so with a delicately gloved finger. Pretty, exclusive cards sit alongside pretty, exclusive perfumes, and behind them there’s some pretty, less exclusive books.

Actually, the perfume is pretty cool – designed by a former cabbie – I imagine working in a small, enclosed space instilled his passion for pleasant-smelling people. The concept behind the scents is brilliant – based essentially on intelligent nostalgia, one of his scents, ‘In The Library’, is based upon the scent of his favourite book, another is meant to invoke a seaside holiday – which it does – although I wasn’t sure I wanted to go round smelling like the seaside. It’s nice at the seaside, but a bit fishy for everyday. I wanted to like ‘In The Library’ best, but ended up getting the delicious ‘Gypsy Caravan Tea’, which smells like a romanticised gypsy caravan – Patchouli, leather-bound books and a hint of wood smoke. It was expensive – as I said, very Notting Hill.

The book choice was nice. That was all, though, nice. There were lots of classic novels, some poetry, and some general interest, slightly off-the-beaten-track in a Christmas present sort of way ones. Very conservative selection. Very Notting Hill. Obviously, still better than Borders. Beautifully decorated and a nice atmosphere – tea and coffee served downstairs at a trendy and not very comfortable looking table – but doing the best they could with a very small space. The assistant was lovely and pretty, much like the products she was selling. She told the man who bought his books in front of me that the book he was buying was her favourite. I wondered if that was true. It was Graham Greene’s The End of the Affair so I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

In a nutshell, it’s great to see an independent bookstore flourishing. They’d had a run on a fantastic sounding book called Women Who Read Are Dangerous after a complimentary review of their shop in The Guardian. (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/nov/29/borders-bookshops-independent-lutyens-rubinstein )Mind you, after the man had bought their only copy of The End of the Affair, I suppose there’d been a run on that too. Their extras – particularly the perfume, are a great touch, and whilst it would have been nice to see some books which weren’t ‘safe’ sellers and really out of the ordinary, a solid client base should allow them to experiment a bit more. I bought a couple of books that I hadn’t heard of before on the grounds they looked interesting – which is what being in a bookshop is all about. If only I hadn’t gone home and ordered Women Who Read Are Dangerous off Amazon afterwards.

Go to http://www.lutyensrubinstein.co.uk/ for more details.

Last Chance to See - Omer Fast's Nostalgia at the South London Gallery

Hooray! More video art for me to warble about.



Omer Fast's most famous work is CNN Concatenated (2002) for which he won the Bucksbawm award from New York's Whitney Museum. In CNN Concatenated, half of which you can see below (or above, stupid formatting...) Fast edited together shots of CNN newscasters to create a new scary-as-hell text. The film works like a heavily disjointed video essay. The seamless narratives of the groomed and impassive newscasters become distorted, and the distortions bring to light probing questions about the way in which we consume stories and newscasts. Ugh, every time I watch it it makes me start to feel a bit sick....

Nostalgia is a new three part video installation from Fast. It's showing at the South London Gallery until the end of the week, it won't make you feel sick (but it might make you cry) and if you read this before it's over then I would sincerely urge you to go!

The piece is installed in three adjoining rooms, each leading into the next. In the first room a single monitor shows a man demonstrating how to make an animal trap from bits of wood. Despite having both spoken instructions, and a visual demonstration, I still couldn't quite get my head around how this worked. Wouldn't it just fall over? how could you guarantee the animal would head towards this particular circle of ground? Why not just go to the shops? etc. etc. The voiceover described how the narrator (obviously better at woodwork - or hungrier- than I am) learned to make these traps from his father, who had briefly returned from fighting in an unnamed civil war. This bit was all very well, but a bit boring. What was cool though was the way the video looped, so you couldn't distinguish the beginning or the end. Just one long, looping instruction manual, until you decided to walk away.

In the second room was a piece being shown on two screens. A man whom I assumed to be narrator of the first film was interviewed by Omer Fast. The interviewer and the interviewee are shown on different screens, and occasionally whilst one person is speaking the other screen is blanked out. The interviewee, who is from Nigeria, comes across a lot better than Fast does, who seems a bit cocky and bossy. The interviewee is really cute and engaging, and super eager to be in Fast's film. The fact that he was once a child solder, forced to fight in a war that he didn't even understnd, doesn't seem to have got him down. Fast, on the other hand, is pretty morose.

I wasn't sure if the interview was scripted or not (the fact that the SLG newspaper contains a transcript of this section suggests that it is). Either way it's a wonderfully revealing piece of footage. In particular I enjoyed Fast's evident exasperation towards his subject. What's really clever is they way in which the dynamic that we see in the interview makes us reconsider the way in which we read the first film. Like in CNN... Fast makes us catch ourselves right in the middle of the act of consuming: just as we're swallowing the bait we catch sight of the metal hook buried within...

The final section of the piece is also the longest. Projected onto a cinema-size screen, the film depicts a dystopian alternate reality. Again, the pheasant trap recurs, but this time it's not described by an African asylum seeker but by a British man escaping from a war torn England. This bit isn't funny, and it looks a lot like a tv drama, possible starring people off the Bill. Having just seen the previous two films gives a wierd sort of 3D effect to the experience of watching the last one. It seems to be more true, by dint of having been more obviously fictionalised. Anway, in keeping with the majority of reviews on Cut out and Keep: I ended up in tears.

I loved the way that the new fictionalised narrative weaved in the tropes and ideas of the previous two films. Narrative gets a pretty rough time in cultural theory at the moment, but by combining fiction, interview and reconstruction, Fast managed to get the best of all possible worlds. Whilst as a whole the three-part piece interrogates the ethics of narrative, showing the sutures and ruptures from which even the most 'true' story is built, the same time on an individual level the final piece packs a powerful emotional punch. Ouch.

The show is wonderfully curated as well. I loved the darkness of the rooms and the interconnecting corridors. It felt like the placing of the films in three separate rooms had been designed to give us physical sense of the mental journey. Brilliantly, the only way out of the exhibition was to go back through the works to the first film at the entrance, emphasising the cyclical nature of the whole project.

If you live in London and can skip your Thursday or Friday off work then it's well worth heading to SLG for a look at an artist whose going to be big news in 2010. If not, keep your eyes peeled for future shows. I predict he'll be popping up all over the UK next year. If you get a chance to see his work, grab it. And bring the tissues. And a sick bag.

Thursday 26 November 2009

Coming Soon - The Freeconomy Feastival 28th November


The Freeconomy Feastival
28th November

Hamilton House (2nd Floor), 80 Stokes Croft, Bristol on 28th Nov, Buy Nothing Day.

The entire day is FREE for EVERYONE and begins at 11am.


Mark Boyle, the founder of the freeconomy community has rallied forces in and around Bristol to bring you all the Freeconomy Feastival this weekend on the 28th of November, at Hamilton House.

The Feastival offers twelve hours of talks, workshops, bookswaps, clotheswaps, dance and music all for the princely sum of ZERO English pounds, all in aid of celebrating Buy Nothing Day a fantastic global holiday from consumerism, that has been running for ten years.

In the current economic climate, the concept of spending less and reducing our involvement as consumers is becoming more and more appealing. And there are a plethora of ways of doing so:

1. Freecycle - an international network and grassroots movement that sees community members offer and receive items that are no longer desired. I have personally gained 3 double beds, a television and a bookshelf and have given away mobile phones, a bike and darkroom developing equipment. My gran even gave away her grand piano on Freecycle!

2. Freeconomy - a gorgeous community website that has the aim help reconnect people in their local communities through the simple act of sharing. A wonderful feature of the site is that you are only allowed to message members a maximum of three times a month to encourage meeting and skill sharing. I have gained ukulele tuition and returned the favour with fixing a sewing machine, and gained many like-minded friends and skipping buddies through it.

3. Which leads me neatly to freeganism - dumpster diving, skipping, call it what you will, this simple act of rifling through supermarket bins can provide you with a meal every day of the week. You learn to be imaginative with your menus, and as stealthy as a panther. Two great charities - FareShare and Foodworks are also making the most of the ludicrous levels of food waste in the UK.

4. Ask yourself these simple questions before buying anything:
- Do I need it?
- How many do I already have?
- How much will I use it?
- How long will it last?
- Could I borrow it from a friend or family member?
- Am I able to clean and/or maintain it myself?
- Will I be able to repair it?
- Am I willing to?
- Have I researched it to get the best quality for the best price?
- How will I dispose of it when I'm done using it?
- Are the resources that went into it renewable or nonrenewable?
- Is it made from recycled materials, and is it recyclable?

5. Get an allotment. Simple.

I think ultimately, the thing that I appreciate the most about all of these ways of reducing one's impact is that it has sharply come to focus that community is key. I think it is fantastic that collectives like Coexist in Hamilton House are thriving, without any support from the Council, growing organically and responding to the needs of the community.

So if you happen to be in Bristol on Saturday, come to the Freeconomy Feastival and immerse yourself in the thriving creative community, dance, sing, listen, and SPEND NOTHING!



The Food for Free Feast:
We aim to cook a delicious three course meal for 300+ people on the day, and there will be free drinks / snacks / bike smoothies constantly throughout the day. It will be on a first come / first serve basis. Even if you can't come in the evening, or are too late to get the
feast, you can still come to any of the following throughout the day:

Talks (from 11am onwards):
- Mark Boyle (founder of
Freeconomy) - 'My year without Money'
- Fergus Drennan (The BBC's world famous forager) - 'How to make use of Wild Food'
- Claire Milne (Transition Towns UK food policy advisor) - 'Nutritious food - an opportunity for profit or a basic human right?'
- Ciaran Mundy (Transition Bristol's alternative economics advisor) - 'Evil Roots'
- Alf Montagu (Famous Freegan!) - 'Freegan Living'
- Sarah Cameron (Environmental Consultant) - 'Happy Earth Living'
- Megan Orpwood-Russell (Environmental campaigner) - 'Climate Chaos - Campaigning for Change'
- Caraline Collett - 'No money, more love'

Music and performance (from 4pm onwards - run off a pedal-powered sound system!)
- The Undercover Hippy
- Tom Bellamy
- Denise Rowe (from Baka Beyond) with Alex Michelsen and others
- Eirlys
- Siddy Bennett
- The Green People

Cinema (from 11am onwards)
- Money as Debt
- Earthlings
- The Transition Movie
- Age of Stupid
- The History of Oil (stand-up comedy)
- The Story of Stuff
- Wake up Freak Out
- Local film-makers

Holistic Therapies (from 11am onwards)
- Acupuncture
- Massage
- Energy Healing

Bookswap
Bring the books you don't read anymore (not just the naff ones!) and swap them for ones you've never read!

Clothes Swap
Bored of your old clothes? Then bring them along and swap them for clothes you fancy! Or if they need mending, take them along to the 'Junk to Funk' clothes mending workshop in our 'Creative Corner'

Freeshop
Bring along useful things you don't need anymore, or just take stuff that you could use. You can even steal stuff, we couldn't care less!

WE DON'T ACCEPT BARCLAYCARD, VISA OR EVEN CASH!

If you want to join the
Freeconomy, you can join at www.justfortheloveofit.org
If you have any questions - or even get involved - feel free to email
mark@justfortheloveofit.org or on 0775 886 1783

Kids are more than welcome!

So come along from 11am onwards and enjoy a day where you can eat, drink, learn and be entertained completely for FREE!

On Now - Harun Faroki 'Against What? Against Whom?'


In 1966 Harun Farocki was a student at the Deutsche Film und Fernsehakademie in Berlin. Alongside him was the filmmaker Holger Meins. Farocki went on to make protest films like 'Inextinguishable Fire' and 'Videogramme of a Revolution', whilst Meins made 'How to make a Molotov Cocktail'. Faroki is one of the most prolific and respected filmmakers of his generation, the subject a major retrospective at the Tate this month. Meins joined the Red Army Faction and died whilst on hunger strike in prison. The link, and the divergence between these two filmmakers. The theorist and the terrorist, it where the fascination with Farocki's work comes from. The fine line that he treads so effectively in his work, and which is often so hard to negotiate as a politically engaged writer or artist.

I am fascinated by Farocki's work. I discovered him last year when I was studying video art for my masters, and I was blown away. His video essays, created in a similar vein to those of Godard or Marker, spoke to me in ways that I'd never been spoken to before; they used new modes of expression, new forms of montage, new lines - and curves - and folds - of argument. Anyway, it looks like everyone else has been reading the same books as me. He's big news at the moment, what with the retrospective at the Tate, and the opening of 'Against What? Against whom?' at Raven Row. What is it that we all love about Farocki?

In some ways, I think that its got to do with the war (yes, we are at war), and to do with our desire to be simultaneously involved, and absolved. Farocki deconstructs the images of war, and at the same time he deconstructs his own deconstructions of the images of war. It's all jolly clever, and it might be seen as a bit of a cop out, if his films weren't so darn effective. Watching them makes me want to do stuff. To act (well, at least to video). And I suppose that's the catch, and part of the question that his art makes us ask: what does it mean to watch this stuff. When so much of warfare has become virtual, when - as in 2009's 'Immersion'- treatment for post-traumatic stress takes the form of a virtual-reality video game, are Farocki's video essays acts of aggression in themselves?

An element that might useful to think about is the close relationship between image and body, art and activism in his films. Even though his career has been dedicated to the creation of screen works: films and works of art that have no real presence in the bodily world, Farocki's activism is not just a metaphysical concept. This is due to the literal presence of the body in many of his films. The primary example of this occurs in 'Inextinguishable Fire' Faroki's 1969 film about napalm. In the film, Farocki stubbs out a lit cigarette on his arm whilst talking about the effects of napalm. The body of the filmmaker, the manipulator of images, is physically scarred by the events he is talking about. By this insignificant action he is inserting himself - his physical body - into the ecomomy of warfare. The cigarette acts as a cipher for two things. Firstly, it represents a tiny fraction of the heat at which napalm burns. Secondly, it demonstrates the language of association and metaphor in which activists are forced to talk in order to confront people with the realities of chemical warfare.

Anyway, rather than listening to me rhapsodising forever about video art (I can you know...) why don't you jog off to the exhibitions and have a go at inserting yourselves in the economy of warfare. The screenings at Tate are ongoing every weekend until the 6th December, and the Raven Row show is open near Liverpool Street until the beginning of next February. For more information click here or go to www.ravenrow.org

Tuesday 24 November 2009

Review: Nation at The National Theatre


Perhaps you wouldn’t think so to look at me (I hope so, anyway) but in my youth I was a huge Terry Pratchett fan. To the un-initiated, this might seem a bit weird. Pratchett’s Discworld books are marketed at the geekier end of the fiction-consuming spectrum. Pratchett fans are typically the kind of people you find wandering in single-sex groups around the Birmingham NEC. They go to conventions, they have sweaty palms, and often their most fulfilling relationships are with people they’ve met over the internet playing War Hammer (can you even play War Hammer online…?).

Now, I don’t count myself amongst these people. The only time I went to the Birmingham NEC was on a school trip to The Clothes Show Live (I’m aware that this is nothing to be proud of…) and I don’t even know how to play Risk, never mind War Hammer. (I can tell you that it’s Rimmer from Red Dwarf’s favourite board game though, so guess I do fit in somewhere…). I am, however, unashamedly into the Discworld. Admittedly, I’ve not read many of the more recent ones, in which poor Pratchett’s Alzheimer’s is definitely getting the better of him, but early Pratchett. Oh yes! Going home to my parent’s house and cracking open a dog eared Discworld book is one of my favourite Christmas traditions. It’s a bit like getting all wrapped up in warm blanket, discovering that the furthest corner has become permanently soaked in whisky, and having a good suck. Yum.

Imagine my delight, then, when my mother called me up and asked if I wanted to see the new Mark Ravenhill adaptation of ‘Nation’, Pratchett’s latest, in the Olivier theatre at the National. I love Pratchett. I love the Olivier theatre. I even quite like Mark Ravenhill. (At least, I got a big thrill out of Shopping and Fucking in 1997. Looking back that might be because I was twelve years old at the time…). I’ve not seen anything he’s done recently though, and, now I’ve seen Nation, I’m not going to see anything he does in the future. Nation, dear readers, is AWFUL. Execrable. Mind numbingly dull. Crushingly heavy handed. Moronically moralistic. BORING. It made me so angry!

Here’s how it goes:

Small girl with amusingly overblown 19th century name: Look! Black man! Your country’s economy may be shot to shit, and half your people are dead because granddaddy used them as slaves, but 5,000 years ago your ancestors discovered astrology!

Young tribal leader: Why don’t I have any trousers on? Why can’t I do basic maths? I hate myself.

Small girl: Look at these ancient astrological devices that I’ve found! Don’t you feel better now that I’ve shown you how similar to my people you once were? Well done! Now do a funny dance in one of those silly masks, and we can all have a laugh and feel better. Hooray!

Tribal warriors: Ooga Wooga!

British people: Jolly what ho!


I jest not. It is borderline offensive in its inanity. And it is BORING. The plot meanders around, going nowhere, pulled along by the most trite and trying of plot conventions. One of the most infuriating things are the pseudo-intellectual ‘insights’ that appear to be the driving force behind the action. In one plotline, in which they seemed to be saying something about the ethics of the Victorian class structure, the butler, whose life has been devoted to serving the heroine, Daphne, turns cannibal, and tries to eat his ex-mistress. The ‘cannibalised’ servant classes turns literally cannibal. But, oh! Which is worse? Wronged mistress, or wronged servant? Who knows. To be honest, who cares!?

Nation is being marketed at the National’s big blockbuster Christmas spectacle. The people in marketing are mentioning it in the same breath as Coram Boy, War Horse, and Northern Lights. Let me tell you, it’s nothing like those plays. I mean, yes, it shares a theatre with them, and like them, the designers had access to the greatest set and prop making facilities that money can buy. Where those plays differ from Nation, however, at the very basic level of plot: they had one. This doesn’t. There are some nice things about Nation. The set is great. The acting is very good and the lead character is FIT. There’s a very effective shipwreck scene, and some cool underwater moments. It’s not enough to make up for the lack of story though. Rather than anything resembling a narrative arc, all we get is a three hour meandering around various ‘issues’. The good things almost make it more painful – it’s such as waste of resources! Why isn’t Nation good?! How can they have got it so wrong? All questions for Mr Ravenhill to address in his next Guardian column I suppose. Although I’ll never know, because from now on I won’t be reading it. Ugh.

For more information and tickets go to www.nationaltheatre.org.uk