Thank goodness for the weekend! I've had a thoroughly exhausting but wonderful first week at DSL and looking forward to getting stuck into next week. Here's a list of 10 things I've learned so far...
1 - I need to read the papers more - totally missed that Gaddaffi had been killed and had to be told in class on Friday. Oops.
2 - Ambivalent really doesn't mean what I thought it did.
3 - I count as a student again so get a discount card, hurrah!
4 - Flamenco dancing is lots of fun, but a nightmare for your shoulders!
5 - I have no core strength whatsoever. My less active fiance, however, can sit with his torso and legs up in a 'V' shape. Bastard.
6 - On the other hand, 2 days of yoga was enough to transform me from flailing at my toes to being able to touch them.
7 - My voice is blue and wavy and looks like a snail shell. Fact.
8 - My jaw needs to be constantly massaged or it tenses up like a rabbit in headlights.
9 - The District line doesn't have enough handles, so I have to tube-surf my way home.
10 - Don't poo in the corner. Self explanatory.
Saturday, 22 October 2011
Friday, 22 April 2011
I Knew It!: Video Games Will Save the World!
One of the reasons I am on Twitter is, apart from the social and networking elements, that it provides a platform for compounding a wealth of knowledge from a variety of different sources and areas of interest, personal to each individual user based upon who they follow. I have read so many articles and come across scores of ideas that I never would have access to or inclination to find otherwise, thanks to links from others.
Today, such a link came my way via the Frag Dolls' twitter feed. I am sure many of you are familiar with these ladies but for those who don’t, they are an Ubisoft-sponsored, all-female gaming group who attend conventions, write articles and play games. Alright for some, huh?
Anyhoo, this video, despite being 20 minutes long, is well worth a look:
'Jane McGonigal: Gaming Can Make a Better World'
I'll wait for you to finish. No really, go on....
First off, I wish I was as good with public speaking as this lady.
I think the core idea is an ingenious one, make real life like video games to encourage us to ‘go on epic quests’ to save the world. What a shame she only had 20 minutes. The implementation requires a little more thought; unless she has a plan she’s not telling us here, the three ‘world-saving’ games she demonstrates don’t sound interesting enough to encourage billions of people to play them instead of something with more escapism.
She also doesn’t mention the risk that encouraging more people to game more often may encourage more people to become addicted to gaming, which in itself could only add to the world’s problems.
Definitely worth a further ponder though, and I'm interested to see where this leads. *strokes beard*
Today, such a link came my way via the Frag Dolls' twitter feed. I am sure many of you are familiar with these ladies but for those who don’t, they are an Ubisoft-sponsored, all-female gaming group who attend conventions, write articles and play games. Alright for some, huh?
Anyhoo, this video, despite being 20 minutes long, is well worth a look:
'Jane McGonigal: Gaming Can Make a Better World'
I'll wait for you to finish. No really, go on....
First off, I wish I was as good with public speaking as this lady.
I think the core idea is an ingenious one, make real life like video games to encourage us to ‘go on epic quests’ to save the world. What a shame she only had 20 minutes. The implementation requires a little more thought; unless she has a plan she’s not telling us here, the three ‘world-saving’ games she demonstrates don’t sound interesting enough to encourage billions of people to play them instead of something with more escapism.
She also doesn’t mention the risk that encouraging more people to game more often may encourage more people to become addicted to gaming, which in itself could only add to the world’s problems.
Definitely worth a further ponder though, and I'm interested to see where this leads. *strokes beard*
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Review: Macbeth
Lazarus Theatre Company's 'Macbeth,' dir. Ricky Dukes. Seen Friday 15th April
After auditioning for Lazarus Theatre Company twice and getting no further than recalls, I thought it might be a good idea to actually check out one of their shows. Having heard from the director’s mouth what his vision for theatre is, it sounded at once something interesting, accessible, different, visually wonderful and just a little bit wanky (technical term). But hey, that’s how I like my theatre and goodness knows the devised pieces I co-created in university fit the last part of that brief.
So off I went to see their Macbeth, which promised to be an ‘explosive and bloodthirsty production,’ and found pretty much what I expected. That isn’t to say I enjoyed it, nay, I did very much. There were some real moments of dark beauty found in the movement sequences and I loved, loved, loved the use of the torches through the atmospheric smoke. (Incidentally, had already done that myself for a uni performance attempting to stage Film Noir 4 years ago. I’m totally, like, such a visionary trend-setter. Darling.)
Duke’s penchant for throwing together decadence and decay and images of dark, violent lust were clearly evident, although at moments perhaps a little much for the production at hand. At one point I was distracted from one of Macbeth’s soliloquies (one of the lesser known ones, but still important for character development) by a couple miming the throws of a quick and violent fumble off to the right. Probably had a meaning but didn’t feel right at that moment.
The ladies costumes were all wonderfully fitting; I was particularly a fan of Lady Macbeth’s red dress once she became queen. Less so of the dead fox hanging off her shoulder, but hey, it fit in well with the style of the piece. The men’s costumes, though flattering and in-fitting with the styling of the performance, seemed overtly more modern in comparison, however, and caused confusion as to the time setting, although perhaps that was the point. I also got a sneaking suspicion that the majority of the men’s costumes were sourced from the director’s wardrobe.
The acting was all top notch, although some did shine more than others. Dotty Kultys, a friend of mine from uni before she went on to better things at East 15, played a delightfully freaky witch with an odd smile on her lips all the way through. Nice to see old acquaintances doing well. Elly Lowney provided an oddly fitting female Duncan, at once regal, authoritative and motherly in a way that made her murder harder for her subjects to take, and even harder for her murderers to commit. The feminisation of Duncan added an interesting dynamic to Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s relationship, and further subtext to his thoughts about murdering her, and his Lady’s inability to do so because she looked like her own mother.
Robin Holden’s Macbeth at points didn’t quite seem to have the ‘viscous and savage thirst for power’ that the Blue Elephant Theatre’s website suggested he had, but nonetheless gave a strong and passionate performance. Some of his best acting happened in the quiet, reflective moments that show Macbeth’s indecisive, thoughtful and indeed more interesting side. There was plenty of chemistry and lust between him and Victoria Sye’s Lady Macbeth, and it was easy to see how she could persuade him to kill.
Sye herself produced a frantic, oddly smiley Lady Macbeth. Her sleepwalking scene proved her to be a fine actress but for my personal taste she wasn’t a dark enough Lady. Upon reflection, however, I’m not sure I have actually seen a Lady Macbeth dark enough to my liking. I want to feel thrillingly scared by her during the performance, and sympathise with her only upon reflection after the play has finished. I suppose partly there is a danger of taking her into a panto-evil queen that must be avoided, but I wonder if there is also something to do with the role. Playing a genuinely dark character like that properly poses a risk of emotionally affecting the actress, a risk some directors aren’t willing to take perhaps?
If I find a Lady that I feel is right, I’ll let you know. In the mean time, Lazarus Theatre Company have reaffirmed my wish to work for them at some point.
(At the time of writing the show has closed, otherwise I would recommend going to see it for something a bit different.)
After auditioning for Lazarus Theatre Company twice and getting no further than recalls, I thought it might be a good idea to actually check out one of their shows. Having heard from the director’s mouth what his vision for theatre is, it sounded at once something interesting, accessible, different, visually wonderful and just a little bit wanky (technical term). But hey, that’s how I like my theatre and goodness knows the devised pieces I co-created in university fit the last part of that brief.
So off I went to see their Macbeth, which promised to be an ‘explosive and bloodthirsty production,’ and found pretty much what I expected. That isn’t to say I enjoyed it, nay, I did very much. There were some real moments of dark beauty found in the movement sequences and I loved, loved, loved the use of the torches through the atmospheric smoke. (Incidentally, had already done that myself for a uni performance attempting to stage Film Noir 4 years ago. I’m totally, like, such a visionary trend-setter. Darling.)
Duke’s penchant for throwing together decadence and decay and images of dark, violent lust were clearly evident, although at moments perhaps a little much for the production at hand. At one point I was distracted from one of Macbeth’s soliloquies (one of the lesser known ones, but still important for character development) by a couple miming the throws of a quick and violent fumble off to the right. Probably had a meaning but didn’t feel right at that moment.
The ladies costumes were all wonderfully fitting; I was particularly a fan of Lady Macbeth’s red dress once she became queen. Less so of the dead fox hanging off her shoulder, but hey, it fit in well with the style of the piece. The men’s costumes, though flattering and in-fitting with the styling of the performance, seemed overtly more modern in comparison, however, and caused confusion as to the time setting, although perhaps that was the point. I also got a sneaking suspicion that the majority of the men’s costumes were sourced from the director’s wardrobe.
The acting was all top notch, although some did shine more than others. Dotty Kultys, a friend of mine from uni before she went on to better things at East 15, played a delightfully freaky witch with an odd smile on her lips all the way through. Nice to see old acquaintances doing well. Elly Lowney provided an oddly fitting female Duncan, at once regal, authoritative and motherly in a way that made her murder harder for her subjects to take, and even harder for her murderers to commit. The feminisation of Duncan added an interesting dynamic to Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s relationship, and further subtext to his thoughts about murdering her, and his Lady’s inability to do so because she looked like her own mother.
Robin Holden’s Macbeth at points didn’t quite seem to have the ‘viscous and savage thirst for power’ that the Blue Elephant Theatre’s website suggested he had, but nonetheless gave a strong and passionate performance. Some of his best acting happened in the quiet, reflective moments that show Macbeth’s indecisive, thoughtful and indeed more interesting side. There was plenty of chemistry and lust between him and Victoria Sye’s Lady Macbeth, and it was easy to see how she could persuade him to kill.
Sye herself produced a frantic, oddly smiley Lady Macbeth. Her sleepwalking scene proved her to be a fine actress but for my personal taste she wasn’t a dark enough Lady. Upon reflection, however, I’m not sure I have actually seen a Lady Macbeth dark enough to my liking. I want to feel thrillingly scared by her during the performance, and sympathise with her only upon reflection after the play has finished. I suppose partly there is a danger of taking her into a panto-evil queen that must be avoided, but I wonder if there is also something to do with the role. Playing a genuinely dark character like that properly poses a risk of emotionally affecting the actress, a risk some directors aren’t willing to take perhaps?
If I find a Lady that I feel is right, I’ll let you know. In the mean time, Lazarus Theatre Company have reaffirmed my wish to work for them at some point.
(At the time of writing the show has closed, otherwise I would recommend going to see it for something a bit different.)
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Wagwaan? Evolving English!
So yesterday, on the recommendation of one Miss Emily Stride, I went to visit the British Library's 'Evolving English' exhibition. Not entirely sure what to expect other than some old books and a reading of Richard III in an 16C English dialect (apparently they all spoke like they were from Somerset), I was pleasantly suprised and fascinated.
My particular favourite artifacts were a collection of books suggesting a standardised phonetic spelling system (written in the 1700s and indicated some of the differing pronounciation to nowadays - 'dhe' and 'dher' instead of 'the' and 'their') and a medieval poetry manuscript that spoke about animal flatulence ('the buck farteth' - love it!)
Also featured was a dialect map with samples from all over the UK, which allowed you to compare accents from early 20C to more recent ones from the '90s. Interestingly, I was hard pressed, even in the southern counties, to find samples of RP or even a 'posh' (for want of a better word) accent. Goes to show how unrepresentative the idea of a 'Standard English' accent is. From the samples there, admittedly not as extensive as it might have been, one might think that the stereotypical 'country farmer' accent might be more appropriately representative.
Sadly I learned of the exhibition fairly late; it only runs until this coming Saturday (having been on since 12 November, shame on me!), so if you have a spare hour to kill in London over the next few days I would recommend you nip over there and have a mooch. I would particularly encourage those studying theatre, or anyone who is terrified about Rastamouse and his Jamaican Patois 'infecting' Britain's children. (If you are unfamiliar with Rastamouse,you can find out more here)
It just goes to show that any attempt to preserve 'Britishness' and the English language, and reductive notions of a white middle class Britain are ridiculous. We are a mongrel nation, and have been so since the earliest artifacts at the exhibition were created. In fact, as the exhibition shows, for the majority of the past 2000 years we've spoken a mulch of Latin, French and various Celtic tribal languages. We didn't even have a standardised version of English until the 1700s.
And why consider this a bad thing? Heck, embrace it. Wagwaan? Lets make a bad ting good.
My particular favourite artifacts were a collection of books suggesting a standardised phonetic spelling system (written in the 1700s and indicated some of the differing pronounciation to nowadays - 'dhe' and 'dher' instead of 'the' and 'their') and a medieval poetry manuscript that spoke about animal flatulence ('the buck farteth' - love it!)
Also featured was a dialect map with samples from all over the UK, which allowed you to compare accents from early 20C to more recent ones from the '90s. Interestingly, I was hard pressed, even in the southern counties, to find samples of RP or even a 'posh' (for want of a better word) accent. Goes to show how unrepresentative the idea of a 'Standard English' accent is. From the samples there, admittedly not as extensive as it might have been, one might think that the stereotypical 'country farmer' accent might be more appropriately representative.
Sadly I learned of the exhibition fairly late; it only runs until this coming Saturday (having been on since 12 November, shame on me!), so if you have a spare hour to kill in London over the next few days I would recommend you nip over there and have a mooch. I would particularly encourage those studying theatre, or anyone who is terrified about Rastamouse and his Jamaican Patois 'infecting' Britain's children. (If you are unfamiliar with Rastamouse,you can find out more here)
It just goes to show that any attempt to preserve 'Britishness' and the English language, and reductive notions of a white middle class Britain are ridiculous. We are a mongrel nation, and have been so since the earliest artifacts at the exhibition were created. In fact, as the exhibition shows, for the majority of the past 2000 years we've spoken a mulch of Latin, French and various Celtic tribal languages. We didn't even have a standardised version of English until the 1700s.
And why consider this a bad thing? Heck, embrace it. Wagwaan? Lets make a bad ting good.
Sunday, 27 March 2011
Dear Schools...
As you may or may not know, since December I have been working for Rainbow Theatre Company, touring around primary schools, performing plays teaching kids about history.
I know full well that despite the early mornings and such, I am very lucky to have a job that many would consider 'easy' (don't get me on to why it isn't... so many people underestimate the amount of dedication, hard work and good acting skills required for TIE), and importantly one that I love doing.
Which is why I would like to say a little thank you to some of the schools I have toured to, not for making my job any easier, but for not making it unnecessarily difficult. So...
Dear (some) Schools,
Thank you.
Thank you for making me feel like a visitor in your school. Thank you for showing us where we can make a cup of tea when we arrive (in all likelihood we have been awake since 5am, and a little help waking up never goes amiss!), a bigger thank you to the teachers who offer to make us tea themselves. The biggest thank you to the one or two schools who have offered us lunch. That was entirely unexpected and extremely generous of you. And tasty (school meals eh, who knew?).
Thank you for understanding we have lots of (sometimes heavy) props and allowing us to park near the hall entrance for five minutes while we unload, instead of making us lug everything along your long, winding corridors. Thank you for holding the doors open when you see us approaching with said heavy props, and for teaching your pupils to perform that same, basic politeness instead of letting them run and push in front of us.
Thank you for letting your receptionists, caretakers and kitchen staff know we are coming, so they have time to make allowances in their busy schedules, instead of treating us like a nuisance (you did book us, remember, we haven't just wandered in off the street demanding to perform for you). And thank you for reminding them that we are (CRB-checked) visitors, and not a potential murderer or corrupter of your wards. You are setting an example for your children and thanks to you, they will view visitors, guests and strangers as 'innocent-until-proven-guilty', and thus help nurture a happier, trusting society.
Thank you for understanding that we need time to set up and prepare ourselves, and that when a show is due to start at 1:30pm, we really need full access to the room by 1pm if you want it to start on time. Thank you also for reminding your dinner ladies of this fact, and for employing sunny-smiled, pleasant people who don't look at us like we're the squashed peas on the floor they unfortunately have to sweep up.
We understand our presence might alter your usual school day, and so try as much as we can to stick to your schedule. Thank you for having a little flexibility if we are unable to.
Thank you for reading the teachers notes we sent in advance, and understanding what time we require the audience in the hall, how many student volunteers we need in advance and so on. An extra special thank you to the schools who teach the students any songs in advance, and encourage the students to dress up. It really makes the whole experience more enjoyable for them, and helps them to fully realise their roles in the shows.
And finally, the biggest thank you for having created well mannered, enthusiastic pupils who listen and engage with the subjects we are working on with them. Students who aren't afraid of being mocked by their peers for taking part and caring, an attitude which is far more healthy than holding a pretence of 'cool'.
Well. I did say some schools.
Ta ta, much love, mwah,
TIE actors across the country.
Monday, 14 March 2011
Flawed Coverage
Not a reference to how my makeup is failing me.
I watched the Olivier awards last night through the BBC red button footage, the first time for me but I also understand that this was the first time in a while that the ceremony was broadcast. Well, sort of.
At the same time I was partaking in what became a minor event on Twitter, as my feed quickly filled with posts by myself and others outraged at the, already scant, coverage being interrupted all too frequently by Paul Gambaccini and Matt Wolf providing radio commentary, interviews and analysis. I might have actually been interested in what they had to say if it was played post-ceremony, or optional (after all, I opted to watch the tv coverage instead of listening to the radio).
As it was the constant cutting away to watch Gambaccini and Wolf eating grapes and analysing the winners was annoying enough, but what I found more upsetting was the choice of material that they interrupted. Twitter burst into outrage, and rightly so, when Best Actress winner (which would have been one of the top three awards in any film award equivalent) Nancy Carrol's speech was skipped over for an interview with Gok Wan declaring himself a West End Wendy.
I'm curious, myself, as to why this happened. It could be, and probably was, just that the ball was dropped. I hear from other blogs that the coverage of Jodie Prenger's enthusiastic red carpet interviews had similar problems, showing a different guest to the one she was announcing. At varying points I gleaned that the ceremony itself was actually running 10 minutes ahead of schedule, and no doubt this caused some stress in the switchboard room and threw the interviewing schedule into disarray. If the ball was dropped, however, it was dropped too many times in the first half.
During the second half the coverage improved vastly, actually staying in the auditorium for lengths of time beyond the brief nominee and winner announcements. Once again I find myself asking why. One would hope that the BBC noticed the criticism they were getting and changed their strategy, but a small part of my can't help but wonder if it was because the awards in the second half were deemed more popular with the average viewer? Indeed, Fourth Wall Magazine tweeted that 'One of the reasons the Oliviers was taken off TV was because they were fed up with broadcasters dictating which were the important awards.'
It seems lessons have not been learned. I only knew from my twitter feed that La Boheme had won the gong for 'Best New Opera Production', and (do correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think I saw any coverage other than brief mentions in the radio sections about any technical or backstage awards. At one point The Oliviers themselves tweeted about the winner of 'Best Costume Design' giving a fantastic speech and I found myself frustratedly exclaiming 'Really? I wouldn't know!' Theatre is such a collaborative process and, coming from an actor, far too much emphasis is placed on those who are visible to the audience in comparison.
I want to see and be exposed to the leading professionals in the industry I hope to work with in the future, and not just the other directors/actors.
Perhaps I have begun touching upon a problem with the industry at large and have blamed the BBC for just following the demands placed on them by 'other parties', whoever they may be. It is a little comforting, then, to know there are many out there, on Twitter at least, who mirror my feelings that there's just something not quite right.
On a more positive note, it was good to see the awards getting coverage at all, if only via the red button. And I did enjoy what hosting I saw from Imelda Staunton and Michael Ball, the performances from Into the Woods, Phantom, Love Never Dies, and Sweet Charity were very good, although some of the entertainment could have done with being a bit more relevant (Will they have had Barry Manilow at the Tonys? And what was with the street dance troupe busting some moves during a delicate and moving orchestration of 'Somewhere' from West Side Story?) Hopefully this is a sign of improvement. Indeed, in a country with such a rich theatre tradition, we should be celebrating those at the top of their game just as much as those in cinema in theirs. Many congratulations to all of the winners.
I watched the Olivier awards last night through the BBC red button footage, the first time for me but I also understand that this was the first time in a while that the ceremony was broadcast. Well, sort of.
At the same time I was partaking in what became a minor event on Twitter, as my feed quickly filled with posts by myself and others outraged at the, already scant, coverage being interrupted all too frequently by Paul Gambaccini and Matt Wolf providing radio commentary, interviews and analysis. I might have actually been interested in what they had to say if it was played post-ceremony, or optional (after all, I opted to watch the tv coverage instead of listening to the radio).
As it was the constant cutting away to watch Gambaccini and Wolf eating grapes and analysing the winners was annoying enough, but what I found more upsetting was the choice of material that they interrupted. Twitter burst into outrage, and rightly so, when Best Actress winner (which would have been one of the top three awards in any film award equivalent) Nancy Carrol's speech was skipped over for an interview with Gok Wan declaring himself a West End Wendy.
I'm curious, myself, as to why this happened. It could be, and probably was, just that the ball was dropped. I hear from other blogs that the coverage of Jodie Prenger's enthusiastic red carpet interviews had similar problems, showing a different guest to the one she was announcing. At varying points I gleaned that the ceremony itself was actually running 10 minutes ahead of schedule, and no doubt this caused some stress in the switchboard room and threw the interviewing schedule into disarray. If the ball was dropped, however, it was dropped too many times in the first half.
During the second half the coverage improved vastly, actually staying in the auditorium for lengths of time beyond the brief nominee and winner announcements. Once again I find myself asking why. One would hope that the BBC noticed the criticism they were getting and changed their strategy, but a small part of my can't help but wonder if it was because the awards in the second half were deemed more popular with the average viewer? Indeed, Fourth Wall Magazine tweeted that 'One of the reasons the Oliviers was taken off TV was because they were fed up with broadcasters dictating which were the important awards.'
It seems lessons have not been learned. I only knew from my twitter feed that La Boheme had won the gong for 'Best New Opera Production', and (do correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think I saw any coverage other than brief mentions in the radio sections about any technical or backstage awards. At one point The Oliviers themselves tweeted about the winner of 'Best Costume Design' giving a fantastic speech and I found myself frustratedly exclaiming 'Really? I wouldn't know!' Theatre is such a collaborative process and, coming from an actor, far too much emphasis is placed on those who are visible to the audience in comparison.
I want to see and be exposed to the leading professionals in the industry I hope to work with in the future, and not just the other directors/actors.
Perhaps I have begun touching upon a problem with the industry at large and have blamed the BBC for just following the demands placed on them by 'other parties', whoever they may be. It is a little comforting, then, to know there are many out there, on Twitter at least, who mirror my feelings that there's just something not quite right.
On a more positive note, it was good to see the awards getting coverage at all, if only via the red button. And I did enjoy what hosting I saw from Imelda Staunton and Michael Ball, the performances from Into the Woods, Phantom, Love Never Dies, and Sweet Charity were very good, although some of the entertainment could have done with being a bit more relevant (Will they have had Barry Manilow at the Tonys? And what was with the street dance troupe busting some moves during a delicate and moving orchestration of 'Somewhere' from West Side Story?) Hopefully this is a sign of improvement. Indeed, in a country with such a rich theatre tradition, we should be celebrating those at the top of their game just as much as those in cinema in theirs. Many congratulations to all of the winners.
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
A Fresh Attempt
Having worked on my professional website over the weekend, (www.nataliewinter.co.uk - but wait! Don't go yet, it's not up!) it occurred to me that it might be nice to have a place that wasn't quite so formal to speak my mind, drivel on about stuff only I care about, and be a bit more, well, me. Sure, I aim to have a newsblog on there, but no agent or casting director is going to want to rifle through my observations and ponderings to get to details about my latest show.
So here we are. My little rambling spot. I can't pretend there will be anything great or important said, or that it will even be updated frequently. Nor that it will be wiser and more eloquent than the one I had on live spaces 5 years ago when I was still in 6th form, before Facebook came out and stole my online time away from it. I mostly aim to focus on career stuff, but as ever with me my comments will inevitably stray to geekery from time to time. Posts will likely overlap with some content on my main site, and update notices will be posted on Twitter ( @winterweasel)
So here we are. My little rambling spot. I can't pretend there will be anything great or important said, or that it will even be updated frequently. Nor that it will be wiser and more eloquent than the one I had on live spaces 5 years ago when I was still in 6th form, before Facebook came out and stole my online time away from it. I mostly aim to focus on career stuff, but as ever with me my comments will inevitably stray to geekery from time to time. Posts will likely overlap with some content on my main site, and update notices will be posted on Twitter ( @winterweasel)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)