I'm actually getting really tired of people feeling that some sense of their entitlement is being breached because Ben Whishaw isn't coming to the stage door after the performances of Mojo; the play he is currently performing in London which also stars Rupert Grint among others; each evening.
When actors do red carpets at movie premieres or at the Oscars and similar award shows that is expected because it is part of the deal. These events are PR opportunities to promote the product aka the movie/TV show. Publicity for the movie or TV show being promoted are normally part of an actor's contract. So they have to do it regardless of whether they want to or not.
For me theatre is different. You go because you want to experience a performance and watch a play that may transport you to another place and time for a few hours. Get you thinking in a new way about an issue and challenge your beliefs; and most importantly of all to provide entertainment and enjoyment. I know that film and television can do the same thing but theatre is different because it is a live experience happening in real time.
It is also a live experience for the performers who are actually working while we are watching. Being on stage delivering live theatre can be physically and emotionally tiring (and from what I have read of the first performances and having read the play twice it seems that Ben Whishaw's character is on a rollercoaster of emotion). That in itself could be exhausting night after night.
Fair enough other cast members are signing and chatting with fans outside afterwards and it is their choice to do that. My point is do people actually want to see a play and the acting talent of the cast or just wait outside afterwards to see them more like movie stars at Hollywood premieres.
When did it stop being about the play and the acting and become all about the "celebrity" side?
I have always thought Ben Whishaw is not comfortable with the "star" image like some of his peers. So why can't people just accept that. He is an actor doing a job of performing on stage and entertaining people. From what I have read he is doing his job amazingly well as ever. So where is the issue?
Also, since his last West End performance (in Peter & Alice, with Judi Dench) his private life may have become a little too public for his tastes (not going in to that here) and maybe he is wary of being exposed in some way. Would we like it if our personal life was on show? Probably not.
For him, I hope that isn't why he's not engaging with the crowd after the performances. He could simply be trying to shed himself of the character before he steps back into his own life. All this is merely speculative and we will never know unless he chooses to reveal all (which I very much doubt!!).
Just give him a break. Enjoy his performances but don't feel you have any right to own any part of him or his personal time. Remember the ticket price does not include an audience with the cast after the show; unless there is a Q&A session.
This is a recent example of an issue I have been pondering for quite awhile and I plan on exploring it from different angles.
How much can we, the public, expect from people in the public eye? Are such people expected to give more of themselves to the public than was previously the case. How much of their time and their private life have we a right to encroach on.
The public/private boundaries that existed before have changed with the invention of "Reality TV" and the E! channel "celebrities" who are the stars of these programmes. I have a lot to say on this issue so I will be returning to it again and as always I would love to hear what you think......
Wednesday, 30 October 2013
Friday, 20 September 2013
Women Unwrapped......
There has been a lot of coverage recently on how women are depicted in the media. This discussion has been driven, in the most part, by that now infamous Robin Thicke video for his song "Blurred Lines" and his subsequent performance with Miley Cyrus, at the MTV VMA awards.
The song, in my opinion, is nothing new in terms of the misogyny of the lyrics. The sad fact is that we are exposed to these type of lyrics every day. My interest in the debate centres on how men and women are depicted in the accompanying video.
For those who are not familiar with the video, it shows Robin Thicke, Farrell and I think TI suited, booted and looking very polished. The women, on the other hand, are wearing practically nothing and striking a series of provocative poses around the men.
To me this represents control. To have the men, at all times, fully clothed shows that they are in control. The women, on the other hand, are by their nakedness shown as exposed and vunerable. This video is a striking example of how men and women are treated differently, in the media, generally.
If you scan the shelves of any newsagents, you will be assaulted with many images on the front covers of magazines. What I have noted is that women are often shown wearing very little and striking provocative poses on the cover of men's and women's magazines. The women are almost being unwrapped before our eyes.
Men, on the other hand, tend to be shown looking very handsome usually in a well tailored suit. I will admit to having a liking for handsome men (or at least those I consider to be handsome) in a well tailored suit but, for me, this again reinforces the issue of power and control.
My question is why can't women appear on the cover of magazines fully clothed, looking classy and in control of their own destiny?
I know some will say that the women are there because they chose to be and I accept that is their prerogative but what kind of message does that send out to our children. One that says girls are to be rated on physical appearance and judged by their bust measurements not their IQ.
I did have to smile when some men felt they were being "exploited" by a parody of the "Blurred Lines" video which was made by some law students, in Auckland, New Zealand. This resulted in that video being temporarily removed from You tube while the Robin Thicke video remained available. The video was subsequently reinstated to You tube. In this video, the roles are reversed and the women are in control.
Below is a link to the "Blurred Lines" parody but please note that this may not be suitable to view at work.
I would love to know your thoughts on this issue as I know it can be quite a divisive one.
The song, in my opinion, is nothing new in terms of the misogyny of the lyrics. The sad fact is that we are exposed to these type of lyrics every day. My interest in the debate centres on how men and women are depicted in the accompanying video.
For those who are not familiar with the video, it shows Robin Thicke, Farrell and I think TI suited, booted and looking very polished. The women, on the other hand, are wearing practically nothing and striking a series of provocative poses around the men.
To me this represents control. To have the men, at all times, fully clothed shows that they are in control. The women, on the other hand, are by their nakedness shown as exposed and vunerable. This video is a striking example of how men and women are treated differently, in the media, generally.
If you scan the shelves of any newsagents, you will be assaulted with many images on the front covers of magazines. What I have noted is that women are often shown wearing very little and striking provocative poses on the cover of men's and women's magazines. The women are almost being unwrapped before our eyes.
Men, on the other hand, tend to be shown looking very handsome usually in a well tailored suit. I will admit to having a liking for handsome men (or at least those I consider to be handsome) in a well tailored suit but, for me, this again reinforces the issue of power and control.
My question is why can't women appear on the cover of magazines fully clothed, looking classy and in control of their own destiny?
I know some will say that the women are there because they chose to be and I accept that is their prerogative but what kind of message does that send out to our children. One that says girls are to be rated on physical appearance and judged by their bust measurements not their IQ.
I did have to smile when some men felt they were being "exploited" by a parody of the "Blurred Lines" video which was made by some law students, in Auckland, New Zealand. This resulted in that video being temporarily removed from You tube while the Robin Thicke video remained available. The video was subsequently reinstated to You tube. In this video, the roles are reversed and the women are in control.
Below is a link to the "Blurred Lines" parody but please note that this may not be suitable to view at work.
I would love to know your thoughts on this issue as I know it can be quite a divisive one.
Sunday, 15 September 2013
Labels....a rough draft.
I was inspired to write the poem below, currently in the first draft, after revisiting a film that had a profound effect on my younger self. The film in question is "An Angel at my Table" - directed by Jane Campion and starring a young Kerry Fox. This film is a biopic of the life of the celebrated New Zealand writer and poet, Janet Frame.
If you are not familiar with Janet Frame or her work, I would encourage you to take the time to read some of her writing and, if you get a chance, to watch the film "An Angel at my Table". Janet Frame suffered a mental breakdown and spent several years in an asylum, during which time, she was subjected to treatments such as electric shock treatment. Her life is a fascinating and interesting one and her story got me thinking about the labels we put on ourselves and others.
The poem below is a work in progress and I would as always love to know your thoughts on the ideas, raised in the poem, or the film if you have seen it.
"Labels"
Why do we label people and box them away?
Is it to make life feel more simple and provide comfort in structure.
Do I want to be labelled? NO
How do people see me? Am I nice, naughty, warm, angry, bright, dull.
The list of descriptions is as infinite as the heavens.
My head is spinning with all the labels that could be pinned to my collar.
My collar would fill up like a boy scout collects badges for his lapel.
Am I weighed down by the labels on my collar? YES
I am more than the sum of their parts.
They are simply words given a meaning. That meaning does not define me.
I am indefinable, indescribable, and my soul changes clothes at least once a century.
I don't get a choice in the clothes that it wears........that is the lottery of existence.
Why people spend time analysing, defining and ticking boxes is something I can't comprehend.
All that amounts to is wasted energy and hours that can never be returned.
Labels are like musty old jars on a shelf. They fill up a space but take them away and what is left - NOTHING
A void that can't be filled or a space full of infinite possibilities?
Carol O'Donovan
15th September 2013
If you are not familiar with Janet Frame or her work, I would encourage you to take the time to read some of her writing and, if you get a chance, to watch the film "An Angel at my Table". Janet Frame suffered a mental breakdown and spent several years in an asylum, during which time, she was subjected to treatments such as electric shock treatment. Her life is a fascinating and interesting one and her story got me thinking about the labels we put on ourselves and others.
The poem below is a work in progress and I would as always love to know your thoughts on the ideas, raised in the poem, or the film if you have seen it.
"Labels"
Why do we label people and box them away?
Is it to make life feel more simple and provide comfort in structure.
Do I want to be labelled? NO
How do people see me? Am I nice, naughty, warm, angry, bright, dull.
The list of descriptions is as infinite as the heavens.
My head is spinning with all the labels that could be pinned to my collar.
My collar would fill up like a boy scout collects badges for his lapel.
Am I weighed down by the labels on my collar? YES
I am more than the sum of their parts.
They are simply words given a meaning. That meaning does not define me.
I am indefinable, indescribable, and my soul changes clothes at least once a century.
I don't get a choice in the clothes that it wears........that is the lottery of existence.
Why people spend time analysing, defining and ticking boxes is something I can't comprehend.
All that amounts to is wasted energy and hours that can never be returned.
Labels are like musty old jars on a shelf. They fill up a space but take them away and what is left - NOTHING
A void that can't be filled or a space full of infinite possibilities?
Carol O'Donovan
15th September 2013
Tuesday, 30 July 2013
How did I miss this......
Can someone please explain how it took me so long discover this example of television at its very best .........
Thursday, 4 July 2013
Some of my favourite things.......
This isn't a musing but a picture of two things likely to feature on here quite a lot ................. a cup of tea and Ben Whishaw:)
The "Sisterhood".....
This post is inspired by a piece I heard on the radio recently. Two authors were being interviewed about their recently published novels, both centered around groups of female friends. Such groups are commonly referred to as the "Sisterhood" . The question being posed was does the "Sisterhood" actually exist and are woman really that supportive of each other?
For me, this is a simple question that has a very complex answer.
My initial response is to say that the "Sisterhood" has probably been somewhat diluted in the younger generation. This is due to the barriers in relation to "mixed friendships"having been broken down. By "mixed friendships", I mean friendships between men and woman on a platonic level. The younger generation are more likely to have a mix of friends growing up. I think this is healthy and I have always had a rich tapestry of friends that have given me interesting perspectives on life. Having such friendships allows you to see things from different viewpoints and breaks down some of the misunderstandings that can occur between the sexes.
I have always viewed the concept of the "Sisterhood" with some trepidation. Close female friendships are important, especially when going through different events in women's lives, like first period, pregnancy, menopause etc. I prize my female friendships and they add so much to my life. But another side of the "Sisterhood" is not so pleasant.
The "Sisterhood" isn't always a state where all citizens are created equal. If you go back and think about it woman used to be in competition with each other. A competition where it was survival of the fittest. The competition in question was the one to make a good match. To find a suitable husband. If like me you are a lover of period novels, films and television dramas, you will know that plots can often be centered around the marriage proposal. The battle for the marriage proposal was as bruising a battle as any of the men might have fought on the battlefield. Your fortune, and often that of your family, was determined by your success in battle.
The element of competition hasn't gone away among women today. It's just changed. Girls can become aware of this competition when they reach their teens. Many of today's teen dramas centre around the popular girls and the ugly duckling. The story arc of these dramas is usually that the ugly duckling is tormented by the popular girls but blossoms into a beautiful swan by the end. She usually gets the boy as well and becomes the prom queen/head girl etc. (delete as appropriate).
Another twist on this theme, moves the story on a few years, where the ugly duckling has now become successful and beautiful. Usually she has a glamourous job in publishing or journalism in a major city like New York or London. These type of stories revolve around going back to a school reunion or wedding and facing the demons from your past.
Whilst these movies provide light entertainment and frivolous fun, I often question whether or not they send out the wrong message. They seem to revolve around pitting women or girls against each other where getting the guy is the spoil of victory.
From my observations on the differences between men and women, it appears to me that men are much more straightforward in how they operate their friendships. It seems to be a case of what you see is what you get. If men have an issue they tend to let it out, have it out and get over it. Women, on the other hand, can smile sweetly at each other and exchange pleasantries whilst boiling up inside with rage. This can build up over time with the eventual eruption that can be fatal to the friendship.
I love my female friends and my male friends equally. In reality, I just love my friends and the joy that they bring to my life.
For me, this is a simple question that has a very complex answer.
My initial response is to say that the "Sisterhood" has probably been somewhat diluted in the younger generation. This is due to the barriers in relation to "mixed friendships"having been broken down. By "mixed friendships", I mean friendships between men and woman on a platonic level. The younger generation are more likely to have a mix of friends growing up. I think this is healthy and I have always had a rich tapestry of friends that have given me interesting perspectives on life. Having such friendships allows you to see things from different viewpoints and breaks down some of the misunderstandings that can occur between the sexes.
I have always viewed the concept of the "Sisterhood" with some trepidation. Close female friendships are important, especially when going through different events in women's lives, like first period, pregnancy, menopause etc. I prize my female friendships and they add so much to my life. But another side of the "Sisterhood" is not so pleasant.
The "Sisterhood" isn't always a state where all citizens are created equal. If you go back and think about it woman used to be in competition with each other. A competition where it was survival of the fittest. The competition in question was the one to make a good match. To find a suitable husband. If like me you are a lover of period novels, films and television dramas, you will know that plots can often be centered around the marriage proposal. The battle for the marriage proposal was as bruising a battle as any of the men might have fought on the battlefield. Your fortune, and often that of your family, was determined by your success in battle.
The element of competition hasn't gone away among women today. It's just changed. Girls can become aware of this competition when they reach their teens. Many of today's teen dramas centre around the popular girls and the ugly duckling. The story arc of these dramas is usually that the ugly duckling is tormented by the popular girls but blossoms into a beautiful swan by the end. She usually gets the boy as well and becomes the prom queen/head girl etc. (delete as appropriate).
Another twist on this theme, moves the story on a few years, where the ugly duckling has now become successful and beautiful. Usually she has a glamourous job in publishing or journalism in a major city like New York or London. These type of stories revolve around going back to a school reunion or wedding and facing the demons from your past.
Whilst these movies provide light entertainment and frivolous fun, I often question whether or not they send out the wrong message. They seem to revolve around pitting women or girls against each other where getting the guy is the spoil of victory.
From my observations on the differences between men and women, it appears to me that men are much more straightforward in how they operate their friendships. It seems to be a case of what you see is what you get. If men have an issue they tend to let it out, have it out and get over it. Women, on the other hand, can smile sweetly at each other and exchange pleasantries whilst boiling up inside with rage. This can build up over time with the eventual eruption that can be fatal to the friendship.
I love my female friends and my male friends equally. In reality, I just love my friends and the joy that they bring to my life.
Tuesday, 2 July 2013
The beautiful boy with the beautiful smile....
As I work hard bringing you this week's post, here is a treat for the senses.....
Most of you who know me, and as those of you who don't will soon discover, I am rather fond of a beautiful being who goes by the name of Benjamin John Whishaw.
I could devote a hundred and one posts as to why I think Ben is special but that is for another day. For those of you who don't yet know this beautiful being, he is a rather amazing English actor. Probably best known for reprising the role of Q, in Skyfall (Bond 23), but his body of work is far more extensive than that.
It is rare to have a photo shoot or a publicity photograph where Ben is actually smiling (note I don't post personal or paparazzi pictures as we all deserve to have a private life), but a few rare gems seemed to have hit the net, in recent weeks, showing a very smiling Ben.
Enjoy:)
Most of you who know me, and as those of you who don't will soon discover, I am rather fond of a beautiful being who goes by the name of Benjamin John Whishaw.
I could devote a hundred and one posts as to why I think Ben is special but that is for another day. For those of you who don't yet know this beautiful being, he is a rather amazing English actor. Probably best known for reprising the role of Q, in Skyfall (Bond 23), but his body of work is far more extensive than that.
Enjoy:)
 |
| A very smiling Ben at the opening day of Wimbledon 2013 - 24th June 2013 |
 |
| Ben Whishaw & Michelle Dockery - Evian Live Young Suite Wimbledon 2013 |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)