28 January, 2006
Cityrail Weekender
Cityrail should have a 'Weekender' rail ticket that allows passengers to disembark as many times as they want between their home station and their destination on Saturdays and Sundays. For this privilege I would gladly pay around $10-12 from Beecroft to the city. The $15 day tripper is a joke unless you catch a ferry at least once. To make it worthwhile you'd be travelling an awful lot.
27 January, 2006
Finding Employees
There should be an online recruitment agency as comprehensive as the career classifieds websites currently in operation but catering for businesses looking for talent rather than unemployed talent looking for a job.
At its simplest level, candidates submit a comprehensive CV and/or portfolio and nominate which fields they would like to work in. There could also be an "attributes" section where candidates nominate their top 5 employable traits; reliability, time management skills, creativity, communication skills, deadline driven etc. The CV/portfolio would be searchable so that companies could find information like years of experience in a particular industry, particular qualifications, references etc. It would be super if the candidates could nominate a salary range or even provisos like "looking for $40K/pa but will settle for $36K/pa if in particular suburb/region" or "looking for $60K+ but will settle for $50K with car" etc.
The money to upkeep the site would come from the employer. While it would be free for candidates to save their profiles, there would have to be a way to conceal the identity of the candidates, including their name and any distinguishing features, to prevent discrimination and to leverage the site's clients. By that I mean when the employers search the site, they "add candidates" they would like to contact (for an interview or whatever) with an online shopping cart feature. When the employers have paid, the contact details for each candidate can be revealed to them. Perhaps for highly-paid positions or positions that require a particular level of expertise (like, $60K+ or "10 years experience in mechanical engineering" I'd charge a fee equivalent to the employee's weekly pay.
I think this system would ensure a greater accuracy rate in terms of matching employees to jobs, take the pressure off the unemployed and it'd mean that employers won't be bombarded with (sometimes unsuitable) candidates for a particular role. This system would have to co-exist with the current system so that jobseekers who are currently unemployed would have something to do and also so people who don't have great written skills or access to the latest technology can still apply for jobs.
It would be great to roll out physical offices where candidates without the technology or good writing skills go to the agency and someone would comprehensively interview them and then write up their profile, much like a recruitment agency does today. This could be done for a small fee (labour and rent costs money, you know!). Recruitment agencies would then search this site as just one of the ways they endeavour to find talent for their clients.
This idea is here because my head has become too full. As far as I know, it's original as of the date stamp given. I may or may not use this idea in a business environment in the future. If you think this idea has been stolen, or if you would like approval to use this idea, please contact me.
At its simplest level, candidates submit a comprehensive CV and/or portfolio and nominate which fields they would like to work in. There could also be an "attributes" section where candidates nominate their top 5 employable traits; reliability, time management skills, creativity, communication skills, deadline driven etc. The CV/portfolio would be searchable so that companies could find information like years of experience in a particular industry, particular qualifications, references etc. It would be super if the candidates could nominate a salary range or even provisos like "looking for $40K/pa but will settle for $36K/pa if in particular suburb/region" or "looking for $60K+ but will settle for $50K with car" etc.
The money to upkeep the site would come from the employer. While it would be free for candidates to save their profiles, there would have to be a way to conceal the identity of the candidates, including their name and any distinguishing features, to prevent discrimination and to leverage the site's clients. By that I mean when the employers search the site, they "add candidates" they would like to contact (for an interview or whatever) with an online shopping cart feature. When the employers have paid, the contact details for each candidate can be revealed to them. Perhaps for highly-paid positions or positions that require a particular level of expertise (like, $60K+ or "10 years experience in mechanical engineering" I'd charge a fee equivalent to the employee's weekly pay.
I think this system would ensure a greater accuracy rate in terms of matching employees to jobs, take the pressure off the unemployed and it'd mean that employers won't be bombarded with (sometimes unsuitable) candidates for a particular role. This system would have to co-exist with the current system so that jobseekers who are currently unemployed would have something to do and also so people who don't have great written skills or access to the latest technology can still apply for jobs.
It would be great to roll out physical offices where candidates without the technology or good writing skills go to the agency and someone would comprehensively interview them and then write up their profile, much like a recruitment agency does today. This could be done for a small fee (labour and rent costs money, you know!). Recruitment agencies would then search this site as just one of the ways they endeavour to find talent for their clients.
This idea is here because my head has become too full. As far as I know, it's original as of the date stamp given. I may or may not use this idea in a business environment in the future. If you think this idea has been stolen, or if you would like approval to use this idea, please contact me.
26 January, 2006
The Sad Tale of an Indian Girl
I read in the SMH News Review about the social problem of having daughters and the new social problem of technology that allows parents to see if the sex of their baby is female and an abortion if a daughter is confirmed ("A most serious calamity", 21-22 Jan, 2006). Briefly, having a daughter if you are a wealthy Indian basically means that when she is of marriageable age you will need to pay a large dowry when she hooks up with a husband and your business affairs are subject to the meddling of your son-in-law. It's the gender opposite of the poverty-stricken maidens looking for a rich husband a la Austen's world, except in this case the Indian women don't have the power of an English lord. A calamity indeed.
Writer Louise Williams notes that "in some of India's wealthiest districts as few as 750 girls are now born for every 1000 boys" compared to the national average of 930:1000. In one particular incident that brought a tear to my eye, a newborn baby girl was apparently flushed down the toilet of a passing train with her umbilical cord still attached. The girl was lucky - she suffered some bruises but is otherwise healthy and has been adopted by a family in a slum community. Other daughters will not even get the right to be born.
Two things worry me about the information in this article. One is the concept of being able to 'choose' a baby (see the film 'Gattaca') and the obvious gender imbalance it will cause in the next generation, not unlike China's one child policy that saw a similar rise in the ratio of male to female births (recorded births, that is - it is not known how many female babies died as a result of infantcide). Remember that this is occurring in two of the most populous countries in the world. Secondly, the article says "speculative work by the World Bank on China and India suggests a link between a high number of unmarried young men and crime, violence, prostitution and the trafficking of women." I would believe such a finding. Men can be competitive creatures and sometimes a sense of entitlement (to women, among other things) leads them to do things that destroy the person or people they are supposed to value. This is saddening.
I suppose what saddens me most is that using my rather Western/capitalist view on the situation, this does not make sense.
Okay, I know my opinions live in an idealistic world where gender equality exists unchallenged and a patriarchal culture of thousands of years is banished but they also acknowledge the simple commercial aspect of supply and demand. I thought this might be a transaction that the new Indian market might understand. Less women and more men mean that women become rarer and therefore more valuable and, you would think, more valued. Same with China. But instead there's an apparent increase in crime and violence, as if the two developing economies are coming to terms with the realisation that *shock, horror* patriarchal societies can be wrong and perhaps their respective societies need to get rid of this whole notion of business and wealth being a man's domain and instead embrace the new world order - women can be just as good if you give them a fair go. A rather Australian concept, don't you think?
When tradition is thrown out the window there needn't be a cause to discriminate between sons and daughters and their future impact on a family's finances. And I'm not saying there won't be trouble in ditching tradition but such a change is happening as we speak and I just hope that there will be fewer and fewer sad tales about Indian girls in time to come. I'm lucky enough to have two good friends of Indian heritage who happen to come from liberal families who have emigrated into a more liberal society. May this influence the new, burgeoning Indian society.
Writer Louise Williams notes that "in some of India's wealthiest districts as few as 750 girls are now born for every 1000 boys" compared to the national average of 930:1000. In one particular incident that brought a tear to my eye, a newborn baby girl was apparently flushed down the toilet of a passing train with her umbilical cord still attached. The girl was lucky - she suffered some bruises but is otherwise healthy and has been adopted by a family in a slum community. Other daughters will not even get the right to be born.
Two things worry me about the information in this article. One is the concept of being able to 'choose' a baby (see the film 'Gattaca') and the obvious gender imbalance it will cause in the next generation, not unlike China's one child policy that saw a similar rise in the ratio of male to female births (recorded births, that is - it is not known how many female babies died as a result of infantcide). Remember that this is occurring in two of the most populous countries in the world. Secondly, the article says "speculative work by the World Bank on China and India suggests a link between a high number of unmarried young men and crime, violence, prostitution and the trafficking of women." I would believe such a finding. Men can be competitive creatures and sometimes a sense of entitlement (to women, among other things) leads them to do things that destroy the person or people they are supposed to value. This is saddening.
I suppose what saddens me most is that using my rather Western/capitalist view on the situation, this does not make sense.
- A life should not have a financial value
- Men are no more valuable than women
- Marriage should not be the sole path of life paved by a family for their offspring.
- A family does not need to relinquish control to their son-in-law when they have a perfectly capable daughter (if only they'd had enough sense to educate her instead of not investing in her assuming that she would become her husband's property), or even pass a business or wealth into family hands at all, if they don't want to.
- If there are less women in these societies, then a shortage should see the rise of their value, which in turn should see men with dowries. Why should a woman have a dowry when she has more choice of husband?
- Why have a dowry at all? My understanding of a dowry is that when women used to outnumber men, a family would have to entice men to marry their daughter/s. Which also led to marriages that were more about how rich the family was rather than anything to do with the suitability of the daughter and man. It shouldn't happen in this day and age, especially when so many more women are financially independent and India is opening up (as a labour and trade market) to the world.
Okay, I know my opinions live in an idealistic world where gender equality exists unchallenged and a patriarchal culture of thousands of years is banished but they also acknowledge the simple commercial aspect of supply and demand. I thought this might be a transaction that the new Indian market might understand. Less women and more men mean that women become rarer and therefore more valuable and, you would think, more valued. Same with China. But instead there's an apparent increase in crime and violence, as if the two developing economies are coming to terms with the realisation that *shock, horror* patriarchal societies can be wrong and perhaps their respective societies need to get rid of this whole notion of business and wealth being a man's domain and instead embrace the new world order - women can be just as good if you give them a fair go. A rather Australian concept, don't you think?
When tradition is thrown out the window there needn't be a cause to discriminate between sons and daughters and their future impact on a family's finances. And I'm not saying there won't be trouble in ditching tradition but such a change is happening as we speak and I just hope that there will be fewer and fewer sad tales about Indian girls in time to come. I'm lucky enough to have two good friends of Indian heritage who happen to come from liberal families who have emigrated into a more liberal society. May this influence the new, burgeoning Indian society.
24 January, 2006
Diet & Exercise
Does anyone else think it's stupid that commercials for products that want to make tenuous links to being healthy always include "when taken as part of a balanced diet" or "as part of a regime of healthy diet and exercise"? I include products such as Nutella and slimming drinks in this spiel. Any health or slimming element would obviously come from the existing "balanced diet" or "regime of healthy diet and exercise" rather than the latched on product. I love my Nutella as much as anyone else but I'm hardly going to believe that any of its nutritious properties is the catalyst for improved health.
23 January, 2006
CODA (gig)
CODA with Abby Dobson, supported by Inga Liljestrom
Becks Festival Bar, Hyde Park Barracks (22nd Jan, 2006)
I like the Becks Bar. It's laidback, it's funky, it can groove, it can pump. But you would think that the house beer would be cheaper than the $6.50/bottle the bar was charging. The five of us bought our drinks ($3.50 for a small plastic cup of soft drink - the beer was probably better value) and then perched ourselves on the pavement outside the marquee, having a chat while waiting for the band/s to start. That was cool. Nothing like a summer dusk in Sydney.
Inga Liljestrom fronted up first. I'd read reports that her style was a cross between Bjork, Portishead and Marianne Faithfull. Not far from the truth, though unfortunately I'm not a great fan of any of those reputed artists. But she sung with passion and I admired rather than liked her set, which was accompanied by beautiful images of life's minutiae, a seahorse unfurling, a hula hoop spinning. She has the kind of voice that always seems at breaking point, without the delicate ethereality of a Katie Noonan but somehow yearning. It was a pity that a lot of her songs sounded the same - I don't think I could listen to an entire album without checking if my stereo was on repeat. 'A' for effort but I just didn't 'get' it; it's not you Inga, it's me.
Resplendent in fetching hats and debonair outfits (namely Nick and Naomi, viola and violin respectively), CODA took to the stage, starting with an old favourite, 'Latin Quarter' from their 'There is a Way to Fly' album. I have a fond memory of them playing this song to end their set at the 2002 Surry Hills Festival (when it was still held along Crown Street) and making Ross dance it with me. They mixed it up a bit, which was good - some pieces from their album, some from their EP and some new songs which are to be released on their forthcoming album. Abby Dobson came in to say 'hi' and sung two songs, 'Rise Up', which I'd heard at her Christmas Eve gig and 'Circus Bizarre' from the 'For Our Animal Friends' EP, although the EP version doesn't have lyrics (?!).
I love CODA because their style is so resonant, it has a certain depth and reality to it that somehow flies on the fantasy of their instruments. They have a bohemian flair without exploiting the genre and they know what works, they know how to build a piece and present music at its greatest splendour. When musical arrangements are as ornate and quirky as CODA's, you have to admit that they're true originals. Love the strings and Bree on the vibraphone, which is not to detract from drum and bass but that's what I like.
Neither Nick nor Naomi, the frontpeople for CODA, are all that great with talking to the audience. I kind of knew this before from their previous gigs but it seemed more apparent at this venue for some reason - less intimacy, perhaps? I think the set would work better if the music segued from piece to piece, though I know this is almost impossible seeing as they'd have to stop for applause. But less talk, more music!
Speaking of which, I don't mean to be rude but there's no point to the CODApendant showgirls. I'm sure they started off as some kind of tribute to bohemian burlesque or Pigalle or something but seriously, their choreography is rather amateur and their costumes try too hard to be provocative but just pose questions marks. Perhaps they used to enhance the CODA experience, but I think they tend to detract from the music. Assumpta and I both emitted groans when they were introduced and none of their routines did anything to assuage the feeling that they were ruining an otherwise good show. Sorry. I hope they serve some other purpose, like as muses or something 'cos they don't do anything for me.
**** for CODA and Abby; **1/2 for Inga; 0 for the CODApendants
Becks Festival Bar, Hyde Park Barracks (22nd Jan, 2006)
I like the Becks Bar. It's laidback, it's funky, it can groove, it can pump. But you would think that the house beer would be cheaper than the $6.50/bottle the bar was charging. The five of us bought our drinks ($3.50 for a small plastic cup of soft drink - the beer was probably better value) and then perched ourselves on the pavement outside the marquee, having a chat while waiting for the band/s to start. That was cool. Nothing like a summer dusk in Sydney.
Inga Liljestrom fronted up first. I'd read reports that her style was a cross between Bjork, Portishead and Marianne Faithfull. Not far from the truth, though unfortunately I'm not a great fan of any of those reputed artists. But she sung with passion and I admired rather than liked her set, which was accompanied by beautiful images of life's minutiae, a seahorse unfurling, a hula hoop spinning. She has the kind of voice that always seems at breaking point, without the delicate ethereality of a Katie Noonan but somehow yearning. It was a pity that a lot of her songs sounded the same - I don't think I could listen to an entire album without checking if my stereo was on repeat. 'A' for effort but I just didn't 'get' it; it's not you Inga, it's me.
Resplendent in fetching hats and debonair outfits (namely Nick and Naomi, viola and violin respectively), CODA took to the stage, starting with an old favourite, 'Latin Quarter' from their 'There is a Way to Fly' album. I have a fond memory of them playing this song to end their set at the 2002 Surry Hills Festival (when it was still held along Crown Street) and making Ross dance it with me. They mixed it up a bit, which was good - some pieces from their album, some from their EP and some new songs which are to be released on their forthcoming album. Abby Dobson came in to say 'hi' and sung two songs, 'Rise Up', which I'd heard at her Christmas Eve gig and 'Circus Bizarre' from the 'For Our Animal Friends' EP, although the EP version doesn't have lyrics (?!).
I love CODA because their style is so resonant, it has a certain depth and reality to it that somehow flies on the fantasy of their instruments. They have a bohemian flair without exploiting the genre and they know what works, they know how to build a piece and present music at its greatest splendour. When musical arrangements are as ornate and quirky as CODA's, you have to admit that they're true originals. Love the strings and Bree on the vibraphone, which is not to detract from drum and bass but that's what I like.
Neither Nick nor Naomi, the frontpeople for CODA, are all that great with talking to the audience. I kind of knew this before from their previous gigs but it seemed more apparent at this venue for some reason - less intimacy, perhaps? I think the set would work better if the music segued from piece to piece, though I know this is almost impossible seeing as they'd have to stop for applause. But less talk, more music!
Speaking of which, I don't mean to be rude but there's no point to the CODApendant showgirls. I'm sure they started off as some kind of tribute to bohemian burlesque or Pigalle or something but seriously, their choreography is rather amateur and their costumes try too hard to be provocative but just pose questions marks. Perhaps they used to enhance the CODA experience, but I think they tend to detract from the music. Assumpta and I both emitted groans when they were introduced and none of their routines did anything to assuage the feeling that they were ruining an otherwise good show. Sorry. I hope they serve some other purpose, like as muses or something 'cos they don't do anything for me.
**** for CODA and Abby; **1/2 for Inga; 0 for the CODApendants
18 January, 2006
The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency (book series)
The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency (1998)
Tear of the Giraffe (2000)
Morality for Beautiful Girls (2001)
The Kalahari Typing School for Men (2002)
By Alexander McCall Smith (Abacus / Time Warner Book Group)
Precious Ramotswe is an original through and through. Given an inheritance by her late father, Ramotswe becomes Botswana's first and only female private detective setting up a business that attracts requests to trap unfaithful husbands, find missing children and generally know everything there is to know in Botswana, it seems. Woven into the cases are observations about Botswana and these insights into the African mentality, pitting the good old days against some of the ills of the modern world, are the true gems of McCall Smith's creation.
The main cast of characters, Ramotswe, her fiance Mr JLB Matekoni and her assistant Mma Makutsi, all exude a particular warmth in their mannerisms that endear them to the reader. The books are not so much about solving crimes but understanding people, which is why it's hard to define the series as 'detective fiction'.
The strength is surely McCall Smith's own experience of Africa, deftly concealed in Ramotswe's views of her country, and his ability to conceal and reveal details of each case without insulting the intelligence of his readership (are you reading this, Dan Brown?). Often I knew what was coming, the solution to some of the cases, and I'd anticipate it, but instead of the conclusion becoming a disappointing confirmation of my knowledge, I enjoyed the interaction of the characters and the added bonus of their perspective thrown in.
The writing can best be described as quaint, though this hardly takes into account the engaging pace of the four books, which I devoured in eight train trips. Definitely worth a read of you can get your hands on a copy.
**** - I never seriously thought about going to Africa until I read this series
Tear of the Giraffe (2000)
Morality for Beautiful Girls (2001)
The Kalahari Typing School for Men (2002)
By Alexander McCall Smith (Abacus / Time Warner Book Group)
Precious Ramotswe is an original through and through. Given an inheritance by her late father, Ramotswe becomes Botswana's first and only female private detective setting up a business that attracts requests to trap unfaithful husbands, find missing children and generally know everything there is to know in Botswana, it seems. Woven into the cases are observations about Botswana and these insights into the African mentality, pitting the good old days against some of the ills of the modern world, are the true gems of McCall Smith's creation.
The main cast of characters, Ramotswe, her fiance Mr JLB Matekoni and her assistant Mma Makutsi, all exude a particular warmth in their mannerisms that endear them to the reader. The books are not so much about solving crimes but understanding people, which is why it's hard to define the series as 'detective fiction'.
The strength is surely McCall Smith's own experience of Africa, deftly concealed in Ramotswe's views of her country, and his ability to conceal and reveal details of each case without insulting the intelligence of his readership (are you reading this, Dan Brown?). Often I knew what was coming, the solution to some of the cases, and I'd anticipate it, but instead of the conclusion becoming a disappointing confirmation of my knowledge, I enjoyed the interaction of the characters and the added bonus of their perspective thrown in.
The writing can best be described as quaint, though this hardly takes into account the engaging pace of the four books, which I devoured in eight train trips. Definitely worth a read of you can get your hands on a copy.
**** - I never seriously thought about going to Africa until I read this series
The Producers (film)
The Producers
Greater Union Castle Hill (12th Jan, 2006)
I dearly wanted to see the stage show of 'The Producers' but time and money prevented me from making it to the Lyric Theatre, so I contented myself with watching the film version when it opened last Thursday. I like musicals and I'm not afraid to advertise that fact so I assumed I was in for a treat.
From the outset, 'The Producers' is a great romp through showbiz, parodying everything from the ridiculous acts that appear on Broadway (Hamlet the Musical, anyone?) to the over-the-top characters you'll find behind the scenes. Max Bialystock is a washed-up producer drowning in flops until his accountant Leo Bloom suggests that he can make more money with a flop than a hit if he can raise more money for the show than necessary and pocket the excess when it fails. Bialystock does the rounds of his little old lady investors (cheques in exchange for some loving) while Bloom falls in love with Swedish actress wannabe, Ulla. Unfortunately for the duo, the combination of the worst play ever written, an inappropriately flamboyant director and a cast of nobodies makes a surprising hit and the two are ruined.
The film certainly has the colour and projection of a musical but its volume is too large for the silver screen. This results in overacting and it is this lack of subtlety that begins to grate when the song and dance numbers drag on. The lyrics are clever and the songs are enjoyable to an extent, but repetitiveness just doesn't work on screen, especially the end of the songs when the scenes that would usually benefit from an applause transition seem choppy.
Nathan Lane does a great job as the sleazy but not quite vulgar Bialystock while Matthew Broderick is at his earnest best as Bloom. The fringe players, namely stars like Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman, interact well with the producers so all is not lost in the movie. Yes it's funny but even this musical-lover couldn't give this musical adaptation a standing ovation. I think I might just stick to seeing musicals on the stage.
*** - regular laughs interspersed with regular tedium
Greater Union Castle Hill (12th Jan, 2006)
I dearly wanted to see the stage show of 'The Producers' but time and money prevented me from making it to the Lyric Theatre, so I contented myself with watching the film version when it opened last Thursday. I like musicals and I'm not afraid to advertise that fact so I assumed I was in for a treat.
From the outset, 'The Producers' is a great romp through showbiz, parodying everything from the ridiculous acts that appear on Broadway (Hamlet the Musical, anyone?) to the over-the-top characters you'll find behind the scenes. Max Bialystock is a washed-up producer drowning in flops until his accountant Leo Bloom suggests that he can make more money with a flop than a hit if he can raise more money for the show than necessary and pocket the excess when it fails. Bialystock does the rounds of his little old lady investors (cheques in exchange for some loving) while Bloom falls in love with Swedish actress wannabe, Ulla. Unfortunately for the duo, the combination of the worst play ever written, an inappropriately flamboyant director and a cast of nobodies makes a surprising hit and the two are ruined.
The film certainly has the colour and projection of a musical but its volume is too large for the silver screen. This results in overacting and it is this lack of subtlety that begins to grate when the song and dance numbers drag on. The lyrics are clever and the songs are enjoyable to an extent, but repetitiveness just doesn't work on screen, especially the end of the songs when the scenes that would usually benefit from an applause transition seem choppy.
Nathan Lane does a great job as the sleazy but not quite vulgar Bialystock while Matthew Broderick is at his earnest best as Bloom. The fringe players, namely stars like Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman, interact well with the producers so all is not lost in the movie. Yes it's funny but even this musical-lover couldn't give this musical adaptation a standing ovation. I think I might just stick to seeing musicals on the stage.
*** - regular laughs interspersed with regular tedium
Green Pigs
I have no opinion on the newly-created fluorescent green pigs as yet. However, just caught this beauty off the letters section of smh.com.au and had to share:
"A green pig. Who gives a fig? Where are the green eggs? I'd gladly pay. I would eat them in the rain, I would eat them on a train, I would eat them on a tram, if I could eat them with this new green ham."
Sam-I-Am (aka Stephen Power) Sutherland
"A green pig. Who gives a fig? Where are the green eggs? I'd gladly pay. I would eat them in the rain, I would eat them on a train, I would eat them on a tram, if I could eat them with this new green ham."
Sam-I-Am (aka Stephen Power) Sutherland
Motion Censors
There was a wave of it when the 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire' film came out and now it's clear to me that censorship is trying to grab the media spotlight once again. Recent proposals to ban the upcoming film 'Brokeback Mountain' and Sydney Festival act 'The Tiger Lillies' has finally brought me out in protest of arts censorship. I haven't seen either of the shows as neither are out yet but have heard plenty about both, so I won't go into specific details but rather examine some of the issues that have been raised in the prelude to their release.
For the record, 'Brokeback Mountain' is a film about two cowboys falling in love despite the homophobia present in their environs. The Sydney Festival program summarises 'The Tiger Lillies' using descriptions such as " seamy, satisfying mixtures of opera, gypsy song and Left Bank Paris, their songs describe pimps, prostitutes, drug addicts and other unsavoury characters in lurid detail" and finishes with "wicked fun and fiendish depravity!"
The hoo-ha over 'Brokeback Mountain' is well-documented in the USA when the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued it an "O" rating for morally offensive and a handful of cinemas declined to screen it. Apparently distributors UIP won't even try Malaysia, which has previously rejected 'Schindler's List', 'The Prince of Egypt' and 'Zoolander' for various, mostly religious, reasons. In Australia, the religious right, the most vocal being President of the Christian Democratic Party Reverend Fred Nile who decided to protest over the film's content and urged cinemas not to screen it here, implying that it was 'anti-family'. "I'll be making contact with similar pro-family groups to see whether there should be some action taken against it" he said to Daniel Hoare on PM (ABC Radio National). In the same segment, Gabrielle Walsh from the Australian Family Association said "they really need to make sure that people under 18 or families don't think it's just your standard western, and go in to see it."
The hypocrisy of these statements against the film is evident when you consider incidents such as paedophilia in the church and the lack of protest over violent films such as slasher flick 'Hostel' (which reached #1 in the US). It implies that while religious groups seem to have gotten over the possibility that violence in the media has no influence, gay flicks might encourage one into queerdom. Walsh's comment seems to imply that people see cowboy hats and want to see a film, although the nature of the movie is clearly evident on posters, trailers, cinema websites and other media. My two cents is that the film is probably more real than any other cowboy flick you've ever seen. I mean, forbidden love between two men in a conservative society seems more likely than shoot 'em ups at high noon. Besides, the two must face the consequences of their relationship. Would the church rather celebrate the facade marriage between Heath Ledger's character and Michelle Williams' character or the real love between the men? It seems the former, and in that decision you can already start to see what it wrong with some religious groups today.
In today's Daily Telegraph, Nile said of 'The Tiger Lillies', "I think it's serious that the Sydney Festival would select something like that. They try to present it as family entertainment this holiday season and it certainly doesn't fit that theme. It's sad it has been put in the Opera House, our icon. It denigrates the Opera House."
First of all Reverend, the Sydney Festival certainly did NOT "try to present it as family entertainment". Note to Nile; just because it is the school holidays doesn't mean that everything is for children. I wanted to go to 'The Tiger Lillies' but got turned off by the start time of 10:30pm. If that is show time for children then you should turn your attention to the more accessible TV shows that are shown at that time before raising a ruckus about an Opera House Studio cabaret act running for four nights. The Sydney Festival aims to present a broad spectrum of arts, from the spoken word of Saul Williams to the large scale Domain events. This means some of the program is specifically for children, some shows are suitable for all ages and some are specifically for adults. 'The Tiger Lillies' falls into the latter category.
At the volunteer briefing, director Fergus Linehan acknowledged the debauched nature of the show and outlined its previous reception elsewhere in Australia (some people walked out of Adelaide and Melbourne shows and demanded their money back) but justified his decision in bringing them to the Sydney Festival by saying that he thought Sydney audiences more receptive to this type of art and that he found it important for us to have access to this type of act. So your friendly Sydney Festival info booth volunteer is unlikely to recommend 'The Tiger Lillies' for those with a conservative disposition.
Secondly, Reverend, at what point can one lay claim to the Opera House and its program? Do you want three hours of unannounced betrayal, infidelity and suicide or an hour of publicised depravity? When I thought about going to see 'The Tiger Lillies' I knew exactly what I would be getting - it said so in the program and I doubt it has been misrepresented. However, I rue the day I went to see 'Madama Butterfly' on the basis of it being a 'classic'. It was boring and overhyped and I thought I was going to get something more moving and worthwhile than what eventuated. Denigration indeed. But, no protests as yet to this year's Opera House staging of betrayal, infidelity and suicide in 'Madama Butterfly'. I even hear it'll be the highlight of Opera in the Domain on the 28th, a free concert accessible to CHILDREN.
At the end of all this posturing is the question; at what point can religion interfere with the lifestyle of the non-religious? Or being more inclusive of the AFA, at what point can groups of people who want to protect the ignorant interfere with the decisions of the informed consumer? Surely if you agree with Nile's CDP and the AFA the easiest thing would be to make a decision with your wallet and not see the film or the show. But to stop these art pieces from even airing is not democracy. I am an educated, informed citizen of Australia and if a film or show is available for me to see and I want to see it, then what right does anyone have to stop me? As long as the nature of the entertainment has not been misrepresented, I don't see why groups like the CDP and the AFA shouldn't just let their members make their own informed decisions about what is and is not entertainment. The box office will have the last say.
For the record, 'Brokeback Mountain' is a film about two cowboys falling in love despite the homophobia present in their environs. The Sydney Festival program summarises 'The Tiger Lillies' using descriptions such as " seamy, satisfying mixtures of opera, gypsy song and Left Bank Paris, their songs describe pimps, prostitutes, drug addicts and other unsavoury characters in lurid detail" and finishes with "wicked fun and fiendish depravity!"
The hoo-ha over 'Brokeback Mountain' is well-documented in the USA when the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued it an "O" rating for morally offensive and a handful of cinemas declined to screen it. Apparently distributors UIP won't even try Malaysia, which has previously rejected 'Schindler's List', 'The Prince of Egypt' and 'Zoolander' for various, mostly religious, reasons. In Australia, the religious right, the most vocal being President of the Christian Democratic Party Reverend Fred Nile who decided to protest over the film's content and urged cinemas not to screen it here, implying that it was 'anti-family'. "I'll be making contact with similar pro-family groups to see whether there should be some action taken against it" he said to Daniel Hoare on PM (ABC Radio National). In the same segment, Gabrielle Walsh from the Australian Family Association said "they really need to make sure that people under 18 or families don't think it's just your standard western, and go in to see it."
The hypocrisy of these statements against the film is evident when you consider incidents such as paedophilia in the church and the lack of protest over violent films such as slasher flick 'Hostel' (which reached #1 in the US). It implies that while religious groups seem to have gotten over the possibility that violence in the media has no influence, gay flicks might encourage one into queerdom. Walsh's comment seems to imply that people see cowboy hats and want to see a film, although the nature of the movie is clearly evident on posters, trailers, cinema websites and other media. My two cents is that the film is probably more real than any other cowboy flick you've ever seen. I mean, forbidden love between two men in a conservative society seems more likely than shoot 'em ups at high noon. Besides, the two must face the consequences of their relationship. Would the church rather celebrate the facade marriage between Heath Ledger's character and Michelle Williams' character or the real love between the men? It seems the former, and in that decision you can already start to see what it wrong with some religious groups today.
In today's Daily Telegraph, Nile said of 'The Tiger Lillies', "I think it's serious that the Sydney Festival would select something like that. They try to present it as family entertainment this holiday season and it certainly doesn't fit that theme. It's sad it has been put in the Opera House, our icon. It denigrates the Opera House."
First of all Reverend, the Sydney Festival certainly did NOT "try to present it as family entertainment". Note to Nile; just because it is the school holidays doesn't mean that everything is for children. I wanted to go to 'The Tiger Lillies' but got turned off by the start time of 10:30pm. If that is show time for children then you should turn your attention to the more accessible TV shows that are shown at that time before raising a ruckus about an Opera House Studio cabaret act running for four nights. The Sydney Festival aims to present a broad spectrum of arts, from the spoken word of Saul Williams to the large scale Domain events. This means some of the program is specifically for children, some shows are suitable for all ages and some are specifically for adults. 'The Tiger Lillies' falls into the latter category.
At the volunteer briefing, director Fergus Linehan acknowledged the debauched nature of the show and outlined its previous reception elsewhere in Australia (some people walked out of Adelaide and Melbourne shows and demanded their money back) but justified his decision in bringing them to the Sydney Festival by saying that he thought Sydney audiences more receptive to this type of art and that he found it important for us to have access to this type of act. So your friendly Sydney Festival info booth volunteer is unlikely to recommend 'The Tiger Lillies' for those with a conservative disposition.
Secondly, Reverend, at what point can one lay claim to the Opera House and its program? Do you want three hours of unannounced betrayal, infidelity and suicide or an hour of publicised depravity? When I thought about going to see 'The Tiger Lillies' I knew exactly what I would be getting - it said so in the program and I doubt it has been misrepresented. However, I rue the day I went to see 'Madama Butterfly' on the basis of it being a 'classic'. It was boring and overhyped and I thought I was going to get something more moving and worthwhile than what eventuated. Denigration indeed. But, no protests as yet to this year's Opera House staging of betrayal, infidelity and suicide in 'Madama Butterfly'. I even hear it'll be the highlight of Opera in the Domain on the 28th, a free concert accessible to CHILDREN.
At the end of all this posturing is the question; at what point can religion interfere with the lifestyle of the non-religious? Or being more inclusive of the AFA, at what point can groups of people who want to protect the ignorant interfere with the decisions of the informed consumer? Surely if you agree with Nile's CDP and the AFA the easiest thing would be to make a decision with your wallet and not see the film or the show. But to stop these art pieces from even airing is not democracy. I am an educated, informed citizen of Australia and if a film or show is available for me to see and I want to see it, then what right does anyone have to stop me? As long as the nature of the entertainment has not been misrepresented, I don't see why groups like the CDP and the AFA shouldn't just let their members make their own informed decisions about what is and is not entertainment. The box office will have the last say.
12 January, 2006
The Difference Between Sharks and Whales
A ridiculous letter in the Daily Telegraph this morning:
"I think I have a solution for our shark problem. We could create a whole new market for shark meat, alternatively named of course. The Government could make millions from strategically marketing and selling shark meat to Asia and, if properly promoted, other parts of the world. The jobs created for such an industry could potentially be huge. Our beaches would be safer and maybe we will just convince the Japanese to eat Australian shark meat instead of whale." Dean Tadich, Regents Park
Firstly, I'm not even sure whether this letter is tongue-in-cheek because it seems so ridiculous that I'm tempted to let it speak stupidly for itself, but judging by the medium (letter to the editor in a tabloid newspaper) and its apparent sincerity I think I'm going to treat it seriously.
Let me start off with an overview of the whaling issue; whales have a high profile for a reason, they are great indicators of the health of the marine ecosystem and they're really big mammals that mostly eat small prey like krill and plankton. Most whale species are endangered, not just through hunting but also due to pollution and other environmental factors. (But the fact that the Japanese are whaling under the guise of scientific research isn't helping the whale population any, though it is giving the issue a high profile thanks to Greenpeace's efforts. Which begs the question, why haven't they invented technology that would allow them to research their subjects without killing them? And how come they are allowed to sell the whale meat from scientific research? I doubt it would be healthy to eat beef that has come from a lab cow, for example).
Now sharks, the poor things, suffer from a rather poor reputation because their prey is much bigger, fish and mammals like seals come to mind. As I learnt at the Vancouver Aquarium late last year, sharks have very poor eyesight and can't tell the difference in silhouette of a sea lion and a human on a surfboard, for example. Their keen sense of smell picks up warm blood though and they confirm things with a taste. Usually when they taste fibreglass and find out they're mistaken they find something else to eat, like a mammal without a surfboard.
However, many shark species are endangered to the same degree as some whale species, so the disparity in our treatment of them is purely based on the fact that sharks bite humans and whales do not. But think of it like this, sharks live in the ocean, humans live on land - at what point did we take possession of the sea to this degree? We deprive sharks of food through overfishing and pollution and now, when they find a human to munch on, Mr Tadich wants to hunt them as food.
Let me reiterate; sharks are an essential part of the marine ecosystem (therefore we shouldn't eat shark meat), many shark species are endangered (therefore we shouldn't eat shark meat) and humans often infringe on the natural habitat of sharks (therefore we shouldn't kill sharks for doing what come naturally to them). Really, how can you punish a shark? A shark eats a woman, you kill the shark; what does that really achieve? You can't make and example of it, other sharks don't 'learn a lesson'.
How about plain and simple education for humans about the nature of sharks, how to avoid an encounter with a shark and what to do when there's one around? And early notification of the presence of sharks. Discouraging sharks from swimming near beaches is fair enough, provided it's done in an eco-friendly manner (no nets etc). And no shark meat on the market. Please. I don't trust that humans are smart enough to know how to manage something as complex as a marine ecosystem.
"I think I have a solution for our shark problem. We could create a whole new market for shark meat, alternatively named of course. The Government could make millions from strategically marketing and selling shark meat to Asia and, if properly promoted, other parts of the world. The jobs created for such an industry could potentially be huge. Our beaches would be safer and maybe we will just convince the Japanese to eat Australian shark meat instead of whale." Dean Tadich, Regents Park
Firstly, I'm not even sure whether this letter is tongue-in-cheek because it seems so ridiculous that I'm tempted to let it speak stupidly for itself, but judging by the medium (letter to the editor in a tabloid newspaper) and its apparent sincerity I think I'm going to treat it seriously.
Let me start off with an overview of the whaling issue; whales have a high profile for a reason, they are great indicators of the health of the marine ecosystem and they're really big mammals that mostly eat small prey like krill and plankton. Most whale species are endangered, not just through hunting but also due to pollution and other environmental factors. (But the fact that the Japanese are whaling under the guise of scientific research isn't helping the whale population any, though it is giving the issue a high profile thanks to Greenpeace's efforts. Which begs the question, why haven't they invented technology that would allow them to research their subjects without killing them? And how come they are allowed to sell the whale meat from scientific research? I doubt it would be healthy to eat beef that has come from a lab cow, for example).
Now sharks, the poor things, suffer from a rather poor reputation because their prey is much bigger, fish and mammals like seals come to mind. As I learnt at the Vancouver Aquarium late last year, sharks have very poor eyesight and can't tell the difference in silhouette of a sea lion and a human on a surfboard, for example. Their keen sense of smell picks up warm blood though and they confirm things with a taste. Usually when they taste fibreglass and find out they're mistaken they find something else to eat, like a mammal without a surfboard.
However, many shark species are endangered to the same degree as some whale species, so the disparity in our treatment of them is purely based on the fact that sharks bite humans and whales do not. But think of it like this, sharks live in the ocean, humans live on land - at what point did we take possession of the sea to this degree? We deprive sharks of food through overfishing and pollution and now, when they find a human to munch on, Mr Tadich wants to hunt them as food.
Let me reiterate; sharks are an essential part of the marine ecosystem (therefore we shouldn't eat shark meat), many shark species are endangered (therefore we shouldn't eat shark meat) and humans often infringe on the natural habitat of sharks (therefore we shouldn't kill sharks for doing what come naturally to them). Really, how can you punish a shark? A shark eats a woman, you kill the shark; what does that really achieve? You can't make and example of it, other sharks don't 'learn a lesson'.
How about plain and simple education for humans about the nature of sharks, how to avoid an encounter with a shark and what to do when there's one around? And early notification of the presence of sharks. Discouraging sharks from swimming near beaches is fair enough, provided it's done in an eco-friendly manner (no nets etc). And no shark meat on the market. Please. I don't trust that humans are smart enough to know how to manage something as complex as a marine ecosystem.
10 January, 2006
All Wear Bowlers (play)
All Wear Bowlers
Parramatta Riverside Theatre (9th Jan, 2006)
Physical comedy is both difficult and rewarding. The rewards come from excellent timing and an audience willing to follow a joke, however perplexing. Perplexing is probably the best way to describe the premise of All Wear Bowlers where characters Wyatt and Earnest are thrown out of their comfort zone (a film on a lonely, seemingly endless road) onto the stage. The intro is a brilliant piece of film interaction where the comedians pass between the stage and the screen until they are finally forced to confront the audience... and boiled eggs start playing tricks on them.
It's hard to tell how much of their performance is scripted and how much is ad lib, but there are some stand-out moments including a sketch involving a fight over a newspaper, the regurgitation of the boiled eggs and a partially creepy ventriloquism act. The two also regularly enter the fourth wall of the audience for several laughs at others' expense.
Not quite sure what it all means - absurdism, Samuel Beckett and Charlie Chaplin come to mind - but an entertaining way to spend about an hour.
*** - not without its humorous charms
Parramatta Riverside Theatre (9th Jan, 2006)
Physical comedy is both difficult and rewarding. The rewards come from excellent timing and an audience willing to follow a joke, however perplexing. Perplexing is probably the best way to describe the premise of All Wear Bowlers where characters Wyatt and Earnest are thrown out of their comfort zone (a film on a lonely, seemingly endless road) onto the stage. The intro is a brilliant piece of film interaction where the comedians pass between the stage and the screen until they are finally forced to confront the audience... and boiled eggs start playing tricks on them.
It's hard to tell how much of their performance is scripted and how much is ad lib, but there are some stand-out moments including a sketch involving a fight over a newspaper, the regurgitation of the boiled eggs and a partially creepy ventriloquism act. The two also regularly enter the fourth wall of the audience for several laughs at others' expense.
Not quite sure what it all means - absurdism, Samuel Beckett and Charlie Chaplin come to mind - but an entertaining way to spend about an hour.
*** - not without its humorous charms
The Andersen Project (play)
The Andersen Project
Sydney Theatre (8th Jan, 2006)
A Canadian writer goes to France, the Paris Opera having commissioned him to adapt 'The Dryad', a Hans Christian Andersen story, into a children's operetta. And so begins a wonderfully interwoven tale of three characters; the writer, the director and a janitor at a sex shop, above which the writer resides.
Robert LePage plays the three characters each haunted by the pathetic nature of their lives but who all react in different ways. In essence, the play is about coming to terms with sex. The Andersen story underscores a longing for sensuality but each of the characters are more or less faced with a callous version of the act; the writer in escaping his lover's longings to procreate, the director in the inevitability of his wife's infidelity and his addiction to pornography and the janitor faced with the unending drudgery of having to clean used sex booths.
There is a simplicity in the storytelling that ironically emphasises the complexity in humanity and LePage uses this well, scoring laughs at regular intervals. Some of the humour is cultural such as the recurring motif of French workers' willingness to strike, while other laughs come from the characters themselves, like LePage's mostly caricature French director playing against his insecure, self-deprecating writer.
The interaction with props and the film backdrop was especially engaging to watch. I often felt I was watching a 3D movie rather than a stage play at points. There was a certain poignancy in Andersen's dance/disrobe with his would-be lover ('played' by a mannequin in 19th century period costume) and also when the director tells his daughter a bedtime story, Andersen's 'The Shadow', casting shadows and making silhouettes using a lamp.
The close of the performance is purposely anti-climactic and open-ended as the writer inconclusively ends his tale (that he began to the opening night audience in the beginning) and only then is the loneliness, the sparsity of the one-man show evident. Life goes on. LePage illustrates it well.
P.S: The janitor goes on strike.
**** - tight, human, visually splendid
Sydney Theatre (8th Jan, 2006)
A Canadian writer goes to France, the Paris Opera having commissioned him to adapt 'The Dryad', a Hans Christian Andersen story, into a children's operetta. And so begins a wonderfully interwoven tale of three characters; the writer, the director and a janitor at a sex shop, above which the writer resides.
Robert LePage plays the three characters each haunted by the pathetic nature of their lives but who all react in different ways. In essence, the play is about coming to terms with sex. The Andersen story underscores a longing for sensuality but each of the characters are more or less faced with a callous version of the act; the writer in escaping his lover's longings to procreate, the director in the inevitability of his wife's infidelity and his addiction to pornography and the janitor faced with the unending drudgery of having to clean used sex booths.
There is a simplicity in the storytelling that ironically emphasises the complexity in humanity and LePage uses this well, scoring laughs at regular intervals. Some of the humour is cultural such as the recurring motif of French workers' willingness to strike, while other laughs come from the characters themselves, like LePage's mostly caricature French director playing against his insecure, self-deprecating writer.
The interaction with props and the film backdrop was especially engaging to watch. I often felt I was watching a 3D movie rather than a stage play at points. There was a certain poignancy in Andersen's dance/disrobe with his would-be lover ('played' by a mannequin in 19th century period costume) and also when the director tells his daughter a bedtime story, Andersen's 'The Shadow', casting shadows and making silhouettes using a lamp.
The close of the performance is purposely anti-climactic and open-ended as the writer inconclusively ends his tale (that he began to the opening night audience in the beginning) and only then is the loneliness, the sparsity of the one-man show evident. Life goes on. LePage illustrates it well.
P.S: The janitor goes on strike.
**** - tight, human, visually splendid
Kerry Packer's Tax Bill
Just after the tycoon's death late last year there was a lot of press regarding his generosity to friends, hospitals and random people's plights. Then there was a semi-backlash about how he practised tax minimisation through all his business dealings and criticism about how the money he saved through that was far larger than anything he ever gave away (except to the casino). I think as long as his tax minimisation was perfectly legal, then he shouldn't come under fire for paying his share, however small it may appear considering his vast income. I mean, how many people would pay more tax than they're required to?
In addition to that, consider that the federal government has just posted a $10 billion surplus (I can't remember the exact figure but $10b is definitely lower than the figure given). Consider also that NSW is crying out for an injection of capital to cope with the three important things - transport, health and education. Okay, now would you rather pay a lot of tax and see it sit in government coffers or shell out a little bit and give directly to hospitals?
I only mention this to point out that I didn't earn a lot in the last financial year but I made a decision to continue regularly donating money to Oxfam and WWF and a few other charities throughout the year. When I did my tax online, the program suggested that my deductions were far too high for my income. I'm happy to say that there was no mistake. I'd rather control where my money goes than see it wasted on war and politicians' salary hikes - which I certainly didn't vote for. Just like Kerry Packer, if you move the decimal place to the left a bit.
In addition to that, consider that the federal government has just posted a $10 billion surplus (I can't remember the exact figure but $10b is definitely lower than the figure given). Consider also that NSW is crying out for an injection of capital to cope with the three important things - transport, health and education. Okay, now would you rather pay a lot of tax and see it sit in government coffers or shell out a little bit and give directly to hospitals?
I only mention this to point out that I didn't earn a lot in the last financial year but I made a decision to continue regularly donating money to Oxfam and WWF and a few other charities throughout the year. When I did my tax online, the program suggested that my deductions were far too high for my income. I'm happy to say that there was no mistake. I'd rather control where my money goes than see it wasted on war and politicians' salary hikes - which I certainly didn't vote for. Just like Kerry Packer, if you move the decimal place to the left a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)