Objectionable stanza #2

A quick, if tardy, update on the Lee Hall situation: it seems that in return for changing one of the couplets in the offending stanza, Hall has persuaded Opera North to go ahead with his opera after all. Hurray!

The objectionable stanza will now go:

Of course I’m gay
That’s why I went away
So if you infer
That I prefer
A lad to a lass
And him working class
I’d have to concur.

Bay Primary School are back in the opera. Opera North are ‘delighted’. Lee Hall describes it as a ‘victory’. Folk across twitter, gay and otherwise, are talking of justice and sanity. Everyone is happy!

…and they’re all ignoring one vital point: it’s still a terrible stanza. Indeed, all three of the sins I observed before remain intact.

It makes me wonder whether William McGonagall might have seen more commercial success if he had claimed to be the victim of homophobic discrimination. Clearly, artistic ability is as nothing to the power of the outraged minority.

The thing with Lee Hall
Whose lyrics appall
(As Sondheim would say: death of wit)
Is that top of his crimes,
Where others use rhymes
He uses identities – twit.

Discrimination? I'll say. Not to mention discernment.

Today’s storm in a teacup was provided by Bay Primary School in Bridlington, which caused the cancellation of a new opera by pulling 300 of its pupils out of the production due to sheer, unbridled homophobia.

Well, that’s the spin that the media and social networking sites seem to be a-tweet with. The story I read states that the school had a problem with the opera’s ‘drug taking, sexual conduct and the use of homophobic name-calling’, only one of which is related to homosexuality and looks to me more like an objection to language than sexual inclination – something which an institution devoted to the care and education of youngsters has every right to be concerned about.

But let’s have a look at librettist Lee ‘Billy Elliot’ Hall’s side of the argument – after all, he wrote the best translation of an opera I’ve ever seen in ENO’s 2007 Pagliacci and if he refused to have his work censored he must have had good reason.

Fortunately, the same article gives us a taste of one of the more offensive bits, which goes like this:

Of course I’m queer
That’s why I left here
So if you infer
That I prefer
A lad to a lass
And I’m working class
I’d have to concur.

eh? Is this a joke? Did a BBC journalist just make it up? Or is this actually an excerpt from Hall’s libretto? If the latter, I’m beginning to sympathise even more with Bay Primary School in Bridlington.

Let’s have a quick look at the sins here:

1. The scansion is dreadful. Only the third couplet has a regular rhythmic pattern and however you say the others the stresses fall in the wrong place.

2. Hall has attempted to rhyme ‘infer’ with ‘prefer’ and ‘lass’ with ‘class’, neither of which is actually a rhyme because the accented consonant is the same – this makes them mere identities, which as Sondheim says in his recent book ‘are death on wit’. (These couplets prove his point pretty succinctly.)

3. Who exactly is talking here? A Northern working class character who uses words like ‘lad and lass’? Or a pretentious effete person who likes to ‘infer’ and ‘concur’? There’s absolutely no consistency to the language and unless it’s a deliberate attempt to roll Northern and gay stereotypes into one stanza, all that inferring and preferring just makes it look like he was stuck for a rhyme. Sorry – stuck for an identity.

Offensive? I’ll say. And bravo to Bay Primary School in Bridlington for saving 300 children – and indeed thousands more innocent theatregoers – from being exposed to this shamelessly immoral use of language.

Super-beasts? Not even close.

Having spent the last two years immersed in the work of Saki and long since concluded that he is a criminally underrated writer, I was excited to hear that the Woman’s Hour drama was to be a series of dramatisations based on five his short stories. Though I did think that Saki’s savage wit, still razor sharp after a century, was a little outré for Woman’s Hour.

Oh, but how wrong I was. The operative words transpired to be ‘based on’, Sean Grundy’s adaptations throwing out so many of the babies in the Saki bathwater (comprehensibility amongst them) that they might as well have chucked the bloody bath out as well.

Where to begin? Superficially, the boldest move was to relocate Saki’s quintessentially pre-First World War stories to the present day. Not that it’s necessarily wrong to redress old settings in this way, if there’s a reason – but it’s difficult to see why anyone would swap an evocative turn-of-the-century setting for a bland modern estate, especially when the former is so much a part of the fabric of the stories themselves. If Grundy’s decision was based on the old Russell T. Davies fallacy that an audience can only identify with something they recognise from their own lives then he fouled up badly – class being an essential theme in Saki’s stories, Grundy was forced to locate them in a ‘gated community’, a notion which is surely alien even to most listeners of Woman’s Hour and which was so contrived in delivery that an Edwardian drawing room would have felt positively homely by comparison.

Immediately, then, the point of Saki’s satire, which is to turn a mirror onto his audience, was lost, much of his vicious observation being so blunted in the process that it ended up coming across as merely quirky. The childlike objectivity which gives an authentic eeriness to the horror of ‘Sredni Vashtar’ or the dark comedy of ‘Gabriel-Ernest’ became silly melodrama and as such was neither funny nor horrific. As for the definitive black humour of ‘Tobermory’, a story with multiple layers of meaning in which the key point is that an entire household conspires to have a cat destroyed because it has learned to talk: this was a production so spineless that it had Tobermory secretly rescued and set free by an uncharacteristically compassionate Clovis.

Ah yes, Clovis. In this adaptation Saki’s boyish hero was a woman, something as unpalatable as a female Bertie Wooster or a female Wilt, though I willingly admit that may be the result of preconceptions that deserve to be challenged. But gender wasn’t the real issue: where Saki’s Clovis is persistent, irreverent and youthful, undermining his society from within, Grundy’s Clovis was a world-weary security guard, an outsider carping about her rich employers. Saki’s vivid portrayal of a decadent society on the edge of self-destruction with Clovis essentially moving deckchairs as the ship plunges into the water was completely lost. And what a tiresomely 21st century character this Clovis was – sarcastic rather than witty, bored and boring, so middle-aged (Saki’s Clovis is a character who lightly declaims ‘to have reached 30 is to have failed in life’). Furthermore, the gender change couldn’t help but feel like a sop to the Woman’s Hour slot, especially in the light of another alteration which was to turn Mrs De Ropp, the nasty guardian who gets torn to pieces by a ferret in ‘Sredni Vashtar’, into a shouty businessman. Was it felt that a woman being brutally killed was a step too far for Woman’s Hour (this is evidently an audience which can’t even cope with the murder of a cat)? Or that an evil woman of any kind, however subtly drawn, would be unacceptable to the listeners? Or was this simply pandering to Jenni Murray’s unspoken but palpable desire to see (or at least hear) a man being ripped to shreds by a ferret?

Then there’s this issue of language. Saki’s use of words is known to have inspired Coward and shows the influence of Wilde, who Saki can match for sparkling dialogue and finely crafted one-liners. I know that drama can’t be slavishly faithful to its source material (I’ve been adapting Saki stories myself and I haven’t retained any of his wording at all except for the occasional quip) but in relocating the stories these adaptations substituted a tedious vernacular for all of the style and panache that makes Saki pure pleasure to read. The observed simmering politeness that laces his narratives (‘my dear Sophie,’ said the Gräfin sweetly, ‘that isn’t in the least bit clever; but you do try so hard that I suppose I oughtn’t to discourage you’) was ditched for angry expletives like ‘piss-poor’, which might verge on the shocking at 10.45am on Radio 4 but isn’t anything like as subversive as the original.

So what, in fact, was left of Saki’s masterful work in the broken fallout from this horrible car crash of an adaptation? Not a lot, really. A few names and basic plot, which of course is not what short story writing is really about. To turn stories which even today feel fresh and edgy into this tired, passé drama takes quite an ego and it was Sean Grundy, not Saki, who I sat listening to – a writer whose voice has none of the eloquence or wit of the latter. It’s available on iPlayer until next Sunday if you want to make up your own mind, but I can’t recommend the experience. Of course, if you’re in Edinburgh this summer you have the opportunity to see another adaptation, and whilst its author wouldn’t make any claim to having the wit and eloquence of Saki, I flatter myself that I have at least understood the spirit of the original having read and re-read pretty much everything Saki ever wrote over the last couple of years. Sean Grundy showed few signs of having immersed himself in Saki’s stories, less still of having understood them.

Just sayin'…

Tickets are now on sale for the musical premiere event of the summer! (Feel free to ‘like’ us or any of that mullarkey – or just to point us out to anyone you know who is heading to the Fringe this year.)

And do check out the blog on which the enviably youthfully and delightfully talented cast are making their witty and articulate observations about the process of rehearsing what is, I freely admit, a fucker of a musical to learn.

The End of the War Against Terrorism

So of course when I woke up this morning the media was buzzing with the news that Osama, and in couple of cases Obama, has been killed by US forces.

Politically this is great news for Obama (or if you believe the other story Osama); beyond that I’m a bit baffled by the excitement. As Richard Herring tweeted:

Let’s all celebrate wildly. I can see no possible negative repercussions from this news.

Which shows a great deal more perspective than the uncharacteristically naïve twitterings of William Hague around the same time, who said:

Visited Tahrir Square & spoke about death of Bin Laden. Democratic change is the future in the Middle East. Terrorism will fail & be defeated

Perhaps this merely demonstrates the folly of squeezing a speech into 140 characters, but too many politicians still want us to believe that the nebulous thing that is ‘terrorism’ can be defeated in the same way as a nation or a football team, and too many people seem happy to believe it. I’m told there was a 9/11 family member on Today saying that she was so relieved that no other family would ever have to lose anyone to terrorism again, which shows a deeply flawed understanding of human beings, let alone Al Qaeda.

It reminded me of a short story I wrote last year, which I imagine is more entertaining than a lengthy rant by me about the dangers of martyring a terrorist leader and the fact that you can’t cut off the head of a terrorist organisation that has no central leadership. So I’ve put it online here.

Sex, racism and lazy references to Friends

‘See, that’s our problem,’ screams a studio executive, ‘no one here knows what’s funny!’

And so, in a single pithy sentence, was the whole problem of Episodes summed up by its own writers. Was it meant to be ironic? Or post-ironic? Or post-post-ironic?

Whatever it was, it didn’t forgive seven episodes of feeble comic scenarios extended to the point at which the whole thing seemed like an experiment in pushing the limits of an audience’s ability to tolerate other people’s discomfort. Does something slightly funny, when extended beyond the point by which it has long-since stopped being funny, suddenly become funny again? (The answer is ‘no’.)

And so we had ‘the one where Americans are shallow’, ‘the one where Matt LeBlanc has a big cock’, ‘the one where Stephen Mangan finds out Matt LeBlanc slept with his wife’. No attempts to put actual jokes into these scenarios, or even to develop characters – just to put them into awkward situations and watch them squirm, scene after painful scene. It’s not as if the concept itself doesn’t have potential – we’ve dabbled in comedy about the scriptwriting process ourselves, though the BBC told us none of the characters were likeable enough (even more laughable a judgement in the wake of Episodes) – but to produce something where the deliberately bad comedy-within-a-comedy isn’t noticably worse than anything surrounding it is careless to say the least.

And yet… and yet I watched all seven episodes, punishing though I found it. Why? I’m still trying to work it out. Certainly part of me was hoping for a clever twist, or a mind-blowing plot development, or even a joke. But I think the quality of the performances has something to do with it. Matt LeBlanc, Stephen Mangan and Tamsin Greig may be no more capable of making cock jokes funny than anyone else, but they managed to make three deeply unlikeable characters somehow sympathetic and indeed interesting.

The final episode left things open for a brand new series; since the same episode saw the knowingly dreadful comedy-within-a-comedy getting commissioned, perhaps the writers are hoping for a truly post-post-post-ironic case of life imitating art?

I suppose that might be worth a titter, a least.

Rex Walford 1934-2011

Last week I received the heartbreaking news that my friend and occasional collaborator Rex Walford was involved in a boat accident and is now missing, presumed dead.

Rex’s career was exceptionally varied and impressive and in retirement he showed no sign of slowing down, sitting on a huge number of committees and organising no end of courses, charity events and theatrical extravaganzas; he had enough letters after his name to write a small play (not that he ever used them). Yet I don’t think it is for this that he will be remembered so much as for the incredible generosity that radiated from everything he did. You don’t have to look very far on the internet to see quite how many people’s lives he has left an indelible mark on.

I met Rex and his wife Wendy when I became choir director at St Mark’s, Newnham, and was immediately caught up in their plans for theatrical projects (he had recently directed a hugely successful production of Dorothy Sayers’ The Man Born to be King at the church). You might think that as a young man embarking on a career in the arts I might not have been terribly interested in getting into the world of ‘am dram’, but aside from the sheer enthusiasm that made Rex’s proposals impossible not to get excited about, it was always a privilege to work for him because there was nothing ‘am’ about his ‘dram’ – everything Rex did was absolutely first rate. He didn’t get me to hang around chilly church buildings dressed in a skimpy centurion costume because it was going to advance my career: it was because he had discovered an interesting and little-known text (Spark in Judea) and knew what to do with it to make it a unique experience for both actors and audiences.

I also had the pleasure of taking on the music for a production of Richard Taylor’s Whistle Down the Wind which he directed, a hugely ambitious project which not many directors could pull of successfully. Needless to say, Rex did. Moreover, it was an absolute ball working with him, even though there were times when he could be an absolute pain for a musical director because he was never prepared to leave anything alone if he thought there was a better way of doing it. I remember in one rehearsal watching in almost apoplectic astonishment as he started leading the group of children I was desperately trying to keep in time off on a journey through the audience with apparently no consideration for the conductor’s sight lines. ‘You have to try these things to see if they work,’ he later explained; it worked and the journey stayed in the show.

He showed equal enthusiasm for what other people were doing and I always valued the input and time he gave so much of my own work. In recent years it has been a joy to see Rex and Wendy’s faces in Bedford school concerts when I’ve had music performed. Rex was always happy to offer advice about casting and locations for radio and film projects, even if it involved finding a group of prim ladies to ogle a naked gardener, and was equally happy to get involved himself (see the above still from Hide and Seek) so in a lateral sense it was him that gave us the name for our company (making a film? Talk to Rex).

The saddest thing about seeing his life cut short so suddenly is that he seemed to have enough energy in him to last another 70 years; I’ve no doubt that he was planning ambitious projects to the last and the world is a poorer place without them, but not just because he would have realised them brilliantly: it was through his work and his art that Rex demonstrated the love and commitment that was central to his whole philosophy – faith in action in the very best sense – and that is why his legacy will continue to touch people for many years to come. He will be missed, but he leaves behind him a huge number of things which those who knew him have cause to remain thankful for.

In which the word 'irony' is used so ironically that it ceases to mean anything

I have already ranted about former-broadsheet-turned-caky-rag The Daily Telegraph‘s increasingly hypocritical, unjournalistic and exploitative content, in a blog post which caused one petulant reviewer to suggest that I have a ‘tin ear for journalistic irony’.

Perhaps I do. It would certainly explain my confusion at the Telegraph‘s apparent pride at what they call ‘disclosures’ that there are some Lib Dem MPs who don’t like all the decisions the coalition government have made, or who don’t necessarily like David Cameron. Is this actually another example of supreme journalistic irony? Perhaps we’re meant to be in tears of laughter at the hilarious suggestion that we could possibly be surprised by such a revelation.

Maybe we’re also supposed to find the breach of MP/constituent confidentiality delightfully ironic. It would make more sense of their laughable use of the word ‘investigation’ instead of ‘stitch-up’, or their use of ‘undercover’ instead of ‘underhand’.

But for me the ultimate irony comes with the news that the four MPs in question have apologised. Apologised for what exactly? They were perfectly entitled to say what they did in the context of a private conversation. The only people who ought to be apologising are the ‘undercover’ ‘journalists’ involved (my use of inverted commas indicates irony, in case you have a tin ear), not to mention Tony Gallagher, the paper’s editor, who presumably condoned their actions (which has incidentally undermined one of the fundamental foundations of trust in our democracy). If Santa dumps a sack full of shit down each of their chimneys this Christmas it’ll be no more than they deserve – and no, I don’t mean that ironically.

The magnanimity and eloquence of the completely unnecessary apologies made by the MPs in question does credit to both the Lib Dems and the government, for which I now find myself feeling both sympathy and respect. After the last few weeks, that really is ironic.

Place a mirror by Felix Dennis

I was on a tube train to South Wimbledon not so long ago and found myself preoccupied for some time by the view opposite, as pictured above. Not so much by the tube map as by the notice printed next to it, which I initially thought was one of those wonderful poems on the underground but which quickly transpired to be an advert for a book of poems by a man called Felix Dennis which, if the example printed is anything to go by, I won’t be forking out for this Christmas.

The journey to South Wimbledon was plenty long enough to draft a response to Mr Dennis’ questions.

Viz. your poem about the tree:

First of all, it’s fucking twee –

So unsubtle that you could
Have written ‘humans bad, trees good’.

Do you honestly believe
Any judgement so naïve?

‘Nature’s bane’??! Why can’t you see the
Answer to your question’s ‘neither’!

It’s no stretch to hope God can
Delight in trees as well as man.

(While I’m at it, you’ve no right
To hint that I’m a parasite.)

Next time, spare the trees it took
To make the paper for your book.

Place a poem by a map;

Tell me – do they print this crap?

A footnote: I can understand Sir Paul McCartney getting all moist about this poetry, since as a wordsmith he still aspires to such sophistication, and Stephen Fry can’t help but be nice about everyone (though I wish he’d restrained himself on this occasion). But what to say of this?

Really, Tom Wolfe? I mean – really??? Is this statement doing either Kipling or the 21st Century any favours at all?