Showing posts with label Cambridge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cambridge. Show all posts

Friday 4 April 2014

A richly immersive short opera – in a Cambridge college

This is a review of Kate Waring's one-act opera* Are Women People ?

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2014
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


3 April

This is a review of the matinee performance on Sunday 23 March (at Hughes Hall, Cambridge) of Are Women People ?, a one-act opera* by Kate Waring, which had been given its world premiere during the preceding evening

In her composer’s note, Kate Waring tells us that this work was inspired by, and uses material by, American writer and satirist Alice Duer Miller (1874–1942). Waring says that she wished to compose a comic opera last summer, and that it was devised by using poems by Miller ‘in which she reacted to quotations and news items of her day’ : the poems had been collected under the title given to this opera (the text is available here), a suitable volume that Waring had discovered, but had first appeared in a column in the New York Tribune (from February 1914 onwards).

That said, Miller’s words appear to have been transported, for Waring’s purposes, to a setting in England, sometimes with variable results, because a poem such as ‘The Revolt of Mother’ (see also below) contains the words in legislative hall, which sadly does not necessarily mean much in the UK. Likewise, the opera gives the impression, in setting ‘O, that ‘twere possible’, that Miller meant the British newspaper The Times, whereas the explanatory text in the book makes clear that the poem referred to the New York Times :

Oh, that 'twere possible
After those words inane
For me to read
The Times

Ever again !


[At this point, Mr Webb was trying to chase his daughter, who was hiding from him, and the outcome was a facsimile broadsheet being torn into shreds]


After an overture (for select forces of clarinet, cello, and piano, our band for the piece), there was so much going on that this review is perforce of a highly selective nature : in addition to keeping an eye on the instrumentalists and quite a lively staging with three singers, there was also an ever-changing projection on a screen placed between the two trios (sometimes lyrics, sometimes cartoons, sometimes images) - and having chosen to be in the front row proved not to make managing it all any easier…

The piano (played by Alex Reid) began the opera quietly, but it did not take long to adopt an insistent fortissimo, although this subsided into softer Satie-like motifs in repeated semi-quavers. Attention then passed to the clarinet (Sarah Bowden), with some very pleasant harmonies from the cello (Jon Fistein), before the latter took a rich solo and then played pizzicato as the clarinet resumed. And so we came to the trying on of hats, as Amanda (Hazel Neighbour : soprano) entered down the aisle with her parents, but wearing a German spiked helmet.

The scene had been set with a hat-stand upstage, rich with all sorts of hats and scarves, and which clearly indicated that there were to be some changes of role (another feature of which to try to keep track). Mr Webb (Simon Wilson : baritone) and his wife (Jessica Lawrence-Hares : mezzosoprano) straightaway busied themselves with what there was to wear. By contrast, Amanda’s non-comformity was already patent, and it was matched by the quality of the writing for her, which, compared with that for Mrs Webb, had its own spikiness : most often, Mrs Webb’s part sounded like Michael Nyman’s most lyrical writing for voice.

A veneer of uniformity, as of a family resemblance, was given by all three singers having a whited oval on their faces, complete with red cheek circles, and so, when they later arranged themselves for a family portrait (please see below), they felt like puppets, Pinocchio, or (Waring’s reference) characters from the commedia dell’arte.

Closer inspection, though, revealed that Amanda had spider-like eye-lashes (a reference, perhaps, to eye make-up from The Hunger Games films ?), which made her seem more exciting than Mr and Mrs Webb**, less conventional : for, amongst other movements campaigning for change, one such as female suffrage inevitably faces the resistance of seeking to depart from the status quo. Amanda (it was not clear why) is much seen looking at a book called Keeping Pet Chickens (maybe an ironic comment on what women’s lives can be, i.e. they are as much ‘kept’ as chickens ?), and Waring yokes with this family a satire about someone called Willie turning 21 (who figures in the preceding poem to that addressed to Mr Webb) to give Amanda an unseen brother.

The approach to the libretto, not unusually, has been to fit the chosen texts to a scenario (so Willie’s absence is seemingly explained by being away on military service) : here, doing so gives us a new context to a poem that again satirizes a quotation from an anti-suffrage speech (it is possible that Miller’s quotation from it was read out). The dangers of war are then juxtaposed (in apostrophizing Amanda’s brother) with the alleged ones of voting (which include moral dangers, such as becoming coarsened or degraded) :

You must not go to the polls, Willie,
Never go to the polls,
They're dark and dreadful places
Where many lose their souls



Since war breaks out during the piece*** (i.e. The Great or First World War, which began on 28 July 1914 (whereas the States did not declare war on Germany until April 1917)), it may be that references to the unseen William, away at war, are to conflict elsewhere (for, to name but two troubled places, the territories of South Africa soon became involved [starting with The Maritz Rebellion] when the World War began, and in the preceding years there had been two Balkan Wars). Yet this instance is where one is less than clear what Waring intended, on account of how she marshalled her literary material (please see below).

Moving on through the piece, there was ample scope for Neighbour to hit high notes – which she did extremely nicely – in settings such as the one that ends with the couplet But in the midst of such enjoyments, smother / The impulse to extol your ‘sainted mother’ (‘Lines to Mr. Bowdle of Ohio’); to add telling gestures to an aria based on a skit called ‘The Maiden’s Vow’ (responding to the assertion that ‘Many girls […] had lost their souls through this study [sc. of algebra]’); and to hold a shiny tea-tray behind her father’s head, as if it were a halo, and then pretend that she did not (in ‘The Revolt of Mother’****).

This apart from bundling Mr Webb around, as if he were a rag-doll, and miming stoking him from behind, like a boiler (in ‘The Gallant Sex’), which Miller wrote because a woman engineer had been dismissed, and a new rule made that women shall not attend high pressure boilers. One gathers that Waring had graphically envisaged the stage-business, and that there was much to occupy one’s attention besides the music, and Miller’s witty, but purposeful, words.

In another number (apparently an adaptation of W. S. Gilbert, called ‘The Woman of Charm’), which started as a duet and ended as a trio, Miller rhymed ‘take off the scum’ with ‘residuum’, in ridiculing the notion that one could heat up the best bits of women such as the Sphinx, Cordelia and Cleopatra in a crucible (as conspicuous ladies of history) to obtain the desired sort of woman, who is ‘a mystery’.

On the screen we also had a full measure of wit, and so a photograph had been doctored with the heads of Obama and Thatcher to confront the equal absurdity, as of women getting the vote, of a black man as President of the States or a woman PM, and we were presented with a cartoon to depict ‘hugging a delusion’, with a figure clutching an object that bore the words ‘The Ballot’.

The cover image of the programme (and used in the publicity ?) was recreated when a smiling Amanda stood behind her less-than-cheery parents. A snapshot from a time of change, and it was coupled with the lyric ‘What Every Woman Must Not Say’, where, having listened to Mr Webb pontificate about women and their nature and concluding with asserting that they have no self-control, Mrs Webb bites back :

‘No, I don't admit they haven't,’ said the patient lady then,
‘Or they could not sit and listen to the nonsense talked by men.’



We see, again, a microcosm of change in Mrs Webb, coming closer to her daughter’s position, and Miller also gives us (in ‘Evolution’) the shifts in position of a Mr Jones, using quotations (whether or not fictitious), and matched by circling movements on stage. Mention on the screen of munitions and ‘every girl pulling for victory’ signalled that mobilization was in the air.

Stronger than mere intellectual arguments for and against changing women’s roles, the cast foreshadowed the changes that would unavoidably come with war by donning military helmets (which we may already have noticed the in the corner (where Amanda deposited hers at the start)). Thus – in a number where Miller reworked Kipling against him (‘Women’) – the patriotic angels are allowed work outside the home, although they had been told before that the home was their place, and Waring gave it a rhythmically precise setting.

In setting ‘Advice to Heroines’, she wrote a sharply chromatic line for Amanda, which Neighbour delivered with ease, and in which Miller re-used the metaphor from the title ‘Sometimes We’re Ivy, and Sometimes We’re Oak’, denoting a woman clinging to a man, or, in contrast, standing strong in her own right when bright-faced dangers shine when the hero is absent. (Yet, whatever women may do when the call comes, Miller wisely observes that it is only until men want their jobs back.) All too soon, on the screen, we had the fact displayed 5 August 1914 : Britain at war, which was reflected in Mrs Webb’s tonally uncertain aria, because William is at war.

As has been alluded to, a certain incisive angularity characterized settings for Amanda, whereas, for Lawrence-Hares, that of ‘A Suggested Campaign song’, for example, was rooted in a ground bass, and, suiting the secretive nature of the lyric, was of a more restrained nature : Miller had ironically written it – as if for the ‘anti’s – in response to another speech against suffrage : No one knows what we oppose and we hope they never will.

Waring gave us the poignancy of ‘Playthings’ (and with Reid beating a drum), as toy soldiers, guns and other weapons of war are not crowding the shops, which is not only as they’re made in Germany, but also because :

Perhaps another season
We shall not give our boys
Such very warlike playthings
Such military toys



However, she chose not to end the opera on that note, but with the spirit of further absurdity and contradiction, in a skit called ‘A Masque of Teachers’. This extended item took, as its basis, a bye-law of the New York Board of Education, in which each of Mr and Mrs Webb and Amanda took it in turns to be a would-be woman teacher : we hear that women who want to teach have to advance a dire circumstance concerning their husband, such as his wits are all astray – irrespective of what other reason the women have, and despite what they can otherwise offer, that factor alone qualifies them to teach.

Upon the husband’s circumstance being named, Miller has the members of the Board inappropriately rejoice Her husband’s doomed ! Hurray ! hurray ! about the position of ‘The Ideal Candidates’, thereby invoking the topsy-turvy logic, used to oppose women, that had been heard throughout the piece :

No teacher need apply to us
Whose married life’s harmonious



The performance closed with banners brought onto the stage, by Waring herself amongst others, which reminded us of this distance between 100 years ago and now (or lack of distance ?), including this one from Phyllis Diller (born in 1917) :

Housework can’t kill you, but why take a chance ?


Although Miller’s other poetry appears to better remembered, perhaps it seems a little tame compared with the sparky wit that, in common with Diller, she brought to this writing. The notion that the best work comes out of some sort of suffering, as a pearl from an oyster, may just be a conceit, but it does appear that, when she responded to contemporary issues, and then coined titles such as ‘Why We Oppose Votes for Men’ (from ‘Campaign Material’ For Both Sides)), she was creatively ‘fired up’.

The reservations expressed earlier in this review apart, Waring has therefore aptly found material in Miller’s Are Women People ? for her chosen purpose, and, with her two skilled trios of singers and instrumentalists (along with all those others involved), realised with flair her notion to compose a comedy – even if one did feel that the writing for the role of Mr Webb, compared with that for Amanda, gave Wilson relatively few chances to show his talents…



End-notes


* Its title is, in a way, more polemical than ironic, taken from a retort to a father from a son in an imaginary dialogue that introduces a collection of pieces first published in the New York Tribune, and dedicated to that newspaper (please see below).


** The family whom we see is called Webb, because a poem called ‘Our Idea of Nothing at All’ is addressed to a Mr Webb of South Carolina (it is responding to a quotation from a speech that he made against suffrage for women).


*** Although, equally, the opera does not appear to be absolutely chronological as to every detail (we are given notice of the outbreak of war on the screen), but does seem to follow the order in which Miller’s poems have been collected in the book.


**** Which ends with this stanza :

I am old-fashioned, and I am content
When he explains the world of art and science
And government—to him divinely sent—
I drink it in with ladylike compliance.
But cannot listen—no, I'm only human—
While he instructs me how to be a woman.





Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)

Friday 1 November 2013

OBEs

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2013
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


3 November

Pass by, if you wish to read about royal honours, not Out-of-Body Experiences...


It is a curious term, if you think about it. As usual, the experimental psychologists think that they have got it licked - in the lecture where I learnt about The Rubber-Hand Illusion (sounds more like something in one of Woody Allen's characters' magic acts), I was also told about a woman who was having some pre-operative measurements made of her brain.

She had epilepsy, and, by stimulating parts of her brain, the surgical team wanted to establish that they were not going to deprive her of any important function when they came to remove material to prevent her fitting further. It so happened that they found that stimulating one part caused her to say that she was above her body, looking down on it. For whatever reason this part of the brain had not been identified before, the psychologists seem delighted that they have the brain to hold responsible for this 'experience'.


Not much of an experience, when people report far more than just being above themselves, looking down, but the lecture did not dwell on that possible criticism of this enthusiastic discovery. Of course, experimenters can see that stimulating this part of the subject's brain, when they know where the subject is (i.e. not above their body), causes him or her to report looking down from above, but do they non-scientifically assume it is not a real effect, by invoking a silent circularity ?

In other words, we can see that the subject is where he or she was, so it is just a function of the brain that reports that he or she is several feet in the air above the bed. If the subject were alone when a non-induced experience occurred, he or she would say that, if someone else came into the room when he or she was above his or her body, that person would see his or her body. So, true scientific investigation would have to carry out this experiment (it is my guess that it has not been carried out) :

1. By a shield at mid-body level, prevent the subject from being able to see the lower part of his or her body.

2. Place an easily identifiable object, e.g. a coloured square, on the bed, unknown to the subject.

3. Then stimulate the relevant part of the brain. If the subject can, when asked, report the presence of the object, one can only conclude, not that the brain generates the impression of that point of view, but that the self is actually put into that point of view.


Has anyone tested that ? Or did science confuse cause and effect, as so often ?


Maybe it has been done, or you want to say that it is a waste of time to do an experiment of that kind (though ones on ESP have been carried out enough), and maybe the person would never be able to see the object, because it is just a function of the brain to cause the illusion (can science say why, what use it would be ?). OK.

Do you recall the pivoting beds on board the USS Enterprise in Star Trek ? What if the person whose brain were to be stimulated got put in one of those first, so that he or she is near vertical before the brain is touched ? Where would that person report his or her self being then - upright facing 'the bed', or still above, looking down ?




Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)

Problems of the Self (to quote Bernard Williams)

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2013
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


2 November

I saw an experiment being carried out to-day (a video of it), during a lecture called Boundaries Between Self and World by Dr Jane Aspell, Lecturer in Psychology, in Cambridge's Festival of Ideas : The Rubber-Hand Illusion.

If I put a rubber hand in front of you, and then suddenly stuck a fork in it, would you - other than the surprising gesture - be shocked, as if the hand were yours ?

Well, and although you would know what was happening (apart from the fork bit), if a physical barrier shielded your arm from sight, but your hand and the rubber hand (in front of you) were stroked with a paint-brush in the same place, your brain would come to identify the rubber one as yours, confusing the apparent stimulus (on the rubber hand) with the felt one (on your own hand), because of the visual message.

Without the fork element, here is a link to a video from New Scientist.


This all seems surprising, out of context, or even in a lecture of this kind, but is it, and does it show what the experimental psychologists claim ? I am told that the eye's lens throws an inverted image on the retina, and the brain's visual cortex adjusts for this - even to the extent that, if one wore glasses all the time that turned the projected image right way up (and so everything would be seen upside down), the brain adjusts in time, righting the perceived image. Or those walk-in optical illusions, where patterns of black and white can make things seem taller, shorter, or unstable in some way.

Consider, also, going to the theatre, opera or cinema : even if you lose yourself in what is being shown (arguably it is bizarre that projected moving images, when we know that we are in a darkened screen so that they can be seen, can engage us, and seem like life, but they do), part of you knows that it is not real, but does that (or Puccini's music) stop you being tearful over Mimi ?

Or take reading a book, where there is no illusion of reality, but we co-create it with the writer, and, like Beckettt's character Krapp, cry buckets at Effi, or come to hate Arthur Huntingdon in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall : as the player has it, what is he to Hecuba, when these are just words on a page ?

Identification of things that are not ourselves, but outside of us, is part of our living and loving - a text-message to say that a friend is delayed, a relative ill, would mean nothing if we did not pity, care, fear, hope, despair, pretend, imagine.


So is the Rubber-Hand Illusion that novel ? No, I think that the appeals that I have made to entering into the world of a film, or a symphony, and feeling something is far, far more remarkable.


More here from this lecture, with what they call OBEs, or Out-of-Body Experiences...




Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)

Thursday 29 August 2013

I counted them all out...

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2013
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


29 August

Sadly, I do not have the skills of a Brian Hanrahan, but, going through the Festival's Main Features (that link takes one to where the PDF brochure can be downloaded), I made it twenty documentaries*, and there may be others (there and elsewhere) - in former times, which was not necessarily better save from a bean-counting perspective, they were listed in a separate section from the feature films per se, but now they mingle.

I think that I spotted a score of the DOC logos. I was looking, because, in one of our chats the other day, Festival Director Tony Jones said that emphasis is needed on how many one can see - over the 11 days, however exactly they may be spread, that is around two per day, after all, so one can see his point. (I always like to make space for three or four in the course of my Festival viewing, but, as with the whole Festival juggling cum three-dimensional crossword, compromise is inevitable.)

Tony is a nice, level-headed guy, and always makes time to talk to me. A few weeks back now, he and I chatted as we negotiated Parker's Piece in Cambridge**, and I learnt for the first time that Hawking was coming to the Festival, and about negotiations for getting Hawking people over from the States for it.

This most recent time, it was the documentaries, and also exactly what hard work for Festival stalwarts from the Arts Picturehouse and from his family (and from his son's circle) it had been to put on twinned screenings on Grantchester Meadows***. As I said to Tony, not wishing to diminish that effort and to remind him of his great enthusiasm for outdoor screenings, he wouldn't do it, if he didn't enjoy it.

The previous time, a little word that - whatever it may be, and I do not think that I am being indiscreet - Surprise Film 1**** is a World Premiere. Famously, no one knows (though @JimGRoss always guesses) what the film is / films are except Tony, and the projectionist only gets it / them just in time to do the necessary...

And I remember, last of all, coming out of Cell 211 (2009), and Tony wondering, even though he was pleased that I thought that it was a powerful screening, how it would stand for getting distributed. (If you follow that link, you will see (on IMDb) that the film, after all, did pretty well for itself.)



End-notes

* Sadly, I am an idiot, and failed to appreciate the music-documentary nature of the 33 1/3 strand, which makes the sum around thirty !

** For those who do not know it, click on this link, book yourselves some films, and get over to Cambridge to see this square of land, criss-crossed by paths, bicycles and foreign language students, and home to cricket- and football-pitches and the like on your own scenic walk from the station...

*** A real place, known to many by virtue of Fink Ployed.

**** Last year, there were two (for the first time ?), and the first of this year's is on Saturday 28 September.




Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)

Friday 23 August 2013

Gibberish comes to a home of academic excellence and parades as talking about 'competition'

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2013
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


24 August

The following quotations are taken from the Provisional Findings Report of the Competition Commission, dated 20 August and called Cineworld / City Screen Merger Inquiry : Completed acquisition by Cineworld Group plc of City Screen Limited


In Cambridge, Picturehouse operates a three-screen cinema. There is a nine-screen Cineworld cinema and an eight-screen Vue cinema within less than 5 minutes’ drive-time. (para. 6.77)


Yes, that's all very well - you can be outside the Arts Picturehouse in a car and, from there, drive to Vue's premises, except that you cannot park immediately outside either of them. Being able to do that journey in less than five minutes ? Well, you would have to be very lucky with two major traffic-light-controlled junctions and two pelican crossings, and then you would be outside a cinema, momentarily, on a road where you cannot even stop.

Talking, then, of '20- and 30-minute drive-time isochrones' is then sheer nonsense - I might be able to drive to some prime location in London very quickly, but, if I cannot actually benefit from being there in and with a car, I would obviously not choose to drive there. One might do better, say, to compare being able to shop at Tesco in Royston (and park there) and then, within that timescale, getting to Morrison's in the town and being able to park - notional drive-times that have no element of practicability to them are meaningless. (I say that because when The Co-operative wanted to buy Somerfield stores, they either did not, or could not, buy what became the Morrison's.)


The report is not even consistent internally about what it means by 'travel', and so the following paragraph reads :

The parties’ survey showed that 81 per cent of Picturehouse Cambridge customers had travelled 30 minutes or less to the cinema from their home. This is consistent with our own survey, which also gave a result of 81 per cent. (para. 6.78)


This does not mean what it says, because the report is fixed on the idea of driving, as the subsequent text makes clear, but driving alone, not driving plus walking, or driving plus a parking-fee plus a smaller amount of walking. These factors might make, say, someone living in Stapleford more likely to cycle than even to get behind the wheel of a car - door-to-door transport at only the cost of effort, and with no extra time or cost, but still the journey-time.


This next paragraph beggars belief - you ask the people who would stand to benefit (by buying up one of the readymade sites) how they view Cambridge, and expect them to tell you the truth about their business plans, not playing down anything :

In addition, Curzon told us that although the demographics of Cambridge were attractive, there was too much competition under the control of Cineworld and it preferred to look at areas where there were more opportunities. Odeon considered Cambridge an attractive area, but the centre of Cambridge already had three cinemas, and it was not clear that there was enough demand to support another cinema. In addition, the city centre was tight and opportunities to enter consequently limited. Odeon [snip]. It was unlikely that Odeon would be able to open a cinema in the area in the next two to three years. If an opportunity arose, likely timescales for development were the next five to ten years. We therefore considered that timely entry in the Cambridge area was unlikely. We considered that competitive constraints on the parties would be weakened following the transaction and, on balance, that other factors at play in the Cambridge area would not defeat the lessening of competition. (para. 6.84)


So they play down how they can compete to encourage you to tell Cineworld to sell one of the cinemas, and then they just buy it. No matter whether the people who frequent these cinemas would want the films that Curzon or Odeon would show - they just get the chance to take over, because that's 'competition', even if it is a disservice to the present clientele.

Still, as long as someone watches some films or other, it doesn't matter much...


Or is that approach / logic more like that phrase of cutting off your nose to spite your face ?


And this little phrase was reported, and then ignored :

The parties also told us that demand in Cambridge could support another multiplex. (para. 6.83)


Are they trying to be clever, by saying that other chains might be drawn in, or not. It just hangs in the air - if they are right, then all the more reason for someone to gobble up whatever Cineworld is compelled to sell, because they can get rid of this home of the film festival and unprofitable arthouse rubbish, and put on solid blockbusters from noon to night !


And then there was something about surveying people and what they would do in the event of some percentage price-rise : if I wanted to watch, not the latest Batman caper, but, say, Samsara (2011), or Kosmos (2010), would I find either at Cambridge Vue or Cineworld ?

Rubbish in, rubbish out, in terms of asking a meaningful question ?




Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)

Monday 15 October 2012

Robin Holloway's Gilded Goldbergs are given a rare live performance (Radio 3)

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2012
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


15 October

Pretty nauseating if for you have any feeling for The Goldberg Variations BWV 988, but probably meant to be, to hear Huw Watkins and Ashley Wass, who are no doubt engaged in an exercise of stripping away the veneer, playing what Robin Holloway has done to the piece with two pianos, a plastic carp, a buoy and 80m of fishing-line (after all, Cambridge, Faculty of Music, etc., etc.).

From what I judge, the effects, when not simply those of subverting the harmonic structure, are such that any imprecision juts out like a promontory, since these ones sound like performance errors - full marks to Holloway for making himself seem admirably postmodern, but why couldn't he (despite his peeling away layers) have chosen something else to get his treatment?

Why not even get a poor piece of music and arrange for trombone and walking-stick if you like, but get the thing to work, rather than maul Bach in a way that, all the time, makes you wish that you could only hear the original? Or is it like getting an image of the sun on your retina, but it bizarrely makes what you've taken for granted look better...? If I spin Richard Egarr's two-CD Harmonia Mundi set on harpsichord, will it seem dazzlingly more alive, after the ritual slaughter - like Aslan, bigger and better for submitting himself to a night on The Stone Table?

Nearly done, with the aria being mangled as if by Les Dawson, in what are better called Gelded Goldbergs, which make Mahler mucking around with Beethoven symphonies seem almost laudable. Our reward, seemingly, to hear the Aria (after the repeat of the Aria chez Holloway) unbuggered, but it may just be an excuse for a final raspberry..., which it is, in terms of RH now prettifying the texture with adornments from some quite other age, now thankfully over.

Twaddle to close from presenter Tom Redmond, and, thanks to him, I can rest happy that RH, at least, looked absolutely delighted with having heard his own burning, I mean gilding.


STOP PRESS A review, by the fetching entitled Jed Distler (who is surely an anagram), of a recording of this work...


Sunday 29 April 2012

How to bluff your way as a concert-goer: Lesson 1

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2012
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


29 April

By way, first of all, of credentials - we will be naughty, and skip the learning outcomes* - let me say this:

I consider it sufficient basis on which to offer this bluffer's guide that, when shamelessly seeking an autograph from a both attractive and highly skilled singer last night, I should be told not only that I had been noticed in the audience (why wouldn't I be!), but also that my engagement with following the performance gave rise to the assumption) that I knew the repertoire (when I had never heard it before)


You justly retort (quoting God knows whom) Self-praise is no recommendation



To be continued



End-notes

* Not necessarily an indication that there is nothing to be learnt - or, at any rate, no hope of learning it...


Friday 9 March 2012

Can I get…?*

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2012
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


10 March

What is this bloody rubbish?! Since when have we said this in this country, rather than I’d like… or (though it is closer) Could I have…?, but it’s the subjunctive ‘could’, not ‘can’.

Yet I will freely admit that asking questions in the form ‘May I…?’ is a dinosaur, and the only person whom I know to use it (and who also uses ‘whom’ when it’s appropriate) is Russian, but that is, it must be said, what I was brought up to say: May I hit you on the nose – right now?.


Some put-downs that those in the so-called hospitality business** might find helpful:

Q Can I get a bottle of beer and some dry-roasted nuts?

A Depends on how long your arms are, mate – and whether I stop you!


Q Can I get---?

A Yes, you can ‘get’ – get stuffed!


End-notes

* Thankfully, this isn't topical, as it has been 'hanging around' since Thursday 1 March, which is what seems to happen when blogging isn't done straight into the on-line box (but in some Word document, supposedly for posting later).

** It’ll be called an industry yet – no, I mean a factory, as some idiots have already decided that it is an industry (heavy or light?).


Wednesday 19 October 2011

Dimensions - another screening (in Cambridge) (1)

More views of - or after - Cambridge Film Festival 2011
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


20 October

Some will know that, on 4 November, Dimensions hits (hit?!) Wallingford, in Oxfordshire, which I believe that I read about on
the film's web-site...

But, and I really should check the date, on 22 November the film (through the Arts Picturehouse, or at least the mention is in its latest booklet of what's on) is being screened for the fourth time in Cambridge, its home city, and I shall provide details here, just as soon as I can (possibly or otherwise - six impossible things before breakfast, etc.)!


As I recall, Sloane and Ant will also be talking about how to make such a film (or any full-length film) without (the usual) funding - if their names are not already familiar to you, then you have been caught napping on the job of jeeping (?) abreast of this blog, and need to remedy that omission, whilst you can, by reading some earlier postings (if you can find them amongst the plethora of dross).