I have three theatre reviews to post, a brief catch-up piece about taking over as editor at MCV to muse upon, and I should be going to bed right about now because it's A) 1.58am, and B) I have to put in a few hours work at the Midsumma Carnival tomorrow.
On the other hand, I could just pop down to Control for a quick drink and end up staggering home at 7am.
Decisions, decisions...
6 comments:
I KNOW WHAT YOU CHOSE, YOU BAD MAN!
God bless you for the drinks and shots and charming conversation. Do you recall the man with the glowing teeth licking you, me and Sime's necks? Strange!
x
You're welcome, my dear. Strange things seem to follow me everywhere I go - the man with the glowing teeth being a case in point!
hi richard,
re your comment on theatre notes. my review of rageboy was, as written, quite critical. unfortunately, it was cut in half, and most of the actual opinion was lost. i can send you the complete version if you're interested. (and i trust you won't be allowing such subeditorial atrocities at MCV.)
all the best,
cameron.
Cameron - you mean the entire tone and slant of your review was changed in the editing process? That's completely fucked (and will give me something juicy to write about in Beat next week....)
By all means please do send me the full review - I'd love to know what you really thought of the piece, as well as comparing the before and after versions...
I remember subs making a fool of me. Not something I miss.
But hey, Cameron, since you're here: would you care to tease out the David Hare comment in your last review of Cerini, which I googled the other day? I found it particularly baffling. From what I've seen of Cerini's work, I can't see what Hare's theatre has to do with it: one coming strongly from performance art/dance, the other from Joint Stock documentary left wing 70s stuff. (Also, it's hard to say that Hare's pushing the envelope, that's old hat now). Any particular reason, or is it just that political theatre = David Hare??
My, that's an old review. The Hare reference was intended to be thematic and temporal (Stuff Happens ran not long before Angus' show, and both works dealt in an overt way with the war in Iraq). I can see how the effluxion of time might make it seem a bit odd, especially in light of their utterly different theatrical modes. Alas, no amount of time (or indeed envelope pushing) seems to change John Howard's mind on the issue.
Not sure I'd agree with the categorisation of Cerini's work as coming out of performance art or dance, despite its intense physicality.
And on the subject of subbing, they took out a sentence in my 2006 theatre wrap which would have made it clear that I regarded Virgins as the best original piece of musical theatre, not the best overall (though given that every show mentioned in that particular par was musical theatre, so much could have been deduced by a fair-minded reader of above average intelligence.)
Cameron.
Post a Comment