Blog – Page 2 – Subika Anwar

‘A play that is necessary as Kashmir is a place that has fallen off the map in Western politics.’

Richard Twyman

This two act multi – faceted exploration (at the Royal Court) into the political landscape of Kashmir, youth radicalisation, faith and mental health left a lot to take away and digest.

Weaving Islamic storytelling, a technique using heavy metaphoric imagery in its language – and the Dastaan (a long tale), it works effortlessly as a theatrical device as we’re taken on a mystical journey where Djinns speak to the mortals.

Based on real stories Abishek Majumdar centred the focus around two orphans, both dreaming of their own freedoms. The Djinns of Eidgah takes place during the time of Eid and in heavy current conflict. With the children constantly surrounded by soldiers and violence this piece tackles those issues which conflict countries face; a new generation of children who have lost their childhood resulting in eventual hatred.

The promenade set up created an uncomfortable yet intimate experience and using minimum props left that experience unique to the individuals imagination.

The piece as a whole looks at the bigger political picture by questioning the centralising clash between two countries and what it is about this place that makes it so wanted and what its like for the ordinary Kashmiri to live on a day to day basis.

Religion and superstition play an important role in the reality of everyday lives in Kashmir as well as many predominantly Muslim and Hindu countries – Majumdar chooses Djinns as a way of combining these two elements and illustrates a sociological understanding of becoming comfortable and accepting the idea of death as a destined inevitability. Which is almost formulaic considering this is a daily occurrence for the vast majority in Kashmir.

For the west it appears to be the opposite. With many rejecting faith and superstition it’s perhaps no wonder why many find the idea of death an uncomfortable topic to discuss. Perhaps deep down we all know that existence is meaningless and everything we do leads to nothing.

We see hope emerge in its truest form, as a result of the most horrific and tormenting of experiences. Ashrafi demonstrates her inner human resilience in this passage – the last conversation she will ever have with her captured brother before he is murdered.

Ashrafi: Abbajaan, came to me today…the first time after he died Bhaijaan, and you know what he said?(…) I will never go away Shefu…never. I am a star and your Bhaijaan will become the moon this Eid. And forever we will be there ad appear on every single Eid.

Bilal: Yes Shefu

Ashrafi: You will die Bhaijaan?

Bilal: (Smiling) Yes. Yes Shefu. I will

(…)

Ashrafi: …keep my Hafiz with you Bhaijaan…he will make the pain lesser.

Bilal: It seems you are older to me Shefu. (smiles)

Ashrafi: I am Bhaijaan…I am very old. I am as old as this land itself. If they get the land, I will become the moon, if they get the moon, I will become the sun…they will never get me Bhaijaan…they will never get us. We will all become Djinns…Djinns…at the Eidgah….Allah made Djinns before he made Men.

This moment felt like a release and fulfillment of her desire and hopes; a metaphor for freedom and was, for me, one of the most memorable of scenes – perhaps because of its climactic quality.

The beauty of this play also lies in the protagonist’s development and journey as we see why he made the decision he did in the end. Although speaking to my mates who came with me afterwards, some felt the direction of the piece was leading towards understanding radicalised thinking rather than presenting both sides of the argument. I found the balance to be quite even because of the doctors character. however this feeling could come from the play’s explanatory content possibly written for western audiences. A bit too explanatory but for good reason as we see scenes unravelling feuds over cultural choices and traditional decisions made.

If anything this play was definitely a lesson into the understanding of the ‘Country’s’ current state.

A few ‘fun’ facts about Kashmir:

India, Pakistan and China are currently allocated portions of Kashmir which they control.

Kashmir became an important centre for Buddhism during its inception and a Buddhist emperor has often been credited with having founded it.

An estimated 68000 people have been killed in kashmir since 1989.

Contains some spoiler alerts!

Watched at the Errol Flynn Cinema in Northampton I found The Counselor (Annoyingly spelt with one L) over stylised, riddled with clichéd existential one liners and Fassbender masters how to talk throughout the whole film in a deep husky whisper. Unfortunately this film left me frowning in a state of confusion and miming ‘wtf was that?’ to my amigos including writer (poet and screenwriter) pal Ashaur Rahman, who simply shrugged and looked as baffled after almost EVERY scene as I did. Don’t get me wrong; I’m an existential nihilist at the best (and worst-mostly worst) of times but I don’t go about my daily routine surrounding my responses, to the simplest of tasks, with metaphoric meaning.

‘At our noblest, we announce to the darkness that we will not be diminished by the brevity of our lives’

‘I just wanted the fucking butter…would you just pass it already?’

The dialogue is beautifully crafted but its rhetoric is all off and way too over the top. I don’t buy into the film as a whole because of its repetitive nature and characterisation. However the reasoning, irrationality and absurdity of what HAPPENS to them is executed in a way that could lead to various different endings: the beauty of existentialism. Which I get but even this felt forced.

The most re-quoted line since its release: ‘Truth has no temperature’ followed by a smug pout, by Malkina (played by Cameron Diaz), is probably one of the most popular. It of course means nothing and adds no value to the film. It simply allows her to look super cool as she sits back in the middle of a desert whilst sipping on a martini watching her beloved pet Cheetah’s chase a rabbit – as you do! So far removed from reality is this film that all it seems to care about are the outlandish costumes, lavish settings and death in the most extreme ways – which Malkina then gets to babble on about at the end about how sexual she finds it all. The more brutal the more sexual it is.

As if that wasn’t annoying enough, Diaz’s constant pouting looks of disapproval and nonchalant attitude left a big question mark over her acting abilities. Playing the evil Cruella de ville, only obsessed with Cheetah’s instead of Dalmations, her performance felt over-acted, unbelievable and under performed but hey…she looked good and for some viewers – that’s all we care about!

Playing the don at the very top of the chain, in the underground drug market, Malkina’s character had the potential to bend female stereotypes and really push the boundaries when it came to authority and power especially as a character leading the whole operation. Instead Ridley Scott chose to make her more concerned with looks, her sexuality, and wealth. I understand that this hides her psychological scars but unfortunately doesn’t create enough of a 4 dimensional character as say Vito Corleone in The Godfather. I know they’re incomparable but we like Corleone as a character and aren’t constantly annoyed by his one liners, and he definitely doesn’t need to be sexy to do his job, so why does Malkina? Why didn’t I care?

Immersed in an elite culture of diamonds, drug barons and penthouses the Counselor (played by Fassbender – the only actor holding the film together) is asked to complete a job that goes completely pear shaped, leaving him in a bubbling snot induced mess.

But it seems like it needs to go pear shaped for these ‘cool’ conversations to take place, rather than organically – so although I liked the plot it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s thoroughly engaging and without its flaws.

One scene which wins the most ‘full of itself’ award is Malkina’s rendezvous with the windscreen of a very lavish car. Yep she…fucks a car! Which leaves Reiner (played by Bardem) comparing the whole experience to like watching the mouths of shellfish bottom feeders.

Filled with an A-list cast this film was more about the looks than the substance and unfortunately gives out the wrong incompetent message that I’m surprised even Pitt, Cruz and Fassbender wanted in on. Perhaps the words seemed so appealing on the page, it would invite even the most humblest of actors a great ego boost. As quoted in the Telegraph ‘Its an actors’ paradise’.

On a final note, Fassbenders decision to retreat his lost love from the slums of Mexico, sets up the ending perfectly to suggest that materialism means nothing when it comes to love and loss.

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat – Rebecca West

When the nameless ‘Fleabag’ enters, she sits herself down on a stool and opens the show, with what we later learn, to be the ending – An interview with an obnoxious and arrogant corporate giant who she inexcusably takes no shit from. She needs a job after her café has gone bankrupt. Cue quick witted anecdotes, cynicism, sarcastic deadpan and PURE FILTH! We know what type of person she is and it’s not for the faint hearted. Arm slapping, eyebrow raising and head jilting laughter soon followed (its important to note that being with a friend, I had known for a few years, definitely contributed to how much I found the performance funny. I’d even go so far as to say that being with someone of the same gender made a difference to the experience).

As a one woman show Fleabag definitely made clear distinctions between feminism during its infancy back in the 1800’s and what it means to be a sexually liberated young woman in the 21^st century.

Something I was appropriately reading at the time, which also manages to illustrate this new movement of feminism using humour, was Caitlin Moran’s ‘How to be A Woman’. A book I still refer back to when that inner turmoil, between being allured by society’s expectation/shite (of brazilians, botox and babies) and breaking conventions, takes over. Moran often reassures me by asking: ‘Would a man feel bad about it? No. Then neither should you.’

Immediately after the show I began to ask myself what is it about ‘Fleabag’s’ approach that makes us on her side and why do I (and even the men in the audience) admire her and find her one liners hilarious?

On the one hand Fleabag has embraced her sexually liberated attitude and behaviour and is almost exonerated for taking on a more masculine approach towards promiscuity – something which has had undeniably difficult affects on women in becoming socially acceptable…but this new generation, of young women, is changing that. ‘Would a man feel bad about it? No. Then neither should you.’

But…where does this sexual liberation come from? The 21st century media that’s where and Fleabag makes that damn clear. Fuck off readily available pornographic images – We were fine until you came along. (Actually…don’t go too far – inner turmoil!)

Anyway, it got me thinking that when a woman takes on more masculine traits its seen as more acceptable than when a man were to take an interest in the feminine. Pairing men with the feminine is seen as an insult – as if one were to lower themselves, almost becoming an aversion to the effeminate.

So we’re seeing feminine things as bad and weak but its much more complex – the problem is the expectation, that anyone perceived to have extremely feminine traits, is seen as less valuable. Should I have roared with laughter when she told us about her night out in the local club?

‘This guy cupped my vagina from behind (Pause) He bought me a drink after so its fine’

Perhaps it was a test.

I agree that rejecting the feminine can be an important critique of oppressive gender roles, but as long as that critique doesn’t turn into actual hatred of the feminine and by women themselves. On the plus side it seems there is a new generation of fairness and expectation when it comes to equality in the home, the work place and in the bedroom and Fleabag represents this brilliantly – people in today’s society are much better at tackling these issues and are less…surrendered than anyone.

Fleabag explores this concept well but as a result we see the cracks begin to emerge when she unravels insecurities and emotions behind the guarded exterior – especially when her nonchalant promiscuity turns into a desperate plea to be loved. By her father no less. We discover that this attitude, in fact, comes from the grief of losing her mother to breast cancer, losing her best friend in an accident, bankruptcy and her addiction to porn.

So don’t be fooled here-not everything in this show is ‘everything to do with women’. Yes it explores concepts of feminism but this story is for anyone. It’s truth.

Let’s not also forget what has brought writers like Waller-Bridge to write this stuff. I could go on but the history of women’s oppression is an important one. Neoliberalism, capitalism, exploitative systems, commercialisation, objectification, colonialism, DEcolonisation (the list goes on) have all contributed to the existence of feminism and our current position.

And even though I didn’t find ‘Fleabag’ theatrically groundbreaking, it was witty, funny and full of dark action. But whilst we sit back and enjoy, it’s also something to take away and think about.

Fleabag by DryWrite ran at the Edinburgh Fringe at the Underbelly from 2^nd – 26^th August 3013.

Fleabag also had a run at the Soho theatre until 22^nd September 2013. Since writing this piece, the play won a Fringe First award and was turned into a TV series for the BBC.

Its almost been 2 weeks since I’ve been back from the Fringe and I’m still catching up. But…better late than never.

Here’s a review of Chalk Farm (Underbelly)

Its Day Three (for me) at the fringe so I decide to watch 3 shows…back to back!

A mother and son relive their very different experiences of the 2011 London riots in Chalk Farm; set in a tower block council estate overlooking a judgemental neighbourhood of doo-gooders.

Plugged as a play ‘about’ the London riots, my expectation to experience something new came to a halt as the play continued its journey down a road exploring the relationship between a mother and her adolescent son growing up in a society of peer pressure, vulnerability and status. An interesting topic but not original – unfortunately I didn’t learn anything new. Even though the characters were well rounded and developed, the choice to tell this story through these characters were far too obvious…which in turn became predictable.

Unfortunately the cheap laughs from the middle classes in the audience, who felt obliged and compelled in recognition of understanding impoverished working class conditions and their decision and understanding of taking part, created an awkward, unsettling, cringeworthy atmosphere. And from those audience members who may have had first hand experience of the riots…silence.

A great in depth exploration and non bias representation of the riots was illustrated beautifully in ‘Mottled Lines’ by Archie Maddox. A monologue style play performed by four very different characters, presenting four very different perspectives – it was fresh and raw but more importantly…I learnt something new.

The first time I saw a piece by ‘ThickSkin’ was in 2009 with their debut performance of ‘Blackout’ which received critical acclaim – perhaps due to its edgy and very unique portrayal of a 15 year olds memory of a murder he was accused of committing. The 5 strong cast opened its doors for a different social interpretation on the protagonists (and other teenagers alike) identity. Using slick multimedia in an inventive way, it allowed us to become voyeurs in this child’s upbringing.

Whereas Chalk Farm’s set was stylised in a simple layout of aesthetically pleasing blank television screens, but this urbanised concept, meant for devised purposes, did nothing for me emotionally Are they just following a trend to attract a younger audience?

One concept I did enjoy was the mothers attempt to convince others that her only child did not participate in the riots, something I don’t think the mother herself believed which was a good an interesting portrayal of contradiction and self delusion-something human beings are great at.

Dr Frankenstein’s Travelling Freakshow by Tinshed Theatre Company

A cruel ring master, of a travelling freak show, lays it all bare and then some for his audience in a crowd pleasing fashion or so we think. This production of Dr Frankensten does exactly what it says on the tin – ‘treads a thin line between hilarity and morality’.

A small hot studio space overcrowded with wide eyed fringe goers (its early days at this point) envelops this fast paced retelling of Dr Frankensten.

Stumbled across, completely by accident, by my theatre going pal Alice Nicholas – another emerging Playwright based in Bristol (Follow on Twitter: @Alice_Nicholas) we were informed that the show was cancelled because an actor had broken/twisted their leg/ankle (can’t remember which)! But having eventually sat through a mad hour of dramatic mood lifting peaks and dips, the following night, I’m really not surprised. The actors gave it their absolute all.

Encouraged to participate in the retelling of Frankenstein’s story, his monster finally appears as the last and most awaited Victorian crowd pleasing revelation in the ring masters line up. The first of which is an Arabian bearded lady and the second being an Indian fortune teller with crab pincers for hands both of which are forced to take part in acting out this torturous and humorous story. Adopting comedy as the driving force to recognise societies own prejudices against so called ‘freaks’ of nature, Dr Frankenstein’s Travelling Freakshow then begs the question – where does our morality at the expense of someone else’s pain, for entertainment lie and are we all guilty of this? The simple answer is yes…an exaggerated Indian accent at the expense of a few giggles illustrates this.

However this cruel re-enactment brought back remnants of Enda Walsh’s ‘The Walworth Farce’ (a Fringe gem discovery in 2007) where we learn that the protagonist’s appetite to relive a false truth, is in fact his way of evading a hideous reality – much to be said about the insecurities and cruel torture baring nature of the ring master out to entertain his paying customers. So is he in fact the mogul Dr Frankenstein, sat at the top of our influential entertainment industry? I know…another question but you can see it all in his evil smile.

But he didn’t take all the performance credit; the monster himself resonated as an articulate individual. The deep pain in his voice, when expressing his longing desire for a mate, almost soothes and hurts at the same time making the connection and engagement to his character a more intimate experience.

Unfortunately there were (very few) moments I felt the company had tried to expertly fit in every aspect of theatricality as possible. And with only an hour to absorb the heart of the story I was often asking how and when will it end? Not necessarily a bad thing as for example I was fully immersed during the storytelling part of the performance which used very simple puppetry to almost entrance its audience, but I soon snapped out of this hypnotic state before it was over, leaving me thinking that less is sometimes more.

Overall this show will leave you in fits of giggles or tears with a need to awkwardly adjust in your seat all at the same time.

Dr Frankenstein’s Travelling Freakshow runs at C Nova until August 26^th 2013 at 8.40pm.

@Tinshedtheatre

Category: Blog

Review: Djinns of Eidgah at The Royal Court

Review: The Counselor – film

Review: Fleabag at The Edinburgh Fringe

Review: Chalk Farm at The Edinburgh Fringe

Review: Frankenstein’s Travelling Freak Show at The Edinburgh Fringe

INFORMATION

FOLLOW ME