Rob Schonberger at large

Review of The Belvoir St Theatres production of That Face (from the Royal Court)

2010-03-05T00:00:00+00:00

March, and it’s rainy.

Last week I saw the Belvoir St Theatres production of That Face; I didn’t know much before buying the tickets, other than the seeming miracle of the plays existence.

Polly Stenham wrote the play and then the Royal Court took it and put it on in 2007, and here we are in 2010 seeing an Australian production. Nothing really that amazing, except that Polly Stenham was 19 when she wrote this piece – and thats pretty darned remarkable, especially for the Belvoir, where I’ve seen things like Eugene Ionescos Exit The King starring Geoffrey Rush. So there’s definitely something to live up to.

The play focuses on a broken family, with 4 characters all living alone, with their own personal struggles. All 4 are fully fleshed, and struggle to deal with their families and their own decisions, which is exactly what the play is about.

We meet the daughter of the family first, Mia, a girl out at boarding school. She’s a troublemaker, and when she gets in trouble, she really has one person to talk to, her brother.

The play really is about the twisted relationship between mother and son, Martha and Henry, who we see waking up, hung over, half naked, in bed. The audience is wondering. Martha is a seemingly broken woman, an alcoholic, not quite with it enough to take care of the family, but still smart enough to manipulate and twist her family around her.

Mia just wants some sanity, clarity in her life, and tries to pull Henry around, while he, desperately, devoted, still tries to get his mother on the straight and narrow. Hugh, their father, remarried and living overseas, comes home to try and patch things up, and finds a more insane situation at home than otherwise, not realising that his family thinks he has abandoned them.

The great thing is just how gripping the stories of all four of them are. Every one in the family is terribly flawed in their own way, and we feel for their struggles in their lives, and it’s great to see the broken interaction between mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, and the modern 21st century divorced parents. I guess the quote that comes to mind is, obviously,

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.—Leo Tolstoy

It’s a remarkably vivid play, very honest, with great modern dialogue. Worth watching, and I can understand why the Belvoir production is sold out. The production at the Belvoir is great, with the notable inexperience of the younger cast members showing at points, but not detracting from the overall experience. I’ll be watching out for Pollys next play.

One of those little things I see, and I don't want to forget.

2009-11-28T00:00:00+00:00

Hot, in my apartment

One of the local cafés near me has that whole recycled furniture things going on, Apart from being a really great café with good food. I sat in one day and picked up a book from their bookshelf.

The book was a big italian cookbook, The Silver Spoon, which was already a bit out there for books you’d find whilst having your coffee, and the bookshelf was an old Ikea Billy bookshelf.

I just noticed, after a while, that they had lost the little knoblets that hold an the shelves up. So, for each shelf, they broke a pencil in 4, and used them as the knobs. It looked fun, and worked. It even looked like they gave more support than the original knobs were meant to.

A short story adaptation

2009-11-25T00:00:00+00:00

Jean Luc Godard playing in front of me.

This is a short story adaptation from a film. I’ll change it as I go.

A young woman, Maggie, is in love with 2 men. She’s been seeing them for about 3 or 4 months each, and loves seeing them both. Neither has found out about the other guy, mostly because she’s meticulous. Maggie starts feeling a bit lonely one night, and realises that she wants to keep the one she loves the most. She decides to put up a test. She decides to send an email to her two guys, telling them she loves them, and asking them to move in with her. The first one to respond gets to move in, and the second, well, …

She sends her emails out to her two fellows, pretty much telilng them why she loves them, and asking them to move in to her Surry Hils studio with her. As she’s settling down to watch TV, a horrible feeling comes into her stomach; She realises that she’s sent the email she’d meant for Neil to Michael instead, and Vice versa. As quick as she can move, she puts on a pair of slippers, and runs out to Central station, realising what a mistake she’s made, and hopping on the first train to Neils place.

She gets to his house by midnight, sweaty from the walk, waking him up from an early nights sleep; As she comes in, she tells him not to look at his email in the morning, and confesses everything. She tells him she’s been seeing another man, that she’s been unfaithful, but that he’s the one that she really loves. Without a word, Neil opens the door, and with the slightest of eye movements, shows her out of his place, closing the door quietly after her. Maggie is completely devestated, but knows that she can still save hr live with Michael.

She catches the last train to Bondi Junction at 2am, walks over to his apartment block, and camps out there, trying not to cry as she waits through the whole night. At 7am, she goes to the nearest cafe, grabs 2 cofees, and rings Michaels bell. She asks him if he’s checked his email, says he has, and grabs his latte eagerly, kissing her and giving her a hug while waking up. She asks him if hs still loves her, and says of course. breaking down, she tells him whats happened, leaving out the small detail of having been to Neils home first. Without any words, he pushes her hand away, sheds a tear, and opens the door, while asking her to leave.

Confused, back in her apartment, Maggie looks at her emails, opening the sent mail folders; She sees that she hadn’t messed up the destination addresses at all, and had sent the right letter to the right guy after all.

Bad ideas for the internet, number 1.

2009-11-22T00:00:00+00:00

At home, without internet …

So i’m at my apartment and I don’t have internet, so I decided to write about a horrible idea for the internet. There have been so many bad businesses out there, and so many that spectacularly failed in the bubble of 2000— remember Pets.com? I want to do one better. I want it unethical, and I want it bad.

The best unethical idea I’ve seen so far is Darwin Dating, a dating website where ugly people aren’t allowed in. It’s so bad, so mean, that people couldn’t help laugh at the whole concept. I think it actually makes money. Wait, a bad idea that makes money? Damn. I need to get it worse.

How about, instead of that, a dating site with reviews? I think i’m on a winner here. You know when you go to amazon and theres the oh so helpful reviews of the book from former readers? well, why not the same thing on a dating site.

Say you look at a person, then you can review them “yeah, they weren’t who they said they were going to be. They said they were 6’2, but really, they were more like 5’7, and they took me out on a date to Harry’s cafe de wheels.” . The good reviews could be there too.

Its so wrong. Its so blatantly bad. Do you think it could work? I’ll come up with idea #2, something guaranteed to fail later.

Writing a quick Go package, as an experience

2009-11-17T00:00:00+00:00

From the bus home.

Google just released a new programming language, called Go. It’s exciting, different, and intended as a concurrent systems language. It’s also fairly controversial, because it changes a lot of little things, and a lot of big things that developers do and think about. It’s making some people very happy, and some people very unhappy.

I decided that it was a good time to play and try to write a module, so I looked in the initial library release, and I saw that the random number generator package, rand could only support pseudo random numbers, using a standard seeded random number generator. I thought to myself that it would be nice to be able to use one of the secure random sources, e.g., /dev/random on most unices, to provide a source of randomness. So began a cute little project …

The rand package is broken up a little, into 2 distinct types. One, is a struct called Rand that implements many of the convenience methods to retrieve random numbers that conform in some way to a range, like 0-6. The other is an interface that is intended to yield random numbers, called a Source . Source is an interface in the Go tradition, which analogous to interfaces or full abstract classes in Java and C++, for instance. I decided to override this Source interface as an exercise; I’ve put the results up online on my github repository for everyone to follow along on. It’s a quick write-up, more as a learning exercise than anything else, so here I went.

First things first, I realised I just wanted to back my Source with a user specified file – usually something like /dev/random. I created a new interface that added one method to the Source, namely a Close method, to allow the file to be closed.

type FileBasedSource interface {
rand.Source;
Close();
}

Wow, that was easy. I just declared an included Interface, and a zero argument method. Thats it. I extended an interface this easily.

Then, what I really love, is the use of Duck typing. I just wrote a couple of methods that basically create a private struct, and return the FileBasedSource interface defined above. Pretty easy. I had to fiddle with the sys calls to open the file descriptors, and then one more fiddly part to convert an ⁸byte into an int64, which can almost certainly be improved. What I do is, byte by byte, convert to a uint64, and shift its bits. I’m not sure that there’s a better way, but, I leave it as a TODO.

Then, a quick test, and a second function in the package, to allow for a /dev/urandom style of implementation. Using defer was very natural, and it felt right to place an opener, and its relevant closing functionality right next to each other. After all that, a little bit of a main to test that randomness was doing its right thing, and here it is, whacked into git. Take a look at the code, compiling is straightforward and very fast, as expected.

So what was the experience like? Easy. Fun. I had no trouble hooking together the bits that I wanted to, and testing was a breeze too. Duck typing was a breath of fresh air, and in this case at least, the interface and struct system felt very comfortable to use. Extending an interface was natural; The syntax was comfortable, even though some complain about the reversed order, I found that it made no difference to the way I read code.

Whats next? something more meaty. Or maybe, if people think this package is useful, I’ll clean it up. Your feedback is very appreciated, so please, get back to me. Frankly though, I haven’t verified any security properties here, just had fun overriding one interface. A read of the rand package in full would be good in that case.

Happy Days by Sam Beckett At the Belvoir

2009-11-04T00:00:00+00:00

Writing this on the train back from the Belvoir …

Happy Days, by Samuel Beckett, promises to be an interesting play from the description. A woman, Winnie, is stuck in the mud for years on years, and is accompanied by the less stuck, but more feeble, Willie, her fella. Winnie has been there for a while, and doesn’t know what to do. Sounds interesting right? add to the mix that Sam Beckett is the author, and its sounding good. I’m seeing the first preview, with the first paying audience, so your mileage may vary.

The set opens up spectacularly, with a circular curtain pulling aside a mountain with our star, Winnie, sticking out of the middle. Plenty of light shines on her, and she awakens to the dawn of a new day. Nobody knows how long she’s been there, nobody knows how long she will be, including her. All she knows is her habits, and a faint realisation that she is older than she was. Thoughts of eternities past, and eternities to come float through her mind, and the happiness of learning trivial things every day keep her somewhat sane.

Willie, her partner, who we don’t see face on, grunts his way through the first act, going about his daily routine of reading a (who knows how old) daily paper. There’s lots of love, much like with any elderly couple, but Willie is barely preset on stage. In other words, at least in the first act, Winnie is left to present an hour long monologue, stuck in the mud in the middle of the stage. Talk about a tough act when thats all you’ve can do. The script is also a bit slow, mostly because it’s Winnie talking in a non continuous stream of thought. The pauses in the monologue are long, and let the audience think over the meaning. Combined with the lack of movement, though, and the play feels stifled. There’s no action, nothing to surprise the audience, and its all up to Winnie to keep the audience.

None of this is surprising; This is part of Sam Becketts absurd play period, and was really important in that movement in the 60s. Its interesting to see just from that perspective, and the lack of set change, movement or dialogue signals the minimalist approach that he was aiming for. The symbolism for a despair at capitalist government, and a broken climate are obvious too; Listening to the text, all these references, along with talk about religion, and a simple longing for younger and simpler days are all there. It’s very clever, if you are there.

Julie Forsyth plays Winnie, and does justice to the piece; The pauses, the thoughts, the character are all well presented. Her despair and futile hope are obvious in every sentence, and the way she talks about her husband, Willie, is with the best of affection. It’s an excellent performance, and deserves to be applauded.

Ultimately, though, Happy Days doesn’t work for me. The trouble is that there’s no movement, no interplay between characters, save for some almost imaginary banter between the couple. The lack of movement makes it hard to concentrate, especially after a day at work, and I think the audience felt this way too. It’s an incredible 2 hour monologue, but without a break, without interaction, it just lacks entertainment in the simple sense. Worth seeing if you want to see a true classic from Sam Beckett.

The hardest part of writing is …

2009-10-26T00:00:00+00:00

At work, lunch break.

How on earth do authors do it. I find it so hard to just write about something interesting frequently enough; And eloquently enough to be able to proudly put a little authors tag on the page. I guess this is a well known problem, hence the phrase writer’s block. So what do people try to do against it?

I recently read an inspiring memoir by Haruki Murakami, titled ‘What I talk about when I talk about running’ . Of course, as you’d expect, but really, how some of the same psychological forces are at play in other parts of his life. Most notably, discipline. Haruki knows that in order to run marathons, he must run a certain training distance every month; Thats OK. He claims to approach writing in the same way: To be disciplined, and to write, no matter what, between 9 and 2 every day. Thats it.

Well, of course, thats not it, but the point is there. I think I’m going to do the same. So from now, expect a 15 minute effort per day in writing something, about something interesting. If you’ve got topics, then please. Although, it could be something else; I have another blog project coming up (very exciting!) and that could steal me a little. See? there goes the discipline.

OK, 15 minutes. Every day. 1 month. Deal.

God of Carnage, the STC production

2009-10-16T00:00:00+00:00

While watching The death of Mr Lazarescu …

When there’s a new play in town, like God of Carnage, that wins awards around the world, you can expect it to come to Sydney fairly quickly. Thats kind of What happened. First performed in Zurich in December 2006, Then March 2008 in London, February 2009 in New York, and now, October 2009 in Sydney. The Sydney Theatre Company God of Carnage production is playing in the opera house, overlapping with the sold out Streetcar Named Desire production nearby, so they have a bit of competition for an audience.

God of Carnage is about two couples who get together to sort out a fight between their sons where one of them had his teeth knocked out. Both couples meet cordially in one of their homes, and try to resolve what to do. Instantly, we see 4 different personalities, people who’ve chosen different paths in life. There’s a lot of comedy to be had at the expense of how different the couples are to each other, and the conflict between all four of them. The women are aghast that their boys fight, and the men are proud that their sons are standing up for themselves, and reminisce over their own childhoods.

Though the four of them get together cordially, the meeting falls apart quickly, with absolutely no agreement over how the boys should sort out their violent differences. After a while, the parents don’t care, really, they’re just talking about their own lives, and their own problems. The focal point is that of Alain, a high powered international lawyer who takes business calls every few minutes, which annoys his wife and the other couple too.

The four of them sit around, baring their feelings of disappointments and achievements in adulthood, and remembering their childhood. It gets ugly, violent, drunk and messy. Which is exactly why it’s so funny and endearing.

The play is only 90 minutes though, which is great for a comedy, but means that whatever great meaning you want to put into a play, or however great the characters portrayed are, they’re not quite fully done. The play ends without a perfect resolution, and without a great moral, without a great theme. It is funny though, which is the important thing, even if you’re not a parent, or you’re not married. The play works because it talks about universal problems and experiences, which is great; But the names, foods, and location of the play is still meant to be French, while the characters are speaking perfectly Australian English. It just felt a bit odd.

It’s worth seeing, if only for a good set of laughs, but I don’t know how it’s the best play of a season. Maybe the production in New York or London were different.

Super Size Me, The real experimental protocol

2009-09-27T00:00:00+00:00

Post dust storm sun soaked bedroom.

I sat here eating my take out burrito yesterday, and my thoughts went back to Morgan Spurlocks Super Size Me, where he decided to eat nothing but McDonald’s for 30 days, eating three meals a day there. Morgan put on a huge 11 kilos in the month, which is just ridiculous, and clearly proved that this was the most unhealthy sort of diet that any human being could go through.

Meanwhile, I’m chomping down on this huge, delicious sour cream filled burrito, and I’m thinking to myself “Thank goodness it’s not maccas” . Well, then, actually, I thought, stopping mid-chew, damn, his experiment was flawed, and missing so much data it’s not funny.

See, the problem is, he just proved that eating maccas for a full month was unhealthy. I think that eating out anywhere for 30 full days would be just as unhealthy. It’s sort of obvious, isn’t it, but I am surprised that this wasn’t up on every single blog out there.

So here’s a potential experimental protocol, without restricting to a single restaurant. To eat out at a restaurant for 3 meals a day, for 30 days, with the rules that you have to eat a ‘full meal’ as defined by the restaurant. Participants are only allowed to eat what the waiter recommends at any given restaurant, and if there is no waiter, they must choose a meal that they see the person next to them eating. That’s it. The price of the restaurant doesn’t matter either, it can be (and should!) be a variety of cheap to very expensive locations.

My claim here is that, at any restaurant today, the portion sizes are so large that eating anywhere 3 times a day for a month is guaranteed to lead to weight gain. It doesn’t matter that it’s MacDonald’s, or anywhere else, where someone eats; The fact is that our culture of eating out, and the pressure on restaurants to satisfy us has meant that restaurant meals are bigger.

I spoke to a few friends last night, who said that on the weekends they would typically not eat at home at all, but would just eat out; Several people mentioned that this meant they’d typically have just 2 meals on those days: A brunch and dinner sort of thing, with coffee snacks in between.

So in other words, the challenge is on. Who’s going to take it. Not me!

Gethsemane, The Belvoir upstairs production

2009-08-31T00:00:00+00:00

Last day of winter.

Gethsemane is the new upstairs play at the Belvoir, opening on Wednesday evening; Although the name refers to the garden where Jesus had a night of doubt. Thats not what this play is about, although, depending on the viewer, it could be.

The scene is modern day Britain, giving a fictional look at the insides of political influence in the Labour party in the UK. We follow the life of the party fund raiser, the prime minister, and the home secretary. It’s all fun to watch even if you don’t know a thing about UK politics, as the themes are universal. The play explores the interactions between various interests in a party. We see how politicians treat and are treated by their assistants, and how crucial a role they play, and what keeps everyone in the party motivated, what makes those in power ‘tick’, if you will, and what doubts, or personal crises cause characters to confront their own doubts, and to decide which path to take in the future.

The production at the Belvoir is the last production that Neil Amrfield is directing as the artistic director of the Belvoir theater. It’s well cast, with recognizable Australian faces from Australian film and theater sources. The actors relate really well to each other, and it’s believable. The interaction between the leads and their personal assistants is excellent, with a tiny bit of resentment, and really tough interaction, all designed to make you wonder who is leading out of the two. The biting comedy of the play comes at the expense of the politicians, and the doubts of the characters feels genuine.

I complained last time about a really distracting set, and thats not at all a problem here, with a plain concrete wall and two sofas that shift discreetly to change the space from room to room throughout the play. It’s perfect for the play itself, not distracting from the dialogue in question at all. I saw a preview of the show, and though things felt polished, the actors still stumbled once or twice over a few of the lines, but not in a distracting way. I think that by Wednesday they’ll be on the ball. It was fun to watch 9 actors stumbling around stage during the curtain call, though;

It’s a fun play to see, and tackles some interesting issues in democratic governments, but it’s not a world changing play; The Belvoir production is great, entertaining, and will probably a good night out. I’d rather go and see The Lonesome West though, if I was short on time.