No Design, No Desire

For some reason it annoys me so much more when men follow high street trends. Women don't bother me at all. I think it's because women are used to following fashion and trends, are aware of how uickly things can move, so never get too pretentious about a look or being "cool". Men on the other hand have only really come into the waiting arms of the fashion industry in the last several years (I mean in a more "metrosexual" way - keeping an eye on trends, really going shopping and following high street fashion more keenly).

In kind of a follow up to my "Not chav" rant a while ago, men seem to appear to think that if they have their diamond stud in one ear (its not a gold loop, so its not chav...), their K-Swiss trainers, their Bench/Duck & Cover jeans and their Religion/"Osaka 6" tshirts then they are COOL. The dictionary definition of stylish. Instead of going off on a rant, I will leave it at saying that they are not. They just look exactly the same as all their friends. No personality, no design, no desire.

Women, who have (for the most part) been essentially programmed from birth to follow fashion and be ultra aware of what's hot and what's not (though there are always a few casualties) are far less pretentious about the fact that they're wearing the latest Topshop outfit rather than their male counterparts, whose arrogance about wearing the exact same top as ten other people in the club just drips off them like the motor oil that slicks up their hair.

Every single one of my friends picks a style that works for them, and adapts it to what's "now". They are not pretentious about it, they don't look down on others because of it. But I often get the feeling that the clan of Not Chavs look down on them sometimes because they're not wearing whatever H&M, asos.com, Philip Green and the Topman Empire (outside of London, which is less pretentious because of the sheer amount of competition and superiors it has) and Calum Best or whatever nobody that is the current flavour of the month tells them to wear. Because rosary beads are still SOOOO in. (They wore out their welcome in early 2005).

So, to surmise:
Non-pretentiousness about what you wear = Good
Femeale followers of high street fashion in general = Good
A style that works for the individual, comprised of what their influences = Good
Not Chavs = Bad
Topman Townies = Bad
ALL Topshop/man Employess = Bad (They think they are the cutting edge of fashion because they work at that bloody place. One look at the mullets still rocking the local Topman stores will pretty much spell it out. They are not.)

Go back to sleep America, your Government is back in control.

When I Grow Up

The first thing I ever remember wanting to be was a paleantologist - someone that digs up dinosaur bones. Dinosaurs fascinated me. The size, the granduer, the sharp teeth, the fact that they actually were monsters that had lived on this planet. Everything about them tripped my imagination and sent me into a fantasy world, to the extent where I thought, I could gladly spend my life travelling around the world and digging them up. WRONG.

The next thing I ever remember wanting to be - and this was about from aged 8 onwards - was Emperor of Earth. No bullshit. I wanted to rule the world as a supreme, godlike entity. I always said that if I ever had the money I would buy the Hawaian islands and nuke them. Not for any particular reason, just because I could. I remember wanting to be The Shredder when Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles The Movie came out (the one in the cartoons was a comic relief moron). I wanted to be Lord Zedd when I saw him in Power Rangers. I wanted to be the most evil, supreme being in the universe. WRONG.

Early teens saw me dreaming of becoming a pro wrestler. One name; Bret Hart. I wanted to be a WWF Superstar because of Bret Hart, and later Steve Austin. I always thought; "That's what I'm gonna be." Ha. Nope. That dream never really died until I tried doing pro wrestling for real. I liked it, and was pretty good at it, but decided that I didn't want to put up with feeling like I'd been hit by a truck the morning after every training session or match. WRONG.

Then I wanted to be a golfer. "I am Tiger Woods." It was a while before I realised that I would never be good enough, or have enough patience for The Gentleman's Sport, but I remember that every important putt I had always played out in mind that it was for The Open Championship, or The Ryder Cup. Even then, I chose to escape into fantasy worlds to enhance my dreams. When I figured I'd never be good enough to be a professional golfer, I thought I'd go into sports management, and be around the game and still make a shitload of money. WRONG.

Then I discovered theatre.

I thought, for the longest time, that I wanted to be an actor. I loved being part of the fantasy world and pretending to be someone else. I loved the ideaa of making a living that way. Naiive. Idealistic. Reality gave me a cold hard slap again. I went down to London and sat in on the auditions for Michael Fry's "Japes". I didn't want what I saw. I didn't want to stake my pride and worth on the line every three months for a job, any job. I also was disatisfied with never having any control over the rest of the show. I wanted to be the puppet master, not the puppet.

Which brings me to where I am now. I want to write and direct. That's what I want to do. I want to create the fantasy worlds, I want to shape them. I need to get my foot in the door of the right job first, and that will be easier once my debts are clear, but I'm trying as we speak.

How dreams change eh?

The Lack Of Theatricality In Global Warming (Rearrange The Words To Suit)

I have just spent a week at the National Student Drama Festival, and found it interesting there that of all the relevant topics that were tackled (terrorism, child abuse, the overriding problems with information access on the internet), no one decided to take any kind of spin on the global warming "crisis" that is the buzz word on everyone's lips at the moment. Look at the fashion shows in Paris, New York and Milano over the last month. They are a definite reaction to the increasingly drab, colorless future of the world that we are being presented with and hammered with every day in the mainstream press.

So why do so many theatrical media - a series of art forms that are becoming increasingly important and relevant in commenting on the world we see around us - choose not to focus on one of the most headline grabbing, media saturated events of the last several years? Is it because it is much harder to represent something so abstract on stage? Surely not. The theatre, at the risk of sounding cliched, is a virtual imagination factory that enables commentary on virtually any kind of subject matter or topic that one can imagine. Why steer clear of something so relevant as global warming? Why avoid such a vastly important subject? Surely the media furore surrounding every new discocery and event related to the super event that global warming has become is the perfect fodder for any kind of creative commentary. The pretty little polar bears stranded on an iceberg! The constant scientific debate on the subject and how such debates may affect our future! The massive impact it may have on the day to day living of the human raee! It's perfect fodder.

Is it because war is so much more glamorous and sensational? Is it because it is a subject that can dramatized in a much more evocative and awe insipiring manner? Is it because a directly human drama is easier to work with than a seemingly metaphorical one? One cannot be sure...

What's interesting is now. Without a doubt. There is no minute in a creative industry other than the now, as it effects everything we produce and everything in the world around us. Every single show that was being created around the time of the London bombings was drastically shaped by the event, whether subconsciously or otherwise. Why then does endless war and human tragedy receive so much theatrical coverage (at NSDF 07 at least) but an event with so much more coverage and potential relevance to our future lives receive so little? It is an interesting question, and surely one that deserves further analysis in a theatrical forum? So many other abstract creative media have commented on it, why not us?