Reverse Temporal Engineering by Antony Sammeroff

A scratch night comedy in one act for two actors.
Acknowledgements to Finn Townsley and Gareth K. Vile.

Cast:
TOM. An obnoxious self-described possibilitarian, probably in his early to mid-twenties.
STU. Another character who is more obnoxious than Tom.

Reverse Temporal Engineering.

Tom enters the stage from one side speaking on his mobile phone.
TOM [speaking into his mobile]. Alright man? ... Yeah I'm at my parent’s house... Where are you?... Alright cool that's near mine. 
Stu enters from the other side of the stage, speaking into his phone, they are in different locations.
STU [speaking into his mobile]. Are you coming out tonight?
TOM. I would but I left my wallet in my flat so I'm waiting on my dad coming home and giving me a lift, but he's on night shift.
STU. Damn that sucks.
TOM. Yeah I know. It’s shit.
STU. It’s shitter than shit. It’s like - a turd sandwich with shit as the bread.
TOM. You’re a classy guy. Can you not just conjure up my wallet since you're near mine and I'll walk into town and meet you there?
STU. Well uhm... Maybe I could do that, if I dunno, I had your freaking keys.
TOM. Teleport?
STU. Not invented yet. Why are you at your parent’s house anyway gaylord?
TOM. Well my new brother in law was visiting.
STU. Haaaaa he's bangin' your sister.
TOM. Ummm… yeah. And?
STU. Well, it’s more than you're getting.
TOM. It is more than I'm getting from my sister... not quite as much as I'm getting from your mum.
STU. Touché good sir, I consider myself bested. I assume by your response you like him then?
TOM. Like him how? I'm afraid anything I say will just be construed as an excuse to make a gay joke.
STU. Probably. Well, just like, since you’re, you know, cool with him… how should I put this sensitively?… Ramming? Hm, no. How about ploughing? No, let’s go with Ramming, I like Ramming - original and best. Since you’re cool with him Ramming your sister every night - takin’ that cute little ass to town - I’m supposing you get on with him.
TOM. Such a way with words! I think you managed to make your point really clear there. What a talent. Yeah I get on with him great! Better than with my sister actually hahaha.
STU. Why’s that?
TOM. Well he smokes for one thing, and she doesn't, so we can go out for a fag.
STU. Ah true, that does make him the better human being.
TOM. Indeed.
STU. So when will I catch you? The weekend?
TOM. Balls to that, I’m coming out.
STU. …Of the closet, you surely mean. By the time you walk to yours and then back into town…
TOM. Teleport?
Stu checks his watch.
STU. Noooope… still not invented yet, try again in another half an hour.
TOM. Do you think teleportation will run on the principle of moving particles through a quantum wormhole to another location and reassembling them? or more like a copy and paste mechanism, where the model is molecularly replicated, but the copy is dispatched during the integral process?
STU. Don’t care. Why?
TOM. Well supposing I’m meant to be in two places at once, I could just teleport myself but conveniently forget to “cut” before I “paste” and then there would be two of me.
STU. Yah, but the real you wouldn’t even essentially be at both meetings, so you’d have no memory whatsoever of one of the events. And then what would you do with the copy afterwards? You can’t just Edit/Undo after you control/c control/v. That would be a bit inconvenient to explain away.
TOM. Hmmm yeah I guess you’re right. Maybe he would become unstable and break down of his own volition after filling me in on the details, or maybe his organs could be harvested for science.
STU. No, no, that’s a sentient life form! You’d have protests from People for the Ethical Treatment of Clones.
TOM. Damn those ultraliberal hippies at PECA.
STU. You only want two of you so you can suck twice as much cock as you normally do anyway. To be honest, you’d be better off Reverse Temporal Engineering it.
TOM. What, you mean sucking off one cock, and then going back in time afterwards to suck off another one so that I didn’t have to miss out on any of the juicy cock-sucking opportunities presented to me?
STU. Sure. I actually just meant Reverse Temporal Engineering it so you could be at both meetings at the same time and remember, but your admission of love for the cock was equally satisfying.
TOM. More satisfying, surely?
STU. Indeed.
TOM. How much more satisfying?
STU. Seven. Seven times more satisfying.
TOM. And yet, still not as satisfying as your mums vagiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.
STU. Damn! Struck by my own sword. You’d also age faster in subjective time while sucking on all those cocks, or being at each of those meetings.
TOM. That’s right actually - but that’s not the only risk. At the second event you could refer to something that happened at the first event which hadn't happened yet subjective to everyone else and confuse people, then – bam! – quantum time paradox, just like that! And the universe collapses in on itself.
STU. That I could deal with, it's all the bullshit you’re talking that troubles me-
TOM. Damn! You really know you lack charisma when a microcosmic temporal contradiction bringing forth the immanent annihilation of the universe along the axes of both time and space is preferable to what is presently occurring in subjective...
STU. Yeah, all that crap would be a relief!
TOM. Ok... I have an idea... Ask behind the bar if your friend left his keys for you.
STU. What are you talking about?
TOM. Look I'm 100% sure this Might work.
STU. Oh you're certain it'll work maybe?'
TOM. Approximately.
STU. On average.
TOM. As a distinct non-zero possibility. In a multiverse all distinct non-zero possibilities become actualities.
STU. In an infinite universe everything that can exist must exist.
TOM. Look, that’s pub talk. Save it for the pub.
STU. But, you're not coming out to the pub because you were at your parents’ house ramming your gay brother-in-law and you left your wallet in your flat.
TOM. Ask behind the bar if my keys are there.
STU. And how exactly do you expect this to work?'
TOM. Well let's see, I saw it in a movie once.
STU. Saw what in a movie?
TOM. This. Teleport isn't invented yet.
STU. Yes, I said that. Twice in fact.
TOM. But, if time travel is invented within my lifetime I can plausibly reverse-temporal engineer things so my keys are left behind the bar for you.
STU. O…kayay... But first - Is the movie you saw this in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure?
TOM. Fuck the shut up!
STU. Don't you mean...
TOM [interrupting]. Whatever!
STU. But was it though?'
TOM. Obviously. But that's besides the point.
STU. I think that is the point exactly. I think the point is you're taking your queues from a sci-fi-teenage-comedy genre-confused mash up.
TOM. Like Biodome.
STU. What the fuck is Biodome?
TOM. Watch it and see.
STU. You're a dick.
TOM. Yeah, but if you never watch it you’ll never know.
STU. If a man is alone at his parents’ house and no one has a clue what the fuck he’s talking about, will he shut the fuck up?
TOM. Get my keys.
Stu moves to the side to address the barman.
STU [to the wings]. Here! Mate!...
Stu produces a set of keys from the wings.
STU. ‘kin ‘ell! He had your keys!
TOM. See, told you.
STU. ‘the fuck dude?
TOM. ‘the fuck indeed. See, I’m a possibilitarian.
STU. You're a retard. Why didn't you just reverse temporal engineer the keys into your parent’s house?
TOM. Never thought of that.
STU. That’s because you're a retard.
TOM. Not too retarded to do this.
The keys disappear from Stu’s hand or person.
STU. 'kin ell where did they go?
TOM [producing the keys from his pocket and jangling them]. Right here.
STU. Jesus Christ that's awesome!
TOM. Ask the barman for the drink I got you.
STU [addressing the barman again]. Here! Mate!...
Stu produces a pint from the side of the stage.
STU. ‘The fuck dude!
TOM. Yeah you're totally getting in the next round.
STU. Except not I'm not because you're wallets still in your flat, and you're at your parent’s house, and I don't have your keys anymore to go and get it for you.
TOM. Dammit! I am a retard.
STU. I said it first.
TOM. Well, [Tom produces the wallet from his pocket] here it is now I suppose.
STU. You know, this is a very convoluted way to meet up under the circumstances.
TOM. Yeah you're right... We should sort that out.
Tom hangs up the phone and walks across to the other side of the stage to join Stu.
TOM. Hey man.
STU. Hey, Pint?
TOM. Fuck yeah.
They walk off towards the bar like best of friends.
END.

Do I know you?

-->

by Antony Sammeroff
A scratch night play in one act for one actor and one actress.

Do I know you?

April and Anthony enter from opposite sides of the stage as they draw close they catch eyes and think they know each other immediately, but then a moment of doubt creeps in.
ANTONY [with enthusiasm]. Hey!
APRIL [responding in kind]. Hey!
There is a moment of credulity
ANTONY [communicating with his hands].  I thought we…?
APRIL.  I thought we…
ANTONY.  But we don’t.
APRIL. No, we don’t…
ANTONY.  Well I’m Antony. [He presents his hand]
APRIL. I’m April…
They shake.
ANTONY.  So next time we will.
He smiles.
APRIL.  Next time we will.
They part.

Preliminary thoughts for my dissertation

On some level we want to say that the great compositions of, say, Beethoven are in some way 'better' than those of say, Katy Perry whom we had a look at in MMA last year with Martin Dixon
(if you happen to think she's a great contemporary composer you may substitute some other name which fits the bill of simply composed/kitsch music.)

On one hand it's hard to say that it's an objective judgement of quality, because all aesthetic experiences fall into the subjective experience of the person receiving them. On the other hand we know we are making a distinction between we say music is 'bad' music versus music which is 'not my kind of thing.'

Personally I hate swing music. Despite liking something in almost every genre of music I've never been able to cultivate a taste for Swing. But I'm not willing to turn around and say that Quincy Jones was a ‘bad’ arranger when working with Frank Sinatra - he's clearly extremely competent. I just personally don’t like it.

On Sunday night I heard two folk singers sing a song together where each of their parts was incredibly sophisticated with little riffs and inventive harmonies – I was impressed by the counterpoint because I thought (“knew”?) it was qualitatively 'better' than if they'd just harmonised in thirds. Not that harmonising in thirds would be “bad” or “unpleasant” – I just felt like what I was hearing was superior.

While the lay patron could also notice a difference in complexity and might likely agree that the more sophisticated, sung by more practiced singers, was the “better”, it seems I've cultivated a taste that allows me to make more complicated value judgements than non-musicians. I can make a distinction here between say, Burt Bacharach, the composer of great pop tunes, and Burt Bacharach the extremely competent and innovative arranger/composer whose use of complex rhythmical phrasing which was rare in pop music, expressive chord changes and ingenious sequences tantalise my ear as a musician.

This impulse may sometimes lead those of us who know a bit about music hear a song and think - "that would be better if only..." [it included such and such an obviously missing vocal harmony, or they chose this note or that chord instead of the one, or they took]  ...

What are we saying? We're not just saying we'd prefer it, we're arguing that we have a qualified opinion on what would improve the piece of music.

But improve the music how? And to what ends? Is it because the pleasure of enjoying more sophisticated music is greater than enjoying pop on the cosmetic level?

As a theatre critic I have to make value judgments and try to offer feedback, which is hopefully useful - either to the company or the patrons. Both if possible. ("I particularly like the ones which, from beneath the veil of the plot, reveal to the experienced eye some subtle truth that will escape the common herd," - Voltaire in The White Bull.)  I have no doubt that the highest achievement the critic can manage is to point out some subtlety of genius that escapes 'the common herd' so that when they read my writing they have an “Ah!” moment – “Oh my god that is so true/observant.” This act of enlightenment forever changes the viewer and opens their eyes to watching out for similar phenomena in future aesthetic experiences. Their taste is more cultivated. Their standards have been permanently raised.

When it comes to giving negative criticism, much of what I write is all but ubiquitously noted by the audience, the lay person may notice and cringe. At other times I notice things most do not, but as far as I’m concerned they are extremely important, perhaps to the fidelity of the writing. A common example is that often the actors have not sufficiently noted what is said about their character by other characters in the script, and disregarded these hint in their portrayal. Such things may often escape the regular theatre goer because an actor’s performance can be internally consistent without while making this error, so in this way having a cultivated taste could be seen as a liability when it comes to gaining pleasure from an aesthetic experience. Then what nonsense does this make of striving to enlighten people just do they can enjoy theatre less? Surely we want them to enjoy poor theatre less so that they can enjoy good theatre more.

The companies may appreciate such feedback because they want to be 'better' - they appreciate there is somewhere to go. If not what would be the point in improving? Why strive to be capable of a Goldberg variation when any pleasant sounding two-part invention will do?

And then, sophistication isn’t synonymous with quality either. We often also appreciate “the beauty of simplicity.”

What is more, if some of the modernists are to be believed, pleasure is not necessarily even the critical point of the aesthetic experience.

I recall Martin Dixon saying, 'Is that all you want from music?' - paraphrasing the essential sentiment of Adorno as he did

My response is to say, as a thinker living in post-modern times, “may many flowers bloom.” Perhaps pleasure is not the critical point of the aesthetic experience in some cases, and in other cases it is.
While I could never “cultivate” a taste for swing, I once had no taste for Opera but developed a love for it. Most peoples experience of Schoenberg or, "worse still", the more impenetrable moderns is that some study plus considerable exposure is required to "get it".

Adorno commented on the relevance of the techniques used to the music at hand (I will cite an example in my essay most likely as I remember reading him comment on such and such a chord in chamber music being appropriate, but not in such and such another genre.) In this observation he is not alone. His remarks are actually very mainstream: in contemporary times the synths so synonymous with 80s pop music sound disastrously “cheesy” except in pastiche. The “choir” or “harpsichord” settings on your keyboard, anathema to a hard rock band, sounds perfectly appropriate and apt in the European “Viking” or “Gothic” metal genres. Simon Frith, in his essay on “bad music” refers to the kind of “genre confusion” involved with “getting this wrong” as ‘ridiculous music… the gap between what performers/producers think they are doing and what they actually achieve.” Certainly this makes a credible argument for calling music bad that does not draw upon the sophistication of the material – music can be both sophisticated technically and “bad” or “cheesy.”

Adorno’s argument that immanence through self-reference makes music better is extremely compelling, and yet it seems to be presented as self-evident and without argument, which makes it difficult to justify in under the Western analytic tradition. That is the problem I will face if I wish to make use of any of Adorno’s arguments for what is good or bad in music.

"Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her clothes off, but it's better if you do."

Review of Broken Bird Theatre's performance of Closer by Patrick Marber
at The Old Hairdressers

Closer, a play concerning honesty, co-dependency, trust, love as object-obsession and other heady themes, holds some considerable acumen having won the Laurence Olivier Award for Best New Play and New York Drama Critics' Circle Award for Best Foreign Play, as well as being nominated for a Tony after its London premiere in 1997. 

This often comedic romantic drama, made into a film featuring Jude Law, Natalie Portman, Clive Owen and Julia Roberts in 2004, follows the emotional ups and downs of four individuals, each in their own way psychologically dubious, as they fall in and out of each other’s arms, trading partners for love and lust. Dan is cold, Alice is wayward, Anna can’t follow her best interests, and Larry claims the moral high ground while acting out unscrupulous sexual fantasies and taking opportunities in opposition to his values.

Happenstance and sometimes the most unlikely of coincidences brings them together – in one hilarious scene, Dan tricks Larry into turning up for a date after posing as a cyber slut named Anna in an internet chat room, only for Larry to meet the real Anna and begin a romantic relationship with her, much to Dan’s Chagrin. Alice and Larry, the more co-dependents in love, are betrayed. Arguments ensue over who deserves whom and finally happy endings are lost over the desire for candour.

 Sometimes these four carry on a little as though there are only three other people in the rest of the universe, but the writing is consistently high standing - with tight plotting, interesting structure, and occasional flashes of psychological excellence such as the unconscious tie between Larry’s slavish co-dependency in love as a flipside to his sexual violence: he devours his partner in conquest of his slavery. 

The constructive use of a minimal set helps enhance the drama and naturalistic feel.  The merging of two scenes into one stage is ubiquitously well achieved: when one character walks into another couple’s scene only to steal one of them into a flashback of a previous scenario the effect is immersive.

Broken Bird is a company that shows immense competence both in acting and execution, although sometimes a closer reading of the script could yield yet deeper results. For example, Larry makes several references to his working class heritage but his performance does not particularly exploit this as a character point, likewise while Dan’s portrayal is completely consistent internally, he does not seem to exude the cool, detached sexuality wanting of a man whom women involuntarily fall in love with, despite themselves. Still, the company, formed earlier this year by young actors, has the potential to raise the stakes for independent theatre in Glasgow, they emanate professionalism.

5 Days of The Fringe left.

5 days of The Fringe left. 5 days to see all the shows you don't want to miss. 5 days to hobnob with industry who's whos. 5 days to praise and confound actors, directors, stage managers, technicians, musicians, comedians and those who place themselves somewhere in between as "performance artists." 5 days to buy a bottle of wine for the person whose couch you've last been sleeping on. 5 days to compose a tune you "wrote during the Fringe in two-thousand and twelve man." 5 days to pick-up and say you got a shag when you least expected it. 5 days to heckle a comic and say you got away with it. 5 days to overhear two people saying it was "the best thing they've ever seen" and go see it only to realise they were high or being sarcastic. 5 days to fit it all in. 5 days until you can sit back on your couch and overcome from the cough you've developed from burning the candle at both ends. 5 days till you can turn your eyes to "other projects I've been putting off." 5 days till your feet start recovering. 5 days till you realise a month has passed in no time at all, and you left so much undone before you left. 5 days till reality sets in. 5 days till you realise reality is really not that different at all: just the same thing, with the same feelings, in a different place, with different people, doing different things. 5 days till you can finally relax, or so you tell yourself. 5 weeks before you start having dreams about doing it all again next year.

Recently Published Frigne Reviews:
Bitesize Chekhov @ Merchant's Hall
Salome @ Greenside
The Jhiva of Nietzsche @ The Surgeons' Hall
The Canterville Ghost @ Greenside
Candide @ Church Hill Theatre
Bereavement The Musical @ C Venues

I lead a second life in Edinburgh, does that not make me a Bunburyist?

Waking up on someone's couch during the fringe while working as a theatre critic, reviewers pass slung around neck, feels kind of like being a romanticised caricature of a romanticised caricature. 40 minute walk to first venue, then traversing the city in between shows for another day. Helloooooo Edinburgh Fringe, did I really say I need to get more exercise? Please don't put chicken samosas in a box that says vegetable samosas. I fear that after having sufficient to drink one might forget that they feel out of place... while the company becomes ever more aware! Thanks for being an awesome friend ♥ The Devil May Care! (but that doesn't mean I have to give a fuck.) Anyone in Edinburgh lend me 20 quid? pay you back on Tuesday or Wednesday. Wallet got nicked last nite. Damn I was really enjoying the Edinburgh fringe weather but seemingly the Hindus were right, and all things must pass. Why do theatre makers think we like resettings of classics in World War II? what exactly is giving of this bizarre signal that World War II is a compelling or original period to set Shakespeare or Sophocles in? Or anything for that matter? It's not! When they said: "Repent, Repent" : I wonder what they meant? The problem with ethics is that the only people really interested in learning about it are already good.

These are just some of the experiences one might have in August when in Edinburgh.

So I've been catching up on review writing today and it's been getting really fun now I'm in the swing of it. I don't always enjoy sitting down and getting started, but when I finish articles I'm often very pleased with my writing and the ways I've managed to get around my concerns of how to approach certain aspects of a production.

While I'm here I guess this would be as good a time as any to link you to the reviews I've written that have already been posted online, please enjoy :-)

The Improvised Musical @ C
Treasure Island @ C Too
Candida @ Assembly George Square
Suite Hope @ Dance Base
Kaya – Dream Interpreter @ Assembly George Square
Anybody Waitin’? @ Dance Base
Mod @ C ECA

Back at the Fringe, 2012!

It's good to be back. In a way it feels like I just came home.
As though yesterday was a Monday and last years Fringe was just before the weekend.

Already seen lots and have lots to write about, I have a much better system this year which means not having to constantly travel backwards and forwards across the city, all thought a little of that is all good. Know my way round a bit better as well.

Let's get it on.

Scott Miller is a Lying Cheat and Concerning Zombies!

Here are two reviews of locally produced shows by Glasgow-based companies that have gone up on The Skinny website today,

Scott Miller is a Lying Cheat by Sonic Boom
 (also in the mag this month)

and

Concerning Zombies by Overdrive Theatre

"Eight" by Ella Hickson

Produced by 2 Theatre, 

Reviewed Here on The Skinny Website

"Static Speed Dating" by Antony Sammeroff and Finn Townsley 04/12

Cast:
Narcissist (f)
Shy Guy (m)
Insane Girl (f)
Arrogant one (m)
Humourist (m)
Yogi (f)
Intelligent One (m)

Narcissist enters the stage and addresses the Audience.

Narcissist. Hi, I'm a narcissist! I’m into...me, and the things I like, and I really like people who like Me! I really looking for someone who’s interested in talking about me, and likes listening to things I say about life. My perfect partner would look just as attractive as I do but wouldn't have much of a personality so that he could be like, a blank canvas that I would project whatever I want in a man onto. So I'd think that he was exactly the man I wanted despite who he actually was! Ok text back!

Narcissist moves to the back of the stage to watch. Shy Guy enters the stage and addresses the Audience.

Shy Guy. I'm the shy guy. I'm really sweet and tender, and not in any way sexual. I'm the kind of guy you tell your friends you want, and you wish you were in love with, but when you meet me you're just never really attracted. I tend to watch from afar without ever making a move. I think that friendship will one day lead to love, but it never really does. I live in my imagination and I'm artistic: a musician , watercolour painter or short-story writer. I hang out in groups of people who speak about lofty matters but I just listen and never really say much. If I do find a girlfriend she'll be a little more sociable than me, and will probably stay with me for years and years and years, but only cos she's afraid of change. Please be that woman.

Shy Guy moves to the back of the stage to watch. Insane Girl enters the stage and addresses the Audience.

Insane Girl [Overly Enthusiastically at First]. Hi!!! [suddenly self-conscious, she corrects herself] I'm the girl with self-proclaimed insanity! My normality confuses me so I try to make up for it by regularly doing arbitrary things, which may seem 'random,' as they call it, but are all actually completely premeditated! I consider my clothes to be a feature of my personality, because I don't really have one. My perfect partner would be as bland as I am but be in no way self-aware enough to consciously recognise how banal he is!

Insane Girl moves to the back of the stage to watch. Arrogant One enters the stage and addresses the Audience.

Arrogant One. Hi, I'm the arrogant one. I don't care who you are really, you're just an extension of my will upon the world to love me. My standoffishness attracts you to fill the void as you wonder why I’m not showing any signs of interest, but I'll be done with you as soon as I get bored, because I've had you and I need to prove myself! I need to constantly reaffirm that I can have other people, otherwise I won't feel secure in my status. Realistically, lets come together and perpetuate out own cycles of self-loathing. Call back! If you think you can handle me.

Arrogant One goes to the back of the stage and puts his arm around the Narcissist with the implicit assumption of success. She is only too glad for the attention and they pair up, while watching the rest of the speed-dating candidates.  Humourist enters the stage and addresses the Audience.

Humourist.  Hi I’m an alcoholic! Just Kidding! I’m the one who uses humour to cover my insecurities - Just kidding! Well no, not really. I tell jokes a lot! I pretend not to care if nobody laughs but actually in dying inside - Just kidding! Well, no not really. Everyone seems to like me, but no one wants to date me. I can't understand why because I’m always the life and soul of the party! I'm just not quite sure if people are laughing with me, or at me - Just kidding! Well no, not really. Hahaha! I want you to love me! I've been obsessively in love with my best friend for years but I promise not to compare you to her too much... If you choose me I promise devotion, love, and altering my personality in any way shape or form that suits you, quite despite my basic human needs. Just kidding! Well no, not really.

Humourist moves towards the back of the stage and, seeing that Narcissist is already spoken for moves towards Insane girl and prods her in the belly playfully, she gapes dramatically and then starts play-fighting with him, slapping his hands, before suddenly wrapping her hands round his neck and trying to lick his ear while he moves tries to move his head back out of her reach. Finally the kiss once on the lips and settle down as a pair, his arms round her waist, to watch the other speed-dating candidates. Yogi enters the stage and addresses the Audience.

Yogi [Slowly and drawn out, with a sense of calm]. Namaste. I'm the one who does yoga. I'm looking for a spiritual life-partner who will talk about self-attainment and non-attachment while bolstering my spiritual ego by telling me how honest and full of love and light our relationship is compared to those of the common herd. We’ll sip green tea while he ignores his own emotional environment and dismiss any signs of mine as a mere symptoms of the ego, which can be overcome with sufficient chanting and meditation. The Lotus Flower is ever in the water but not of it. Inlakesh. We are one. 

Yogi finds her way over to Shy Guy, presses her hands together before her and bows then leans over to kiss him on the forehead, he blanches for a second embarrassed, and not knowing quite how to react, but he bows back self-consciously. She takes his hands before her and holds them up, then slides them round her waist onto the small of her back, and the two watch the final performance as a pair.

Intelligent One. I’m the intelligent one who’s completely socially inept. Sometimes I come across as a bit interesting at first, but I’ll soon put you off by talking down to you and belittling your opinions. I can’t understand why being serious all the time doesn’t create attraction and I only talking about worldly matters and social science to the exclusion of all personal thoughts and feelings. I look down on most people for being too frivolous anyway and any jokes I might make require extremely specialised knowledge to understand so I’m looking for someone bookish whose as boring and serious as I am. If you’re interested in meeting up to exchange opinions, or better still listening to my ideas, especially on how the world should be run, please email me at this address.

Intelligent One turns round to inspect the talent and realises everyone has already paired off.

Intelligent One. Balls.

Lights go off, actors organise themselves in a row.

Lights come back up and actors take their bows.

My review of Spamalot at the Kings

Can be found right here on the Skinny website

Going over old work

An interesting thing about going over new work, even things that you are quite proud of in a way, is you realise how much you've improved in certain ways.

Like some of Lock is a real pleasure to read and it's always been the proudest of the plays I've written, but for example I realise how much better I've got a structuring work, foreshadowing, making the dialogue flow more freely and naturally, not getting bogged down and verbose, getting to the point in fewer words where need be or deliberately taking the long way round to build suspense, making the characters motivations deeper - giving them each their own individual voice that are distinct from those of the others!




This is something that I recommend everyone do from time to time! Go over your old work and see what ways you'd do it differently if you were writing it now. If you can't think of anything new to write, rewrite something old and make it better :-)

Checkout my review of Legally Blonde - The Musical at The Kings

Review::: Legally Blonde - The Musical

Selfish Gene - The Evolution and Philosophy behind the World's first Biomusical!

The Selfish Gene nears the end of its run here at Zoo Roxy, but I don’t believe it will be the last we hear of this new and innovative work of musical theatre. For posterity I caught up with the creative team, Jonathan Salway (writer), Dino Kazamia (director/co-writer) and Richard Macklin (composer) to find out what it’s all about, and put the world to right.

Part I – The Evolution of the Selfish Gene

Antony: “First off, so how did you guys come to collaborate?”

 Jonathan: "We met at Eastbourne College. I came in as a freelance drama teacher and these two guys were very active in the drama department, Dino with the acting and Richard had done some incidental music originally that was just spot on, he could see a scene and get the music."

Dino: "We were studying but we tended to work more on our own projects."

Jonathan: "In fact I'd had the idea for the musical before seeing Dino and Richard do their own show."

Dino: "We'd worked with Jon before when we did an adaptation of The Picture of Dorian Gray. Richard did the music, I acted and Jon directed it. We knew we wanted to do a bigger project. Richard and I wrote a musical, almost a comedy pastiche of musical theatre…"

Richard: "Gently mocking the whole genre."

Dino: "It turned out we were actually quite enjoying it as a musical. We put it on with students and that went down quite well. Then we got Jon in…"

Jon: "…to help a bit with the directing and I thought - ah, just a minute, we have to do this again sometime on a bigger scale."

Antony: “The Selfish Gene musical explores the themes raised by Dawkins’ book using an analogy of the nuclear family. Can you comment on how that idea came about?”

Jon: "It was quite early on. I'd read the book, it just seemed to raise some fascinating questions. I said to Dino we should turn this into a musical, but it will sound like a lecture if we don't have a narrative, so that's what we chose."

Dino: "With a nuclear family you can cover so many dynamics. The Married Couple, parenthood, adults and younger people as well. It opens up all the doors as well as playing into the fun clichés we jumped upon."

Antony: "How did the music and lyrics come together?"

Richard: "John and Dino wrote the lyrics having read the book, identified the bits they wanted to turn into musical numbers and then sent them over to me, I fashioned them into songs."

Dino: "It was mostly Jon early on, wrote them in straight onto the page without knowing what the music was going to be like. The when Richard came on board he adapted them."

Jon: "I think initially I wasn't putting much rhythm into them,"

Dino: "As time went on the more emotional songs we could almost give to Richard and say, this is the kind of thing that needs to be said."

Antony: “So the relationship developed into more of a dialogue?”

Dino: “Yeah, you could say it evolved.”

Everyone laughs.

Antony: "I loved the verbosity of the lyrics, and the fact that despite the wordiness they weren’t alienating, you understood what you were hearing"

Jon: "I didn't want it to sound like a lecture. So we developed a genetic” stumbling over his words “Sorry generic biologist” everyone laughs “Professor character as a sort of narrator.”

Antony: “I like it, I’m going to use that.”

Dino: "It was more a sort of Greek chorus that comments on the action and question rather than explaining what is happening.”

Antony: “I felt like you were born to play that part. Did you always know you were going to play him yourself Jon?”

Jon: “ummm….”

Dino: “I knew.”

Antony: “When did you know for sure you wanted to play him?”

Dino: “I’m not sure that you wanted to. I decided…”

Jon: “I suppose when I… um… Dino persuaded me. Also I wanted to use quite a young cast on it and thought…”

Dino: “We had to have someone who knew the thing well. Like you said he was born to play the part, he looked right, I knew he could play that kind of role.”

Jon: “And fortunately I didn’t have to have my hair cut.”

Laughs.

Part II – Putting the World to Right

Antony: “Onto more philosophical questions! In the play even altruism is presented as selfish. ‘Well you have the inclination to protect her, because you share genes…’ What are your positions on that theory?”

laughs

Dino: “Well… it’s a difficult question, but one thing I have learned from the book is that though it is possible to reduce our altruism to biological terms, there could be a form of true altruism that we as conscious being can achieve, but that is only through rejecting the selfish gene motivations, the base desires that drive us. Humans have a certain morality that we have evolved.”

Jon: “Dawkins says in his book that in the gene view of the world altruistic acts can result from selfish-gene motivations.”

Antony: “In philosophy, the theory that everything you do is necessarily selfish is termed psychological egotism. The problem is that you can always reinterpret motives. Say I do something kind for Dino, and Rich says ‘That was just to endear yourself to Dino, or make you feel good about yourself.’ Freud has been criticised for finding sex in everything, similarly I could say that everything you do is motivated by wanting to be a gardener Jon, and when you brought over this glass of water before the interview it was symbolic of you wanting to water the plants.”

Laughs.

Jon: “That’s very true and people will probably argue that Dawkins starts his book with this theory and you can make everything squeeze into it. But never do I feel the book in cynically saying ‘that’s just selfish that you’re being altruistic.’ “

Dino: “He’s even coined the term meme as a suggestion for mankind to take up in opposition to being self-seeking.”

(A meme [pronounced: meem] is defined as cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes. So for example a political ideology, religious belief, artistic concept or general viewpoint.)

Antony: “To Richard - is love just a genetic calculation?

Richard: “You can probably trace everything back to that but we’ve also developed certain genetic overrides and you could argue that love is one of them.”

Antony: “Interesting, love could be a meme rather than gene-motivated.”

Jon: “I don’t know if Dawkins says that, he suggests psychological faculties evolved as sensors so you could be predicting this and love was one of those to hook you in, but then that brain that was evolved through those emotions and then became mimetic.”

Dino: “Love tends to make people behave very irrationally and not necessarily in a biologically sensible way so as for it being a selfish gene, it does seem to go against…”

Antony: “It could be a combination. “

Dino: “Yeah.”

Antony: “In general the idea of being motivated by genes, and even memes to an extent, goes against our ideas of agency. So next philosophical question; do we have any free will or only the illusion of free will?”

Everyone Laughs.

Antony: “Any takers?”

Dino: “Well that’s kind of getting into your definitions of free will…”

Jon: “We steered back from that one… because I’m not sure that’s ever an issue that Dawkins addresses. We do imply at the end that we can make our own choices and decisions.”

Dino: “Free will implies more than one will battling against each other. I don’t believe there is another will, although our genes may be trying to survive it’s not a conscious thing.”

Antony: “It’s programmed.”

Dino: “Even programmed implies a programmer, we don’t really have the language to put it across.”

Antony: “There’s no purpose without a purposer as my 2nd year philosophy tutor put it.”

Dino: “Exactly.”

Jon: “But we do make decisions against our selfish gene, such as contraception! Maybe we can include something about that in a future incarnation of the show.”

Antony: “Ultimately your show is very life affirming because in the end you bad guy gets a shock, his selfishness has turned his life upside down and has to rethink his strategy. They tyranny of the selfish genes gives way to the possibilities offered by memes.”

Jon: “If you’re going to play the game once you’re probably better off cheating. But long term you’re better off cooperating.”

Dino: “If you cheat you win more, each only wins a little bit when you cooperate, but if you always cheat everyone will constantly defect and everyone will lose.”

Jon: “Overall nice guys finish first.”

fin