Tag: Reviews

Cats (or the Irony of ‘Memory’ in a Completely Immemorable Film): A Review
March 12, 2020 10:34 am Comments Off on Cats (or the Irony of ‘Memory’ in a Completely Immemorable Film): A Review
Cats, the film no-one asked for, starring a host of A-list actors as a disturbing cross-breed of 10-fingered, wedding ring-wearing felines, truly needs no further publicity. Between Jason Derulo’s claims that the production team had to CGI his generous Jason Dejewels out, director Tom Hooper’s 36-hour all-nighter to get the final product finished with one day to spare and the subsequent reissuing of the film to cinemas as a rushed gambit to correct unfinished graphics, this film has had more airtime than its titular cats who can apparently fly… or levitate?

I thought, perhaps, that in amongst all of the chaotic press surrounding Cats, the reviews following the premiere could have been too harsh on Tom Hooper and his take on Andrew Lloyd Webber’s inimitably (yes, INIMITABLY) successful stage musical. Armed with the power of positive thought and a review that had suggested this film was to become an instant cult classic because of how fantastically awful it was, à la Tommy Wiseau’s The Room, I ventured to the cinema for my go at Hooper’s magnum opus (sorry, The King’s Speech).

Of course, the first thing that comes to mind watching this film is the gloriously distressing cat-human hybrid CGI job on which the post production team settled. This subject has been talked to death, and used in review after review as a key reason for the work’s ultimate box office flop; rightly so. This is all before we get to the tapping cockroaches and singing mice (also with human faces), so it really does paint a rather upsetting image.

Putting all of this aside, I found several further reasons for Cats’ abysmal ratings (2.8 on IMDb, hello), the primary one being that there was no reason whatsoever for this musical to be made into a movie. This sounds incredibly harsh, and perhaps it is. I should preface this argument by saying that, whilst I know well the story of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s feline spectacular, I have not seen Cats onstage. Knowing the plot of the original musical, however, and seeing it adapted into the medium of film, I believe that there is absolutely nothing this transposition does to elevate or positively change the source material, in any way. All this to say, Cats would be one of the last musicals I would ever choose to adapt into a film – not at all for lack of quality, but because movies require a decent amount of world-building for their audience to fully comprehend and connect with the storyline. Cats is set in a very specific place, during a very specific and short time period, and is incredibly character-focused. This is suited to the medium of stage, but does not align with traditional film paradigms. Quite honestly, it feels like the only reason this movie was made was because studios finally had the technology to do so, and even this aspect failed them.

Not to pile on (although I think perhaps that ship sailed well before the opening number), but I also found that at no point was I ever fully invested in any character throughout the film. I couldn’t even get behind Jennifer Hudson’s character, the woeful and excommunicated Grizabella, as her stunning voice battled constantly to soar through the rivers of snot and tears the makeup department continued to pour down her face. The physical comedy of the film, brought about (on paper at least) mainly by James Corden and Rebel Wilson, was in no way a reprieve, instead bringing yet another source of intense discomfort. And let’s not even talk about what they did to our lord and saviour Sir Ian McKellan.

The final layer of icing on this shitcream cake would have to be, however, the sly attempt by Universal Studios to withdraw this absolute gem from the upcoming Academy Awards’ ‘For Your Consideration’ page. Surely this has got to be the $100 million equivalent of writing your legal theory essay drunk at 2am the morning before it’s due and trying to withdraw it from Turnitin five hours later when you’ve come back down to earth and realised it’s ten pages about body positivity instead of legal positivism. We truly must stan whoever was brazen enough to submit it in the first place (maybe the same group of people who were holding Ian McKellan hostage at the time of filming).

Cats is not the kind of film that is so bad it’s good, and nor will it, in my opinion, ever reach the status of a cult classic. Credit where it’s due, though, because this musical was always going to be an absolute shitfight to make, and Tom Hooper did his darndest best. Besides, pulling a 36-hour all-nighter to finish a huge piece of assessment? I relate to that on a spiritual level.

Jamie Howell
Home Work by Julie Andrews: Review
10:30 am Comments Off on Home Work by Julie Andrews: Review
CONTENT WARNING: Mental Health, Addiction

When I was five years old, my mum introduced me to the world of musical movies. She started with a Disney film that had me hooked from the word ‘go’. The film was Mary Poppins. There were many things about the film that enthralled me: the unbelievably catchy songs, the sense of hope and fantasy, the animated penguins in the ‘Jolly Holiday’ scene… But what cemented Mary Poppins as one of my most beloved films was Julie Andrews’ performance as the titular character. Her poise, regal presence, and soaring soprano vocals all combined to create an image of a goddess-like figure. She was someone who made you nearly fall backwards as soon as you saw her. Andrews soon became what you might call my first ‘celebrity crush’.

Throughout my life, I have tended to deify Andrews, and I know that I’m not the only one. This was until I read her second autobiography Home Work, co-written with her eldest daughter Emma Walton Hamilton. Home Work recounts Andrews’ film career in great detail. It encompasses an array of entertaining and enlightening stories of her days on set with other film stars at the time, such as Dick van Dyke, Christopher Plummer and Richard Harris. It highlights Andrews’ extraordinary résumé, which I was very much expecting to see when I began reading. What I did not expect to discover, however, were the adversities she experienced in her personal life. She gives the reader a warm, generous insight into the end of her first marriage to costume designer Tony Walton, as well as the beginning of her second marriage to deceased filmmaker Blake Edwards. She opens wide the window to her family life and the struggles she faced with being a working mother. Perhaps, most importantly, she takes us on her journey through attending therapy sessions with a psychoanalyst, which only assists in normalising mental health struggles that many of us experience.

Andrews is clearly a privileged and talented woman, who has been blessed with a career that most performers only dream of having. But, as Home Work shows, this does not make her immune to the inherent precarity of life. The book does not recount Andrews’ early life in great detail – this was the primary subject of her first autobiography Home. What we do learn, however, is that as a child she had to live through the alcoholism of both her mother and her step-father, which resulted in a tumultuous marriage. Andrews’ mother continued to struggle with her physical and mental health, which became a source of deep anxiety for Andrews later in life. In the middle of her Hollywood career, she had the added stress of watching her younger brother become addicted to drugs, something which left her feeling frustrated and helpless. Then there is her family life, which, while clearly a great joy in her life, was punctuated by the anguish of sharing Emma with her ex-husband, and by the anxiety of relocating her family considering her demands in the United States. Moreover, despite her extreme success and popularity as an actor, she was constantly plagued by ‘imposter syndrome’ throughout her career.

The beauty of reading Home Work is that in doing so, your mental construction of Andrews as a ‘perfect’ otherworldly being begins to break down. Despite the many positive, life-affirming experiences you may have, these are always countered with times of sadness and stress. Andrews is no stranger to life’s ups and downs, and it is evident from her writing that she wants people to know it. She treats her readers with empathy and courage – at times, it’s almost like you are having a conversation with her. To me, this is the perfect way to tell your story. No one lives a perfect life. Not even Mary Poppins.

Phoebe Lupton
Jojo Rabbit: Why We Must Not Forget
10:27 am Comments Off on Jojo Rabbit: Why We Must Not Forget
CONTENT WARNING: Antisemitism, War
A ten-year-old boy in Nazi Germany, his imaginary friend Adolf Hitler, and a Jewish girl hiding in the walls of his house presents an extraordinarily poignant, yet humorous, story in Jojo Rabbit. The film succeeds in walking a delicate line between comedy and drama. It is at times entertaining and satirical, and at other times carries a buoyant message of the brutal effects of war, especially on children.
The film is based on the historical novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunen. She writes of a Nazi boy who, upon discovering a Jewish girl in his attic, begins to question his blind nationalism.
The movie is set near the end of World War II, where Germany is facing massive defeats. Roman Griffin Davis plays Jojo Betzler, a young boy focused on becoming the very best Nazi he can be. Guiding him is his best friend, mentor, and confidante: an imaginary Adolf Hitler. Jojo, nicknamed ‘Jojo Rabbit’ for his refusal to kill a rabbit when ordered to by his Hitler Youth commander, is depicted as a frightened and innocent little boy desperate to be part of a club. When he discovers that his mother is hiding a young Jewish girl, Elsa, in his house, he begins to question his entire worldview. Jojo finds himself warming towards Elsa, her caustic charm and humour forcing him to change his fanatical view of Nazism. As his relationship with Elsa grows, his relationship with ‘Imaginary Hitler’ worsens. The initial endearing wit of Hitler morphs into the monster we all know.
Director Taika Waititi has chosen a talented cast, with Critics’ Choice Award Winner Roman Griffin Davis, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell, Rebel Wilson, and Stephen Merchant. However, especially notable are all the child actors in the film, who movingly portray the devastating effects of war from the point of view of a child.
Waititi has divided critics of this film for using humour to satirise the Nazi regime. He is known for testing his audience’s humour in his other movies such as Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok. Comedy has been used to poke holes in Hitler’s ideology since Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator. However, Nazi comedies walk a fine line. At their best, they can allow the audience to reflect on the horror of the time. But at their worst, they allow viewers to detach themselves from the past. Waititi, however, demonstrates his exceptional skills in creating a balance between comedy and gravity. The audience is left laughing at the absurdity of the Nazi Regime, while at the same time confronted with the atrocities of war. The final message of the film is simply how stupid war is!
While this film may not have been intended to align with the looming shadow of the possibility of World War III, it has certainly chosen an important time to be released. With the tensions between Iran and the United States boiling dangerously close to the point of war, we need now more than ever to be reminded that war should be something to avoid at all costs. If the atrocities of war begin to fall away from society’s collective memory, then we are in real danger of repeating past mistakes. This film, while enjoyable, reminds us that the lessons of past wars should never be forgotten.

Tara Finlay
Want To Write For Edition 2? Check Out These Prompts!
February 19, 2020 4:00 am Comments Off on Want To Write For Edition 2? Check Out These Prompts!
Woroni is looking for YOU to write for our second edition of the magazine! You can write about pretty much anything, but here are some prompts to get your creative juices flowing (hint: the theme of this edition will be SEX!). First drafts are now due next Tuesday (25/2).
International:

What is considered ‘appropriate’ when it comes to sex? How does it differ between cultures?
Are standards of sexual attractiveness different in different cultures? Do you think we can all be sexy?
Talk about STIs – why is there a stigma surrounding it when it happens to so many people?

Reviews:

Parasite
Tame Impala’s new album
Literally anything else!

Arts:

How can sex and bodies be used as protest? Think the #freethenipple, sex strikes etc. Do they work?
How do you feel when you see your body naked? Are you liberated, or embarrassed, and why is this?
How has the tv show Sex Education brought sexual wisdom to a mainstream audience?
Talk about a sexual experience that has had a lasting impact on you, positive or negative. What was it about this experience that made it so memorable?

Multilingual (for foreign language speakers):

Talk about sex and social media! Think about sexting, online dating etc. and the impacts they’ve had on you.
Talk about the presence of sex in the films you’ve watched and the music you’ve listened to! Who are the people who engage in this, and does it matter?
How has your mental health affected your sex life? (can be anonymous)

Creative:

Poetry
Fiction
Photography
Painting and drawing
Scripts
Satire

Science

Talk about fat-shaming! How can we have productive discussions about health without implying blame?
Apparently, giraffes express sexual attraction through drinking each other’s pee! What are some examples of animal sexual practices that put humans to shame?
Are ageing and death as inevitable as we thought? Are they even preventable?
Turns out, some people don’t have an inner monologue! Do you have one? How does having a rich inner life or the lack thereof impact on your life?
Have you ever had imposter syndrome in a sexual relationship? Why was this?
According to several studies, our generation is having a lot less sex than previous generations. Why do you think this is? Why are these studies so important?
How do you really feel about your body? Tell us openly and honestly (and anonymously, if you like).

Business and Economics

Porn is a multimillion dollar industry! Why is porn so popular, and why, despite its popularity, is it still stigmatised?
Talk about sex work! Is sex work inherently oppressive? Should we legalise it?
Do you own any sex toys? Talk about them! Why are they important to you, and why don’t people really talk about them?
Give an overview of online dating. Talk about some of the various websites, how popular they are and what purposes they serve.

Woroni Editor
Being Queer* is Not a Laughing Matter: A Review of UniLodge’s Spamalot
November 17, 2019 9:00 am Comments Off on Being Queer* is Not a Laughing Matter: A Review of UniLodge’s Spamalot
CONTENT WARNING: Homophobia, Queer*phobia

This year’s UniLodge Musical was Monty Python’s Spamalot. Running from October 10 to 13 , Spamalot was the second musical staged by UniLodge@ANU following the 2018 production of 9 to 5. Spamalot is a surrealist comedy, which often humorously breaks the fourth wall. The plot revolves around King Arthur and his noble quest to retrieve the Holy Grail with his four knights Sir Lancelot, Sir Robin, Sir Bedevere and Sir Galahad. The journey takes them through ‘expensive’ forests, to a flashy Vegas-style Camelot, French castles, and across the globe. With a cast of wacky characters and a ridiculous plot, it’s often funny. It’s when it isn’t funny that the production has serious problems.
As a disclaimer, I would like to congratulate everyone involved in the production. I had a role in UniLodge’s 2018 musical 9 to 5, and I know how stressful and demanding the entire process is. As an audience member, it was great to see so many of my friends up on stage performing their hearts out. However, in this review, I want to focus on the context of Spamalot and why it was a problematic choice for the 2019 UniLodge musical.
Monty Python’s Spamalot is a 2005 musical adapted from the 1975 film Monty Python and the Holy Grail. 2019 is a different time from 2005, and 2005 was a very different time from 1975. When the film was initially released, gay rights were still a very new concept to the mainstream media. It was not uncommon for the media to discredit these efforts made by the LGBTQ+ community. This is the case in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The only gay character is Herbert, who is depicted as a sickly, feminine man and is referred to as a ‘creep’. He is also used as the punchline to a joke. Sir Lancelot, described as “fearless to a bloody fault”, slaughters his way through the Swamp Castle in the hope of finding a princess at the top of the Tall Tower. The joke is that the princess is actually Herbert.
This is slightly adapted in the 2005 musical. Lancelot makes his way up the tower and feels an inexplicable sympathy for Prince Herbert, defending him against his aggressive father. An argument culminates in Herbert’s father calling Lancelot gay, which triggers ‘His Name Is Lancelot’, a campy song which conforms to stereotypical gay archetypes. Lancelot suddenly realises that he is ‘gaYMCA’ after having been a blood-thirsty brute for the entire play.
The issue in both situations is that gay people are the butt of the joke.
In the 1975 film, Herbert is a ‘creep’. His face is sagging, he has a high-pitched voice and is extremely feminine. He is obviously depicted in a negative manner and is very clearly gay. Upon discovering that Herbert is gay, Lancelot makes every effort to flee the scene. In the 2005 musical, Lancelot’s character turns from ‘homicidally brave’ into ‘obviously gay’. His realisation that he is gay is played as a joke. The contrast between the murderous Lancelot and the ‘gaYMCA’ Lancelot generates laughter. Herbert remains the same frail, pathetic character.
Situating gay people as the butt of these jokes perpetuates harmful public perceptions of queer* people. These jokes invite audience members to make the same remarks, often without regard to whom they are addressing. Directly after his coming out scene, Lancelot is mockingly referred to as a ‘fairy’, an old slur for gay men. Such ridicule is most prominent at the end of the musical. The relationship between Lancelot and Herbert is depicted as a joke, and so is their wedding. As they walk down the aisle together, the audience laugh as they lovingly embrace each other. As someone who hopes to walk my husband down the aisle, I felt embarrassed and attacked.
Sitting in the front row surrounded by an audience laughing at a scene that should have been celebrated, I was overcome by strong emotions. I felt embarrassed, as I experienced a shame about being gay that I hadn’t felt since I was in the closet. I felt threatened, as I saw something so critical to who I am being mocked on stage. I felt sadness, as I also became the butt of a joke. Mostly, I felt confusion. I have been a proud Lodge Viper since 2018. I poured a lot into the community at Lodge. I contributed to the Residents’ Committee as a social representative, I was a senior resident and volunteered at every event I could. And yet, here I was at the end of the year being forced to witness dated, harmful gay stereotypes.
And now, I feel disappointed. The UniLodge Musical is chosen by the Residential Life Manager, a role similar to a Head of Hall. Residents have no input on how it is chosen, but are expected to direct, act in and organise the production. I am disappointed that the Residential Life Manager thought that an obviously harmful play was okay to put on. I am disappointed that next year, he will be promoted to the Brisbane Head Office. Most of all, I am disappointed that there will likely be no reprimand or apology. Instead, Spamalot will be a footnote in history for most people. But for queer* people like me, the memory will remain as one of the many times that we’ve been the butt of some sad, archaic joke. I wonder how many times this will occur. I wonder how often we will have to write about it before authority figures consider their actions before they harm the people they supposedly care for.

Niam Foxcroft
Sapiens: A Cautionary Tale for Humankind
November 13, 2019 5:15 pm Comments Off on Sapiens: A Cautionary Tale for Humankind
“We study history not to know the future but to widen our horizons, to understand that our present situation is neither natural nor inevitable, and that we consequently have many more possibilities before us than we imagine.” (Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens)
Although they have only occupied a brief moment in the history of the universe, Homo sapiens’ time spent walking the Earth has been far from insignificant. In Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Dr Yuval Noah Harari traces the cognitive and technological development of the Homo genus over the past two and a half million years. It is a multidisciplinary must-read for social and natural scientists alike. The book is wittily written in a journalistic style, uniting colloquial language and academic subject matter. As such, Sapiens plays a crucial role in the debate between popular and academic history. This book is not an academic text, but it shouldn’t be criticised for that. History need not be confined to academia. It is vital that the raw information given to the public through ‘infotainment’ style texts is factually accurate. The ‘sprucing’ of historical texts for entertainment or economic value may render them less valuable than academic analyses. Yet as long as the information is accurate, texts such as Sapiens remain an important form of historical writing.
Harari’s thesis includes a crucial observation on human history: that the struggles facing modern society are far from unprecedented. They are the consequences of clear historical trends in human actions that, despite often repeating themselves, open up human society to infinite opportunities. Language, according to Harari, is the key to unlocking these possibilities. Homo sapiens have the unique ability to create ‘social constructs’ and ‘imagined realities’, or more simply, to conjure myth. He uses the Peugeot corporation as an example. If every Peugeot car were to disappear along with its employees and offices, Peugeot would still exist as an entity without any physical connection to the world. In short, it is a ‘legal fiction’ o

Lucy Pennington
Avocado Toast with a side of … Lover
3:54 pm Comments Off on Avocado Toast with a side of … Lover
Inspired by our discussions of pop culture, and a previous Woroni column Skippy and Beagle, we – Avocado and Toast, two later year students looking for new forms of procrastination – will discuss a text in a way that’s second nature to us: in message form, with a healthy sprinkling of references and tangents. Up for discussion this time: Lover, Taylor Swift’s latest album.

Toast: We are both Taylor Swift fans, and we have many thoughts about this album, too many to fit here. So we’ll focus on our favourite six songs – yes, we ranked them – with some minor detours along the way.

Avocado: It’s surprising that we haven’t disagreed on our top six, as our tastes vary. I like upbeat songs like the ridiculous, but perfect, ‘Gorgeous’, while you prefer ballads and sadder songs. Our top six includes a mix of these, which is a good description of the variety of songs on the album as a whole!

T: Fair, but one of the things I enjoyed about this album is its coherence regardless of the tempo. The overall sonic-scape created through orchestrations, beats and backing vocals really hit me on first listen. There’s this overarching ethereal ‘aura’. The repeated, echoing “uh oh’s” on ‘You Need To Calm Down’ branch up like a butterfly unfurling its wings. This reflects the pastel liminality on the cover, and we hear different and compelling shades throughout the album.

A: I agree with you about the unity of sound, but I have some coherence issues! The transition from the airy, delicate sound of ‘Afterglow’ into the brash bubbliness of ‘ME!’ is physically painful.

T: I don’t hate the ‘Afterglow’ to ‘ME!’ transition, because there is a thematic lyrical link, but I get that it’s jarring. Then again, I just really love ‘Afterglow’! The orchestrations are minimal – a regular, thumping drum and guitar chords – giving great weight to the emotional lyrics. At the end, the guitar repeats the chorus’s melody, creating a literal afterglow.

A: ‘Afterglow’ is such a great song! Like some of the best songs on the album, it’s about taking responsibility for mistakes. Swift apologises, “sorry that I hurt you,” and assumes responsibility, “hey, it’s on me.” She’s just as self-aware in the most heartbreaking song on the album, ‘Soon You’ll Get Better’, which is about her mother’s battle with cancer. I love Swift’s attempts not to centre herself, as she sings vulnerably, “What am I supposed to do if there’s no you?”. On the plaintively stressed ‘you’, the backing cuts out, underscoring the unimaginable possibility that her mother will not “get better.”

T: Ah, the song I always cry at. I love the specificity of the colours in this song. The “holy orange bottles” and “I’ll paint the kitchen neon” evoke particular moments and feelings. There’s a different use of colour in ‘Miss Americana & The Heartbreak Prince’, perhaps my favourite song, as colour ties into its political interpretations. On one hand, “We’re so sad we paint the town blue” reflects the characters’ emotional states. Alternatively, blue is the colour of the Democratic party, and in “painting the town blue”, Swift is suggesting her political views. The song depicts her broader disconnect and horror with the state of politics, particularly the actions of the “bad guys”, a frustration she noted in a Rolling Stone interview.

A: It’s followed on the album by ‘Paper Rings’, along with ‘Cornelia Street’, creating the best three-track run since 1989. ‘Paper Rings’ is about commitment, and it’s a more upbeat reworking of some of reputation’s best songs. Instead of desperately escaping “in a getaway car”, here Swift “want[s] to drive away with you”. “I want your midnights” in ‘New Year’s Day’ becomes the more domestic “I want your dreary Mondays”.

T: It’s a stellar three-track run! Domesticity carries into ‘Cornelia Street’, which depicts an early relationship in a rented “place on Cornelia Street.” The introduction reminds me of flashback music, recalling specific moments in time. I like how often the music ‘drops out’. It’s widely noted that this occurs in Swift’s bridges, but here it’s at the start of the first and third choruses. This emphasises the emotional openness of “I hope I never lose you.”

A: The resounding falsetto chorus “I get mystified by how the city screams your name” creates a sense of premature nostalgia. This is also evident in the yearning, introspective “I’m so terrified of if you ever walk away,” foregrounding the intimate and the personal. If reputation was partly Swift creating a public persona, Lover is a more private album.

T: You hear that on ‘Cruel Summer’ too, which embraces the dichotomies of a hidden relationship. Traditional associations of summer are subverted: it’s ‘cruel’, mostly depicted at ‘night’, and gives way to feelings of ‘blue’. If on ‘Red’, “losing him was blue” and “loving him was red”, here red has brutal associations, as “If I bleed, you’ll be the last to know”.

A: The torturous relationship of this song reminds me of Romeo and Juliet, whose story Swift famously rewrote in ‘Love Story’. ‘Cruel Summer’ paints a more disturbing picture. If Juliet was waiting breezily “on a balcony in the summer air”, here the older Swift is desperately “always waiting for you to be waiting below”. When she “sn[eaks] in through the garden gate” it is, ominously, “to seal [her] fate”. ‘Cruel Summer’ restores the tragedy that she’d excised on ‘Love Story’. Lover often characterises relationships as violent, but the end of the album resolves this trope. On the final track, ‘Daylight’, she rejects the intertwining of violence and affection, singing “threw out our cloaks and our daggers because it’s morning now.”

T: “It’s brighter now,” and a great note to end on! While we haven’t talked about “the things [we] hate” on this album, and there certainly are things to dislike here, it’s still a great album. Fingers crossed the next single is ‘Cruel Summer’!

A: I am a major reputation defender, and while it may still be my favourite album to listen to, Lover’s coming close. It may be an overstatement to say “there’s nothing like this”, but the album reconsiders the past and points towards a “golden” future. While it’s not golden, ‘Paper Rings’ would also make for a great next single. Darling, it’s the one I want!

Woroni Editor
You’re A Big Boy Now: Ginger Album Review
3:50 pm Comments Off on You’re A Big Boy Now: Ginger Album Review
CONTENT WARNING: Sexual Misconduct, Mental Health, Brief Mention of Self-Harm

I’ve probably listened to Brockhampton’s latest offering, Ginger, at least 20 times in full. I loved it nearly immediately, but I didn’t fully get it at first. The album is good for many situations. They include sitting in the bath eating M&Ms after a bad date (trust me on that), the morning commute and a quiet Sunday afternoon making soup. But I was stumped when it came to writing this review. It’s a full, beautiful, eclectic album. So I went back and listened to their previous albums, and I concluded that grown-ups wrote this album.

First, a little backstory. In 2010, Kevin Abstract posted on a Kanye West forum, which led to the creation of the band AliveSinceForever. They eventually disbanded to make way for Brockhampton. The group began releasing singles in 2015 and quickly gained a cult following. They released the mixtape All-American Trash in 2016, followed by the Saturation trilogy of albums across 2017.

Fast forward to 2019, and a lot has changed for this bunch of misfits. On the cusp of mainstream success in the immediate aftermath of the Saturation trilogy, Brockhampton lost Ameer Vann, one of their most versatile members. Multiple women accused Vann of sexual misconduct and he left the band in May 2018. The band took some time, but maybe not enough, before releasing Iridescence in September 2018.

Like Tyler, the Creator’s hip-hop collective Odd Future, Brockhampton tried to give members equal opportunities to shine. The three Saturation albums showcased a group on the cusp of adulthood baring their souls through their music. The group had moved into a huge shared house in San Marcos, Texas, and were churning out good music. They saturated the market with eclectic beats, energetic performances and highly self-aware lyrics. They rapped about depression, sexuality and masculinity. They were also young and silly, with enormous amounts of talent and blue face paint.

The Saturation trilogy was about representation. Brockhampton was accepting of everyone, whether gay, straight, black or white. Saturation was also about being young. In their live performances, the group are incredibly dedicated to the songs and to each other.

Iridescence is a beautiful, angry album that is largely forgotten in the Brockhampton narrative. Perhaps because it was the first without Vann, it feels cut adrift. It has the same energy as the Saturation albums, especially on tracks such as ‘New Orleans’ and ‘J’ouvert’ . However, the fandom perhaps wasn’t ready for its softer vibe.

Ginger achieves what Iridescence couldn’t. It grapples with how the boy band has changed since their early days of living together, although blue paint still abounds. Abstract, as leader of the band, was the focal point of Brockhampton songs. He’d often sing the choruses or the hooks, and he directed the videos. He brought everyone together in live performances. His role in Ginger is more nuanced, as if he’s making way for his protégés who are now stars in their own right. He still has some great verses, especially in St. Percy and ‘Dearly Departed’, but Brockhampton is now more than just Kevin Abstract and his friends. In their Friday Therapy performance of the full album, Abstract is obviously proud of his band members. In his lyrics, however, there is clear angst about the band’s future.

Perhaps what makes Ginger so special is that it is more open to the boys’ different talents. Take Bearface (real name Ciáran McDonald), Brockhampton’s enigmatic Northern Irish member. He only appears briefly on the Saturation trilogy, closing the albums with soulful, guitar-heavy tracks such as ‘Waste’, ‘Summer’, ‘Team’. In Ginger, Bearface features heavily as both a vocalist and a rapper, and adds a whole new dimension to ‘Sugar’ and ‘Big Boy’.

Dom McLennon, always a champion lyricist, is arguably the best performer on the album, consistently versatile and technically brilliant. He bares his soul rapping about depression, self-harm and Vann’s departure. Matt Champion is also lyrically brilliant, ruminating on success, loss and the future. The direction of both Joba and Merlyn Wood is less obvious. Both deliver standout performances, in an obvious departure from the frenzied, often screamed, verses they had on previous albums.

Perhaps this change reflects the overall maturity of the album. The album has a more edited feel than their previous offerings. The beats are still unique, including the striking horns of ‘If You Pray Right’, but they are stripped back. The rapping is honed, tighter. The group are still silly and energetic, but they’re adults now. This is not, as Abstract claimed, a summer album. It’s sad, and quite grim in some places. They adults, they’re depressed and they lost a friend. They deliver these emotions with a beautiful, newfound maturity.

I particularly like the way the album tackles masculinity. Their earlier music attempted to challenge the constricting nature of masculinity, but this is something new. In McLennon’s verse on ‘Dearly Departed’ he addresses Vann directly. He raps, “pass the weight off to your friends and never face the truth / because you never learned how to be a man.” It’s more open and vitriolic than much of McLennon’s previous offerings. It suggests that the band recognises that to be a role-model and an adult is to never shy away from the truth. The album’s final song, ‘Victor Roberts’, is similarly mature. Here Roberts, an old friend of McLennon’s, raps his life story complete with encounters with police, drugs and anxiety. It foregrounds the emotional intelligence Brockhampton have found in the years between Saturation and Ginger. They’re big boys now and they have stories to tell. They’re hurting and they know how to turn that into beautiful songs.

I’d recommend this album whether you’re looking for fun, empathy or redemption. Brockhampton have achieved a level of maturity and technical brilliance that much of rap could learn from. Ginger is heartbreaking in places, but we all need a dose of reality sometimes. Listen to it all the way through. And then, listen again.

Miriam Sadler
The Bachelorette Episodes Three and Four: It Isn’t Love, It Isn’t Hate, and It’s Definitely Not Indifference
October 28, 2019 1:32 pm Comments Off on The Bachelorette Episodes Three and Four: It Isn’t Love, It Isn’t Hate, and It’s Definitely Not Indifference
Goodness! It’s only week two of The Bachelorette, and it’s already making the ‘dog c*nt’ incident from the last season of The Bachelor look positively PG.
But let’s start at the beginning, with the Wednesday episode coming fresh from the dramatic exit of two of the man-children competing for Angie’s heart. After a nice little ponder, which of course takes place on a beach, our Bachelorette decides that some guy named Jackson that I kind of remember is the best candidate for a solo helicopter date. It goes hilariously off-track with Angie’s motion sickness causing her to hurl in a very romantic way. Luckily they get back on track with a good old-fashioned chat about their feelings on the sofa. That’s always classic. Jackson gets a rose, and we all move on to the group date.
We meet most of the boys in an open field where they’re participating in a ‘dog show’. I say ‘most’, because someone we’ve never heard of before – Mitch? Mitch who? – has allegedly rolled his ankle and is sulking in the mansion. But no one cares about him, because a new man named Ryan saunters into the frame. Apparently he’s a figure from Angie’s past, and he’s ready to join the contestants. The men try to ‘bond’ with all the puppies Channel 10 has summoned from some dark corner of the studio. It’s the sexy Willy Wonka, otherwise known as Ciarran, who claims the single date. Spoiler: he’s great.
Back at the mansion, Ryan is not warmly welcomed by the bros. Especially not Jaime. Jaime seems to have descended into a deep, dark pit of rage, and honestly Angie should look into getting a restraining order. When the cocktail party rolls around, Jaime is basically one giant throbbing vein. He swoops in for some alone time with Angie the moment she finishes talking to Ryan. This is a direct violation of the bro-code agreement struck up by the contestants, and they are unimpressed. Luckily, Jaime is saved from being crowned ‘Asshole of the Evening’ by the spontaneous arrival of Mitch (who?). For some reason, he thinks it’s appropriate to deliver an ultimatum to Angie:”‘Pick me at the end, or don’t give me a rose.” Whoops. No rose for you. Also, discount Zac Efron doesn’t get a rose either, so no regrets there.
Episode Two is when things start heating up. A group date is announced, and luckily for Jaime’s mental health, he’s invited. But before we embark, we meet Angie’s best friend and co-queen of Gogglebox, Yvie, who’s here to give her hot take on the boys so far. She is, of course, in a fabulous pink limo ready to throw Angie a surprise ‘hen’s party’. Of course, lacking any female participants (when is the bisexual Bachelorette going to be a thing?) the boys end up tagging along as the possé. The date turns out to be a live drawing class which means – you guessed it – we need a nude model. By nude, I do, of course, mean fully nude. And Ciarran is the first to volunteer, which makes Yvie VERY happy.
Yvie runs off to have a chat with new boy in town, Ryan, and promptly falls in love with him. She then takes the magical unicorn that is Ciarran over for a little chat. He’s reclining on a bachelor set piece with nothing but a bunch of grapes for modesty. Amazingly, Yvie is able to keep her eyes on his face, and Ciarran looks more relaxed than he has all season. Yvie’s picks for the season are Ryan, Carlin and Ciarran. Jaime is still angry.
Switching over to our single date, it’s Timm’s turn for the spotlight, and their date is actually very relatable and chilled. They have a cute walk in the park, followed by some totally-not-sponsored Gelato Messina, and Timm seems pretty cool. He also pees at some point, but hey that’s all part of the relatability factor.
It’s now cocktail hour, and you can feel the man-tantrums brewing in the air. Jaime wants to sit down and have a ‘chat’ about how Yvie likes Ryan more than him, and doesn’t get why that’s weird. I’m serious, Ange. Get a restraining order. The next villain of the evening is Timm. He’s armed with two braids in his hair, and goes in for the kill by planting another smooch on Angie. What a greedy guy, with all his hair and the ‘m’s’ in his name and solo time…
Any-hoo, the rose ceremony draws to a close, and in a horrifying twist Jaime gets a rose…at least for another week. Two people, who I swear are just extras, get sent home, and we are left wondering what glorious tantrum will see Jaime evicted next week.

Alexandra Elgue
The Bachelorette Episodes One and Two: Here We Go Again. How Can I Resist You?
October 17, 2019 7:02 pm Comments Off on The Bachelorette Episodes One and Two: Here We Go Again. How Can I Resist You?
Welcome back, fans of trashy television and low-stakes drama! It’s time for a breakdown of the new dating show in town. The end of The Bachelor left a bitter hole in our hearts, so let’s get invested in The Bachelorette’s new set of eligible contestants. With the first week already delivering some piping hot drama and ‘meme-able’ moments, it looks like it’s going to be a good run.
First, we’re introduced to our Bachelorette Angie, the rising star of Gogglebox. Here she’s branching out from commenting on TV shows to commenting on eligible men. She’s blonde (shocker!), loves trashy TV and dogs, and makes vagina jokes, so naturally she’s the ‘cool girl’ all men fantasise about. We linger on her just long enough for her to be sufficiently likeable. Then we move on to the real reason we’re all watching: the parade of men out to win her heart, or at least a chance not to be edited out.
There are A LOT of them, and many of them look the same. So without further ado, it’s time to introduce the highlights of the night. These are the men we’ll only remember enough to know whether we pulled them in the office sweepstake.

Timm (No, that’s not a typo, his parents just couldn’t stop at one ‘M’):
Henceforth known as ‘sunflower boy’. Angie wonders how he knew sunflowers were special to her. Great job, mate, who doesn’t love sunflowers? He’s cute in a surf instructor way, and the kind of boy old women describe as a ‘darl’: not exactly hubby material, but good enough.

Carlin (Like the fish from Finding Nemo, spelled with a C):
He’s straight-laced, sweet and handsome enough to make any of his qualities immediately triple in impressiveness. This one may be my personal pick of the litter. Sure, I guessed wrong by picking Elly as winner of The Bachelor, but it’s a new season and a clean slate. Plus, this man is a real-life Disney Prince brought to life.

Jaime (It’s unisex):
A fireman. Holding a puppy. He’s a human charity calendar. Also, he’s reasonably understanding of the complete lack of attention Angie shows him once the puppy appears. Honestly, it’s understandable. Can the puppy be a contestant?

Kayde (Too much to unpack. It’s a name somewhere between Cain from the bible and Kate):
Unfortunately, someone made the terrible mistake of telling the booksmart boy that he looks a bit like Zac Efron. He interpreted that to mean that he could do a Baywatch-themed entrance. No, honey, no.

Ciarran (So many Rs):
Sexy Willy Wonka. Need I say more?

Jess (Like the Veronica):
Came in with a literal throne to sit on, and honestly the only king I see is King of the Douchebags. Creeper alert going off the charts with this one. If he wins, it will set feminism back a few centuries.
We quickly flick through a series of introductions, including one poor guy who brought a lizard and still didn’t make the final cut. Then comes the final twist: Angie’s brother Brad, under the suspiciously normal name Mark, goes undercover to dish up dirt on the other boys.
Carlin kills the cocktail party with a song that would probably be cringy if the guy didn’t look like a stock image of ‘Mr Right’. But there’s some competition afoot. The men are vying for the precious ‘24 hour’ rose, guaranteeing them a full-day date with the lucky lady. Jaime apparently forgets that this isn’t the Olympics and goes into competitive overdrive. Meanwhile Jess, still wearing a cape, flexes his toxic masculinity by saying he wouldn’t take the rose if he were offered it. Long story short: Brad tells Angie, Angie confronts Jess, Jess blames Jamie, and Jamie sits by the fire to manage his devastation. The grown man is on the verge of tears, and I’m worried about the emotional stability of our firefighters.
The episode ends with Brad unveiling himself and Carlin getting the 24-hour rose (yay!). Two random men we met for about five seconds are given the boot, and Jess continues to be a horse’s ass.
We pick up the next day with the much publicised 24-hour date, and it’s the glampiest glamping you ever saw. Carlin’s starting to look more and more like the perfect guy until BOOM! Bombshell! He announces he’s secretly married. Honestly, Angie doesn’t seem to mind too much, and I wouldn’t either after looking at that angel baby face.
The date lasts about five minutes before the rest of the men burst in for a group date. In a subversive masterpiece the typical sexual photoshoot is substituted for a hilarious ‘animal attraction’ photo sesh. Trust me, you have not known true joy until you’ve seen a man trying to look attractive as a red-painted lobster. Another supposedly grown-up man throws a tantrum because his chicken suit gives him ‘testicles’ under his chin.
Jaime starts to get a bit creepy-stalker-esque, but his creep factor is overshadowed by Jess. He somehow thinks it’s appropriate to make lewd gestures at Angie while her back is turned and to comment on the ‘view’. It gets worse when the shoot wraps up, and he starts bragging about all the non-consensual kissing he’s engaged in. In a feat of self-restraint, I managed not to break the TV.
Carlin and some other beautifully feminist boys, who warm the cockles of my heart, surge to the rescue by telling Angie what’s been said. She proceeds to confront Jess with the BADASS GIRL POWER SPEECH WE ALL DESERVE. Watching Jess get into that limo is strangely cathartic. You can almost hear the women of Australia cheering as he’s driven away to whatever cesspit he crawled out from.
Well, that’s the first week of The Bachelorette over. Already, there’s been some big-boy hissy fits, a solid dose of feminist girl power, bitter rivalries emerging and, most importantly, the return of Osher’s majestic head of hair. It’s good to be back.

Alexandra Elgue