I'd do anything

Last night I saw Oliver! at the Bristol Hippodrome.  The last time I saw Oliver! on stage I was dinky.  We discussed it last night at the theatre bar and guessed I was about seven or eight years old.  I don’t remember much other than falling in love.  I also don’t remember the first time I saw the 1968 film but I’ve watched it countless times since. 

It was interesting watching the stage performance as an adult.  It’s difficult to see the film from a distance when I basically know the script and every movement by heart, but the stage performance is a little different.  I was able to take a step back and appreciate the story in a new light.

I know the story of Oliver! is dark.  It’s full of violence, orphans who are sold, children who die inside chimneys, poor living in slums and forced to steal and women and children being beaten.  Yet Oliver! disguises all of this by being gloriously aesthetically rich and full of fantastic musical numbers.  There’s a comedy element and a happy ending and all of this means that you can choose to ignore the violence.

When I was little I always focused on Oliver and Dodger.  I loved Fagin but I think that was because Dodger loved him.  Last night I studied Fagin and Bill Sykes and Nancy.  They are the adult stars of the story and all three are so completely different from one another and yet still make up this little family.

Bill Sykes is the evil villain.  In fact, in order to cope with the painful reality of Sykes, Oliver! has been turned into a pantomime where the audience actually booed the actor as he came to take his bow.  He is violent, quiet, stocky and just plain scary.  There isn’t a lot more to him, until he murders Nancy and then there is a panic and, perhaps, a hint of regret.  He did love Nancy and he got carried away, maybe because he was scared or maybe he saw red and simply lost his mind.  Unfortunately that is the limit to the depth of Sykes.  Whether this is due to him merely being a tool to put Oliver in danger or whether this is because his character has been softened and moulded to suit a younger audience and happy-go-lucky story.  (I haven’t read the book and never will as I find Dickens very boring.)

Fagin, on the other hand, is the grey area.  On one hand he is a crook but he is a villain with boundaries which is what separates him from Sykes.  He’s the element of comedy, a father figure for a lot of lost children and a business man, buying Sykes’ stolen wares to sell on.  He also, in my opinion, has all of the best musical numbers.  You cannot help but love Fagin.  He makes you smile and he cares for children – what is there not to love?  But there’s more to Fagin than this, there’s that deep desire to change.  He doesn’t want to be a crook, does he?  A man can change, can’t he?  That in itself adds layers to Fagin and makes him a loveable and intriguing character.

So that leaves Nancy.  I never paid much attention to Nancy.  It took me a while to realise she actually dies, murdered by her lover Sykes.  I remember being quite shocked when I watched the film for the millionth time and it finally dawned on me.  The story hides it well, covering the murder behind the walls of the bridge.  The scene is so fast with so much excitement and shouting, it’s easy as a child to miss the essence of what’s happened.

Last night it was like I saw Nancy for the first time.  I heard her properly for the first time.  Nancy is a strong, clever, brilliant woman.  She’s also a victim of abuse.  In love with Bill Sykes, she sings of suffering from black eyes and is shown constantly trying to break up fights that Sykes tries to start.  She’s also brave and stands up to this brute when he threatens Oliver.

When I was growing up, I was taught that to be a victim of domestic abuse is not due to someone being weak or stupid.  It’s a complex situation of mixed emotions.  Someone might stay with their abuser because of a number of reasons.  For some reason it never really occurred to me that the victim of abuse could actually be a strong, smart, out spoken woman.  Not because I thought the victims would be stupid, but because I’d never really thought about it.  I’ve never had a reason to and for that I am very lucky.  But it is this element that makes Nancy suddenly one of the most interesting characters on stage.

Nancy is in denial.  She has convinced herself that Sykes needs her and being the warm hearted, loyal woman that she is, she will stick by him.  This serves her well until Oliver comes into her life and she is suddenly torn between sticking by her man and protecting this little boy who has the chance of a life she never had.  Nancy does the right thing but unfortunately she’s in love with a violent thug and her ending is not a happy one.  For the first time, last night I had a tear in my eye as Bill Sykes beat Nancy to death.

As a writer who is currently struggling with my own writing prowess, I found it therapeutic to dissect these characters.  It was something familiar that I was seeing as if for the first time and that gave me a completely new view on the story.  The plot is simple but the imagery and character layers makes it brilliant.  This is something I have been trying to replicate in my novels for around five years now.  Sadly, being so close to my own work I have no idea if I’m even close to hitting this mark.  Right now it certainly doesn’t feel like it.

Last night’s performance was brilliant.  If you’re local to Bristol, I highly recommend seeing it.  The only disappointing part for me was the end.  As beloved Fagin walked into the sunset, leaving a smile plastered firmly on my face, no Dodger appeared to join him!  Still a fantastic ending, but the final scene of Oliver! for me will always be Fagin and Dodger walking into the sunset together.

I couldn't find a video of this so instead here's one of my favourite songs!

Are you seeing anyone?

During my lunch break today I read an article on the BBC Magazine website about being single; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20304302.

What I found interesting about this article was a) reading it from a non-single point of view and b) the variety of responses.  All of them are happy being single but for different reasons.

The bit that really struck a cord was Sylvia Saunders comment;
“The essence of my objection to marriage is that I hold no interest in effectively adopting an adult male in order to play the mother role, which defines what many men expect from a marriage. If a man were to - without coaching - bring a coffee and croissant to me in bed on a Sunday morning, I might consider giving up my independence but no luck so far.”
She has a point.

My first reaction to reading this article was to defend my own coupling, my second was to wonder how I act around my own single friends, my third was to do a double take at my relationship, and then there was the fourth.

Many of the people in this article chose to be single.  Well, I chose to be in a relationship.  I have always relished the idea of relationships and marriage.  I can’t say why, but other people have suggested reasons.  Maybe it is because of my parents stable marriage that made me want that for myself.  It has been suggested that it is my generation, but this just isn’t true.  A large proportion of my old school friends are not married, they’re not even in relationships.  I haven’t just jumped into marriage because I want to be married, either.  I was swept into this relationship with an intelligent, attractive, funny, kind man who I think I’ve secretly been in love with since I was 16.  Going by the responses in this article, some of these people are waiting for what I have found.  Good luck to them in finding it.  Just because you reach a certain age doesn't mean that you won’t find it.

So onto the next thought; my single friends.  Interestingly, I have noticed that I can do the tiresome ‘are you seeing anybody’ with the male single friends but I don’t with my female friends.  What’s that about?  Perhaps, as Sylvia Saunders suggests, men require mothering and I am mothering the males around me who don’t have the girlfriend or wife.  I admit that I do sometimes worry about single males – their state of happiness, their state of clothes – in a way that I don’t with females.  I have been a single female, I have faith that women can thrive when single.  Of course men can too, I’ve seen it with my own eyes, but this doesn’t seem to have reached that particular part of my brain.

I do sometimes wonder if my single girlfriends miss the sex and warm comfort of a man that a relationship can bring.  I never ask them.  They all seem to be so busy with their work and social lives, I wonder if they get a chance to miss it.

I’m not particularly conscious of how I act around single people.  I am more aware of how I act with my husband around friends who are effectively on their own (either their partner is at home or they are single).  I am always careful to act as if my husband is my friend and nothing more.  Other than the odd dig, there is no cuddling, giggling or smooching.  Everyone else in the group is included in conversation and the only time I will cling to my hubby is if we are out and about and it’s cold.  After all, that’s what he’s there for.

John Hardy’s comments made me quickly do a relationship MOT;
“I don't have to be part of a double act all the time. I say what I think instead of the sickening "We like x, don't we Sweetie?'', with the mandatory affirmation. Shudder. I do what I want to do, when I want to do it, and how I want to do it. If I want company, I go out and get it. If I want to slam the door on the outside world, watch any old TV I like, eat pizza, drink beer, and just chill out - hey, what's to stop me? And when I see those poor little men rushing around pandering to their "better halves" and scampering home by curfew…”

I can’t think of one instance where me and my hubby have done that double act example.  It’s always ‘I like x, but he doesn’t’ or vice versa.  He doesn’t have to pander to me, there’s certainly no curfew.  All I ask is that he helps with the housework (which he does) and that he lets me know when he’ll be home and that’s only because I want to know when I can eat (food is important!).

Being able to watch any old TV I like sounds good though.  I do miss that.  On the other hand, we are always careful to give each other space.  He does what he enjoys and I do what I enjoy, which usually means he goes out and I get the TV all to myself on a regular basis.  Win-win.
I’ve realised that I’m making it sound like ours isn’t a good relationship.  Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot of together time, a lot of cuddles, a lot of laughter and love but we also keep our own identities which I think is part of what makes our relationship so strong.

So, the fourth and final reaction; so what?  What can be learnt from this.  Is your main character single or in a relationship?  How do they feel about it?  How does it affect their lives?  
I didn't make the decision which characters in my two current novels-in-progress were in relationships and which weren't.  It just happened. One ended up with two men in her life but not in a relationship, one ended up dismissing the character I created just for her and prefers to be single, another fell in love with an older man (which completely threw me).
The comments in this article will prove very helpful in reminding myself what it means to be single as well as giving an insight into single experiences I have never had. 

Do I miss being single?  Sometimes.  But I wouldn’t be without my husband.  Just like there are people out there in the world who sometimes yearn for the comforting warmth of a partner but wouldn’t be without their constant freedom.  We’re all different; humans are just magic like that.

The Walking Dead's Lori finally does good

*** MAJOR WALKING DEAD SPOILERS FOR EPISODE 4 THE KILLER WITHIN ***

Did anyone see episode 4 of season 3 of The Walking Dead last week?  America got it one week before us and I was plagued with tantalising tweets of how shocked everyone was.  Something shocking was coming!  How could the writers do that?  This is huge!

I couldn’t wait.  I bounced around the house on Saturday, trying to keep myself busy, knowing that episode 4 was sat on our planner.  That evening we watched it.

Huh.

To be honest, my first prediction was correct and my second prediction was more shocking than what actually happened.  Despite this, the end was incredibly moving and Sarah Wayne Callies (Lori) brought me to floods of tears.

I’ve never really paid much attention to Lori.  I’ve found her mostly irritating throughout.  She’s a bad wife, cheating on Rick, urging him to kill Shane and then admonishing him when he does, and a bad mother, seemingly never able to keep one eye on her son, Carl.  She’s the matriarch of the group, purely because she’s Rick’s wife.  

On Friday night, I found myself forced into liking her for ten minutes as she struggled with life and death.  Her death reminded me of Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith.  I’ve only seen this film once and it was at the cinema.  As Padme gives birth to twins, she ‘loses the will to live’ after learning of Anakin’s evil deeds and promptly dies.  Surrounded by grown men in fits of tears, I felt physically sick.  What woman allows herself to die purely because the stupid idiot that impregnated her has gone to the dark side?  Any woman worth her salt would hear that and be determined to live, to protect her children, to make sure their father doesn’t have any influence over them.

Lori’s death was beautiful.  Faced with death and taking her baby with her, or an agonising death as her baby is cut from her, Lori bravely forces Maggie to slice her open.  She then gives an incredibly emotional speech to her son about how much she loves him, how proud she is of him, how brave he is and what a wonderful man he’s going to grow into.  I blubbed.

Lori’s passing was not only a message of life and death and a mother’s sacrifice but will also be the pivotal point for Rick and his damaged mental state.

Who was Lori?  As a standalone character she was annoying with far too much air time.  However, in death she is a key piece in The Walking Dead.  With her passing the matriarch position is passed on, the group is left with a newborn, Carl is now a man having had to put down his own mother and Rick’s mind may well be lost.

What a wonderful ending to a character.

Some characters are made to be disliked by some (all writing is subjective) and some characters exist purely to shape others.  Women are often pivotal in this role, they are the lovers and mothers who can give, build and destroy lives in a way men can only imagine.  Lori may have annoyed a lot of people in life but death she is finally redeemed.