Others @ The Junction, Cambridge

Jemma invites you to be part of her project over the next six months. She's interested in you because, basically, you're not like her. She's looking for someone other than her, someone different to her, someone 'other'. Don't ask how she knows you're different; she just assumes you are. Thus begins Others, presented by The Paper Birds at The Junction, Cambridge.

Although, it's not actually you she's asking: that's just a letter Jemma (one of The Paper Birds) has written to other women asking them to share stories for Others. The three women featured are an Iranian artist, a prisoner in a British jail and a celebrity (Heather Mills, who seems not to have replied to her letter). That's one for each of the three women who form The Paper Birds and present their work at The Junction in a simple style, speaking directly to their audience, voices sometimes overlapping, contradicting or supporting each other. Meanwhile, music is occasionally provided by a meek male figure who hangs forlornly about the edge of the stage, speaking only to tell us his name (Jonathan).

There's a certain forced attempt at audience interaction as The Paper Birds wait for their front of house clearance. Others becomes a long interruption of their conversation with the audience, the show is what happens while they try and do other things, seemingly distracted by offstage sounds. The Paper Birds tease at the fourth wall in the opening of their show, but never actually do anything with it (not until a suddenly startling moment later on, when their Iranian correspondent blames the West for her troubles, which is all the more powerful for being so sudden).

The Paper Birds' dramatisation of the Iranian artist's story punctures our Western generalisations about Iran and the Middle East. It makes our Western perceptions seem ludicrous and questions our ability to ever really understand the 'other', not just in this case but in all cases. That's the heart of Others: perception and understanding of people who are different, people who are 'other'. The difficulty in understanding is also conveyed far more subtly by undermining Western generalisations than by having Shani Erez (another of The Paper Birds) repeatedly insist that English speakers don't understand people from the Middle East.

The project to find 'others' also leads to a northern UK prison and a woman serving a life sentence for manslaughter. Despite repeated claims of 'It's not about us [The Paper Birds]', this woman's life is seen through the curiosity (read: barely-disguised voyeurism) of those same Paper Birds. Again, the character is purely 'other' and the focus of narrative slant is on the audience/narrators' perception of that 'other'.

Nowhere is this more clear than with the case of the third 'other': Heather Mills. Her entire life appears to have become a media circus, with everyone's perception of her filtered through a hostile press. In Others, she isn't even allowed to answer questions herself (possibly because she hasn't given The Paper Birds any answers). Instead The Paper Birds answer questions for her, increasingly diverging from the facts about Mills' life and into personal speculation. Such is our treatment of celebrities (and often non-celebrities).

Mills and The Paper Birds seem to be part of a group of women (ie. all women) who've suffered at the hands of men. In fact, men come out of Others pretty badly. At best, they heartlessly break up with devoted and devastated women, leaving emotional wreaks behind. At worst, they're serial abusers who father multiple children without a second thought. Could this be the real 'other'? Violent masculinity that that somehow ensnares devoted affection?

Maybe that's what The Paper Birds are somehow really trying to understand, as much as the 'other' women they claim to seek. Or maybe I think that because, as a man, all of these women are my 'other'; that's the kind of thinking sparked off by Others. The Paper Birds do genuinely question perceptions of the 'other' and handle their material in a thought-provoking manner. But it might be interesting to see who Jonathan would find as his 'other'.

Thanks to The Junction, Cambridge's website and jeckman for the images.

Single Father [Episode Four] on BBC One

When the BBC continuity announcer described an emotional climax for David Tennant's single father, she wasn't lying.

Not to say that the previous three episodes of the BBC's Single Father had been less than emotional, but this final one rather went for it. Fair enough, if you've got David Tennant onboard, you'd want to use him, right? Helped on by various chemical imbalances, pregnancies, alcohol and that interfering sister Anna (Neve McIntosh), the series rolled on to its relatively cheerful ending last night.

The competition between Matt (Warren Brown) and Dave (David Tennant) may have fizzled out disappointingly, but the competition between Dave and Stuart (Rupert Graves) is racked up a few notches for this concluding episode. As relationships go, that's probably where Single Father suddenly really hits the mark; a fiercely polite tug-of-love between two fathers. It just needs them to be the same age to have an extra kick; is Graves too grey-haired to have been at college with Rita (the underused Laura Fraser)?

On the relationship front, the final episode ties up one of the niggling worries in my mind over Single Father. There's a small moment in which we can finally get some idea about why on earth Mark Heap's Robin married Anna – look at that cheeky little grin, that puckering up that serves as both apology and forgiveness. Heap may have only had brief moments through Single Father, but they've often been the best bits; finely observed and neatly judged, Heap is highly watchable and a tad underused.

It's just a shame that, as ever, Single Father seems to have neglected plausible storyline in favour of hitting its audience where it hurts. If Heap and Fraser are underused, Dave's eldest daughter, Tanya (Sophie Kennedy Clark), is probably overused in this episode – especially in the almost entirely unnecessary (and fairly implausible) event with Brown's Matt. Sure, it leads her into a violent outburst that lets the proverbial cat out of the bag in a loud manner, which needed to happen. But there are no doubt easier (read: more plausible) ways of doing so, without resorting to plot devices that smack of Jacobean tragedy. That incident aside, Brown is finally allowed to shine in this final episode, which is good, and gives a glimpse of what he can do given chance.

So those Single Father plot threads are fairly neatly wound up (don't ask what Matt decides to do with himself after not finding and confronting Dave). Lucy's happily chosen a father (for now) while even Dave and Anna are managing to get along. Which just leaves us with the main plot – you know, Sarah (Suranne Jones) and Dave? Alas, that's where it falls apart a bit. Never mind the chunk of plot missing during which Dave decided to go ahead with the paternity test she suggested last week – what's going on with the bump she has herself? Are we expected to believe that she was as manipulative as Rita in not telling Dave that she was going to get herself pregnant (and that he fell for it again!), decided to leave Dave afterwards, and then was persuaded to change her mind once again simply because Dave looked imploring and told her he reckoned it could work? Forgive me for sounding incredulous. I mean, sure, women look for good father material in their partners, but two consecutive women wanting Dave's children despite needing persuading that a relationship with him is a good idea? No wonder he's ended up as a single father.

To be honest, if you're watching Single Father for support in a similar situation, you're probably better checking out the links on the show's page on the BBC website.

Image curtesy of the BBC.

This episode of Single Father may still be available to view via BBC iPlayer here.

Single Father [Episode Three] on BBC One

Given the choice, would you have David Tennant or Warren Brown? Or Rupert Graves, for that matter?

The BBC's newest David Tennant-drama, Single Father, has become a tug-of-love between those three men, albeit with varying prizes. Stuart (Graves) wants to look after Lucy, so does Dave (Tennant). Dave wants Sarah (Suranne Jones), so does Matt (Brown). The competition with Stuart may exist primarily in Dave's head, but the competition with Matt is very real. It's real because Dave's making Sarah doing the same sort of thing she did when she went to see Stuart without telling Dave. Oh, and they're actually having an affair.

Single father Dave's increasingly getting left behind in the middle of whirlwind of changes, which seems to be leaving him with just the one child. Still, she's easier to handle than the five he had at the start of Single Father. Hey, legally, only Tanya is his as things stand.

Somehow Dave's relationship with Sarah has been kept under wraps – despite Evie's witnessing them in the act – even as other relationships fall apart. At the same time, the layers of Rita's (Laura Fraser) family are being peeled away; turns out her mum's not really her mum after all. More dirty washing for public consumption?

So all that remains to be seen is how Dave and Sarah work their new relationship out, how long it'll be before Lucy moves in with the creepy, French-speaking Quinlan girls and whether or not Matt is going to go on the warpath over Sarah. Oh, and someone ought to find out where Mark Heap's Robin has gone with that dog...

On the plus side, my question about how photographer Dave has been earning money has finally been answered – ie. he isn't. It's probably about time the complete lack of work plus supporting a large family caught up with him.

Image courtesy of the BBC

Single Father may still be available to view via BBC iPlayer here.

Why the Smart Car fortwo TV ad makes me want to never buy a Smart Car

This is not how advertising is supposed to work. The TV advert for Smart Car's fortwo is not supposed to make me want to avoid Smart Cars at all costs.

Adverts (commercials, whatever you chose to call them) are supposed to make me want to spend money on the product in question. This one really doesn't. The message I'm getting: the new fortwo is incredibly destructive.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjOvwG2SA9o

The Smart Car fortwo is driven around an impossibly empty city at night, and leaves carnage in its wake. Somehow, through its admittedly cool music player, the fortwo manipulates power lines and makes office lights turn on and off. Not eco-friendly.

While making a vending machine spew out cans (in effect stealing from the manufacturer), the fortwo also wreaks havoc with the traffic lights...good job there's only this one guy on the roads, eh?

It's also lucky that this is happening at night, because in the day this car would be a death trap.

At the same time as switching office lights on and off, the passing fortwo also switches computers on and off. I hope they're set to autosave pretty frequently, because random power fluctuations could become frequent if this ad campaign takes off.

It disrupts everything - including a bloke in the bath, which is just rude, frankly - and causes untold damage. Somehow, the fortwo also manages to set off a load of fire extinguishers. Would someone like to explain that one?

Then, the best bit by far - or worse bit if you happen to be, er, human...which accounts for most of Smart Car's target market - the windows. Every piece of glass anywhere near the fortwo shatters, and you might notice the fine spray of glass (or fine spray of death, as I like to call it) that suddenly descends to ground level. Ground level, in case car designers weren't aware, is where pedestrians walk. Apparently, it's okay to cover this in glass shards, which is what will happen every time someone drives past in a fortwo. Oh good.

Don't worry though folks, it's okay. When he locks the fortwo, everything gets fixed. It's a miracle. Everything is put back exactly how it was.

It's basically a deluxe, suped-up version of the Nissan Juke (watch especially for the electric robots), seen below:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSOgGhZL9t4

The difference here is that the Nissan Juke doesn't absolutely destroy everything (what's with the washing machines?). It seems to make electricity work in its immediate vicinity, which might be useful, but that's about it. Oh, and it exposes a diamond thief. While the effects are destructive when it parks, they are at least localised - it's only that sign that goes crazy, and we're talking a small-scale fireworks display rather than an entire commercial sector needing to be put back together.

Still, not sure I fancy driving a Nissan Juke either.

But the Smart Car fortwo advert raises all sorts of questions in my mind. For a start, when they construct these catastrophic killing-machines, how do the factories cope? At some point during construction, the fortwo's killer instinct must kick in. Why don't the factories get smashed to bits? How many Smart Car staff die every month when the factory gets ripped to shreds and then needs putting back together? Does the line manager give a slightly cute, slightly guilty blue-eyed glance at the bodies, and coyly lock the car, magically replacing the factory walls...but not his staff?

Worse, if several people buy these destruct-o-cars, what happens if two of them meet? I don't just mean in a crash, I mean passing in the same city? Not even the same street; let's face it, the fortwo in the advert does untold damage in streets it's not even in (unlike the relatively sober Nissan Juke). If a fortwo meets another fortwo coming the other way, what happens? Does the universe implode? Do we get a new Big Bang? Think how much money and time CERN could have saved if they just crashed two fortwos into each other, rather than building a Large Hadron Collider.

Actually, let's not let this happen. Everyone must avoid the Smart Car fortwo - this may be the secret message coming from their marketing campaign. Someone in Smart Car marketing knows how potentially destructive the fortwo is, and wants us to know so that we don't buy it. Someone high up at Smart Car is planning to destroy the universe. Don't let them.

This advert, on the other hand...yes, yes and yes again. Simple, effective - it makes me want to buy the product, and no one gets hurt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQzc2hRAjcc

With thanks to Keira Walker.

The Taking of Prince Harry on Channel Four

Who has been more irresponsible here – Channel 4 or Prince Harry? Channel 4 fakeumentary The Taking of Prince Harry has been controversial long before broadcast, with Channel 4 accused of placing Prince Harry in danger as well as jeopardising the way hostage situations are handled by the British government and secret services. But, as the narrative of this makes implicit, the Prince himself places British servicemen and women in (increased) danger by his presence in Afghanistan. His grandmother may appreciate him serving his country, but how much should Prince Harry be allowed to risk?

The Taking of Prince Harry poses the hypothetical – though not entirely implausible – question: what would happen if Prince Harry were to be captured while on active service in Afghanistan? It then unfolds the sensitive and potentially disastrous situation of a British royal held by Afghan terrorists. The idea isn't implausible, as the documentary footage comprising most of the beginning of The Taking of Prince Harry explains. The son of the Prince of Wales and third in line to the British throne has been on active service in Afghanistan before now, amid a media blackout. What seems less plausible is the very noble way this smallscreen Prince Harry reacts, forever asking about his fellow pilot and telling Scotland Yard not to treat him differently.

It's television that falls between the two stools of gripping drama and fascinating documentary. But the drama is never allowed to run at full pace and the documentary pales away next to the possibility of a Prince (even if he is only a spare and not the heir) as a hostage. The stories of foreign film-makers and journalists are drafted in alongside scenes of Prince Harry at Taliban gunpoint. But the drama eventually manages to get the upper hand, with the talking heads sounding like experts talking about the actual event in hindsight – defending the actions of those involved (in the West, obviously, not the Taliban).

What makes The Taking of Prince Harry controversial is also partly its strength. It's a drama-cum-documentary produced with advice from members of MI6, the CIA and people like that. These are people who know what they're talking about in terms of the authorities and how they react. Does that mean that the Taliban could be watching The Taking of Prince Harry to pick up tips? Or maybe someone from Al-Quaeda might be watching in Europe, hoping to lean how the West handles hostage situations? Or do they already know how it works? Fifteen hostage-takings a day in Afghanistan makes you wonder...

Just try to overlook the laughable Photoshopping done to make it look like the Prince Harry actor (Sebastian Reid) was at a football match with the real Prince's girlfriend. Can you even get internet in the Taliban hideouts near the Pakistan border?

Image courtesy of Channel 4.

Single Father [Episode 2] on BBC One

Now – two weeks in – Single Father is getting a bit seedy and distasteful. David Tennant is still valiantly plugging away at being a single father for the BBC, but the family seems to be splintering around him and suddenly the whole thing has become a digging-up of dead Rita's past life.

Thank goodness the grief-fest of the first episode is over, and we can get on with examining the situation writer Mick Ford was originally interested in: a single father raising several children. Dave is doing a better job than last week, with the help of various other family members (including Tanya's mother, his ex-wife). He does less well at fighting off Rita's sister, Anna (Neve McIntosh) who seems both childless and determined to take her sister's children for herself. Her brother-in-law (Mark Heap) can only watch and apologise as she goes off on another rant about Dave not being up to fatherhood. In fairness to Heap, he's got the disgruntled look of a man not quite able to interrupt down perfectly, and at other times brightens up scenes wonderfully (see him and Tennant discuss a possible father of Rita's daughter...lovely).

Except we can't really get through the heavy-handed emotion into Ford's proposed situation. Single Father still insists on giving misleading flashbacks, that aren't really flashbacks at all because some details have changed – it happened last week when Rita died and Dave said different things depending on which occasion you were watching it. Again this week, the flashbacks don't quite match the events (that kiss, say) as seen first time around. As for the sentimental soundtrack occasionally layered over shots of David Tennant brooding...

But worse is the way that Single Father insists on doing Rita's dirty washing in public. Alright, we get that Dave wasn't her first lover (by a long way), but does it need rubbing in so much? The (remarkably easy) search for Lucy's real father also obscures the story and makes it seem more about a search for a natural father than about Tennant's Dave raising his brood. It's a search that diverts Dave (and us as an audience) away from problems like his son's smashed ankle (surely a cause for concern?), his youngest daughter's illness (Evie), and the way that his eldest (Tanya) has suddenly become far less reliable as a babysitter/employee. These are the issues that tie in with that original single father idea.

Also tying in with that idea is Dave's growing relationship with Rita's friend and Evie's schoolteacher, Sarah (Suranne Jones). That got a lot steamier recently, and I suspect Evie's lessons are going to get more interesting soon...”Miss, are you my new mommy?”

Single Father may still be available via BBC iPlayer here.

Picture courtesy of the BBC.

Single Father [Episode 1] on BBC One

Single Father, Sunday night's much-publicised return to the UK small screen for David Tennant, certainly packs an emotional punch. But then what could we expect from a four-part series about a man whose wife is suddenly killed within the first four minutes?

It may be useful to introduce the family of the single father (Dave, played by David Tennant, who is a photographer) so that, without the distraction of trying to work out who they are, you can get on with appreciating the difficulties Dave has – and maybe cry along with him. Dave's married to Rita (Laura Fraser), with three children: Paul (11), Ewan (9) and Evie (5). Then there's Lucy, fifteen, Rita's daughter (not Dave's), and Tanya, eighteen, Dave's daughter (not Rita's). Got that? Then there's his sister-in-law Anna (Neve McIntosh), hurrying in to mark territory after her sister's death, followed by Rita's family (Mark Heap and Isla Blair). Right, now that's out of the way, we can get on with appreciating David Tennant's moving masterclass in grief.

That said, you'll have to overlook the juddering narrative as well. Single Father starts admirably in the midst of things (like I say, Fraser's Rita gets killed pretty sharpish) with a beautifully-pitched and attractively-shot first three and a half minutes. Then we go back a day, which is all well and good; Single Father manages to avoid making the whole thing seem like a situation that's too good to be true and will soon end – the accident's a shock to everyone. But then, for some reason, the BBC seems to think that, just fifteen minutes later, we'll have forgotten what happened and need to see it again (with ever-so-slightly different dialogue). The tense inevitability of the first time round has gone, replaced with a tedious certainty that Rita is not long for this happy life. Which rather spoils the fine work put in by Tennant and Fraser (with Suranne Jones and Warren Brown) up to that point.

As if that weren't enough, the next ten weeks are skipped out altogether. While I appreciate we don't need to see the immediate few hours in detail, I can't help thinking the interesting bits of the premise (a single father, remember?) occur in those first few days/weeks. If, as writer Mick Ford claims, the focus is on a man dealing with the kids once their mother is dead, then surely this is when it's at the most raw? Surely this is the time for Dave's struggles with getting the right lunchboxes and getting swimming trunks washed in time? Two and a half months later – call me a sadist if you like – just isn't as interesting.

But you can't take away from Tennant the fact that he knows where to hit his audience emotionally. It's worth watching out as well for Mark Heap's quietly assured turn as the brother-in-law.

Single Father may still be available to watch via BBC iPlayer here.
Picture courtesy of the BBC.

The Song of Lunch on BBC Two

When Christopher Reid, writer of The Song of Lunch recently dramatised by the BBC, was teaching at my University he always came across as an advocate of the idea that poetry had to be read aloud to be fully appreciated. The BBC's staging of his long poem The Song of Lunch does great service in defence of this idea (but don't be put off reading it aloud yourself – like radio, the pictures may be better and/or more personal that way). Interestingly, it was Reid's successor at the University of Hull, Martin Goodman, who suggested The Song of Lunch be dramatised in the first place.

While the thought of putting a long poem about a lunch onto the small screen may not sound thrilling, this reading by Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson (talk about casting big guns) brings the work to life in a way you just wouldn't get if you read The Song of Lunch to yourself in your head. It comes as no surprise that Reid took James Joyce's Ulysses as an inspiration for The Song of Lunch, as that's another long piece of writing that gains immensely from being read aloud. The original poem The Song of Lunch has been praised for its cinematic quality, a quality which is plain even without watching Rickman acting out the words being intoned by his own voiceover.

What we have in The Song of Lunch is a slightly mournful reminiscing about past love, the fading of youthful promise and the remorseless march of time. Alan Rickman is beautifully cast as a failed writer stuck in a job editing other people's (in his opinion, worthless) prose. The lunch is question is with his old flame, Emma Thompson, now happily married (to a successful author, the agony!) with children yet still curiously affectionate toward a man she chastises for being overly fond of her. They're having lunch to catch up after fifteen (or so) years, and this is where the combination of small screen dramatisation and poetry really comes into its own. Aching moments are slowed down to allow for the poetic interior monologue of Rickman's thoughts and narration to pour out and colour the scene, filling in the blanks pulsing with heart-saddened meaning.

But The Song of Lunch is about more than just the lunch, and more than Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson. Okay, so it's a bit of an obvious metaphor that Reid goes for, but the restaurant itself encapsulates the overriding theme at work here. Remembered by Rickman's character as a niche and proudly Italian restaurant fifteen years ago, Zanzotti's is under new management...new waiters, new tablecloths, new menu (content and printing material), less satisfying wine (but, boy, does Rickman get through the stuff) and less impressive food. He's as disappointed by that as he is with his life since he last saw Thompson's character. Yet she is pleasantly surprised at the 'improvement', as she calls it. For her, none of Rickman's (gloriously expressed) contempt of white tablecloths – another case of Reid taking a leaf from Joyce and examining the minutiae of the mundane – and far less of the wine used as a coping mechanism. Thompson is assured and comfortable (both actress and character), humouring her old lover but reminding him of the boundaries; unlike him, she has moved on, thanks in part to that remorseless march of time thing.

Most impressive about the BBC's The Song of Lunch is the way in which dedicated acting brings to dramatic life a poem already vividly cinematic in quality. Although the final message does seem to be that, when meeting an old flame, drinking too much wine is unwise...you might end up sleeping it off on the roof.

The Song of Lunch may still be available via BBC iPlayer here.

Photos courtesy of the BBC and Digimist (weekends mostly).

The Catholic Church is missing a trick

Before and during his state visit to Britain Pope Benedict XVI – as you probably noticed – was under a lot of criticism. While the media focused on the historic ties being reconnected between the Vatican and Lambeth Palace, non-media voices tended to focus on the negative side of the current Pope, his Church and religion as a whole. But most of the recent criticism concern the sex abuse scandal which implicates his Holiness in official cover-ups. While that is undeniably A Bad Thing, it's only the most recent issue to cause problems for the Papacy.

What really irked me during Pope Benedict's speech at Westminster was his assertion that democracy and reason were under threat because secular societies no longer underpinned those values with the moral code of religion (ie. Catholicism). This coming from the man considered infallible by himself and his followers (no room for reasoning that one out, nor even any need to think about it), who not long ago banned any discussion in his worldwide Church on the subject of female ordination. So, no chance to think or argue about that either. The reason women can't be Catholic priests is tied into that moral code of religion that Pope Benedict insists should underpin reason and democracy. I for one can't see the logical reasoning behind (not even a discussion on) prohibiting female ordination.

Thing is, I've seen enough women leaders (both in churches and the secular world) to know that they can do just as good a job as men. In the pastoral role required of priests, they're often better than men – it's the maternal instinct. In fact, lads of the Catholic clergy, women are – whisper it – actually good at stuff sometimes. I know, I know, hard to believe. A quick look back through English history (not worldwide, nor Catholic, admittedly) shows that the periods commonly regarded as golden ages were presided over by women: Queens Elizabeth I and Victoria come to mind...it's probably too early to pass comment on the current Queen Elizabeth and the jury's still out on Thatcher, I know.

The Catholic Church is really missing a trick in not allowing women into the priesthood. I say this partly as a result of watching Peter Tatchell's The Trouble with the Pope on Channel 4, in which the one person Tatchell found to defend the Church and its policies was a woman. Fiona O'Reilly is an eloquent and non-judgemental defender of the Church (despite Tatchell's repeated efforts to trip her into calling him an evil person because he's gay), and her defence would have carried more weight had the Church taken her seriously (she clearly takes the Church and her faith seriously) and given her a dog collar. From what Tatchell says on Channel 4's website, O'Reilly sounds like she was put up by the Church as a low-level minion willing to parrot the Church's teachings without dragging the (male) hierarchy into a documentary they had no desire to be involved with. Most disappointing was that Tatchell didn't ask her about female ordination, because he was too wrapped up in the Church's apparent homophobia (though there were plenty of other disappointments in Tatchell's documentary).

As some of the strongest advocates for faith, healing and understanding, women deserve a place in the Vatican's priesthood – and should certainly not be denied ordination merely on the basis of gender. But now I'm just tripping out old feminist arguments. My point is that the Church is backward-looking and conservative on so many issues as to be radically out of step with the secular world. Its attitude to women is one major part of this; how can the Church hope to maintain its followers, or even expand, when it subjects half of the world's population to an inferior status? I don't ask the Church to change its opinion on homosexuality (not just yet) or contraception (not just yet), but the attitude to women – God's children as much as men, and surely able to hear God's word as much as men (the Virgin Mary comes to mind) – has to be re-examined.

Photo of the Vatican by Diliff.

Is it time for a new Pope?

Not all that long ago, the Pope was a widely-respected and much-loved leader of the world's billion or so Catholics as well as the Vatican City's head of state. His word carried a certain moral and ethical authority even for non-Catholics. What went so badly wrong?

Well, all of that was Pope John Paul II, the Polish Pope known for his warm public receptions and charismatic appearances. His successor, Pope Benedict XVI, is a German with a far colder public image, positively lacking in charm or charisma. Worse, he brings the reputation of 'God's Rottweiler' to the role, from his time as Cardinal Ratzinger and has gradually undermined that moral and ethical authority carried by the title Bishop of Rome.

Without wanting to understate the conservatism of John Paul II's papacy, Pope Benedict's conservative direction is one of the principle damaging factors in the Catholic Church's recent history. Yes, the sex abuse scandal is serious and damaging, but it is one in a series of incidents that show this conservative trend to be distancing the Church from the people. The scandal's personal implications for the man at the top – Ratzinger being the Cardinal blamed for earlier alleged cover-ups – tarnish the Papacy itself and the entire Church by implication. Worse, the conservative thinking of the current Papacy – in danger of taking the Bible literally – is out of touch with the secular society Pope Benedict is concerned to re-establish religion within; the two are incompatible.

That incompatibility is down to the Church's inability to move with the times. Secular society has advanced into the modern age, but the conservatism of Pope Benedict holds the Church back, restraining it in the race of human progress. This is the Church that refuses to even discuss the possibility of ordaining women because there are no female preachers in the Bible. It's funny, there's no electricity in the Bible but I don't hear of many priests refusing to have their churches re-wired.

But the Bible was written (if you take a non-Christian or cynical view) by men in a patriarchal society roughly two thousand years ago. If you take a Christian, theistic view, it was written by God, via men in a patriarchal society roughly two thousand years ago to be read by that same patriarchal society. Of course there are no women preachers!

The worldwide church (not just the Catholic one) does a great deal of good in the world, as do other organisations in the name of their faith. So let's not go lambasting religion and arguing that anyone willing to listen to the Pope is somehow evil or misinformed. Religion has the power to help as well as harm – it's much more about how people interpret it – and I'm not for one minute arguing that religion is necessarily a bad thing. I just question whether Joseph Ratzinger is the best man to be leading the Catholic Church right now. Someone so embroiled in the biggest scandal the Church has faced in living memory, and generating such opposition in other areas is perhaps not the best spokesperson for the world's billion or so Catholics.

The Catholic Church needs to accept that the march of history has advanced, and they have to adapt or get left behind in their medieval theology. The Church is still stuck in the past, and that, your Holiness, is why secular society has marginalised religion.

Fringe Review 2010

Some reviews from FringeReview 2010:

RashDash Theatre's **** Another Someone:
http://www.fringereview.co.uk/fringeReview/3660.html

Whitebone Productions' ***** Bane 2:
http://www.fringereview.co.uk/fringeReview/3488.html

Belt Up's 'Antigone' ***:
http://www.fringereview.co.uk/fringeReview/3534.html

Belt Up's 'Odyssey' ***:
http://www.fringereview.co.uk/fringeReview/3533.html

Belt Up's 'The Boy James' ****:
http://www.fringereview.co.uk/fringeReview/3492.html

Shatterbox's *** Emma Thompson Presents Fair Trade:
http://www.fringereview.co.uk/fringeReview/3489.html

The Plasticine Men's **** Keepers:
http://www.fringereview.co.uk/fringeReview/3535.html

High Tide's **** Lidless:
http://www.fringereview.co.uk/fringeReview/3584.html

The Festival of Swing @ The Edinburgh International Jazz & Blues Festival

The ThreeWeeks review of the Edinburgh International Jazz & Blues Festival's Festival Of Swing:

On brass were Bob Wilber, Joe Temperley, Scott Hamilton, Alan Barnes, Duke Heitger and Howard Alden, and the evening's compère introduced the all-star line-up as the most 'unruly' bunch he's ever come across, but despite the occasional flashes of 'fooling around' it's difficult to see these mostly elderly gentleman causing much trouble. They and their audience grew old with jazz, and the reception the musicians received was as full-blooded as any young band might enjoy as the nine-piece celebrated the era of swinging Jazz centered on Duke Ellington; it was fitting that Joe Temperley, a veteran who actually played alongside Ellington, was there. Highlights included 'Creole Love Song', Heitger's trumpet solos and Alden spicing things up with some Brazilian swing. A gently foot-tapping evening.

Queens Hall, 3 Aug, 8.00pm, £17.50 - £22.50

tw rating: 3/5

The original review is here.

The Man Who Was Hamlet @ The Edinburgh Fringe

The ThreeWeeks review of The Man Who Was Hamlet:

Several people have been proposed as the 'real' author of Shakespeare's works (a lowly glover's son couldn't have written such works of genius, surely?) So who was William Shakespeare? George Dillon's masterful one-man show puts forth a strong case that 'Shakespeare' was actually Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. Resurrected for an hour's stage time, Oxford's Elizabethan ghost recounts his life story in a biography similar to Shakespeare's own, and Dillon's voice is deliciously versatile, though sometimes his characters need more differentiation. My advice is, make a bingo card with Shakespeare's plays on it, and tick them off as you spot references to them; should you get a full house, after the play has finished, you can run out into the street and shout "I'm Shakespeare!"

Hill Street Theatre, 5 - 30 Aug (not 10, 17, 24), 7.10pm , £7.00 - £9.00, fpp 269

tw rating: 4/5

The original review is here.

Potato Country @ The Edinburgh Fringe

The ThreeWeeks review of Potato Country:

What do you think about China? What makes you happy? What do you think of women's rights? These are three questions that you will be asked by the dancers of 'Potato Country', so bear them in mind. They probably define you as a person, or at least Gunilla Heilborn would have you think so, as the cast eye you directly, dancing, marching and firing off questions. Their disjointed dance piece aims to explore what makes happiness, perhaps by looking at the Swedish love of melancholy (as they phrase it). They do this by presenting a bunch of hopeless-looking people whose awkwardness at dancing is probably intentional. But ultimately, there's too much of that and not enough of the happiness.

Dance Base - National Centre for Dance, 13 - 20 Aug, times vary, £5.00, fpp 152

tw rating: 2/5

The original review is here.

The Timothy Bile Show @The Edinburgh Fringe

The ThreeWeeks review of The Timothy Bile Show:

This attempted spoof of Jeremy Kyle et al starts off well, with an accurate portrayal of the sort of stuff that fills such programs; abusive boyfriends, girlfriends sleeping around, unexpected pregnancy and girls getting outrageously drunk. The best actor is the lead, but no one else shines. Too much emphasis is placed on the anger of the guests (telling each other to shut up at frequent intervals) and not enough on the public's need to watch such interactions, nor on the reasons for the host's involvement, It's a shame, because these are more interesting and are also the things the play had intended to explore. It's no satire of popular culture, however much shouting there is.

theSpaces on the Mile@the Radisson, 6 - 21 Aug (not 8, 15), 7.05pm, £6.00 - £7.00, fpp 297

tw rating: 1/5

The original review is here.

The Merry Wives of Henry VIII @ The Edinburgh Fringe

The ThreeWeeks review of The Merry Wives of Henry VIII:

There's always a danger that we'll forget the real people in history and will reduce them to easily remembered basics. Richard III was a hunchback, Henry VIII was a fickle playboy. That's exactly what happens in this (deliberately?) overblown destruction of real events. The caricatures are cartoonish and basic, the Tudor court's political scheming (familiar now thanks to Philippa Gregory, Hilary Mantel and HBO's "The Tudors") is non-existent; audiences are familiar enough with the period to deserve better than this. However, the production is a pleasing enough jaunt, which makes villains out of pawns, especially for audiences less familiar with the period. However, there's some painfully OTT acting and atrocious lighting choices. Diverting, but ultimately frustrating.

Augustine's, 11 - 26 Aug (not 18, 23), 6.45pm, £7.00 - £9.00, fpp 271

tw rating: 2/5

The original review is here.

Pip Utton is Charles Dickens @ the Edinburgh Fringe

The ThreeWeeks review of Pip Utton Is Charles Dickens:

Few actors seem as fresh and unscripted as Pip Utton, who has a talent for sounding like he's chatting to a mate: you could almost think he's out of character, were it not for the Dickensian beard. Charles Dickens is the focus of this show, in which he candidly recounts his own death and the previous few months. Utton uses some of the famous readings from Dickens' tours of Britain, and focuses on the author as social reformer, highlighting the social conscience underlining much of his work, and it makes for an absorbing 70 minutes. Utton is an expert at creating an intimate connection with his audience, and as he closes, one gets the sense of being in the hands of a master at work.

New Town Theatre, 5 - 29 Aug (not 17), 6.45pm , £8.00 - £10.00, fpp 279

tw rating: 4/5

The original review is here.

The Jewish Wife @ the BAC and some news...

Brecht's little play – more of an extended scene, really – doesn't get many outings. It's one in a series of snapshots called Fear & Misery in the Third Reich. Each shows Nazi policies affecting ordinary Germans in different ways – none of them positive. Here, the Jewish wife of the title is packing before leaving her German (Aryan) husband so that he doesn't lose his job for being married to a Jew. This is an intimate production at the Battersea Arts Centre, hinting at – then laying bare – the frustration of a woman whose world has suddenly turned against her. Matthew Evans – winner of the JMK Director's Award – directs a production in tune with its time and the burning issues of the text.

Meanwhile...

I've recently started working for Hoipolloi Theatre Company, a lovely bunch of people who are based in Cambridge and are about to enjoy a residency at (probably my favourite performance venue ever) the Barbican, in September. They have a blog and everything. Their shows have won a clutch of awards and I highly recommend the one that I've seen, so get to the Barbican for those if you can.

One of those awards was a ThreeWeeks Editors' Award at the 2009 Edinburgh Fringe (it had nothing to do with me, though my five-star review of The Bone House may well have helped Canada's Village Theatre to their Editors' Award), and I'll be covering the Fringe for ThreeWeeks again this year.

They're a great outlet for Fringe coverage, reviewing more than anyone else, and it's also worth keeping an eye on FringeReview who tend to review as industry professionals delving more deeply.

The Fringe is less than a week away, and is naturally quite exciting. Let me know if there are any shows/venues you can recommend.

Identity Episode Three on ITV1

Aiden Gillen continues to be both the most watch-able part of this series, and the person with the worst dialogue. So much of what he says sounds wooden, but his on-screen charisma is enough to mean it doesn't matter too much.

This week a false identity on the witness protection scheme is breached – and some poor lad has bricks thrown through his bedroom window. It's not his fault; his dad abducted and murdered a little girl a few years back. Someone's after payback, and there's a £3m reward floating around while Gillen chases a man on a motorbike and trying to find the little boy. Meanwhile, Gillen's also checking into a prison as Brendan Shea (to see his Turkish mafia boss) and – the same day? – as DI John Bloom (to see the child-abductor)...this seems bad practice from a copper who's been undercover for fifteen years.

On the plus side, this third episode finally burrows under the skin of the identity theft team and gives them some depth. Tessa (Holly Aird) and Martha (Keeley Hawes) snarl at each other in a pre-cat fight stand-off, and finally there's some tension. It's good to see, but should have been there much earlier. Before that, the (frankly awful interview team) pairing of Wareing (Shaun Parkes) and Rodriguez (Elyes Gabel) swap roles after their last judgemental interview with a possible suspect. This time it's Rodriguez' turn to dish out the accusatory comments, but once again their technique is terrible. They're nearly as bad the stupendously insensitive police interview teams in the BBC's recent The Silence.

On the down side, Bloom still needs to get the hang of office wear and stop turning up to work in his jogging outfits.

Best bit:
Right at the end when a suspicious prison guard gets pictures of Brendan Shea (Aiden Gillen) and John Bloom (Aiden Gillen) on the same computer screen. Ooh, don't they look similar? Like they could be the same man...except that one of them's snarling a bit more.

The episode may still be available to view on itv Player here.

Identity Episode Two in ITV1

Well, at least we know who the woman in the green dress is now. And we know that DSI Martha Lawson (Keeley Hawes) had a point when, last week, she asked DI John Bloom (Aiden Gillen) if he was speaking to his girlfriend on the phone.

Though to be honest, it's not as though Bloom's life really works in terms of a girlfriend, as such. Sure, he's sleeping with the sister of a Turkish Mafia boss (who think he's called Brendan) – but she presumably doesn't know where he dashes off to in the morning...New Scotland Yard. You've got to wonder how undercover this man still is.

This week, Bloom's 9-5 life (which he decides to grace with his presence after disappearing for three days) involves a case of a young woman wanting to be a bit too much like her friend. Fatally so. British Olivia (Laura Aikman) has it all, living in Sydney and enjoying beach parties out of the reach of her parents(and step-mother) in Chelsea. She's also – according to Bloom – stunningly beautiful. No wonder then that her friend, Jane (Joanne Frogatt) wants to be her. One bottle of hair dye and a few seconds with a penknife later, and Jane has a new passport...a new identity.

But again – and this was a problem last time – Identity spends too long on the crime of the week (murder, identity theft) and not long enough on the team investigating it. Again, we see Lawson is under pressure from above regarding her tempestuous recruit, Bloom, but no real sense that anyone (bar Bloom) has a life outside the office. Ignoring (and it might be best ignored) that bizarre moment when DC Jose Rodriguez (Elyes Gabel) and (curiously unranked) Tessa Stein (Holly Aird) discuss previous lovers – Rodriguez really is a rather strange character. It seems any series-long arc is limited to the beginning and end of episodes, which doesn't give us much idea about the people we're watching each week.

Perhaps the seeds to watch for are DS Anthony Wareing's increasing dislike of Bloom, and the shark-faced Atif (Aleksandar Mikic) of the Mafia as he works his way toward the mole responsible for selling out his boss.

Best moment:
Either Anthony (Shaun Parkes, inexplicably billed lower than Gabel) hinting mysteriously that Bloom might be around for much longer, then telling Lawson not to worry about it, or when he asks to photograph the mysteriously cut-free hands of a stab victim...clearly, someone's got an issue with Bloom's unconventional methods.

The episode may still be available to view on itv Player here.

Dive: Lindey's Story on BBC Two

With British teen pregnancy on the rise, there's an increasing scrutiny on exactly what it is we're telling kids about all that stuff. Sex education lessons seem to be starting younger and younger, but it also seems that the mums are getting younger and younger. Dominic Savage's two-part drama, Dive, indicates that the problem doesn't lie so much with the kids' education as with their attitude.

Co-written by Savage and Simon Stephens (Punk Rock, Herons, Pornography), Dive opens up a group of teenagers who know how sex works – they've had the lessons, seen (and laughed at) the videos, got the T-shirt and avoided parents' questions. There's a brilliantly subtle moment to watch out for, when the biology class pair off to practice putting condoms on ominously-entitled 'demonstrators'. Main character Lindsey (Aisling Loftus) contemplates hers for a moment – over her shoulder, and just out of focus, her friend (Chanel Cresswell) slips one on in seconds and proudly announces “Perfect”. Someone's done this before...

So, they know what they're doing. It's their casual, carefree attitude that's the problem. Watch as Robert (Jack O'Connell) dashes off into the sea, telling his (girl)friend to leave her clothes on the beach – pregnant and likely to catch her death of cold. And not long before that, he'd been diving into a pool with just boxers on...what an irresponsible young man, no wonder he got her pregnant. Call me old-fashioned, but teenagers having a quickie up against a tree with someone they've just met doesn't seem to indicate that sex education is encouraging responsible or safe sex.

We're probably going to see an increasing amount of drama with some focus on the 2012 Olympics in the next two years. This is one that's been put together really well, with some beautiful shots and a careful balance between Lindsey's dreams of representing Britain at the Olympics (as a diver...obviously) and her life at home – watch out for Gina McKee, sensitive as ever, and Joseph Mawle as the resented-yet-caring step-father, to say nothing of Ewen Bremner's sweet turn as Lindsey's dad. There's plenty of 'mood' all round, with lots of lingering shots of diving bodies, sparkling lights and brooding teens, all with gently sentimental music layered over it.

We'll have to wait for Robert's side of it in the next episode, but somehow I don't think a baby is quite the Olympic legacy either of these two wants.

This episode might still be available to view here.

Identity Episode One on ITV1

Identity fraud's a bit of a hot topic these days, as more and more of our lives goes into electronic (traceable) transactions and we're increasingly encouraged to shred documents with personal details on them, just in case. As buying and selling becomes more impersonal, thanks to the rise of the internet and the credit card, so it becomes easier to interfere with the process and remove a person's humanity.

So ITV's drama about a new police unit tracking down identity thieves feels quite pertinent. Modern and highly relevant, in fact. DSI Martha Lawson (Keeley Hawes, taking another high-powered policewoman role focusing on the psychology of criminals, cf. Ashes to Ashes) leads a team that, to be honest, is in danger of merely following a paper trail. In this first episode, they're dealing with a former soldier who claims to have had his identity stolen by a mysterious man known only as Smith. But to be honest, that's not the interesting bit – the episode really gets going about halfway through when the team start to uncover previous victims and the chase hots up. Until then, they're basically following an electronic paper trail, and there's only so much dramatic interest that can be mustered by the coincidence of two people using a Nectar card in the same shop ten minutes apart.

Aiden Gillen (Queer as Folk, The Wire) is on Lawson's team, as John Bloom (yes, he's Irish and called Bloom, get over it Joyce-fans), an ex-undercover copper – see what they did there? He knows all about pretending to be someone else. Hopefully, that explains why he's able to make so many sharp remarks that cut straight through any psychological barriers people try to build up. And why he's so rude... The beginning of this episode sets up a nice tension between him and his new boss (ie. as an undercover copper, he's not used to having a boss), but their relationship takes a bit of a back burner. It's a shame, because this first episode – our first chance to meet the team – doesn't quite make them seem human for a long time. Bloom is also by far the most interesting of the team, and you'll see why in the last four minutes of this first episode. Apart from the fact that he's the only one with a history (undercover with drug smugglers) and something resembling a personality, there's definitely something shifty going on. Whose birthday is he turning up to, and who is that woman in the green dress?

The rest of them, ironically, don't seem to have much in the way of individual identities. Watch out for Shaun Parkes (Small Island, Moses Jones) and Elyes Gabel (Casualty, Apparitions), as the DS and DC respectively, when the younger rebels against this impersonal attitude – it's the first time (hopefully the first of more) that the show opens up the debate around identity theft, justice and the way the state handles such things. More, ITV, more.

Best moment:
Ex-squaddie Curtis: Are you calling me a coward?
Ex-undercover copper Bloom: I'm calling you a big...fat...girl's blouse.

The episode may still be available to view on itv Player here.

Gazza's Tears: The Night that Changed Football on ITV1

According to this wobbly tear-jerker of a documentary, the moment when Paul Gascoigne burst into tears in 1990's World Cup changed the nature of English football forever. No, really – forever.

Just look at that title; football changed. Overnight. Completely. Forever. Which you'd think this documentary would then go on to prove. You could be forgiven for expecting an hour's program that tells its viewers about a) the state of English football before that infamous match (England vs. West Germany, World Cup semi-final, 1990, if you're interested), b) the state of English football after that match (when Gazza's tears had changed it) and c) exactly how the aforementioned tears changed anything.

That isn't what happens. Instead, viewers are presented with a lengthy description of England's campaign in 1990's World Cup – one that doesn't stint on emotional intensity, patriotic optimism, talking heads and assumptions that its audience knows how the campaign ended. There's a certain air of nostalgia to all this; those that remember Italia '90, before English football became a multi-million pound business, get a glimpse of the good old days. Days when England's team were more interested in drinking than playing, when a defeat resulted in the team and manager being savaged by the press, and the fans were almost synonymous with hooligans...actually, not that much different from today. In fact, the rash optimism (phrases like 'we can go all the way') of fans has been echoed – despite England's poor performances against the USA, Algeria and Slovenia – in the 2010 World Cup. So, twenty years later the sense of disappointment felt when the team crashes out (despite this being fairly predictable from the start) is still present. What exactly did Gazza change when he cried in the semi-final against West Germany?

It's a question this documentary resolutely fails to answer. In fact, it poses the question in its title, then promptly ignores it. Its interest lies in reminding viewers about how close England came back in 1990. The film-makers aren't afraid to over-egg the pudding (but then that's often the problem with England's national side); with West Germany victorious (4-3 on penalties), England fans felt 'grief', apparently...they were disappointed, yes, fair enough, but to compare it to a death in the family seems a bit strong. Worse is when one former player laments how close England came to winning the Cup...then corrects himself when he remembers that they were only playing for a place in the final. It's not the same thing as winning the tournament; there's another 90 minutes (at least) after that.

Once viewers have been walked down the familiar path to defeat (and the tour bus that greeted the defeated team in England), this documentary almost goes back to its opening section – which was a cursory nod to the modern nature of English football, all glamour, big spending and high ticket prices. But no. Instead, some more emotional overkill, wheeling out Sir Bobby to watch a match played as a tribute to him and his long career just before he lost his battle with cancer. Touching as it all is, and undoubtedly genuine as more tears from Gazza are, it tells viewers nothing about the new nature of English football, or how that may have changed since 1990. The film merely asserts that such a change has taken place. Repeating a fact does not make it more true.

Is it so much to ask that ITV documentaries have some facts, or even some investigation, to back up their statements? Or that those documentaries have titles that reflect their content? Sure, the title grabs attention, makes it sound like the film examines a turning-point in sporting history...but that's not true. It's an examination (and an emotional, subjective one at that) of Bobby Robson's 1990 World Cup and later tribute. So why not call it that?


The show may still be available to view on ITVPlayer here.

'Star Trek' is Inept Science-Fiction. Discuss

Watching 'Fair Haven' has made me realise how inept a piece of science-fiction Star Trek is. Now, I've watched Star Trek for years, and enjoyed it when I was younger – but the opportunities it passes over have only recently struck me.

'Fair Haven' is an episode of the fourth set of Trek shows, Star Trek: Voyager, in which the ship's captain falls for a man created on the holodeck (he's a hologram, a being made of light energy, forcefields and computer subroutines). What has always been the strength of Voyager against other series was the way it had taken that 'Boldly Go...' idea, the outward exploration idea, and turned it on its head; the Voyager crew are stranded on the other side of the galaxy and are returning to Earth, rather than heading away (or being rooted somewhere familiar) like previous series. In a similar revolutionary move, the captain is a woman and her second-in-command is a former guerilla terrorist whose crew have been absorbed into Captain Janeway's regulars.

Let's worry about the holodeck first. It's basically a big fantasy arena, a room that can create virtual reality simulations of pretty much anything imaginable. The show's writers often use it as a means of having bits of story outside of the ship, without requiring that Voyager is near a convenient planet, or so that the crew can indulge in recreation without consequences – it's okay to treat holodeck creations as unpaid labour or disposable villains (in a shoot-'em-up) because they're not real. In this way, the holodeck can be used to examine exactly what makes humans human, by contrasting us with what is essentially not human and forcing us (the audience) to define the boundaries between human and holodeck creation. It's the same reason that aliens exist in sci-fi; they are non-humans we can use as examples to self-define against.

All well and good. Trek also tends to play with the convention of a fantasy realm by having something go wrong. For example, in a Next Generation episode, the Moriarty character from a Sherlock Holmes holodeck program gains sentience – becoming more than a hologram – and tries to take over the ship. More recently, the Doctor onboard Voyager is a hologram – he is all the medical textbooks ever written, but with a personality (of sorts) and a bedside manner (of sorts). He's an emergency replacement for the 'real' doctor, who died when the ship got stranded all those trillions of miles away. There have also been episodes – a specific Voyager one comes to mind – in which crew members have fallen in love with holograms (and vice versa).

So, when Janeway fell for the barman in the holographic Irish town of Fair Haven, I remembered with some unease that earlier episode. On that occasion, an Ensign fell in love with a young holographic lady and the potential relationship was treated with concern by his friends. His love interest was fictitious! Appalling! It turned out they were justified in their fears; the holodeck had been hacked by an alien who wanted to keep the ship near to her for company.

So when a real man falls for a holo-woman, it's bad because she's an ugly, lonely alien who needs help from the enlightened (male) crew members to avoid her holding up the ship's journey (forever) or destroying it. But when Janeway falls for a holo-man, everyone thinks it's a bit of a laugh and she can carry on. Is that because she's the captain, or because her woman's love affairs are trivial and don't matter?

Anyway, that's not the main problem with 'Fair Haven'. The problem is the conversation Janeway has with the Doctor (he's a hologram too, remember) after she deserts her new lover in the holodeck. It's the scene [3:50 on the YouTube clip] that should be the crux of the episode (which it is) while developing themes of romance, interpersonal relationships, a leader's responsibilities and what it means to be human and to be in love (which it doesn't, really). The Doctor has taken his role as the Irish priest, and is talking to Janeway as a friend, but it takes far too long for either of them to point out the irony that he too is a hologram.

Thing is, this conversation shouldn't take up a scene; it should be the episode. A lot of time is taken up establishing that Janeway likes the barman, changes his specifications (see where the sci-fi comes in?) and that he goes crazy when she leaves him. Too long is taken on the reason why the crew is retreating to the holodeck (there's a space storm of some kind, so the ship can't move for a few days) for distraction. Then, too long is taken on getting free from that storm. The human dilemma – the issue of a strong woman in a leadership role falling for a man she can't have – is almost entirely missed.

This is where Trek really falls down. It doesn't get under the surface of the problems its raises, and gets bogged down in technobabble. We as audience really don't need all this guff about the storm or inverting the warp core to avoid neutrino radiation (or something). Of much more interest is the human story. Sci-fi can be many things, but what it should always try and do – or at least, good sci-fi tries to do – is take recognisable situations and examine them in different contexts – then we can re-examine what we thought was certain, and/or see it from a new perspective. Sci-fi maintains the human interest amid the science and technology, and keeps that interest paramount. 'Fair Haven' makes too much of the argument that the barman is all protons and forcefields, and not enough of the fact that the captain has fallen in love. Yes, the Doctor makes a stab at this, but the irony – which should have been capitalised on earlier – is that he too is holographic; he's not 'real' either, and it takes an unreal man to give the captain this lesson of the heart (how lonely is command – another issue avoided by this episode).

This episode should be making its audience reassess what it is to be human, to be in love, and what is and isn't acceptable behaviour for a commanding officer isolated from her home port. If you want intelligent sci-fi that keeps human issues central, and paramount over the technobabble, check out Babylon 5. I hear the reboot of Battlestar Galactica is good for political sci-fi too.

Whitehouse Institute at NSDF10 (from Noises Off)

When a vicar stands up to give a sermon to a congregation, it doesn't usually get classed as drama. The drama lies outside of what the vicar says and outside of where it's said; out in the supernatural world.

When a tour rep stands up to greet their latest batch of tourists, it doesn't usually get classed as drama. The drama lies in the proposed holiday, the land waiting to be explored – the world outside of the tour rep's speech.

Both vicar and tour rep have learnt a set of words, ready to present to those listening to them. Their listeners hope to gain something from what they hear. The crowd has gathered to listen to them, and though the division between them is more informal than a theatre's normal fourth wall, there is still a noticeable degree of separation between them. It's not any different to a guided tour in an art gallery – like the one on offer at the Holbeck recently. As drama or theatre, the speeches given by curator Neil Bailey-Jones are barely different to those given by a vicar in church.

Such people are also less keen on witholding the secrets of their craft; in fact, conveying information is vital to their occupations. But the Manchester team behind Whitehouse Institute have been trying – with varying degrees of success – to impose a blanket of silence over their show. There's a big twist, that they'd like to keep from the Fest-going body – us lot, their audience. How they expect people not to talk about the show – at NSDF – is hard to grasp. By the way, the twist is the new artwork being replaced by a stark naked woman.

In some ways, it's a tired and worn-out idea that modern art as a movement is pointless and/or pretentious while its artists are too far up themselves to know anything of the outside world. Whitehouse Institute exposes this truism by parading it with glee. The curators of modern galleries also get gently satirised as people stuffed full of commonplace fact – this one leads a tour of the bleedingly obvious around the Uni campus – but that's another shallow idea, one that loses its humour value after being used more than twice. So at over an hour, that joke wore very thin.

Whitehouse Institute almost goes one better than these tired old art debates by giving protesters a voice – but absolutely no attempt at giving a clear, unified reason for the protest. It manages to expose that those oppose modern art as having no valid alternative to that which so aggravates them. There isn't exactly any original or interesting insight on these themes; merely a presentation of them that claims to be drama but fails to scale any such heights.

In fact, any audience member (and, yes, we punters were 'audience members', not 'gallery viewers' or any other such term) who wanted some drama out of their National Student Drama Festival's offering would have had more luck attending happenings outside of the event to which their paid-for ticket entitles them entry. By far the most interesting things happened outside of the gallery (protesters rattling the doors) and indeed outside of the event itself (the protests staged outside of the SJT). The Manchester team is to be commended on their marketing and publicity campaign (including articles – tying into the fiction of Tracey Hutcheson – in our own NOFF), which has become bigger than the performance itself. Or, then again, has the publicity become (part of?) the event?

On the down-side, such hype meant that the only way that Whitehouse Institute could have not been an anti-climax was if the protesters had burnt the gallery to the ground. Now that would have been a twist worth keeping hidden.