Caroline Quentin

“I’m just a person and quite a dull one and I’m sorry about that. I feel it’s a disappointment to journalists. They think I am what I play. But I’m not like my character and also I have quite a dull life. So there isn’t much for journalists to write about”.

In fact she’s only a bit like her characters and not really dull at all, but Caroline Quentin, highly successful at just forty, is having a moan about the tabloids. Actresses often do. When they’re not acting, they’re carping about publicity. And when they’re not doing either of those two things they’re mostly publicising themselves. And often in the tabloids. But Quentin has had her fair share of involuntary down market exposure in the red tops. Firstly she was perfect for them as what she describes as “Mr and Mrs Funny” with her then husband comic Paul Merton who suddenly departed leaving her red eyed and besieged by paparazzi. And then in a further orgy of tabloid schadenfreude Merton settled down with another actress, who they could hardly believe had been her understudy in The Live Bed Show she had done with Merton in the West End. These days he’s just sad when she looks back at the break up of her marriage. But her life recovered its equilibrium fairly swiftly when she met Sam Farmer, who was several years younger than her and worked in the production team of Men Behaving Badly.

And that series was the other reason she has also filled acres of newsprint. In the era of Loaded and misogyny masquerading as irony, she became the entire female nation’s answer to The Lad. And a witty answer it was too. Dorothy, her character in Men Behaving Badly was biting, acid even, but always fun and more importantly managed to keep her boyfriend. In so doing, she gave every woman in the land with a man not just hope but a series of one liners that could get them through the ironing, past the football socks and over the inadequacy of most men and their chaotic emotional laundry basket of masculinity.

“I said to one journalist ‘I am not written by somebody’. I have a completely different perception of the universe. I actually have a three-dimensional existence and that includes an emotional existence and if they can’t see that then .. Duh?” But even when she’s going on like this, and frankly being high maintenance, it’s hard to think badly of her because she is exhibiting what is probably her best quality as an actress, the feeling that she’s a real laugh to be with and probably rather kind. Simon Nye, the writer of Men Behaving Badly, describes it thus: “With Dorothy you could feel the venom but you absolutely knew why she would be fun to be around, why you’d be happy to be there with her.” And in rehearsal he says “she was never in a bad mood. She was never less than bouncy. And you need that buoyancy.”

In Jonathan Creek, where as Maddie she quips her way through some pretty silly plots with Alan Davies and in her sharp and newest show Kiss Me Kate which returns for its third series in October on the BBC, she accomplishes much of the same trick. Edgy but likeable, ordinary but with a highlight of glamour, domestic yet with a shot of sexiness she manages to be what she describes as “bossy nurse” to seriously reliable comic effect. She is just rather good at it. And if you ask her why this might be so she starts off confidently, like a slightly precocious fourteen year old in a biology class, to give a faultless explanation by first repeating the question. “I think I’m good at it because…” And then she stops completely, collapsing into giggles and finishes up with “I don’t have a single clue.” Although she probably does know. She’s just not letting on. But she’s an actress, so you believe the answer. She’s certainly not over come with shyness. That is not particularly one of her qualities.

When she first did Men Behaving Badly she’d gone up for it “among a million other sit coms I didn’t get.” She didn’t particularly like the scripts either because, she says bluntly “the women’s parts were shit. I was just the one who always said “Ooh No” when anyone ever mentioned the word penis. “Ooh don’t be so disgusting”. The way she was first written Dorothy was from the dark ages. I thought it was really marginalising. Upstairs there was the pretty blonde who just showed her bottom. That was Leslie (Ash). And downstairs was the bossy nurse who never gets any jokes and who always talks about hysterectomies.” So basically Barbara Windsor and Hattie Jacques then? “Ha ha ha. Yes and the boys getting all the jokes,”

This didn’t last for long. In rehearsal she complained. To whom? “The whole room. I don’t know how I had the guts because I really needed the work. I don’t know why I didn’t just shut up and say thank you I’m really pleased to be here. But I was horrible and really quite irritating. Though I think Simon’s forgiven me.” She says this not without a little pride. And Simon Nye pretty much corroborates the story. “I don’t want to overestimate it all. There were two main arguments early on. After that she was very loyal. There was one plot when a pretty woman came to stay and Harry (Enfield, who was in only the first series) slept with her. Caroline said that was just wish fulfilment on my part and it wouldn’t happen. It was a bit awkward because she said it in rehearsal and that’s quite late to change things. And the plot rather hinged on it. There was another one too. But it was pretty feisty of her to speak up because then she wasn’t really a star, the other three were but she wasn’t.” The scripts did change though and Nye says “I was a bit scared of Caroline at that stage, but I realised that what she wanted was just better jokes.”

Men Behaving Badly was Nye’s first sit-com. The writers of Kiss Me Kate, John Morton and Chris Langham, have none of that youthful inexperience. And Quentin rightly describes what they produce as “having no fat on it.” Very traditional in form, Kiss Me Kate never gets close to touching the hem of the net curtains of The Royle Family, but equally it keeps several generations’ distance from the dreadful world of latter day Terry & June. The Kate of the title is a therapist. “I seem to have gone from the laddie culture to the therapy culture. I’ve just been offered a part playing another therapist. I must be into my therapy years.” But her professional life only impinges on the show and the character in so far as she is a woman who knows all the right things to say and do and yet doesn’t use any of them in her life at all. To describe the show as amiable would be to underestimate both the discipline of the writing and the sheer number and size of the laughs. It lives in a very contemporary world where, to take one example at random from the preview tapes, a lesbian is not funny merely because she is lesbian but because of the carefully woven confusion that her presence causes to Dorothy and her immediate circle.

Quentin displays a great sense of fun underneath all the comedy she does which has a lot to do with her upbringing. She is the youngest by nine years of three sisters now 49, 50 and 52 years old. “My mum was very glam. And when they were teenagers they used to raid her wardrobe and put on big chiffon frocks and matching winkle pickers and come into the kitchen and sing Beverley Sisters type songs or Sandie Shaw or Dusty. It was a kind of impromptu vaudeville for anyone around: my mum, dad, the neighbours the animals.” Animals? “Two dogs, a rabbit, a pony, goldfish, three budgies a hamster.. Oh yes and a cat. I just used to just think how glamorous and fabulous my sisters were. It must have had some kind of effect. It just made me want to be an actress.”

Her sister Tina, whose almost ten year older than her, started to work at theatres like the fringe venue in South London, The Albany, where in later years Vic Reeves Big Night Out started. “I used to see Tina in shows there”, says Quentin “and they were pretty f****ing far out. Amazing political shows with fabulous glamorous costumes. I loved it. I still love going in the stage door. I love the one at The Palace Theatre where it says ‘Hundreds of famous people have walked through these portals’. I think that’s just a bloody marvellous way to start your night’s work.” She saw it every night for about a year when she got her first job in the chorus in Les Miserables.

She answered an ad when that contract came to an end and finished up in a play at the Edinburgh Fringe with among others Arthur Smith. “I blame him for my career really” she says cheerily. “We got on and he wrote Live Bed Show for me.” He then also wrote parts for in French Kiss and An Evening With Gary Lineker. It was that Edinburgh season that catapulted her into the comedy scene. Her drawing power from telly has meant that she has been able to return to the theatre acting at the National and in the West End and recently directing at Watford, but for many years she retained her connections with those new roots through appearing every Sunday with the Comedy Store improv team in London. She no longer goes since she split with Merton. “On stage trust is the one thing you have to have.” She laughs. “I think we’d be a bit wary.” But the improv was very important to her development as an actress. “It really got rid of a lot of fear for me”.

She is now earning enough money to have recovered from her former agent defrauding her of just over £400,000. She doesn’t know whether this is the last series of Kiss Me Kate. But Philadelphia cheese will keep her and Sam in nappies for a while. And she has also got a two-part drama called The Innocent on ITV this autumn. And she has been intending to take time off and indulge herself in the odd pastime like bird watching, which she loves. She’s an enthusiastic amateur twitcher rather than a rigorous anorak about birds. While she has work lined up for next autumn the time of was supposed to enable her to enjoy a second baby. Sadly she miscarried. But once over that it is unlikely that she will spend too long away from either the screen or the boards both because she is in demand and because as she says “acting is the only thing I can do to make a living. It’s fun and it’s very sociable.” And you realise talking to her that she indeed she is an actress through and through. Both in and out of interviews.

Share
Posted in Celebrity Profiles | Leave a comment

Bradley Whitford

Bradley Whitford is like the friend from school whose voice broke before yours did. He’s got the atmosphere and energy of the older brother who will take you to the pub against your parents orders when you’re under age and talk to you about sex and politics and generally treat you like a grown up. And you just want to hang out with him. He has been pretty successfully engaged in the non-for-profit, low-level public exposure activity of being a stage actor for most of the adult part of his 42 years, starting in a partially nude, co-starring role with Kathy Bates in an acclaimed off-Broadway production of Sam Shepherd’s The Curse of The Starving Classes. But now he has been pitched into The West Wing, Aaron Sorkin’s brilliantly written insider’s job on The White House private staff, which has become NBC’s second highest rating show after ER. And he gets to play a character he just loves, Josh Lyman, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff. “Go ahead,” he says with a whoop, “typecast me as him”

“It absolutely is a great time”, he says “I’ve always felt like being an actor is like dating a schizophrenic – ‘I love you. I adore you. Who are you? I hate you.’ And in some ways it can be really healthy because it involves such a crushing level of humiliation. But it feels like you are swimming up stream the whole time, and you were lucky to make a living. And the sensation for me is that I’ve been swimming, swimming, swimming and now, I’ve never gone surfing, but it’s what I imagine it must be like. You’re up and you know you’re up. Yeah I’m really happy”.

And well he might be. Not only is he is in a hit with brains. His wife of ten years, Jane Kaczmarek, crashed into the high spot at the same time as him in Fox’s dysfunctionally funny sit com Malcolm in the Middle where she plays a don’t-mess-with-me mum who rules her roost with a brand of psychological warfare that mixes shrewdness and aggression in a Hannibal Lecter drags up as Lucille Ball kind of way. They have two kids, four and three. Is she wild at home? Whitford, who clearly adores her and mentions her constantly, laughs out loud “Have you seen her show?!” He guest starred in it recently. “When I was on it, she basically just screamed me. We’d done the rehearsal for that one.”

Talking about Jane and himself and a radical Episcopalian Church in Pasadena they go to, he says, “She’s a totally fallen Catholic and I’m a pinko lefty Quaker”. The youngest of five children, and the son of a feisty mother he obviously admires enormously, he was originally from Wisconsin. And presumably it was the being a Quaker that determined his lefty politics? “Apparently not, because Nixon was a Quaker. I think it’s a really interesting aspect of American politics the way we allow politicians to talk about faith, but we don’t question the application of that faith. I felt pretty critical of Bush when he said during the Presidential debate that his favourite political philosopher was Jesus Christ. Do you think that if Jesus had taken a bogus death penalty rap – and that’s pretty much what it was – Bush would have commuted the sentence? I don’t think Jesus walked through Bethlehem saying ‘Don’t help them, you’ll only make them lazy’ “.

He is given to comic political riffs like this and has a refreshing lack of caution about expressing his own views, even though he says of The West Wing “If our task on the show ever becomes a political agenda, we’re in big trouble.” Yet the show has undeniable liberal credentials, personified by the presence of Martin Sheen playing President Bartlett, who has a moral authority that derives from Sheen’s own Catholic inspired Human Rights campaigning. “The way we all feel about Martin is the way our characters are supposed to feel about Bartlett. And he goes on to say, “People ask us whether you could do a show about a conservative Republican White House. But I don’t think the show would really work if the music swelled at the end and I looked into my secretary Donna’s eyes and we started jumping up and down and going ‘We’re drilling on protected land’!”

There is anger and commitment behind the jokes. You can see the family pattern when he mentions two things about his older brothers. One is now the labour correspondent on Fortune magazine. But when he was a student he ran away to Italy and joined the Communist Party and after that returned to the US where he worked in Mississippi organising woodcutters. And the other one, who is a writer, conscientiously objected to the Vietnam War. “Because we were Quakers he could have got out of service by saying that. But instead he said ‘I was raised a Quaker but my objections to this war have nothing to do with that. I would have fought against Hitler.’ “ And Whitford adds admiringly “He risked going to gaol.” One of the keys to The West Wing is, as his wife puts it, “It is inspiring because it’s about the possibility for people to be better people than they are.”

He and Jane are just realising “the tsunami” that has hit them. They go to Golden Globes and Emmys together. They even get nominated together. But the brouhaha also reaches a weird pitch. “I was in Washington last week and this guy came up to me. I thought he wanted me to sign this card but he was a lobbyist. It’s bizarre; we get it constantly from tax groups, oil groups, smoking groups… ‘Is there anything you can do on the show?’ “ And he’s clear about what his character, Josh, is doing in similar circumstances. “Look we have no idea what it’s actually like to work in The White House but the thing that Josh deals with is how dirty – and this is about six metaphors mixed into one – do my feet have to get without me suffocating, without losing my self in order to get an inch of what I want done?”

And Whitfiord seems similarly uncontaminated. After TV stardom, movies? “No when these shows are over we’re going to hightail it out of here to New York and wrinkle and die and do plays.” Anything particular? “I want to be a fop in a Restoration Comedy. I want to be on stage with a beauty spot and a Pekinese. And one day I want to do Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, with my wife.” Let’s hope they aren’t already doing the rehearsals for that.

Share
Posted in Celebrity Profiles | Leave a comment

Australian Centenary

Tell any cliché bound Brit that you’re writing about Australian culture and back comes the stock joke about the article being very short. Fosters, Neighbours and Rolf Harris don’t amount to an over laden cultural table. They see a country, a whole continent, with a fearsome, outdoorsy, anti-artistic machismo, the only place in the world where even women slap you on the back. People talk about Australia as if it is insensitivity writ large, as if it is still a nation of brutish convicts rejected by a more refined Europe.

But it’s a foolish, superior response to a culture that even in only the last few years has produced a raft of internationally successful work and artists who exemplify an original and wholly Australian aesthetic. There are the household names, Blanchette, Rush and Kidman who, with their fresh republicanism, come from the improvisational and accessible tradition of the Company B at the Belvoir Street Theatre in Sydney, which also produced the adaptation of Tim Winton’s novel Cloudstreet to international acclaim and a triumphant run in London last year. Also in Sydney Baz Luhrmann, the opera and film director, has founded his own studio, Bazmark producing not just films but music and more opera. Perhaps there will be more taking Shakespeare and doing with it, like he did with Romeo & Juliet, something so untrammelled by tradition, reverence or convention that Kenneth Branagh will again be unable even to touch it with his corduroy jacket. There is evidence too that not only are Australians not feeling compelled to Hollywood, but with the appointment of the great American opera and theatre director Peter Sellars as Artistic Director of the Adelaide Festival the traffic is beginning to go the other way. Sellars said in his inaugural speech “America is a culture of distraction. In Australia there is a society under construction. It is a culture of focus.”

A second generation of world-class novelists, including Tim Winton and David Malouf, has followed the Nobel Prize winning Patrick White, whose rediscovery of his Australia ness in the fifties released three great world novels on the Australian identity, including Riders in The Chariot and Voss. And when the cultural world gathered alongside the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984 Australia in a characteristic move sent not an opera star (they could have sent Sutherland), not a Swiftian satirist (the Dame to end all Dames, Edna), not actors or dancers but instead a Circus. And this September at Sadler’s Wells Londoners will again be able to see just how precisely Circus Oz are a true emblem of Australian culture in the way they have taken the Far Eastern art of Circus and reinvented it in the European tradition. Australia is where European skills collided with a far away land, where the convicts met the Aborigines. And that is a contradiction still unresolved. Australia is still a social experiment and as Tim Winton says “We may look pink but we’re not European.” Australia has only been an independent country for a hundred years. And this month in London sees the celebration of that in the Heads Up Festival, marking the centenary of the Australian Constitution Act, which created the Commonwealth of Australia.

Despite its potential significance, Heads Up turns out to be an oddly programmed event. It includes, at the Australian High Commission, an old exhibition by the painter Arthur Boyd called “Exile of the Imagination”, which was touring anyway, and, more illuminatingly, at the National Portrait Gallery, Polly Borland’s photos of Australian ex-pats in Britain. Borland’s clever photos demonstrate not least that during the culturally cringing post war years when Menzies was Conservative Prime Minister of Australia just how many serious talents, like Germaine Greer, Barry Humphries, Clive James, the banker and diplomat Sir Kit McMahon, the publisher Carmen Callil, John Pilger, Sir Charles Mackerras the current Vice Chancellor of Cambridge Professor Sir Alec Broers and many more left what McMahon calls “the crude intrusive populism” of Australia for the much more outward looking world stage of London.

Heads Up scores highest with a series of literary events displaying world class writing talent, including naturally Winton and Malouf and also some notable Aboriginal theatre, evidence, particularly with “Stolen” at the Tricycle Theatre, of an increasingly visible new strand of Australian artistic life. This originally improvised piece is a deeply emotional yet almost wistful telling of the young lives of five children, part of the umpteenth generation of Aboriginals who, from the early twentieth century not much over a hundred years after they were first turned into trespassers in their own land, were routinely and forcibly removed from their birth families.

In something of a brutal contrast, the exhibition at the Commonwealth Institute called Australia Dreaming is breathtaking for the flagrant presence, as highly visible co-sponsors, of apparently reformed Rio Tinto Zinc, offering themselves as the new “respecters of Aboriginal culture and rights”. Perhaps like convicts, RTZ should be given a second chance, but donating only a million Australian dollars or so to an Aboriginal Foundation seems to be little more than emptying out the small change in their pocket.

However the presence of a large amount of Aboriginal art in the overall programme is an articulate tribute to the moral core of the Aboriginal case and a calculated slap in the face from the artistic community for the current Australian Prime Minister, John Howard. They are incensed at his obdurate refusal to make amends to the Aborigines and to say, in the words of Geoffrey Robinson QC the ex-pat Australian Human Rights Lawyer “sorry and thank you”, and thus draw to a positive close the process of Reconciliation. The theatre director Neil Armfield, the adaptor of the novel Cloudstreet, merely describes Howard succinctly as a “blind mole”. And Charlie Perkins, the Aboriginal Commissioner lampoons Howard for reneging on his original promise when elected to carry through the process of reconciliation, by calling him “the only man who has ever walked the wrong way down the road to Damascus.”

The meeting of the ancient Australia and the youthfulness of the new Europeans is precisely the mix that both causes the current unease over the process of reconciliation and also the freshness that makes Australian culture what Winton calls “a work in progress”. Malouf, perhaps chancing his arm a little intellectually, even points out that watching Neighbours you do get the sense “that it is an experiment in different people trying to work out how to live together in this vast place.” And going further in trying to explain this experimental nature and essential playfulness of the antipodean experience recently Malouf turned the idea of the convict on its head. He pointed out in the Boyer lectures (the Australian equivalent of the Reith Lectures) that the original criminals were not just rejects “but men and women given an opportunity to take hold of their lives and remake themselves.” They were given a second chance in a new place. Even Darwin, no fan of Australia, wrote that “as a means of making men honest, of converting vagabonds the most useless in one hemisphere into active citizens in another, giving birth to a new and splendid country it has succeeded to a degree perhaps unparalleled in history”. He may have meant people like the great forger Ferdinand Meurat, transported from Dublin in 1802, but who in a nice colonial irony subsequently became the Chief engraver for the newly established Bank of New South Wales.

This need to survive and adapt put paid to any remaining tugging of Australian forelocks either to each other or to the canons of European culture and the Judeo Christian tradition. Rob Alder, the London based painter and designer, makes the point that the first Europeans “exported only the cultural basics and then we just improvised the rest. We make do with what we’ve got. It’s no coincidence that to an Australian farmer and mechanic the most versatile engineering tool is sixteen gauge fencing wire. You can use it for everything, which is a kind of metaphor. What Australians do best is to make do with what is there.” What white Australians are now trying to do in the process of Reconciliation is to understand not so much the Aborigine culture but their relationship to the profound age of the land.

Notwithstanding the difficulties of this process, the Director of the Sydney Festival, Leo Schofield, maintains that Australian culture is currently “in a fantastic state” citing “a remarkable rate of new plays opening”. Although Michael Lynch, his counterpart at the Opera House, where in May nearly quarter of a million people assembled to walk over the Harbour Bridge to demand reconciliation, still emphasizes that despite that strength “there is a gaping hole in the national psyche.” After the key land rights judgement in the case of Mabo in 1992 the country is no longer living the lie that the country was empty when the Europeans arrived, but still, even if the ordinary Aussie Joe feels no urgency about it, artists regard Reconciliation as one of the most fundamental issues to tackle. The Heads Up Festival comes at a time when the Australian constitution is in flux. But still, with its slightly odd programme it is trying to celebrate a new Australia but in the face of an attempted imposition of an old one by its Premier. At least we are celebrating something, says Winton, “In the old days a celebration of Australian culture would have been called ‘Heads Down’. Culturally we used to eat our young.”

Share
Posted in Politics | 1 Comment

Amy Biehl

Just a few weeks ago a middle aged, fairly well off husband and wife from California took a poor, black South African couple from Cape Town out to lunch. The young man works for their Foundation. His girlfriend works in the Standard Bank. The Americans raise several million dollars a year in the US to support community projects in The Cape. The fund is called The Amy Biehl Foundation after their daughter. The two couples see a fair amount of each other. But this weekend the Americans were giving the younger ones a treat. Lunch in Franschhoek a one of the smarter towns in the wine district. It was a bit of R&R for everybody. A day out. A nice gesture. An ordinary event. Even though the young man murdered their daughter.

In fact he was one of four young political activists convicted of the crime. And how this American couple have become friends, and even surrogate parents, to two of those four young men is a remarkable tribute to this couple’s individual humanity and their generosity to others and to each other. But it’s also intrinsically to do with the process of reconciliation in South Africa and the life changing honesty of the young men in coming to terms with their past and creating a future for themselves and their communities. Peter Biehl says quite firmly “If it had not been for the Truth & Reconciliation Commission I would never have met these guys and never have been able to care.”

Amy was the second child of four in Peter and Linda Biehl’s family of three girls and, the youngest, a boy. A bright, popular, enthusiastic and high achieving girl, whether in diving class which she loved or ballet which she did not, she was, for her short adult life, a professional activist for the process of democracy. After Stanford University she went to work for the National Democratic Institute a non-profit US organisation supporting emerging democracies around the world. By the time she was twenty-six she had already been active in Namibia, Ivory Coast, Malawi, Burundi and Kenya and had given up her job at the Institute only when she got a $35,000 Fulbright Scholarship to spend a year in South Africa. She went to study women in the transition to democracy at a crucial time just as the fifty-year race war of Apartheid was ending and the negotiations for free elections were coming to fruition. She arrived in 1992 two years after Nelson Mandela’s release from gaol. It was a perilous time. While the negotiation of a peace treaty between the ANC and the National Party was moving forward, although achingly slowly, in Cape Town and its townships of Guguletu and Kayaleitscha (spelling???), there was a great deal of danger and unrest.

Ntombeki Ambrose Peni, the slight, very quietly spoken and thoughtful young man lunching with the Biehls in Franschhoek, was seventeen when Amy arrived in South Africa. Since his early teens he had been involved with the politics of the fight against apartheid. Ousoek, the grandfather who brought him up in the township of Guguletu and a highly political man, used to tell him stories about the soldiers who were “killers” and the white people who were “the enemy”. His grandma would tell her husband not to talk that way to such a young child, but the old man just grumbled, “let the kid grow up”. By twelve years old Peni was collecting empty bottles from the shops and learning how to make them into bombs. The township where he lived was he says “like Beirut”. Black people were surrounded by daily stories of torture. Neighbours returned from gaol with their hair burnt off by acid. Someone’s brother had his neck wrung like a chicken by the Police. Peni was being reared politically on the rhetoric of the Pan African Congress (PAC), founded at the end of the fifties and which had come to prominence as the leader of the famous ‘pass law’ campaign. They were deeply critical of the ANC. By 1993 in the townships the slogan was “One Settler, One Bullet”. Operation Storm, as it was called by the PAC, set out to make the townships ungovernable. Government vehicles were to be set on fire, white people were to be stoned in the cause of returning the African land to the Africans. And on the 25 August 1993 Peni was elected chairperson of the Langa High School Unit of the Pan African Students Organisation (PASO).

And so that Wednesday afternoon two lives from different continents, one black one white, one young man and one young woman, separated by less than ten years and ironically both struggling for the same liberation of South Africa, were set on a lethal collision course.

Amy spoke every Sunday to her parents in America. Peter now says he thinks, “She was doing a really amazing job of preparation on us. I remember when Chris Hani was assassinated; I think it was April 13th of that year 1993. He was young and he was the only ANC leader who could really speak to the youth and I remember Amy saying did we realise just what was happening. She said it was about to unleash and there was real danger of a bloodbath.” Visiting the site of Amy’s death, which is marked with a simple board, Linda says that she once overheard a tourist guide describing Amy as an ‘poor innocent American girl’. “But she was very experienced in this continent, she was not naive at all” says Linda definitely. And colleagues at the University of the Western Cape (UWC) testify to the extent of her knowledge. One of them, who also said wistfully “Sometimes I just think that Amy died because that day she forgot she was white”, described her simply as “a very self-effacing activist, very experienced and a bloody good student “. “The extent and depth of her preparation of us became apparent within moments of knowing” says Peter.

This preparation – so crucial to the Biehl family’s reaction – was both very personal and political. On the one hand Linda says, “It had to do with Amy’s karma. She used to refer to her own bad luck. When she was writing her masters at Stanford on a friend’s computer an electrical fault cause a fire and all her research went up in smoke. When she got the results she needed to get into college her grandparents gave her a bike. The next day she was knocked off it by a hit and run driver. So when she was killed, in a sense you look back and think ‘Oh yes that’s Amy’. The other three aren’t like that!”

Peter emphasises the political. “”We knew her killers before we met them. We knew about the young lions in the townships and just how frustrated they were. So when she was killed I could accept her death as a reality and I could also understand it. That made me very proud of her. And the only thing I could do was sit on the plane on the way home that night and write her a letter because I could never talk to her again. For Linda and me it was just this horrible sense of loss. But it was never about anger because I believe that Amy had prepared us so thoroughly.”

For the four young men who were eventually convicted of Amy’s murder there was plenty of anger but little preparation. Peni and his childhood friend Mzikhona Eazi Nofemela who now also works in the Foundation, and two others called Mongesi and Vusumzi were equipped with little more than the sketchy training they received at the hands of the PAC’s armed wing, the APLA, and the political intoxication of the afternoons they spent after school toi-toying, as it’s called, in the streets of the townships singing the songs and picking their targets. “Shisa imoto yellow shisa, shisa motor lungu bo shisa” Easi writes on my pad in tiny neat writing. “ ‘Burn the white car. Burn the white person’s car’. The song tells you exactly what to do,” he says. The plan was to cause “minimum damage to the Africans and maximum to damage to the enemy”. It was a war and they believed they were the young shock troops.

Amy died at about five o’clock. At lunchtime there had been a meeting at Langa High School and afterwards fuelled by the speeches from the regional PAC leaders the students went in search of targets. For several hours a large group of a hundred and fifty or so, which eventually split into two, marched round the streets stoning vehicles until each time they were dispersed by police gunfire. Eventually, as Peni says, “we came down the street called NY1 to the Caltex gas station. I could see that the crowd was throwing stones at a beige Mazda.” Easi also describes complete chaos. “There was a truck and behind, Amy’s car. We heard some screaming. Students screaming ‘settler, settler, settler’. And we weren’t just shouting the slogan now; we were able to put it into action. We threw stones at her. Someone stabbed her. I saw her sit down. Then we were afraid. Everyone could see her on the verge. She stood up again and climbed over the fence of the garage. She waited until the police came and when they came she is speaking to her friends and the police. They took her to the police station. The shouting and singing drowned out the screams of her friends.” Then he repeats himself. “They took her to the police station” A pause. “That’s not a place where you can help people. Why didn’t they take her to the hospital?” He is silent.

The question hangs in the air. But Amy died in the police station less than an hour later. The Biehl’s have read the autopsy report, which identifies two possible fatal wounds – a brick that hit her on the head and a stab wound to the heart. Linda says, as we drive out to see the spot where Amy died, “That was one of the hardest things to do. I read it bit by bit. But I’d have to put it down. You have to stop and just take the dog for a walk.” As ever she talks without bitterness. “People have tried to piece what happened together. I just hope that there was something that took her out of the pain. She might have been traumatised enough by the first brick that the rest was…….” She trails off and goes uncharacteristically quiet, clutching at a hope. Usually Linda talks. Energetically and a lot. A friend of mine said on meeting her how lovely she was but he wasn’t sure he could cope if she ever took cocaine! But in the car she falls quiet. And then Peter says, after a pause, “the political belief at the time was very simple. ‘Kill a white person and you get big time attention from the media and the white oppressor. Kill a black person and no-one notices’. It’s about drawing attention to your cause.” Yet in Amy’s case, probably because of who she was, her murder was universally condemned. The ANC activist and now Constitutional Judge, Albie Sachs, himself a victim of an apartheid bomb, says forcefully. “We all immediately went to the township to make our position clear. “It was a very spontaneous and emotional response. It was a repudiation of a crazy racist attack at a time when we’d won our freedom from apartheid. We had fought for the right to be free not to have new pass laws enforced by stones.”

In the centre of Cape Town in the Amy Biehl Foundation offices, which look like any charity offices with their cheap furniture, cheery posters and buzzing activity, Peter talks about the night their daughter died. He is average height, slightly ruddy faced and wearing an old pair of docksiders. He is a quiet contrast to his extrovert wife with her slash-cut bob of blonde hair and stylish, flowing clothes. Staccato bursts of laughter erupt frequently from him. On the desk there is a fax to Colin Powell, who happens to be visiting South Africa. Since Amy’s death the Biehls have become very well connected and Linda particularly drops names liberally into the conversation. The fax to “Secretary Powell” ends “go well and listen carefully in this very complex country.” It is handwritten in the most perfectly formed script along absolutely straight lines. Peter catches me looking at it. “You must think I’m incredibly anal, right?!” Big laughter. This man has learnt what Nixon used to call the calm at the centre of the storm. But as you get to know him you begin to see that he is no automaton, but rather given to splendid and furious bouts of impatience. And getting the Foundation’s projects going in South Africa tests his forbearance to the full.

On that August night in 1993 he flew back from a meeting in Oregon, his daughter Mollie from Washington and the family came together in California. The media beat him to it. They were already on three sides of the house. So their neighbour removed a couple of boards from the fence which separated their gardens and Peter and Mollie climbed through the gap. “From the very first we decided as a family to use the media. We had Amy’s unfinished work to do. So we talked about how we needed to behave as a family. In a way we were also representatives of our country. And once we resolved ourselves as a family – the resolving was not difficult, although the evening was obviously extraordinarily difficult – once we came to our little decision, we invited the media in and in one way, shape or form they have been with us ever since.” It is this rare combination of extraordinary emotion with rational decisions that typifies the Biehls and confuses other people.

On the same night Easi knew the police would come. He went home and packed his things, contacted his girlfriend and told her that he was going to flee to the Transkei. But the police arrived at about 1am and arrested him. Peni, however, got away and for several weeks lived on the run with some other young PAC activists until returning to his grandmother’s house. When the police came he told them he was tired of running away. The trial of the four dragged on for almost a year from November 1993 to October 1994, with Peni being tried separately towards the end of that period. The causes of death were subsumed into one joint enterprise by the mob, making no distinction between the stab wound and the stoning as a cause of death. At first the four, who were singled out of a crowd of sixty or so, had confessed to Amy’s murder but then withdrawn their statements. Much of the trial was a series of wrangles about the police and coercion. “It was preposterous,” says Linda.

The four were eventually convicted and sentenced to eighteen years in prison., a severe sentence. Linda went to the trial with her daughter Mollie, but stayed for only about a week. They went mainly to support the witnesses but also just to see the four young men. “I wanted to get a sense of who they were. They had no faces as part of the mob. I tried to figure out what I felt. And actually I felt very neutral, curiosity as much as anything else. My first inclination was to know the families. Easi’s dad was at the trial. He had a navy cap on. He was always looking at me with a look of kind of wanting to say hello, but also ‘I’m here for my son’. It wasn’t appropriate to speak to him there because there were all the newspapers and cameras. But I knew someday I would speak to him.”

Peter was, and remains, totally uninterested in the trial. The Foundation newsletter at the end of 1994 welcomed the convictions with the words “We are deeply indebted to the eyewitnesses who risked their lives and the safety of their families to testify in the interest of justice. Their testimony was critical to the convictions that were achieved. In the end, South Africa’s system of justice worked….. The millions of people in the townships and squatter camps of the Cape Flats have reclaimed their right to live with the protection of a system of law that advocates human rights and dignity… in marked contrast to the injustice and indignity of Apartheid”. But Peter still says, “At first the whole thing was a kind of abstraction. I felt really empty with the loss and had no real thought of meeting anyone involved in her death. I wasn’t interested in the trial. I am not interested in punitive justice generally speaking. But when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) offered the possibility of an Amnesty hearing I was very interested indeed. Restorative justice presented me and everybody with something”

The TRC was the creation of Archbishop Desmond Tutu. For him it was a tool of national healing and the Act that established it in 1995 was called The Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act. The TRC was also the result of a peace treaty. And as the Head of Research at the TRC until it ended, Charles Villa-Vicencio, now the Executive Director of the Institute of Justice and Reconciliation, says, “It was a compromise. But those who suffered are cursed with good memory and the TRC created the time and space for South Africans to come to terms with their past and their consciences. It thrust into the public consciousness the idea of dealing with the past and wrestling with the idea of reconciliation”.

For the young men the TRC was their only possibility of getting out of gaol. There was to be no mass deal for the PAC. But they resisted it. Still politically loyal, Peni and Easi were both suspicious of the TRC as an ANC compromise. And they also wanted to know that, if their crime was to be seen as political since they had been doing the PAC’s bidding, why their leaders were not going to the TRC too. This has left a legacy of great bitterness with both of them. Peni says fiercely “The High Command of the PAC, all they did was to be in a foreign country attending university, shooting paper targets and giving instructions to us back in the country to shoot white people. It makes me mad.”

However reluctant, they nonetheless eventually applied for Amnesty. It changed their lives. “I began to distance myself from the PAC”, says Easi. “I went to the TRC because I had killed somebody and I wanted to just go and speak and take it out of my heart. Peter and Linda helped us to speak out, to take this thing out of our heart. They had come to South Africa with the vision already to forgive us. They understood the situation in South Africa. I remember seeing them at the TRC. Makhulu was wearing this marvellous ring like a banana. I was beginning to get an picture of myself…” He starts to get very agitated and passionate as he speaks. “You are a killer, you are a killer, you are a killer. But Peter and Linda didn’t come and say you are a killer. They know that I did this but the way to treat each other is to forgive. They gave me direction.”

Peni says “they have never asked us exactly about that day. They are more concerned about our personal lives. Their forgiveness has had a major role in helping me to bridge over the trauma of being involved in their daughter’s murder. It is not easy at home to come to terms with what you have done. You can come to terms with it if you view it politically, but if you view it personally you feel very difficult.” When Peter and Linda are on TV, his friends shout ‘your mum and dad are on the telly’. Do you love them, I ask? Very shyly he simply says. “A lot”

At the Amnesty hearing Peter read a statement. He quoted letters about Amy from friends and colleagues including the, by then, Minister of Justice, Dullar Omar, for whom Amy had worked at UWC. He also read from her high school diaries and her letters to the South African papers. Linda and he were at great pains to emphasize Amy’s commitment to South Africa and her role as a ”freedom fighter”. He said, “Amy would have embraced your Truth and Reconciliation process. We are present this morning to honour it and to offer our sincere friendship……. At the same time we say to you it’s your process, not ours…. In the truest sense it is for the community of South Africa to forgive its own and this has its basis in traditions of ubuntu and other principles of human dignity. Amnesty is not clearly for Linda and Peter Biehl to grant.

Peter is quietly adamant that he and Linda cannot forgive. This is not from bitterness, but because they believe that forgiveness is not in their gift. “Typically in the Christian tradition forgiveness is reserved to a man and his God. And we are not God. We feel awkward about the idea of dispensing forgiveness. Forgiveness is an unfortunate term. The end game for us is reconciliation. There are three things. If you can understand why someone wronged you, then you can accept that person and then you can reconcile. The real effort comes from building that relationship.” Linda adds, “A death can create a new sense of energy. I mean who wants ‘closure’? That ends the energy. Death doesn’t have to do that. Death can be an inspiration.” As the Chilean playwright, Ariel Dorfmann said to Peter in answer to a question from him at a public seminar in Cape Town recently, “In the sense that though every death is terrible, a death in vain is much more terrible than a death that did not lead to a community resolving its problems.”

Besides their friendship with Peni and Easi, they have often met with Evelyn Manqina, mother of Mongesi, the one who in fact stabbed Amy. And when you see the two women together, both born in 1943, you see two mothers who in different ways have lost a child. Mongesi has now pretty much disappeared into the townships having been accused of raping a young neighbour. “It is,” says Peter “not a story of which we are very proud” appearing even to shoulder some responsibility for this young man who has so disappointed his own mother.

People say the Biehl’s are extraordinary. How do they do it? Are they religious? Well they’re not. “We’re not Bible people” says Linda, “we’re ethics people.” “I hate evangelism,” adds Peter, “particularly religious evangelism. It’s a total shut down to us.” “We’re pragmatic. We want to live our lives as they’ve been dealt,” says Linda. “I love my kids more than anything. And the hardest thing about this is that Amy was my kid. And I raised her to be the person she is. I fought for that kid, so I will continue to fight for her. And when you look at Peni, I think he’s my baby. I think that Amy’s spirit is totally in him”.

So are these people extraordinary and unbelievably brave? I suspect it might bug them to be thought so. “You know,” says Peter As a mater of fact it really does. I don’t see it that way. I think my daughter and my children and my wife rather tend to bring out the best in me. I don’t think it has anything to do with bravery, it has everything to do with the quality of people who surround you.”

I ask Linda the same question. “I just wish that sometimes these people…” She pauses and tears stream down her face. “I just love these guys. I love Amy. When I look at Amy, Peni Easi I just love them. Why can’t you just be free to love people in the way you’re heart tells you?” Peter looks steadfastly on as she cries and says “People somehow always want more. ‘It can’t be that simple, they say. Come on give it to me straight. What’s really going on?’ Well we are that simple.. Go away!!” He bursts out laughing. And we all do. Because when you’re with Peter and Linda and Easi and Peni, it just seems the most obvious thing that they are together as friends. It somehow doesn’t seem strange at all. Because that way, at least Amy’s death has given them all a future. And Peter and Linda are quite sure that Amy would have loved that.

Share
Posted in Politics, Reconciliation | 1 Comment

Alan Bates

It must be a nightmare being theatrical crumpet because no one ever takes you really seriously as an actor. Alan Bates left RADA at a charmed moment in British theatre. In 1956 he was 22 years old and played Cliff in Look Back in Anger. And since he has been closely associated with Osborne, Pinter, Storey, Gray and Bennett. He created roles in The Caretaker, Butley, A Patriot for Me, and Life Class. He even dipped into Shakespeare at the right age for a swift Petruchio and a Hamlet. But he’s just too good looking to get any real credit. Maybe it’s because he took his clothes off in Women in Love or maybe it’s just that his style doesn’t shout about what he does. Despite the wildness of his looks and the power of his presence, particularly in his sensitive-men-of-the-soil phase in the early 60’s, he is in the right role a very subtle actor. And equally in the wrong role he is for the same reasons excessive and wonderfully bad. He describes these with a laugh as “short detours from something that actually matters”

Also he probably suffered from being one of theatrical triplets. He doesn’t have the monastic intensity of Tom Courtney, whom you imagine to live his life in a cold cell on a hard bed, or the working class heroism of Albert Finney, who must surely have lead a Trades Union insurrection somewhere in the North at some time. Instead Bates has beauty and men are rarely so sensitively sexual. In the way that some fat people can be light on their feet, Bates is masculine yet extremely delicate. But Courtney and Finney will always be endowed by critics and audiences with the aura of achievement. They suffer properly for their art and have done enough of the classics to warrant the eventual theatrical knighthood or the blue plaque. But Bates has an ease about him, a physical charm and a lightness of touch, which deflects this kind of serious assessment. And in Britain If you don’t appear to be making an effort no one is ever going to think you have gravitas. And if you play as much in the commercial theatre as he has done then you definitely won’t be taken seriously.

He is about to embark on another West End show, his eleventh collaboration with the playwright Simon Gray, “Life Support” directed by Harold Pinter. So he is reluctantly being interviewed and as he stood in his agent’s office he looked like a prep school boy waiting for the head master. He doesn’t like being interviewed. However once we had established that we had met socially before, he relaxed. “I used to be almost silent in these things, now I ramble stupidly on. But I’m strange about doing them before the show because I like people to discover it without being told before they get there.” We make a pact not to give away the plot because the play is about the discovery of truth – unpredictable and not particularly obvious truth. The reality of the characters’ relationships is revealed in exchanges between a well-known travel writer and accomplished embellisher of the uneventful – Bates as ‘JG’ – his brother, his agent and a doctor, all over the body of his wife who is lying in a coma and whom he is desperate to revive. “ JG has kind of chanced through life, taken the easy route but been canny enough to turn it into something successful. It’s a play about confronting all that fakery. And of course it’s about guilt too.”

Because they’ve worked so much together you’re tempted to assume that Gray wrote this for Bates. But Bates says not. He just offered it to him. You’re also tempted to make the probably crass assumption that it is in some way about Bates. This is simply because in 1992 his wife Victoria tragically died in Sardinia after an illness, refusing medicinal help, relying on nature and most significantly alone and absent from him. The wife in this play is agonisingly present yet absent. But I didn’t mention it for fear of trespassing. Bates did though. “I responded to the play instinctively. I read it through and loved it. I had no doubt about it. I was waiting to see what identification I had with it. And one is, I suppose, grief, which I’ve been through. That’s the principle one.” And grief has played an enormous part in his life over the last few years. Two years before his wife died, his son Tristan, one of twins, also died of a freak asthma attack.

“This play has been a kind of exorcism…. is that the right word? No I mean catharsis… exorcism means emptying churches doesn’t it? And that’s not something to be resisted at all. If these things have happened in your life you can’t just push them away.” The play is also about how you take people for granted. JG knows how desperately his life depends on his wife though he’s always resisted that. “Yes”, says Bates “when people are alive they can be horrible to each other and let each other down but that doesn’t mean they don’t love each other. You remember all the good things when they’re gone and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that…. as long as you keep your feet on the ground.” He talks with such warmth about his wife and his son. “There are people who just don’t go. They are part of your everyday life and I welcome that.” What he regrets most for his son Tristan is that he “was a potential. He is someone who only did everything once, who never had the chance to develop.” This has inevitably affected Bates. He can’t pinpoint the effect it has had on his work, but it has changed his ambition. “I just had pure ambition. But when terrible things happen in your life your priorities are not sharply but subtly and slowly changed. You think about someone like Tristan and you think he would probably have been an extremely good actor and I’ve already had 40 years and he wasn’t allowed that so why should I have any more? And then you think hey wait a minute, he was one of the main inspirations of my life. I’m going to do it for him.”

Bates says all this unsentimentally and unanalytically. It struck me as he talked that maybe the reason he usually holds back is not that he doesn’t want to explain, it’s that he can’t explain things. He once said that you can’t talk about acting, you can only talk around it. He is no rationalizer. Consequently his career has taken no particular path. “I don’t have a calendar” as he puts it. He takes work on a hunch and he had a great launching pad. “The sixties and seventies gave me a standing that I’ve lived off”, he says. Thus he has been able to choose what he has wanted to do. Although “not always wisely” he added, alluding presumably to some of his schlockier films like ‘Royal Flash’. Throughout his career he has had an enviable association with new writing but after an acclaimed Master Builder directed by Peter Hall, might he start to head towards the classics? He is after all 63. “I’m glad you had a note of astonishment in your voice about my age” he says without missing a beat. “That’s certainly not out of the question. It’s just about sorting it out with the right people who want me to do such things and then having a go. Now or never really, isn’t it?” Absolutely. But “having a go”? This is art Alan. They’ll never take you seriously if you say things like that. Think Tom and Albert and suffer.

Share
Posted in Celebrity Profiles, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An iconoclast on Broadway

Acclaimed for transforming the face of the American musical, he has also been condemned for pessimistic lyrics and unhummable tunes. Simon Fanshawe on a champion of commercial theatre, back in London to revive one of his shows that was panned 20 years ago

There is something intimidating about Stephen Sondheim. It’s not him. It’s his reputation. “Possibly the greatest lyricist ever,” says Cameron Mackintosh, who made his first real money in the theatre from the 1976 revue, Side By Side By Sondheim, and who produced the London revival of Follies in 1987. “For me there is no other,” enthuses the actress Julia McKenzie, his most brilliant interpreter in Britain. “But when I meet him, often my syntax breaks down.” Frank Rich, known as “The Butcher of Broadway” during his 14-year tenure as the New York Times theatre critic, and by no means a consistent admirer of Sondheim, wrote “he has changed the texture of the musical as radically as Oscar Hammerstein, and may yet leave our theatre profoundly altered”. What goes before Sondheim is an extraordinary string of shows, in particular those from the 70s – Company, Follies, A Little Night Music, Pacific Overtures and Sweeney Todd.

In person the promise is of a man whose theatrical analysis of emotion is so forensic, and whose lyrics are so intricate and accurate, that he is not just too clever by half, but by three-quarters. He is also known as a master of the perfectly placed rejoinder. It was Sondheim who, in a dress rehearsal that was running way over time, replied to an exasperated actor demanding to know whom he had to screw to get out of the bloody show, “the same person you screwed to get into it”.

His friend the playwright Peter Nichols says, “he is as sharp as a tack and very witty”, but face to face Sondheim presents a rather kindly, untidy figure. Mackintosh says: “Yes, he’s always been shambolic but he smartens up well.” Now 70, hehas a friendly, almost Santa Claus-like face and a bellow of a laugh.

“I am the best laugher.” he says. “If you write a comedy, hire me to sit in the audience. Although I tend to guffaw, which is not always great.” He once went to the theatre with Harold Prince, his collaborator as both producer and director on-and-off for over 40 years, and Prince’s wife, Judy, to see an off-Broadway play called Ulysses in Traction by Albert Interado. “It was about this group of LA university students putting on an insanely pretentious play during the riots. It didn’t get very good reviews but we were fans of the writer so we went. And we thought it was screamingly funny. People in the audience were hushing us.” In the interval they were called into the manager’s office because there had been “complaints about our raucousness. And I said, ‘but it’s funny’, and the manager said, ‘I know. I think it’s funny, too, but the audience just doesn’t get it.'”

Sondheim also admits to being a weeper. “Listen,” he says. “I’m an old Jewish crier. I am easily moved and I love being moved. Like most people in the theatre I have a great facility for suspending disbelief. I will believe anything you tell me. I think it’s about fantasy life. I think it’s a simple as that.”

Sondheim was an only child, born to wealthy Jewish parents in New York in 1930. Herbert and Janet, known as Foxy, were in the fashion trade. Herbert was the president and Foxy the chief designer of the Sondheim-Levy Company, which had offices on West Thirty Ninth Street and produced what Sondheim’s biographer, Meryle Secrest, describes as “beautifully made clothes of marked style and taste”. Sondheim now says that with two working parents he was really “an orphan, an institutionalised child”. And one friend remembers that she always thought of him as “a child pressing his nose against the glass”.

Sondheim’s father was a benign, if distant, presence who loved to play the piano socially and brought Sondheim up not to stand out, boast or lose his temper. “I think that’s probably why I am not good at immediate responses. I am not quick to anger. I am a slow burner. My father used to think one should be moderate, be nice. Which,” he adds elliptically, “is not what most people can be in the circumstances in which we live.”

Sondheim’s mother certainly was neither moderate nor nice. “She was creepy,” he says. His father ran away with a younger woman when Stephen was 10. Foxy responded with increasing dysfunction. “She was a career woman and her man done her wrong,” says Sondheim. “And hell hath no fury… She took it out on me because she had no one else to take it out on.” On the night her husband left she woke her son, took him into her bed and cried all over him. He remembers being very uncomfortable. After the divorce she started to behave towards him in a sexually explicit and inappropriate way, he told his biographer. “I went to a show with her and she not only held my hand, but looked at me during the entire play. And she would sit across from me with her legs aspread. She would lower her blouse and that sort of stuff. But I was surprised rather than shocked.”

In the year they divorced, his parents sent him to military school, which, unexpectedly, he enjoyed enormously. “The surprise is that I loved military school, because I knew where I was going to be at 9:03 and 9:58 and 12:50 and I needed structure and it gave me that and made me feel the world was not in chaos”. There, he also learned to play the organ.

Now he shrugs off the effect of the divorce and his mother’s behaviour, although he has had many years of analysis. “Children of broken homes? There are five million per square inch. I have not lived a very bizarre life. My mother was bizarre but only by degree. The world is full of mothers and fathers like mine. It’s just my mother was an extreme case.” But he also says that she was a compulsive liar, extremely pretentious “and her values were, to put it mildly, askew. She only really cared about celebrity and money. Which I only became aware of when I started to get successful.”

Their relationship was finally and fatally damaged in the 70s when she wrote him a note before going into hospital. She was going to have a pacemaker fitted and thought she was going to die. The note said: “The night before I undergo open-heart surgery… the only regret I have in life is giving you birth.” Sondheim wrote back saying everything he’d never expressed before. He added, though, that he would support her financially. He never saw her again. When she eventually died in 1992 he did not go to her funeral.

However, she had made possible one relationship that would be a positive and lasting influence on her son. After the separation she moved from New York to Bucks County in Pennsylvania, just four miles away from a woman friend, an interior decorator, whom she had met in the city. Their sons were the same age and had become friendly. The decorator, Dorothy, was married to the lyricist Oscar Hammerstein. Already musical, Sondheim became a regular visitor, part of the family, and Hammerstein became his mentor. Sondheim has often said, while cautioning that it may sound glib, that all he has ever really wanted to be was what what Oscar was – a songwriter.

While Sondheim’s father wanted him to “get a proper job and not become a feckless artist”, Hammerstein was not just a role model for a future career, he also gave Stephen Sondheim his first real work. The lyricist hired the 17-year-old as his assistant at $25 a week on Allegro, a musical he wrote with Richard Rodgers

Allegro was about a doctor who grows up in a small town, marries an ambitious woman, becomes successful in New York and ends up giving vitamin injections to the rich until his loving nurse persuades him to return to the country and be a real doctor. As a musical, it was very self-consciously experimental in tackling such a complex and dark subject as a man losing his way in life. It flopped. Sondheim says now: “It was more than a little significant that it was my first professional experience. It was seminal because I saw a lot of smart people doing something wrong. It’s not psychological, the effect. It was nothing to do with the story and me. I just got interested in experimental theatre. Perhaps if I had been an assistant on a George Abbott show (the Broadway producer of The Pajama Game and Damn Yankees), I might not have become the kind of writer I am.”

He has continued to experiment with the musical, he says, not because he is worried about being thematically monotonous, but because he doesn’t want to get bored. Harold Prince says that “he has enormous artistic resources. He has no desire to defend material. He’s always willing to throw away a song or an idea because he knows there’s always another one. He is very secure.”

But critics have lined up over the years to tell him that the different subjects and emotional territory he chooses for his shows are not the proper stuff of the musical theatre. New York critic Walter Kerr made the position bluntly clear: musicals, he said, should not deal with serious matters. Musicals are for fun. John Lahr, the writer and critic for the New Yorker magazine, is a great admirer of Sondheim’s talent but none the less argues: “You cannot debate in song. Song is a form of enchantment. And Sondheim is on record as saying that he cannot create joy. His intelligence has driven the musical into a cul-de-sac.”

Harold Prince, however, insists “it’s about the story. If Steve has changed the musical, it’s not been a conscious effort. His conscious effort is to express himself.” With the kind of coincidence that challenges astrologers, Sondheim shares the same birthday, March 22, with the populist composer Andrew Lloyd Webber, although Sondheim is 18 years older. The musical influences of their respective generations are reflected in their work. Lloyd Webber was born to pop. But Sondheim was a child of the American stage musicals of the 40s and 50s. Kern, Porter and most importantly Rodgers and Hammerstein, the creators of Oklahoma! and Carousel, are his immediate theatrical family. “I can never be as interested in pop music as pop fans are,” he says, while tactfully adding: “I’ve never said anything rotten in print about Andrew and he’s never said anything about me… Music to me is about harmony and in most pop music the harmony is not interesting because that’s not what it was about.”

Lloyd Webber maintains that “Sondheim is a very fine melodist, if he chooses to do it. But the difference between us is that he writes his own lyrics. His music is a servant to his lyrics, while I write a big tune.” Replying to accusations that he does not write hummable tunes, and to those critics who in his early days simply suggested he “should give up writing music”, Sondheim says that the easy answer “is often that what I write has to be listened to more than once”.

Despite the often expressed view that he has transformed the face of the American musical, or even that, as Peter Nichols suggests, “has extended its life well beyond what we might have expected”, Sondheim still seems to harbour the illusion that he is just a Broadway Babe writing smash tunes for a mass audience. And he is quite clear about the critical view. “Does it ever occur to me that I am developing any new kind of musical? How about this for an answer? And you may not believe it. Never!”

He cites Pacific Overtures from 1976, which deals with Japan’s emergence from isolation, beginning with the visit of the American envoy Commodore Perry to Japan in 1853. Sondheim has described it as “the most bizarre and unusual musical ever to be seen in a commercial setting, an attempt to tell a story that has no characters in it at all, that is entirely about ideas”. Yet he says with boyish enthusiasm now, “all the time we were writing Pacific Overtures, I was thinking the audience is going to love this. It’s so exotic, these wonderful costumes, the audience have never seen an entire cast of men, some of whom are in drag. It’s going to be fabulous. It never occurred to me that people might not like that, or not get it.” They didn’t. It closed after six months, having lost the entire investment of $650,000. But, like many of Sondheim’s shows which were initially panned, it went on to win awards and has been revived successfully many times.

Apart from the influence of Hammerstein, Sondheim’s inspiration and training also derived from his student years at Williams College in Massachusetts, where in 1950 he won the Hubbard Hutchinson Prize at Princeton. This gave him a two-year fellowship worth a healthy $3,000 to study music under the unlikely tutelage of Arnold Schoenberg’s disciple, the avant-garde composer Milton Babbitt. With Sondheim’s conscious show-business aspirations, Babbitt, who later would publish an article called “Who Cares If You Listen”, seemed an odd choice. But Sondheim wanted to learn uncluttered composition theory and harmony. And Babbitt was oddly not only fit for the task, but also something of a frustrated show composer himself. Sondheim’s first real income came from a contact made for him by Hammerstein. At a dinner party he was introduced to the writer George Oppenheimer. The result was a collaboration over the scripts for a CBS TV series called Topper, which, Sondheim says, was about “an elegant, rich, Martini-swigging couple who die in an accident and come back to haunt a man named Cosmo Topper. And constantly screw up his life.”

After five months in Hollywood, and having completed 11 scripts, Sondheim returned to New York in 1953. There, still earning money writing TV scripts, he started to pursue single-mindedly the aim of becoming a composer and lyricist. After a number of ideas that came to nothing, he took his first real step. In 1955 he auditioned his musical and lyrical talents for a show called Saturday Night, which eventually collapsed before it ever got off the ground.

The director was Arthur Laurents, who bluntly told Sondheim that he thought his music left much to be desired but that his lyrics were wonderful. Later that year, though, he met Laurents again, this time at a party. The director had moved on to the project – with Leonard Bernstein and Jerome Robbins – which was to become the modern-day telling of the Romeo and Juliet story, originally set in the Lower East Side of New York, but eventually called West Side Story. “Laurents literally smote his forehead,” Sondheim has said, “and went ‘I never thought of you’.”

West Side Story was his first success. Sondheim wrote the lyrics for Bernstein’s music, although he was so obscure at the time that he wasn’t even mentioned in the reviews. But it earned him the beginning of his reputation, as well as the start of a handsome income – although not as great an income as it might have been.

The arrangement with Bernstein had started as a partnership, but in the end Sondheim had actually written nearly all the lyrics. The composer, seeing how glum Sondheim was about being ignored by the press, offered him the full credit on the billboards and in the programmes and added, as an afterthought, that they would of course reapportion the royalties: from his three per cent and Sondheim’s one, to two each. Sondheim replied: “Don’t be silly, I don’t care about the money,” a remark which he claims must have cost him millions of dollars.

Today, he sets relatively little store by money, saying that his tastes are modest. However, by 1987 he acknowledged that he was earning at least $1m a year.

The lyrics in West Side Story, according to Lahr, “defined the buoyancy of the culture after the war, the culture of expectation which would reward you in time.” He quotes the uplooking, optimistic urgency of the words:

Could it be?
Yes it could
Something’s coming, something
good… if I can wait
Something’s coming
I don’t know
What it is
But it is
Gonna be great

“The US was becoming the most powerful and richest country in the world,” Lahr argues. “Incomes tripled in a decade. And to define all that in song is nothing short of brilliant.”

Sondheim then worked on the Ethel Merman show, Gypsy, again just writing the lyrics, this time to the music of Jule Styne, who later wrote Funny Girl. After three years, in 1962, Sondheim had his first Broadway production for which he had written both lyrics and music, A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum, which is still his longest Broadway run, lasting over 750 performances. But it didn’t bring him the kind of acclaim from the critics or his peers that he wanted. He had to wait another eight years, until Company in 1970 and the decade on Broadway in which he became what Matt Wolf, the London theatre critic of Variety, calls “this belligerently non-commercial artist existing in a marketplace which he very much enjoyed”.

Wolf recalls a seminar in 1990 when Sondheim was the Cameron Mackintosh visiting professor of Contemporary Theatre at St Catherine’s College, Oxford. David Aukin, who with Richard Eyre had produced Sunday In The Park With George at the National Theatre, said to Sondheim that it was a shame that he could not have lived in Britain with the benefit of the subsidised theatre, and where he wouldn’t have been put under the dreadful commercial pressure of Broadway. “Without missing a beat,” according to Wolf, “Sondheim just said ‘But I love Broadway’.”

Sondheim these days describes Broadway as “a truly annealing experience. It’s very good not to be hyper-protected. Anyway you look at it, musicals are a commercial form of popular entertainment. They need exposure and the difficulties of commercial presentation.That makes for better work, not for lesser work.”

The shows defined what most writers see as Sondheim’s natural territory: Frank Rich called it “gimlet-eyed pessimism”, as seen in songs such as The Ladies Who Lunch, from Company, and Losing My Mind, from Follies. Company, regarded by many as his sharpest show, explored the empty and commitment-phobic life of Bobby, a bachelor in New York with wonderful married friends, all of whom are wondering why they’re married. Follies was about a theatrical reunion surrounded by the metaphorical rubble of American Vaudeville in a theatre about to be knocked down. Four of the central characters are two couples who never quite got together. What they have had to settle for in their lives is juxtaposed with the optimism of their youth. Julia McKenzie cites from it her favourite Sondheim lyric.

All that time wasted
Merely passing through,
Time I could have spent
So content
Wasting time with you.

If he has changed the face of musical theatre, he has also challenged the love song as a form, preferring to explore the dilemma of desire: that our happiness is torn between the impossibility of being with someone and the agony of being alone. In an outburst of critical disdain, Lahr calls it “boulevard nihilism”, and then adds provocatively that “his emotional range is surprisingly small. He is the Sam Beckett of the musical theatre.” But others realised that he had finally made the musical something worth talking about. When Company arrived in London, the critic Michael Ratcliffe wrote that “it was discussed with a seriousness normally extended only to new novels and plays”.

Lahr says that in much of Sondheim’s work there is a sour, disappointed misanthropy. “And that from a man who doesn’t have a relationship.” Sondheim counters, typically, without emotion but with an artist’s intellectual response. “George Bernard Shaw said that to write you needed observation, imagination and experience. And you can do without any one of them, but not two of them.”

Sondheim is often assaulted with the implication, if not the direct accusation, that he doesn’t know what he is talking about when it comes to love as he never admitted anyone to his own life until he was 61. In 1991, he met a young lyricist and composer, Peter Jones, some 35 or so years his junior. They exchanged wedding rings in 1994. Now, however, while they remain very close, they are no longer partners. “Falling in love is so much to do with luck,” says Sondheim now. “I did it very late in life. And, sure, I would like it to happen again.”

In 1981, after what Harold Prince describes as “what people obviously felt was our decade of too much”, he and Sondheim collaborated on a show, written by George Furth, called Merrily We Roll Along. It is this show that Sondheim is in London to see revived at the Donmar Warehouse, and which contains some of his most beautiful, lingering songs.

It was based on a George Kaufman/Moss Hart play that opened on Broadway in 1934 to good reviews, but which was never a hit. Prince, Furth and Sondheim topped that. Their version was not a hit, it got terrible reviews, and it closed after 16 performances. “Maybe,” says Prince, “everyone wanted us to implode.” What seemed to turn off the audience was that it was not just a story of three friends, a composer, a lyricist and a writer whose youthful idealism and friendship is soured by the great success of one of them, but that it was also told in reverse. The show goes backwards over the 24 years of their friendship to 1957, the year of the Sputnik launch, the symbol of their idealism and hope.

Sondheim paraphrases one commentator’s summary of the plot: “He said the central character is an enormously successful playwright on Broadway and is married to the most beautiful star on Broadway, the reigning diva, and the opening scene is on the opening night of his new play and the reviews come in and they’re wonderful and the rest of the play deals with how this poor son of a bitch got in such trouble!”

Much work has been done on it since, with Sondheim and Furth having the opportunity to try out several different versions and finally settling on one they liked at Leicester Haymarket in 1993. Perhaps this time round London’s critics will be unanimous in their praise.

If the project does backfire, however, Sondheim has the advantage of a phlegmatic streak. Cameron Mackintosh says of him that when things go wrong, he’s “wonderfully wry… Once I mentioned to him that I had three shows opening and then realised to my embarrassment that he had five. But he just looked at me and laughed: ‘That just means five closings.'”

This quality must also help him to negotiate the irony that, while he has won every critical plaudit and every award America has to offer, from an Oscar (for songs in the Dick Tracy movie) to countless Tonys, he has never really found a mass audience. Sondheim may well have re-invented musical theatre but, as a Broadway Babe, it seems he has honour without profit in his own own country.

This article originally appeared at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,,408702,00.html

Share
Posted in Art, Celebrity Profiles, The Guardian | Leave a comment

A chorus of disapproval for gay hearts worn on sleeves

This column is usually about other people. But this time, as the tag line for the worst of the Jaws sequels said, “it’s personal”. In this season of Gay Prides, I have been trying to work out how gay I am. And, at this time of year, Brighton, as you can imagine, is in full pink swing.
The other night I went to see a friend in the local Gay Men’s Chorus. On the way, a remark popped into my head. A rather patrician American grandmother of a friend of mine once saw an ad in a magazine that her grandson had shown her for a “gay yachting club”. She said, with more innocence than tartness: “Why can’t they just go yachting with everyone else?”

The obvious first answer is that there was a time when they would have been thrown overboard. Gay life was beset with violence and hurt. Safety lay with one’s own. And, in one part of our lives, that is still true. Tolerance does not necessarily breed tolerance. Those that are intolerant react to freedom with even greater viciousness. When Jody Dobrowski was killed on Clapham Common, south London, they beat him so badly he was unrecognisable.

But while discrimination may be an everyday event, it’s not an all-day event. Likewise, being gay. So what is the point of a gay men’s chorus? Can’t they just sing tunes from the musicals with everyone else? Apparently not. With this chorus, it turned out, singing was not the point.

Someone had saddled the songs with a “script”. I will tell you only one “joke”. The musical director, clearly struggling with a situation not of his own making, asked the guys to warm up. “Bend over,” he said, meaning they should touch their toes in a stretch. But, oh no. Leaving no single entendre unturned, they ran to their seats at the back of the stage and bent over them with their bums towards the audience. My toes curled faster than a second-hand lettuce. And it carried on. Unremittingly. In the interval, my friends – two straight couples – were bemused. Why did these people only define themselves by sex? Why wasn’t the evening about the music? And was I as embarrassed as they were? Yes, I was. And what a Judas that makes some gay men think me.

Then, as they used to say in more coy days in the News of the World, I made my excuses and left – only to stumble, in the next street, over the sound of beautiful singing coming from a church. And a sign outside saying “Gay Men’s Chorus”. (I discovered later there’s been a split.) I went in. It was a different story. Two men dressed in boaters and flannels (sure, it’s a cliche, but I think this one was knowingly post-modern) were singing one of the romantic duets from Sandy Wilson’s 1920s pastiche musical The Boyfriend. “I know that I could be happy with you, my darling. If you could be happy with me.” It was genuinely sweet. And there was a point to be made by it being sung by two men.

There are some great jokes to be made if you’re a gay chorus. One of Abba’s songs, Gimme Gimme Gimme A Man After Midnight, is very funny when sung by a bunch of lesbians, which I once saw in America. And there are great double entendres and terrifically funny smut. Vulgarity is not the problem.

The problem is that identity is more complex when there is freedom than it ever was when there was systematic legal humiliation. Then we could huddle together, defiant as a group. Any joke, any action, as long as it was “gay”, made us feel better and stronger. Now the group has less meaning. What does it mean to be a gay nurse, a gay dancer, a gay miner? As long as we uncritically accept the label and unquestioningly define people by it, while suspending our judgment, we will prolong a kind of quasi-apartheid, where people are seen for what they are, not who they are.

There are good gay choruses and ghastly ones. The difference is in the music. Pursuing equality is not about ditching quality. When public bodies and private companies support the rights of gay people, they shouldn’t suspend their judgment just because we’re gay. And neither should we. For the most part, these days we want to go yachting with everyone else.

Article originally appeared at:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1845057,00.html

Share
Posted in Society, The Guardian | Leave a comment

Why ideal homes project has its knockers

Normally, this column is about an individual. This week, it’s about a doorbell. And a gym and a bus. To tell the story, we have to go back to 1975, when the IRA bombed the Caterham Arms on the southern boundary of Croydon. Up to that point, the nearby army barracks had been as much a community facility as a military establishment. There had been a swimming pool and a cricket green, and the locals had had open access. But after the IRA attack the barracks were closed, and the Grenadier Guards finally left in 1995. Three years later, Linden Homes bought the site, and formed a partnership with the Guinness Trust.
Local interest was pretty high, so a planning weekend was organised in February 1998 to ask the people what they wanted on the site. By then the barracks had been sealed for years behind an eight-foot fence – and who wouldn’t be curious to have a look at the site again? So over 1,000 people showed up. It had already become clear that the original brief was unrealistic unless more houses were built. The community concurred. Within two days the architects were able to produce a masterplan based on their ideas. Linden and Guinness would build almost 350 houses and also shops, kids’ facilities, a restored cricket green and pavilion, and a restaurant.

The council and Linden haggled a bit over the proportion of affordable houses. The council wanted 30%, Linden 25%. But, in the spirit of compromise, they split the difference and settled on 27.5%. Some of the development is new build and some is in the converted original buildings. The skateboard park, for instance, is in the old chapel. And the quartermaster’s store is now a gym.

Guinness was determined about one feature of the development: the affordable housing should not be identifiable as different. They had had experience of the success of this at a previous development. They had “pepper-potted” at Poundbury (for pepper-potting is what it is called), and Linden agreed with them that this should happen at Caterham.

Overall, it has been successful. But that brings us back to the doorbell. For very good reasons, Guinness wants to provide as much as possible to its incoming tenants. So they have what they call “scheme developments standards” that they have agreed with the Housing Corporation. And the provision of a standard-issue black plastic doorbell is one of these standards. But Linden built the houses for sale with just a doorknocker. And the good intentions that paved the path to hell hove into view.

You do have to be pretty observant, but if you want to find the renters in Caterham, you just have to look for the doorbells. What seemed to be the most decent gesture – to provide tenants, many of whom might be on housing benefit, with as much as possible that they didn’t have to buy – accidentally became a tiny stigma.

What of the gym and the bus? Well, in relation to these two, housing benefit has stamped its mark metaphorically on the foreheads of the renters, too. If you are a homeowner, you get free membership paid as part of your service charge. Similarly, with the bus service, which Linden pays for as part of its planning agreement. Homeowners automatically pay £50 of their service charge towards this and get 50 £1 bus vouchers in return. This acts as an incentive for people to use the bus, and after five years, when Linden no longer has to pay for it, it should be able to stand on its own feet.

But God forbid people on housing benefit should have free access to a health gym or public transport, like their neighbours. The housing benefit rules will not allow gym membership or travel to be paid for. If it were included in the service charge tenants would not be able to claim it, but they’d be required to pay it, so it would come out of their already meagre benefits.

Caterham is a model of social inclusion, but the only differentiators come as a result of public-service rules applied across the board. With the best of intentions, we have created a system that tries to help people but which only serves to stigmatise them. Does that ring a (door) bell, anyone?

Article originally appeared at:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1823344,00.html

Share
Posted in Society, The Guardian | Leave a comment

The wild and wonderful voice of community pride

This piece is full of prejudices and preconceptions – mostly mine. I first saw Charly in a photo, standing next to a policeman and an 80-year-old woman on an estate in Brighton. Nothing unusual in that, except that Charly’s hair overflows with multicoloured extensions that look like paper chains for school Christmas decorations, she has an Indian symbol on her forehead, a ring tattooed on her finger and a couple of other new-agey ones on her arms, turquoise eyeliner, and a rainbow explosion of beads around her wrist.
Frankly, she looks more like a Traveller than the chair of the local community safety action team. My prejudice. But she is the chair. And crime in her area – with the help of the “fantastic” police working with residents and others in the community, such as the youth action team – has fallen by 30% in four years, car crime by 50%, and burglaries by 40%. Oh, and they’ve banned swearing in public on the estate, too.

“Every one picked up on that,” Charly says. “It’s unpoliceable, but it’s an expectation. It’s spelling it out to people who don’t know how to live as part of a community.” The funny thing is that, after it happened, kids were going up to the community police and asking: “Will we really get evicted if we swear?”

Charly was always a wild child. “My parents hated me, being the black sheep of the family. They disowned me in a manner of speaking. But they’re very proud of me now.” Her wildness was never drugs; it was just partying and, eventually, running away to Spain. She got pregnant by her first boyfriend. And then – and this bit is very Brighton – she came back and “lived with a white witch in a converted church. We did crystals and tarot for two weeks. Finally, I went and got a pregnancy test. Then I knew I was going to keep my son.”

Jamie was born. His dad left. Jamie grew up a bit and started to misbehave at school. “I believe my children should have manners and morals,” Charly says. “Don’t buy them £150 trainers. There are people hungry on the street. But his dad gave him anything he wanted. Jamie became so rude to me, to the teachers. I came down on him like a ton of bricks, but in the end he and his dad planned it and he left. It broke my heart.”

It also broke the heart of Tre, her younger son. Tre’s father was another man, whom Charly married. It was a turbulent relationship so she divorced him. He still got access, but Charly says: “I won’t fight with his dad. I don’t want my son to see two adults fighting, being rude to each other.” This, she says, is all relevant to what she does now.

When she moved to Hollingdean, her street was “a crime black spot”, she says, “although I know you’re not supposed to say that. The street was split. Up one end were the owner occupiers, and down our end the housing association. We started a street association and crime really began to fall. I think it was because we were seen to stand together. People are reporting crime more, although it’s still a long way till people will always name people they see committing a crime.”

How have they done most of this? With Neighbourhood Renewal money. She rails against the targets, as we all do – “they should be community targets not government targets”. But she admires the government for spending the money. While the “how” is about government, the “why” is about her.

At weekends, she is still at raves and clubs in London. At 35, she is still a wild child. “I know that I can motivate people. The people who knock it, I guess they’re jealous. They want to stand up, but they don’t have the guts.

“I’m a great advocate of taking the initiative. If there’s litter in the park, why should the council have to pick it up? It’s our park and they’re our kids playing there. There’s no contrast for me in being wild and having manners. Parents ought to stand together and teach their children respect.”

Despite her crazy hair and fantasy look, underneath she’s rather wonderfully conventional. Traditional values in a modern setting, you might say. But maybe that’s my prejudice.

Article originally appeared at:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1776114,00.html

Share
Posted in Society, The Guardian | Leave a comment

Society now accepts gay men as equals. So why on earth do so many continue to behave like teenagers?

In just one hour I get to burn every bridge in the gay world I’ve got. I’ll become the whipping boy of the more extreme political factions of the gay world, and also of the hedonists who drink and drug and whore their way up the gay pleasure food chain in search of the ultimate high. Because both groups still think it is enough to be gay in order to be good. I no longer do. And in this programme I set out to expose the fact that we gay men are living the lives of teenagers, still obsessed with sex, bodies, drugs, youth, and being “gay”.

I deliberately say “we” and “I” throughout: talking about cruising, saunas, too much time spent on the web on gaydar – I own up to the lot, just like my gay friends do. This is not some sanctimonious moraliser looking into the goldfish bowl; it’s a gay man in his 40s looking at the big open world and wondering when we are going to grab the chance to be grown-up in a society that now regards us, legislatively at least, as equals. We have demanded a place at the table, to use Bill Clinton’s phrase, but now that it is laid, some of us insist on still behaving with the silly rebelliousness of extended adolescence.

When I was a student in the 1970s, what we were fighting for was visibility. That was what we needed first, just to be seen. The difference between being black and being gay has always been that if you’re black you don’t have to tell your mother. But the fight just to be seen and heard ended up with us defending all of our behaviour. Because the lid had been on the pressure cooker for so long, and we were defined by sex, then in order to be truly, madly, deeply gay, we had to celebrate everything homosexual. We made no judgments about our behaviour, our morality or the morals of the culture in which we swam and into which we introduced successive generations of gay men.

Some, for instance, claimed the “right” to cruise for sex. How ridiculous. We may well enjoy it, but it’s not a right. The rights and wrongs are about not being arrested for it, not being killed for it. But in public spaces the issue is not whether it’s gay or straight cruising, it’s about whether you offend other people. Anyone, hetero or homo, runs the risk of upsetting others if they shag in public. Now we’re grown-ups we have a responsibility to make those kind of judgments. But we don’t. It’s still almost impossible, for instance, to wonder out loud whether it really is acceptable to walk down the main street of Brighton dressed only in a thong, just because it’s gay “pride”. It’s fun, it’s a lark, but is it antisocial? Well, we still don’t stop to ask. Just shut up! It’s gay, honey.

We’ve all spent so long being told we’re bent and queer and immoral and, most recently by Iqbal Sacranie, that we are “not acceptable” and “spread disease”, that we have ended up making an equivalence of every kind of sexual activity, just because it’s gay. So in gay magazines, while the front section is full of holiday features and interviews with gay celebrities or cute-boy eye candy off the telly, the back is full of rent-boy ads: one I read today contains no less than seven pages of them. Very pretty some of them are too. But we’ve normalised prostitution. It’s practically an acceptable career path for any guy with a 29-inch waist and no visible acne.

And when it comes to sex, whether it’s paying for it, or being beaten, or weed on, or doing it in groups, or doing it in saunas, we make no judgments about the effects on our health, emotional or mental, or the effects on our ability to make moral judgments in the world. If you question the depths and extremes of some kinds of sexual behaviour, you run the risk of being told, as I was by the owner of the sauna I interviewed in the programme, that you’re not really gay: “a straight man in a gay man’s body”, were his exact words.

Judgments are made in the gay man’s world, of course. But they are almost entirely based on looks. Gay men primp and preen, moisturise and exfoliate. Our bathrooms look as if someone has dropped a bomb in a sample shop. Some of us have six packs implanted into our stomachs, and the meat rack hangs us out to dry if we don’t have perfect bodies in a clubbing world. We still even have beauty contests. And if we had the gay lawyer of the year contest you can bet it would have a swimwear section. Briefs, I guess you’d call it.

The world has changed for gay men. I have to add the ritual disclaimer that of course there’s still homophobia, but the fact is that in law we have all-but total equality. Yet we continue to behave as if we are a disconnected minority, shut out from the world of responsibility. Gay men have a lot of catching up to do. Hooked on drugs and sex and looks, we call it gay culture. The figures are staggering: 20% of gay men in London use the incredibly damaging crystal meth. Studies show that men who do are twice as likely to become HIV positive. Since 1999, the figures for HIV infections have continued to rise in the UK. Syphilis infection rates among gay men have increased by 616% in the past five years.

There will be those of you reading this whose embarrassment at me washing our dirty linen in public will be rising fast. What will Sir Iqbal and the other homophobes do with these confessions? Well, he can go right back into the shameful dungeon of discrimination from whence he came. Because gay men have fought for equality and now we have a new world at our fingertips. Some of us are ready to embrace it: civil partnerships, our ability to adopt children, our real visibility in our own communities where we contribute in so many ways, from leading the fight against Aids, to campaigns that improve public safety for everyone – this is how we now live as citizens. But to embrace it we have to grow out of our teenage years of sex and drugs and mocking the old, and embrace a future of fidelity and responsibility. We’re not just following the yellow brick road any longer. We’re in the real world now.

Article originally appeared at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1758083,00.html

Share
Posted in Society, The Guardian | Leave a comment