Once again I'm doing the Sunday Stealing questions on Saturday, as I know tomorrow I'll have something more interesting to write about. I'm off to a play tonight, which I'm very much looking forward to.
Anyway, as always, the questions have been provided by Bev at Sunday Stealing.
1. Do you like your handwriting?
No. I have handwriting like a demented, serial-killing doctor. When I try it's okay, but that is not very often. For this reason, I type where I can.
2. Do you like roller coasters?
Can't really say - I've never been on one. They're not a big thing here unless you come from Queensland where all the theme parks reside.
3. Do you like scary movies?
Again, that's a no. Thrillers are fine, but I'm not into horror.
4. Do you like shopping?
It's something that has to be done. I like window shopping more than shopping. I love seeing the possibilities.
5. Do you like to talk on the phone?
Depends on to whom I am speaking. Sometimes I'm down for a chat, but not that often.
6. Do you sleep with the lights on or off?
Off. It has to be dark for me to nod off easily.
7. Do you use headphones or earphones?
Earphones. Preferably the bluetooth ones.
8. Do you have tattoos? Do you want any?
Just one very small one on my hip. It's been there for 25 years. I have no desire to get any more, although do think about it now and then.
9. Do you wear glasses?
Yes. I can get away most of the day without them, but they are needed for the cinema, driving and at night.
10. What is your strangest talent?
Other than starting arguments from ten kilometres away? I can recite the Jabberwocky when rather drunk - all of it.
11. Have you ever been in the hospital?
Yes, a couple if times for short visits. Strangely, I'm going in on Tuesday to have my gall bladder removed. Hopefully I'll only be in overnight.
12. What color mostly dominates your wardrobe?
Black and red, with a bit of navy thrown in for good measure.
13. What’s your most expensive piece of clothing?
I'm not one for very expensive clothing, and most of my clothes I've bought second-hand or on sale. There are a couple of dresses I paid over $200 for. I don't have a life that requires expensive clothes.
14. Have you ever had braces?
No. Thankfully my teeth are fairly straight.
15. Have you ever been on TV?
Yes. I was on an episode of Win Roy and HG's Money back in the early noughties. Won the round and won $800.
Richmond Oysters has been on my list of places to go for over a decade. It sits on Church Street about a kilometre down the road. It's always been there. It's more been a matter of finding people to go with - people who like oysters as much as I do.
Oysters are a polarising crustecean.
One of my favourite oyster meals was in Jahor Bahru, Malaysia with and old uni friend and her family. We had fried egg and oysters. I just remember it being amazing - all washed down with sugar cane juice.
Tonight Jonella and Stav picked me up and we finally made it to this Mecca, and oysters we had.
We had oysters six ways.
We started with Oyster shooters - the first shot was a Bloody Mary Oyster shooter, complete with a little bit of celery and a tabasco kick.
The other oyster shot was offered to us when the kitchen got a bit backed up. The Japanese Oyster shot had an oyster in a shot glass topped with sake, mirin, wasabi and pickled ginger. I could have had a dozen of these. Fantastic.
Of course we ordered a dozen oysters each. We had the choice of Pacific Oysters or Sydney Oysters. Allegedly the Sydney ones are creamier. They were great (although I was a bit miffed that there were no Coffin Bay Oysters to be had - they are also wonderful. )
For me, I split my dozen. I had nine of them au naturel with a bit of granita or vinaigrette.
Of the other three, I tried them hot.
One oyster topped with mornay
One baked with Kewpie mayonnaise
And one Kilpatrick.
At the end of this, we kept going. Stav had some seafood linguine, while Jonella and I shared a pot of mussels and some of the best salt and pepper calamari I've ever had.
And dessert was necessary. There choice was that of a Golden Gaytime arrangment - or a Creme Brulee. I went the Creme Brulee - just becuase I love the feeling of the toffee craking under the spoon.
I'd go back tomorrow. I'd go back tomorrow to have a dozen of thise Japanese Oyster shots (and that amazing calamari).
Actually, I'm looking for a friend to watch the election results with me on the 21st of May.
See, I'm a political animal.
I've also got the added joy of being ten days out of hospital and I don't know what sort of state I'm going to be in then. Hopefully by then I'll be up and about - but the energy might be down a bit.
And I want to watch the election results on the telly - and watch Antony Green call whoever is forming government, and maybe watch a few Libs lose their seats.
I want somebody to be there with me to drink a gin and tonic and yell at the telly with.
Part of me would like my own version of Don's Party - but I don't know where I will be at that time, health wise. I might be fine. I might be tired. I might still be out of action.
I just want somebody to watch the election with, who's not going to get bored and who will yell along with me.
Last federal election I spent the evening with a mate and her dog in Surrey Hills. It wasn't a fun election as it didn't go where I wanted it to go. But it was fun watching Tony Abbott lose his seat.
The election before I was out in Warburton with a friend. He was amazed at how much shouting at the telly I did over the night. Scared his cat.
The one before that was spent with Georgie and Thom in Reservoir. The night was over before it began when Abbott got in. That wasn't fun.
The one before that there was no conclusive result. I can't remember where I was for that. That was the Gillard hung parliament election. I was in the tea room at work on Spring Street three weeks later when Rob Oakeshott called his support for her. He went on for about half an hour, the moron.
Oh, the one before that was memorable. The guy I was seeing came over. I remember John Howard losing his seat. That was a fun night.
The one before that was good too. Not because the coalition got in, but it was a memorable night with friends. I got home about ten the next morning.
The one before that, I was down at Myponga, getting shirty with the telly. My step-dad kept on telling me to calm down.
So, I'm auditioning. I'm in need of a friend to watch the election results with me on the 20th. Probably best if you like gin, cats and can hold your own with somebody who may or may not throw nerf balls at the telly. +r
Every time I think about cancelling my New York Times subscription, another doozy event turns up and I find myself wanting, needing to go behind the paywall to find out just what is going on the other side of the Pacific. It's a good newspaper. One of the few I trust which comes out of America (Along with the Washington Post and one or two other banners from the larger cities).
There is something about the possible, strike that, probable repealing of Roe vs. Wade which has me quaking. It's wrong. It's inherently unfair to women and society in general. And it's a very, very polarising topic.
Here in Australia, where abortion is legal and accessible (unless you count the fact that in Tasmania there is next to no provisions for abortions and women often have to travel to the mainland to find this care...which is in itself a travesty.). We are lucky. Here in Victoria, they've thankfully stopped the morons who picket the abortion clinics - they're not allowed within a decent distance from these places, who provide compassionate, non-judgmental heath care to all women - not just those seeking a termination. Have you any idea how horrible it is passing by these ranting people when you're off to to the doctor for some other minor ailment? It's happened to me. It's crap.
Okay, I'm not a rabid religious nut. I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose, yet I certainly don't think that abortion should be used as a form of regular contraception.
But abortion is a form on healthcare. Pure and simple.
For what ever reason a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is exactly that. Her choice. Whether it be that the contraception she and her partner were using failed, or she was raped, or that the foetus, for whatever reason, is unviable, or the child barely out of their own childhood, or the family cannot afford the extra mouth to feed, or....
There is no right or wrongs in the decisions to terminate a pregnancy. It's a decision and a choice which should be available to all women. Ask any woman who has had one and there will be no regrets. There might be a bit of sadness, but the overwhelming feeling of not carrying an unwanted pregnancy is relief.
Here in Australia we can only watch on in horror as America lurches towards this strange, fundamentalist state, akin to Margaret Atwood's Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale. We've read about where in Ohio, women who have ectopic pregnancies have been subjugated to having the embryo implanted in their wombs. This isn't something which is medically viable. Ectopic pregnancies kill women on a daily basis. Who are these morons bringing such things into law? This is also a country that also limits women's access to information about sex and contraception.
We've seen what happen when the state meddles with these rights in Ireland. In a well known case, a woman who was miscarrying was refused an abortion because there was still a foetal heartbeat. The woman later died of septicemia. This can't have been an isolated case.
If you want to get a view of what happens when abortions aren't legal, have a read of the first chapter of Louise Swinn's Choice Words. This chapter details what it was like for women early last century, where they regularly died from backyard abortions. Or the joys of people finding dead babies in the streets. Horrible, harrowing stuff.
You have to remember, that in most Western Countries, around one in three women will terminate a pregnancy. One in three. Got it. Look around you. Look at the women around you. One in three will have used these services. **
Why is there so much shame attached to something so common? There's nothing to be ashamed about.
Have access to safe, legal abortion taken away, then think what that will do to your friends and family. Think of how it will change their lives having another child around - whether wanted or not. Think of how it impacts their lives - if they live on at all, depending on the circumstances.
I'll stop my rant now. This is one issue that I am passionate about. It's not about what "god" wants. It's not about human life and its sanctity - because until a child is born alive, it's really only potential - I don't care what anybody says.
Abortion should be seen like voluntary assisted dying. You may not like it as an option. But don't stop other people from accessing these forms of healthcare. It is just that. Healthcare.
Rant over. For now.
This is all too frightening for words.
** I am one of the one in three. I have no regrets about terminating a pregnancy in my late twenties. Never have, never will.To think about what life would be like if the service was not affordable and accessible at the time doesn't bear warrant. It was the right choice at the time.
I had a conversation with a workmate yesterday about jewellery, which is a bit strange as generally, I don't wear much of it and don't have any interest in it. There's a silver ring on my left hand middle finger, given to me as a leaving present over 15 years ago. There's a silver ring with a garnet on my right hand ring finger. I bought that in Bali about 12 years ago. Neither ring comes off at the moment.
I wear an AppleWatch on my left hand wrist. On my right hand, I'll often wear a couple of Pandora beads on a leather thong around my wrist. I rarely wear necklaces. They drive me nuts.
My workmate was visiting a jeweler to have her wedding ring remodeled. It's a very nice wedding ring as it is, but she wanted some things to be done to it.
"I've been meaning to do something like that one day."
"What?"
"I have my mother's engagement rings. They've been sitting in a drawer for many years."
"Why don't you do something with them?"
"And that is the looming question."
"Why?"
Yes, that is a good question.
Well, first up, it's strange having somebody else's rings. These were my mother's. Dad gave them to Mum way back in the 60's. The stone is a green sapphire, surrounded by lots of little diamonds. Strangely, the green sapphire matches my eyes. But the setting is old fashioned. And the rings currently only fit on my pinky. I've got a very good habit of losing pinky rings. I also only wear silver - I'm not a wearer of gold.
Secondly, there's the karma thing. I'm not sure I like the thought of wearing rings which were a part of a failed marriage. Saying that, my father has been dead 25 years and mum has been remarried for 30 years. But still, there is the karma element. I might have to have a shaman bless the stones or something.
And of course there is the cost. If you've never really bought real jewellery, you have no idea of the costs. And anything I like is probably going to be stupidly expensive, seeing I'd have to have a complete reset. I mean, something like the following I'd wear - in white gold of course.
Yet, when it all comes down to it, it's not something I've every really thought about, this wearing of rings with precious materials. Maybe I've been a stirling silver woman for far too long.
It's all down to what can be done, and how much it's going to cost.
And I still don't know if I can go and spend a large amount of money on something like this. A holiday, a car - yes. A ring. Hmmm.
The Theatre: The Fairfax Studio at the Arts Centre until 14 May.
Stars: 4.5
A woman playing Hamlet. Who knew?
As a Shakespeare junkie, this had to be done. I put the call out to see if anybody wanted to come with me and Alice came to the rescue. Alice loves Hamlet. I love Shakespeare. And I've always been in awe of the Bell Shakespeare Company, who've done some excellent renditions of the Bard. Their Henry V and Romeo and Juliet a few years ago were superlative.
Well, this is up there with those performances. Most excellent. Actually, as Hamlets go, and this is about the fifteenth time I've seen Hamlet, this is up there with the best.
Alice and I were also lucky enough to score front row seats, which also added to the experience. (I will say, we picked up the tickets the week before and were just lucky. Some people had been waiting two years to see this.)
This is a stripped back production. Anna Tregloan's stark stage presents us with a large, metallic frame which has a multitude of uses - closet, graveyard, throne room. It's great. In the background, old super-8 movies adorned the screen, providing a nostalgic feels. The 1960's styling is also wonderful. I spotted some glasses I'm sure we had in the cupboard when I was a kid. As with all Bell Shakespeare productions, the costumes and shoes are absolutely on point. And the white shag-pile carpet, which was snowed on throughout the plays two hours and fifty minute run was also used to great effect.
But this is an actor's play, and the cast is excellent.
Peter Evans' direction is sensitive and assured. Great to see.
Harriet Gordon-Anderson is amazing. Quite simply awesome. In this production, Hamlet is a man, played by a woman. The gender bending gets a bit to get used to. They haven't changed the script to have Hamlet be a woman, but Gordon-Anderson's performance provides a subtlety and a gravitas which rarely come together when a man plays Hamlet (with the exception of Andrew Scott - who I am dying to see on stage one day). What I got from her performance was a seething anger, which I've rarely seen - and a completely believable love for her family, which can also be missed. The interactions with both Gertrude (Lucy Bell) and Ophelia (Rose Riley) take on a fresh perspective. As they said in the Q&A session after, the last thing we need to see at the moment is a man shouting at a woman. Ophelia had a bit more oomph to her is going up against Hamlet in the "Get thee to a nunnery" scene.
The other thing which Gordon-Anderson brings to her Hamlet is a true sense of a loving family. It's a subtle, surreal thing which was most wonderful to see.
Other stand outs of this performance was Robert Menzies as Polonius. He was outstanding. Instead of being treated as a buffoon, his nuanced relationships with Laertes (Jack Crumlin) and Ophelia had a tenderness rarely seen in this family unit.
There is a hell of a lot to love about this production. Yes, it's been two years in the making, the show opening in Sydney at the start of March in 2020. The cast has changed and morphed (Lisa McCune was the original Gertrude - interesting - I loved Lucy Bell's take on her) The staging has been stripped back and the team have been working over the pandemic to keep this fresh.
This is wonderful theatre. It's only on for another two weeks. Try to get to this. Thank me later.
I like seeing stories through to their logical conclusion
I love Dame Maggie Smith - at 87, she's still working and she's incredible.
So I was always going to go along to this.
Is it a good film? Not really.
It is watchable and does it carry the story forward? Yes.
Do these two facts cancel out each other? Yes.
So the crux of the film is a few years have passed. The Crawley family are offered a lot of money to have the place used as a film set. On the other side of things, it comes to pass that the Dowager Countess, Violet (Maggie Smith) has come into a villa in the South of France after a reconnoitre with a French Lord back before before her son Robert was born.
And there we have the two strands of the story.
We start with a wedding - Tom Branson (Allen Leech) and Lucy Smith (Tuppence Middleton) - whose romance started during the last film. We see the children - Sybbie, George, Marigold and Caroline growning up. And we get a lot of loose ends tidied up. Some a bit too neatly. Others I'm not sure why they were there.
Then we're treated to the French connection and the mystery of what went on with Lady Violet and the Frenchman - and how the Frenchman's wife (Nathalie Baye) is not fond of the whole transaction.
As I said, this is not a great film - but there is enough to sustain and keep you interested.
There are a lot of good things here, once you get past the occassionally dodgy script moment and some of the unnecessarily set up cast line ups (Sorry, I don't like that stuff).
First up, this has some very funny moments and some great one liners - mostly thanks to the wonderful Maggie Smith.
Secondly, the very meta movie within a movie, where the house is taken over my a film crew, where a movies is being made. Dominic West and Laura Haddock play the stars of the film to great effect. Hugh Dancy is the film's director and love interest for Lady Mary, seeing her husband is off driving racing cars around the globe (Meaning we miss out on the wonderful Matthew Goode - bit sad about this.) I loved this part of the film and how the soon to be talking films was bringing to an end the careers of the silent film stars.
And, of course, you get to see the characters you loved so much over the years - Carson, Mrs Hughes, Daisy, Mrs Patmore, Barrow - and my favourite, Mr Molesley.
This isn't a great film, but it does it's job well - and it finished off what was a great, long running series.
Personally, I've preferred my intake of Downton Abbey on the small screen, I think it works better on televsion, but still, it's lovely to see these characters, as they are old friends, and for this, I forgive the not so great parts of the film. And the absence of Matthew Goode.
This is a film that's best suited for fans. If you're not invested in the show, you'll probably think this is crap.
But if you're a Downton Abbey fan, go - you'll enjoy it. Oh, and as a final warning, take some tissues. They're needed at the end.
