Archive for LGBT+interest

A Public Display of Affection: Jonathan Wilson on Memory, Survival and Quiet Rebellion

Click on image to buy ticket

Jonathan Wilson arrives at the Fringe with A Public Display of Affection, a piece that slips between testimony, memory, and performance with the ease of someone who has lived every inch of the story he’s telling. Rooted in Toronto’s queer history of the 1970s and ’80s, the show doesn’t behave like a museum piece. Instead, it breathes—funny, dangerous, tender, and defiantly ordinary in all the ways queer life has always been. Wilson begins as the “queer elder” at the lectern, but the façade doesn’t last long. What follows is a reckoning with survival, desire, chosen family, and the quiet rebellions that once made even holding hands feel like an act of resistance.

As he brings the work to Edinburgh, Wilson isn’t simply exporting a Canadian story. He’s returning to the country his parents once called home, folding questions of belonging, memory, and inheritance into a performance that refuses nostalgia and insists on truth. In an intimate space like Gilded Balloon’s The Snug, the show becomes less a lecture and more a conversation—one that asks younger queer audiences to imagine their own futures while remembering the people who never got the chance.

This interview explores how the piece evolved, what histories risk being erased, and why Wilson believes humour, imperfection, and community are as essential to queer survival as any political victory. Counter Culture asked him to explain.

You’re bringing a critically acclaimed Toronto production to the Fringe. What shifts when a show rooted in 1970s and ’80s Toronto queer history suddenly meets an Edinburgh audience with a completely different cultural memory?

I’ve learned that although the street names change, the emotions and the struggles are the same. Edinburgh audiences probably haven’t heard of Yonge Street or the St. Charles Tavern in Toronto, but they understand first love, shame, chosen family, and trying to build a life when the world keeps suggesting you shouldn’t exist.

The piece begins as a formal “queer elder” talk and then unravels into something far more intimate and dangerous. Was that structural rupture always part of the concept, or did it emerge as you explored how testimony differs from nostalgia?

It wasn’t planned at all. It happened organically when I discovered I was a terrible historian. The play began as a series of readings for students studying queer history, and I felt an unspoken pressure to be a “good” example. Thankfully, the darker, funnier, and more truthful stories of my friends kept interrupting. The moment I stopped trying to be an authority and started becoming a witness, the play finally knew what it wanted to be.

The press release describes the show as a journey through love, loss, lust, and survival. Which of those threads proved hardest to balance without tipping the piece into sentimentality?

Survival. It’s very easy to turn surviving into a sort of sainthood, but of course we weren’t saints. We were messy, funny, horny, selfish, generous, frightened kids trying to get through another day. But we weren’t simply surviving. We were falling in love, dancing until sunrise, making terrible fashion choices, flirting outrageously, and creating families from scratch.

You chart moments where even holding hands felt like rebellion. How do you stage that kind of quiet defiance in a way that lands with audiences who’ve grown up in a more visible, though still imperfect, queer landscape?

By resisting the urge to make it look heroic. Holding someone’s hand shouldn’t be brave. The tragedy is that it was. It should be gloriously ordinary. I hope younger audiences don’t leave thinking, How courageous they were. I hope they leave wondering why something so beautifully mundane was ever considered dangerous. So much queer history is presented as a warning. I want this show to be an invitation to imagine a long life and an earned elderhood.

Critics have called the show “a forgotten slice of Toronto LGBTQ history brought to life.” What part of that history do you feel is most at risk of being rewritten or erased today?

The ordinary lives. The street kids I loved. My chosen family. The young people on the margins who can still disappear, even within a so‑called respectable queer history. We remember the marches, the police persecution, and the court victories, as we should. But we forget the shared rooms, the back‑alley bars, the friendships, the first kisses, the tacky wallpaper, and the people who never became famous enough to be remembered.

You blend razor‑sharp humour with devastating honesty. Given your background in Second City, improvisation, and comedy, how did you decide where humour helps the story, and where it would undermine it?

Laughter opens us up to hear truth — but importantly, the laughter isn’t there only to soften the truth. It is part of the truth. Queer people have always laughed at funerals, flirted in impossible circumstances, and found joy where no one expected it. That’s an important part of our history too.

Your past work includes My Own Private Oshawa, The Normal Heart, and The Lion King. How does A Public Display of Affection sit alongside those roles in terms of emotional weight and personal investment?

There’s nowhere to hide. When you’re playing Ned Weeks in The Normal Heart or Timon in The Lion King, someone else has written the words. This time, every laugh, every silence, and every difficult memory belongs to me. It’s easily the most exposing thing I’ve ever performed. Even my earlier solo work reflected the version of myself I was capable of sharing in my thirties. This show is what that story looks like after another thirty years of living.

Bringing the play to Scotland feels less like exporting a Canadian piece than finally bringing my own family story home. My parents left Scotland for Canada in the early 1960s, so growing up, Scotland was always referred to as “home.” I’ve written some of that tension into this new version of the show, and it has taken me somewhere even more personal than I expected. Because of course… there’s no place like home.

The show insists on remembering at a moment when queer histories risk disappearing beneath progress and assimilation. What’s the one memory you felt absolutely had to remain unfiltered?

The feeling that disappearing was always a possibility. Not in some abstract political sense. Literally. Friends vanished. Spaces vanished. Entire generations vanished. The danger isn’t forgetting the dates. The danger is forgetting what it actually felt like to be alive.

Gilded Balloon’s The Snug is an intimate space. How does that closeness shape the performance, especially when the material moves between humour, danger, and testimony?

You can’t fake intimacy in a space like The Snug. There’s nowhere to perform at people. I’m simply with them. Some nights it feels less like theatre and more like a conversation that’s wandered somewhere unexpectedly honest. Those are usually the best nights.

If you could speak directly to younger queer people encountering this history for the first time, what’s the one uncomfortable truth you hope the show gives them permission to hold onto?

You don’t owe anyone perfection. Every generation inherits unfinished work. You’ll make mistakes. You’ll disagree with the generation before you. One day you’ll probably horrify the generation after you. Welcome to the club. But don’t confuse having more rights with no longer needing each other. Community isn’t something history gave us. It’s something every generation has to build again.

Click here to buy tickets

 

Leave a Comment

Inside Spin Cycle: A Queer Love Story Caught Between Cycles

There’s something about a Fringe show set in a laundrette that immediately makes you lean in. Maybe it’s the hum of the machines, maybe it’s the way people behave differently when they think no one’s watching. Spin Cycle takes that instinct — that quiet, nosy curiosity — and turns it into a queer love story that slips between memory, myth and the mundane. It’s tender, strange, and a little bit disorienting, like overhearing a couple argue in public and realising you’ve wandered into the middle of something you shouldn’t understand but somehow do.

Click on image to buy tickets

Talking to the team behind it, you get the sense they’re not interested in neat answers or tidy emotional arcs. They’re more concerned with the mess — the stains, the rewashing, the things we keep trying to fix even when we know they’re already worn through. What follows is a conversation that feels as intimate and slippery as the play itself.

Spin Cycle unfolds in a laundrette — a place that’s both public and strangely intimate. What made you realise this was the perfect setting for a queer love story that refuses to stay neatly folded?

ZOFIA: A Launderette is such a liminal space. Its whole reason for existence is to be a place of transition: you enter with dirty clothes and leave with clean. I felt that it is the perfect setting for a play that exists to examine that feeling of being in the midst of transition, being somewhere between forgetting and remembering, between loving and not. I also think the phrase “air your dirty laundry” is aptly fit.

You add memory slippage, absurdism, and a wash cycle that bends time. How did you find the balance between emotional truth and theatrical strangeness?

BETHAN: The absurd space versus the tense scene work is a part of this play that’s very exciting to build on. In many ways the launderette feels like a third character, or entity. It plays a vital role in pushing Noel and Kitt to try again at the top of the play. There’s a sense the space may even have some control over their fate as a couple and maybe is pushing them to some conclusion but as we learn, Kitt and Noel can’t help but have the same conversations over and over again. Their dialogue is pacy and naturalistic and as far as we know they are emotionally truthful. Unless someone knows more then they let on?….

The play champions Irish heritage and queer, gender-non-conforming characters. How do those identities shape the emotional engine of the story?

RHIANNON: The characters queer identity or ‘irishness’ isn’t there to make any kind of political statement, they’re simply who the characters are. Those identities affect how they move through the world, how they understand love, belonging and themselves. The play places two different experiences of Irish and lesbian identity side by side. Noel is a working class, non-binary artist from Northern Ireland whose identity is shaped by financial insecurity, community expectation and navigating a world that wasn’t built for them. Kitt is an Irish-American who has inherited wealth and whose connection to Ireland is rooted in family history rather than lived experience. Spin Cycle, at its core is a love story and it explores how love can exist between two people whose understandings of home, privilege and self are radically different.

“Eyes lock. Hearts thump. But something is off.” What’s the “off” for you?

ZOFIA: It’s the feeling of Deja vu. Deja vu is described as “an illusion of memory whereby—despite a strong sense of recollection—the time, place, and context of the “previous” experience are uncertain or impossible.”

The show has been described as Eternal Sunshine meets The L Word. What feels accurate about that comparison — and what doesn’t?

ZOFIA: Spin Cycle and Eternal Sunshine both seek to answer the same question- why is heartbreak intrinsically tied to the joy of love? There are themes of memory and repression in both as well, although Spin Cycle remains more ambiguous than Eternal Sunshine. As for The L Word, well, there is plenty of Talking, laughing, loving, breathing, fighting, fucking, crying, drinking, riding, winning, losing, cheating, kissing, thinking, dreaming in both.

The laundrette becomes a suspended world where past and present collide. Did you imagine it as a memory, a metaphor, or a place where truth stops hiding?

BETHAN: The launderette may have more hope for their relationship than they do. It’s certainly somewhere where hard conversations are forced out. It is somewhere the truth stops hiding and it feels like somewhere that has existed forever and will continue to until the cycle reaches an end the launderette is satisfied with. The liminal space has been an important factor in creating a neutral zone for Noel and Kitt to explore their guilt, lust and ultimately loss. Thematically thinking of the setting as the launderette, are we washing something until it’s ragged and worn and finished, or are we cleansing something and rescuing stained memories?

Class quietly shapes the story. How consciously did class weave itself into the writing?

BETHAN: When we started this project it was a short twenty minute scene with a hint of a class divide. As we have lived with the characters, certain nuances emerge as obvious directions to take them both. Noel and Kitt really do clash in many ways, notably Kitts inherited wealth from her grandad and Noel inherited orange sash from theirs. It felt important to flesh out where each may have struggled or bloomed forming their identities and their place in the world.

Bethan Rose talks about a “complicit sense of voyeurism.” What do audiences recognise in Kitt and Noel that makes the play feel so familiar?

BETHAN: The couple have a struggling power dynamic and you see them fall apart in front of you, remembering and forgetting in real time. I think audiences will recognise many of the feelings they go through. There are moments where you don’t want to be listening into their conversations, like you’ve accidentally been spying on them. There are also moments where audience members will recognise patterns in the relationship and even take sides. Discomfort and familiarity arises when met with parallels to your own life.

You’re an entirely queer creative team. How did that shape the rehearsal room? BETHAN: At the end of rehearsal we all kiss.

If Kitt and Noel could step out of the laundrette and speak to you, what truth do you hope they’d finally rinse clean? RHI: If I met Noel outside of the Laundrette – I really hope that they found a good therapist to help rinse away their shame about who they are and where they come from. ZOFIA: If Kitt were able to step out of the Launderette, I would hope she could be honest about her entitlement.

 

Leave a Comment

Inside The Movement: Fringe Anarchy with Ethan & Gigi

Click on image to buy tickets

Some revolutions begin with manifestos. This one begins with two performers who are absolutely convinced they’re leading one. The Movement follows Ethan & Gigi — self‑appointed liberators, overconfident artists, and, depending on who you ask, either visionary or “legitimately unwell in a mental sense” — as they attempt to reshape the world through theatre. Their show is a chaotic, high‑energy act of political clowning that  insists the revolution won’t be televised, it’ll be live. 

In this interview, we talk about why they built a piece that blurs satire, activism and sheer unhinged commitment; how comedy can still connect people in a fractured moment; and what it means to ask an audience not just to watch, but to move, react, and become part of the disorder they’re staging. It’s theatre as provocation, theatre as mischief, theatre as a dare — and Ethan & Gigi are more than ready to break a few legs along the way.

You describe yourselves as artists who genuinely believe they’re leading a revolution. What’s the creative spark behind playing characters who are both delusional and completely committed?

GIGI: I gotta say…the spark behind playing people who are delusional and completely committed? That’s clown, baby! That spark comes from an urgent need to feel free in an ever-oppressive world. The clown has this big, beautiful dream about themselves and they either A) fail and it’s funny and the audience loves them for trying and everyone becomes connected through that particular access point of the recognition of your humanity or B) they succeed and it’s beautiful and they win. I cannot imagine a better use of my time! I mean what else is there but to be delusional and committed to the idea of a better world?  We either fail and it’s funny and sad and we become more deeply connected …or we win.

ETHAN: I wouldn’t say we are playing characters, but more so, caricatures of ourselves, the essence is completely: us. That’s our clown. What makes us the unique humans we are is what we put on the stage. Gigi and I genuinely want to participate in a revolution in real life, but we honestly don’t know how to do that. But what if we believed we could be the leaders of this revolution, and committed to this role 110%? THE MOVEMENT is the result of that delusion/vision.

The show sits between clowning and revolutionary politics. How do you strike the balance between satire and sincerity without tipping too far in either direction?

GIGI: This is a great question and something we often check in about.  There’s a part of the show that is undeniably satire, that we made not as clowns but as clever improvisers hungry to create a searing indictment of the American empire. At the end of the day, we wanna make sure we come across as idiots. Satire is more in the world of the bouffon which we do love to play with, but our pleasure in this show is wrapped up in being losers, not clever winners.

ETHAN: It’s completely a tight-rope balancing act, and what keeps us on the high wire is the sensitivity and vulnerability we lean into while we perform. Giving people permission to laugh AT YOU opens up a kind of a magical portal. The target of the humor in the show is always us, we are complete fools that believe ourselves to be competent, highly-skilled, and have all of the qualities of charismatic revolutionary leaders, when this isn’t quite the case.

You mention themes of artistic delusion, oppressive systems and the power of community. Which of those became the backbone of the show, and which emerged unexpectedly during development?

GIGI: Oppressive systems were the backbone.  This might seem like a joke but we’re activists first and foremost. We want to burn it all down. As for artistic delusion…we don’t have to try for that to be a theme, that’s just an organic byproduct of our delusion:  we are doing a clown show that we believe will radicalize people.  But the power of community was discovered as we were struggling to find an end to this show and to answer the question, “How do you start a revolution?”

ETHAN: When you make a show, sometimes it feels like wandering through a foggy forest, you can’t see, and it’s the artistic delusion that keeps you stumbling forward. You’re following the initial impulse that sent you out into the woods, and where you end up is often a total surprise. “How do we start a revolution?” was the impulse, and the power of community is where we ended up. When you want to dream big (like overthrowing and dismantling oppressive systems) – you can’t do this alone.

One of your supporters called the show “deeply stupid” in a complimentary way. What does “stupid” mean in your artistic vocabulary, and why is it useful?

GIGI: “Stupid” means to use your gut, not your brain.  It means to let your body lead even if you have no idea what is going to happen. It means to allow yourself to be illogical and to make mistakes. It’s useful because it’s freeing! We use “stupid” as our North Star and sometimes we ask ourselves, “How can we make this more stupid?”

ETHAN: When we take the stage, we are in pursuit of the quality of laughter that makes your belly hurt because you can’t stop, that type of laughter comes from the “stupid” place, not the “clever” one.

You’ve been described as brave, hardworking and possibly a bit unhinged. Do you think good clowning requires a willingness to push past normal social or theatrical boundaries?

GIGI: I think more than anything good clowning requires a willingness to push past your own limiting ideas and narratives about yourself and the world and if that happens to also result in pushing past normal social and theatrical boundaries, great! But sometimes people do things just for the sake of provocation, with no humanity or sensitivity behind it.  There’s no sense of self in that.  Good clowning allows us to see *you*.  Sometimes that leads to pushing past normal social and theatrical bounds but it’s not needed. Sometimes you end up doing something very safe, polite, normal and everyone relates to it and it’s the funniest thing.

ETHAN: Where you are in life is where you find yourself on the stage – especially as a clown. It’s a total reflection of your humanity, neuroses & all. It’s less about pushing social norms or theatrical boundaries, and more about where you’re willing to go within yourself. “Good” clown to us is when you see someone onstage, and as an audience member you feel & think: “Oh there you are. That’s you. You’re not hiding.” It’s more of a feeling than an intellectual thing, but you know when you experience it. Your standards for anything short of that level of vulnerability become extremely high.

You’ve said laughter can be an act of resistance. What do you think audiences are resisting when they laugh with you rather than at you?

GIGI: Wonderful question!  Sorry to clarify, we DO want you to laugh at us.  There is a freedom that comes with having a sense of humor about yourself and when others witness you bask in that freedom, it can be really inspiring.

ETHAN: Peeing.

You talk about the show being created through a “village” of mentors, teachers and friends. What did collective creation allow you to do that a traditional rehearsal process wouldn’t?

GIGI: Collective creation allows us to work our material in real time to see what works and what doesn’t.

ETHAN: What THE MOVEMENT means to us versus others is different, we all have our own unique experiences of the show. We love getting feedback from the audience and our community, and our show has been seen and passed through many hearts and minds. Everybody that has contributed their feedback, ideas, and direction has left their own imprint in the DNA of our show- and that can’t replicate that in a vacuum.

You’ve staged large‑scale stunts, including marching an audience through New York to perform in front of an LED truck. What attracts you to theatrical disruption outside conventional spaces?

GIGI: Referring back to the clown, we want to push ourselves to dream as big as possible so that other people feel pushed to do the same — did you hear about the couple that scaled the Empire State Building, waved a banner from the highest point, and got engaged while police helicopters swarmed around them? Way to dream! It got everyone’s attention and surely some folks thought to themselves, “I want to do that.”

ETHAN: The theatre is a place where we can shine a spotlight, and everyone looks exactly at that spot on the stage. The power of theatre is being able to shine that spotlight at ourselves and the world we live in, so we can illuminate and examine the unseen. That experience shouldn’t end when the show is over and the audience leaves. Staging performances outside of the theatrical container reminds us that we always have the power of the spotlight – life can be theatre. Also, when you step outside, the sun is in the sky, and that’s the biggest spotlight of all.

Your SoHo Playhouse performance on the anniversary of 9/11 was deliberately provocative. How do you navigate the line between meaningful provocation and empty shock?

GIGI: Always punch up.

ETHAN: In our world, there’s no shortage of bastards to kill.

You say you’re not here just to make people laugh — you’re here to make people free. What does “freedom” look like inside a one‑hour Fringe show at 11pm?

GIGI: It looks real stupid — you gotta come to find out!

ETHAN: There was your life before you joined THE MOVEMENT, and life after. Our show is what happens in between.

Click here to buy tickets

Advert

Leave a Comment

Reclaiming La Goulue: Stella Kulagowski on Giving Louise Weber Her Voice Back

Click on image to buy ticket

Stella Kulagowski is the writer‑performer behind Louise: The Last Dance, the Fringe show that pulls Louise Weber — La Goulue herself — out from under a century of mythmaking and lets her speak, move, and breathe again. Kulagowski isn’t just interpreting Weber; she’s inhabiting her, stitching together the fragments history left behind and confronting the ways women and queer artists are still framed, consumed, and rewritten today. What emerges is a portrait that refuses nostalgia and refuses sanitisation — a raw, funny, furious reclamation of a woman who lived loudly, loved widely, and paid dearly for being unforgettable.

In this conversation, she talks about finding the real Louise beneath the legend, the power dynamics that shaped her rise and fall, and what it means to stand alone on stage and argue back on behalf of someone who never got to tell her own story.

1. Louise Weber’s life reads like a rise‑and‑fall myth — laundress to the highest‑paid entertainer in France, then back to the margins. What was the moment in your research when she stopped being a legend and became a living, breathing woman you felt compelled to inhabit?

There’s a moment in the research for a project like this where you stop reading about your subject and start feeling her. For me it was stumbling on the Lacombe footage, the documentary clip filmed not long before she died at sixty two years old. She’s old, missing teeth, dressed in rags, and then she starts to move. And something happens to me in the carriage of her arm – this small, but unmistakable elegance. You catch this smirk on her face and suddenly you’re not looking at a broken old woman, you’re looking at the most famous dancer in France, the muse. That’s the moment her legend became tangible to me. Her life is the epitome of the rags-to-riches-to-rags arc and her story sounds so unbelievable, but watching her move, decades past her prime, in the mud outside her caravan, made it raw in a way no photograph or painting quite had. She wasn’t performing nostalgia for the camera, film was so new there wasn’t any expectation of how to even perform for film. She was just being, deep in her bones, exactly who she’d always been. That’s the woman I knew I could feel in my own body on stage.

2. The show begins in 1928, with Louise living in La Zone — the part of Paris where the city hid what it didn’t want to see. What drew you to that late‑life vantage point rather than the glittering Moulin Rouge years? What does starting at the end allow you to reveal?

From the moment I saw that Lacombe footage, I knew the show had to bookend there. It felt like the only place to start and end. So much of what I’m telling in this piece is about how Louise was documented endlessly by other people and never once recognized for her own talent, her own creation, except as a footnote, a subject for men to paint and photograph and write about, right up to the last months of her life. There’s something almost unbearably poetic about that: being filmed to the very end and still never truly seen. Starting there, in Montmartre, blocks away from the Moulin Rouge where she was once the biggest star in France and was now selling peanuts to get by, gives the whole piece a kind of sad “I bet you’re wondering how I got here” jumping off point. And when we go all the way back and end up there again, I think it feels so satisfying.

3. Louise was painted by Renoir, immortalised by Toulouse‑Lautrec, photographed, mythologised, and endlessly consumed — yet her own voice was never recorded. How do you approach giving voice to someone history refused to hear?

She wasn’t entirely silent, that’s the incredible thing. There are fragments: an interview here, a remembered line there, diary pages, moments where her own words slipped through the cracks of everyone else’s reporting. And her wit and bite were epic, even by today’s standards. She really did yell out to the Prince of Wales in the middle of the Moulin Rouge “Hey Wales, you buying the champagne or are you just here waiting for your mother?” I’m obsessed. I built the show out from those fragments like scaffolding. Then of course, so much of her record was made into scandal and exaggeration, so we don’t always know what is real. So, of course I made artistic (and editing) choices, but they’re never careless ones. Everything I present in the show is built on extensive research into who she was, what she survived, how she moved through the world. I’m not inventing someone, I’m standing in for someone I have come to care for deeply, using her own documented fragments as my compass.

4. Your work blends projection, archival media, dance, and direct address. When you’re reconstructing a life that’s been fragmented by other people’s gazes, how do you decide what belongs to Louise and what belongs to the world that used her?

The projection is meant to do the work of anchoring us in time and place, using all the actual documented paintings, photographs, and posters people might already half-recognize. Those images do the work of a thousand words, or ten thousand dollars of set design (!), in about two seconds. That’s evidence of this wild life lived and what the world saw and made of her.

The sound design is where the emotional weight lives. We hear the music she remembers in her own head, propelling her dance. And we hear the men in her life, Renoir, Zidler, Lacombe, as disembodied voices, cutting in, directing her, deciding things about her. That disembodiment is deliberate, it’s their force and influence without a face or body, just power acting on her from outside.

But you’ll notice the important women in her life, (her sister, her lover) are never disembodied voices. They live in her own body, in memory, because they were never outside her the way the men were. They’re not haunting her from a projection or a speaker. They’re still with her, held close, because that’s where love lives when everything else about you has been documented, torn apart for profit or taken away.

5. La Goulue’s stage persona was famously audacious — high kicks, hat‑flicking, drinking from patrons’ glasses (where it is said she derived her name, ‘The Gluttion’ from), teasing the crowd. How much of that bravado do you bring into the show, and how much do you strip away to reveal the person underneath?

I lean hard into exactly these things. Her bravado is real and one of the most documented, factual things about her. And she earned every ounce of it. What I try to strip away is the assumption that bravado and fear can’t exist at the same time. I don’t play her struggle as a betrayal of her audacity, I play them as the same muscle flexed in opposite directions. She can flick a duke’s hat off his head with her high kick and simultaneously be quietly terrified that someone younger and prettier is already lined up to replace her. Both things are true in the show, moments apart. I don’t need to dial down the swagger to find the person underneath, the swagger is just one layer of a truly complicated woman. The true challenge is trying to show all that in a sharp 50 minutes!

6. Louise loved women and men and champagne and life with equal ferocity. Do you see her as a figure of queer joy, queer tragedy, or something more complicated — a woman whose appetites were both her liberation and her undoing?

Honestly, it’s complicated, and I’m still sitting with that complication rather than resolving it. She hid her relationships with women, but looking at it through a contemporary lens, that wasn’t shame in the way we’d think of it now, it was survival. Her income depended on men. Her safety depended on being legible to them as available. Hiding her female lovers wasn’t erasure imposed from outside, it was a choice she made to protect the very fame and money that kept her alive.

But other people absolutely wanted to profit off her queerness when it suited them;  Zidler putting that painting of her and Marie up, Toulouse capturing what she couldn’t (or wouldn’t) say out loud. She never got to control that either. She’d have been the one left holding the scandal if it went wrong, not them.

A lot of my work explores queer joy, taking classic texts and stories and placing them in queer context. But this one is harder, because it’s not fiction and it doesn’t resolve that way. I don’t think this is a story of queer joy. I think it’s a story of a woman who loved fiercely and still had to calculate, every single day, what that love might cost her. I’m not sure there’s a tidy ending here for her and Marie, and I’m not going to manufacture one just because it would feel better to tell.

7. You’ve had three sold‑out Toronto Fringe productions and a background in burlesque, dance, and visual art. Where does Louise: The Last Dance sit within your artistic evolution? Does it feel like a culmination, a departure, or a new beginning?

This feels like a new chapter, more than a culmination or departure. Almost everything I’ve made before this has been big ensemble work, spectacle, dance, song, burlesque, a whole cast of talented people to lean on and hide inside. This is the first time it’s just me, alone, on stage, for fifty minutes. It’s terrifying! There’s nowhere to hide when it’s just me, telling my little story, no ‘somebody else’s striptease number’ to carry the room while I catch my breath.

But stripping away (ha!) all those crutches has made me a stronger, more confident creator than any of the bigger shows did. When you can’t rely on spectacle, you have to trust the writing, the performance, the genuine meaningfulness of the story. You have to trust yourself. I don’t think I could have made this show five years ago. I needed everything I learned building those ensemble pieces just to have the nerve to stand up here alone.

8. Louise’s story raises a sharp question: who gets to tell their own story, and who gets rewritten by others? In making this piece, did you find parallels between Louise’s era and the way women and queer artists are framed today?

Oh, absolutely, one hundred percent, this piece is meant to evoke how we continue to treat women artists. The media has never stopped loving setting women up just to tear them down. Women artists get cast as bitchy, crazy, difficult, emotional wrecks, while their male counterparts get called artistic geniuses for the exact same behavior. The way we still erase women’s achievements is shameful, and it’s not new. Louise was possibly the first in an endless line of women lambasted publicly to the delight and profit of mostly men. There’s actually a huge nod to this in the show, but I don’t want to spoil it. Is it cheesy to say you’ll have to come see it for that reveal?

9. The Moulin Rouge era is often romanticised — all colour, spectacle, and bohemian glamour. What truths about that world surprised you most when you dug beneath the posters and the mythmaking?

I think how precarious it all was, even at the very top. The “muse” relationship with those painters was far more transactional than the romantic legend suggests. A modeling session with Renoir’s circle paid ten to twenty-five francs, and a laundress at the time made roughly two francs a day. So a single afternoon sitting still, often nude, could be worth a week or more of scrubbing other people’s linens. The men got the immortality and she got a fraction of what her image was actually worth.

Even at her peak, none of it was stable. She was attacked by wolves and lions during her menagerie years and entered into marriages of convenience and safety. The whole ‘Belle Epoque’ era gets remembered as color and champagne, but underneath it was this woman – the most famous of the era – calculating constantly, how much of her body and safety she could afford to risk for the next franc.

10. Finally, if Louise Weber could step into Ivy Studio during your Fringe run and watch the show, what do you hope she’d recognise in your performance — and what do you hope she’d forgive?

Oh gosh, I’d like to think we’d go out afterward and share a cheap bottle of wine and absolutely cackle at how wrong I got it! But really, I hope with all my heart, that she’d love the gumption and the spirit of it all. I hope she’d recognise the refusal to make her sanitized and palatable. I didn’t sand down the drinking, the audacity, the mess, the contradictions, because I think she’d have hated a version of herself that was too easy to like. I hope she’d see a woman finally allowed to argue back.

As for forgiveness, there are places where I fully imagine her interior life: what she felt in a given moment, what she might have said to her lovers in private and what they said to her. I hope she’d forgive me those inventions, because I made every one of them in service of being truthful to her, never at her expense.This is a love letter to, and about, a complicated, messy woman. Not a scandalous headline. Not a poster in a giftshop. Just Louise.

Find out more and buy ticket here

Advert

Leave a Comment

Desire, Delirium and Defiance: Hannah Ponturo Reimagines Strasbourg’s Dancing Plague

For 1518: The Dancing Plague,playwright‑director‑producer Hannah Ponturo doesn’t just revisit a medieval hysteria — she queers it from the inside out. At the centre of Strasbourg’s civic collapse she places Katherine and Anna, two women whose long‑fractured romance becomes the emotional pulse of a society losing its grip. Ponturo treats queerness not as an add‑on but as the lens through which the crisis sharpens: desire as defiance, intimacy as resistance, love as the one human truth that refuses to behave, even when the world is convulsing around it.

Her production moves between satire, tenderness, and outright absurdity, but the queer heart of the piece never wavers. In a story about bodies pushed past their limits, she insists on showing what happens when two people try to reclaim their humanity in a society determined to deny it. The result is a work that feels both ancient and urgently contemporary — a queer love story beating beneath the noise of mass panic, political failure, and the strange comfort of collective delirium. We asked her to tell us more…

 

1. What does it mean to centre a queer love story between Katherine and Anna in the middle of a medieval mass‑hysteria crisis — is love the antidote, or just another form of delirium?

Neither. Love is a human need but it can’t save us from either ourselves or outside forces.

2. Why does a 500‑year‑old dancing plague feel more recognisable than anything we lived through in 2020?

Writing this piece post covid allowed me to accidentally draw parallels without initially intending to. Once it was clear, I wanted to channel Arthur Miller a la The Crucible and write about a historical crisis that was really about a modern event.

3. The clergy and city authorities scramble to contain the outbreak — is the real satire aimed at how power behaves when it loses control?

Yes, the clergy and city authorities get a hard beating from me throughout the show. Ultimately people who hold power are just people and during a crisis it’s very difficult to make the decision that will be deemed “right” in hindsight. Nevertheless some choices were so obviously wrong in the moment.

4. What’s the moment where the audience realises the comedy is getting uncomfortably close to our own recent chaos?

It sneaks up on you naturally until you start to realize that one plague is not so different from the other.

5. Does the play treat hysteria as a disease, or as something society manufactures when it can’t face the truth?

A little bit of both. The characters within the play truly believe that it’s a disease while I hope to portray that it’s the latter.

6. Katherine and Anna’s “long‑fractured romance” reignites while Strasbourg collapses — is queer love the rebellion here?

Queer love and fighting for one’s humanity is the rebellion.

7. How much of the dancing is pure comedy, and how much is a metaphor for people being pushed past their limits?

There’s only a small portion of the dancing that’s actually comedy. Our choreographer, Sydney Diamond, has created a language for the dancing sickness using the four elements: air, fire, water, earth. At first the dancing is air. These people are living in an enormously oppressive society and being able to dance feels good. Then, it becomes fire and the energy is full of sparks until we get to water and it becomes heavy. Ultimately earth is our destination before death.

8. What’s the most outrageous moment in the show that audiences absolutely won’t see coming?

Come and see!

9. How does the production balance the absurdity of people dancing themselves to death with the tenderness of a queer love story?

The incredible actors are able to balance this flawlessly: Britney Shields, Nicole Souza, Ryabrae Ngaida, Tallulah Jones, Gilberto Ortiz, Anne Marie Howard, and Don Berman.

10. Does the play suggest that crises bring people together, or that they expose what was broken all along?

Perhaps both. I’m sorry for being so Switzerland in this interview but I really do believe that there’s not just one answer to anything (except math, which I’m bad at).

11. What single image from the show captures both the comedy and the horror of the dancing plague?

Our logo, designed by Max DiRado, is the perfect image to describe our show. It’s a modern girl twerking with the medieval doctor plague mask on. I LOVE it.

12. If the dancing plague happened today, would it start on TikTok — or would TikTok just monetise it?

I think both. Today, anything that can be monetized will be.

13. How does the show use satire to talk about modern crises without ever naming them outright?

Bad government, heightened emotions, and incorrect medical advice are sadly timeless.

14. What do you hope queer audiences take from Katherine and Anna’s story that straight audiences might miss?

There’s a raw vulnerability to their love that I hope everyone can see, relate to, and experience either now, in the future, or in the past.

15. Why does a medieval dance‑till‑you‑drop epidemic feel like the perfect metaphor for the way we cope with uncertainty now?

The Dancing Plague is inherently silly and disarming so I hope to use this as a way to bring people in before getting to the subjects that may be less palatable.

Find out more and buy tickets here

Advert

Leave a Comment

Chained, Charged and Completely Exposed: Joseph N. Alberts on Padlocked!

Click on image to buy ticket

Some Fringe shows toy with constraint; Padlocked! builds an entire world out of it. The premise is disarmingly simple — one man, one bedroom, one set of chains — but what unfolds is a sharp, funny, unexpectedly revealing hour of theatre. At the centre of it all is Joseph N. Alberts, the actor playing Guy, who spends the entire performance padlocked in place. No shifting, no pacing, no physical escape. Every interruption, every rising panic, every emotional crack has to be played from a single fixed position, which somehow makes the chaos around him feel even more intimate.

 

  1. The entire play traps Guy in one physical position — chained, padlocked, unable to escape. What did you discover about the character by being literally stuck in place?
What I loved finding out about this character was how his occasionally waspish sense of humour ended up being a defence for quite a vulnerable core. He has some longstanding things about himself that he has never come to terms with. Being stuck in the one place means that he can’t escape from confronting those issues, or at least someone telling him some home truths, so how he deals with that is very interesting to play. He can still very much go on a journey of character even though he is not actually moving.
  1. The show blends kink with everyday life in a way that’s funny but also revealing. What part of Guy’s real‑world responsibilities felt most relatable to you?
I think the amount of (metaphorical) plate spinning and how we effectively act differently according to the different people around us in our lives, which is very much in the play, has really struck me. I’m sure all of us have things with family, work, neighbours and, dare I say it, potential lovers that we have to deal with, but luckily they might be spread over a week rather than within one hour in one afternoon.
  1. There’s a vulnerability in being restrained that goes beyond comedy. How did you approach that emotional layer without losing the humour?
I think realising the humour (of situation, and of Guy’s reactions and cynical comments) and the emotion are all wrapped as different facets of the same character. Keeping it emotionally honest, but also witty.
  1. The interruptions Guy faces — family, work, neighbours, even Alexa — are relentless. Which moment of escalating chaos is your favourite to perform?
There is a sequence where Guy needs to obtain a password to open a document for a work colleague he is on the phone to, and he realises he very much can’t get hold of it in the usual way… I think that is my favourite to perform.
  1. The press release hints that the story draws from real experiences. How much of Guy’s panic, desire, or denial feels personally familiar?
Luckily not the panic! The hopefulness of meeting one’s beau on Grindr and the increasing realisation that things may not work out as envisaged does feel very familiar. As is the case for wanting certain areas of your life not to overlap with other areas of your life.
  1. Fabio is alluring but elusive. What do you think Guy is really looking for in him — fantasy, escape, validation, or something else entirely?
I think Guy is ultimately looking for someone with an understanding of who he is and what his sexual desires are (wanting someone else to take control for a bit), but the fact that Fabio is so sexy is a definite bonus! The situation Guy is hoping for is its own escape, I’d say.
  1. The show is sex‑positive but also life‑negative, as the press release puts it. How do you balance those two tones on stage?
I would say our approach is to be unapologetic about the adult parts of the show and the amount of flesh on display for Guy’s kink, but also to find an honesty about the difficulties of life that come into the story, with relatively few people Guy feels he can be honest to.
  1. What’s the biggest challenge of performing a role where the comedy depends on timing, physical restriction, and rising tension?
It’s a blend of several things. Keeping the pace up, but keeping the contrasts between how he talks to the different people in his life. And making sure those one-sided phone conversations sound realistic in their timing. For some reason, remembering what to say between the conversations is proving harder than remembering the conversations themselves!
  1. If audiences come in expecting pure farce, what deeper truth do you hope they walk away with?
Perhaps the deeper truth that the chains may be metaphoric as well as literal. Or maybe that we all have different areas of our personalities, with triumphs and frustrations. Maybe being honest about personal things – or even kinks – might be the way ahead.
  1. And finally — what’s the part of Guy you’re most protective of, the thing you hope audiences really understand about him?
I love the realisation that he can change, even within an hour in his own bedroom. Despite his cynicism, he remains optimistic for as long as he can. I hope that audiences will find the way I portray the character engaging, even though he definitely has his flaws. He is wittier than I am, but I think he has a reason for that wit.
Find out more and buy tickets here
Advert

Leave a Comment

Juliette Burton Rewrites the Rules in Villain Era

Juliette Burton. Photo: Steve Ullathorne

What’s striking about Villain Era is how sharply it understands the women it’s speaking to — and the ones it’s speaking for. Juliette Burton, the writer and performer behind the show, doesn’t approach villainy as a gimmick or a costume; she treats it as a lens, a challenge, and sometimes a liberation. Her work has always wrestled with identity, power, and the stories women are handed, but here she pushes further, pulling apart the myths that shape us and the rules we’re expected to obey.

Talking with Juliette, you feel that mix of mischief and seriousness immediately. She’s funny, sharp, and unafraid to sit with the uncomfortable bits — the rage, the conditioning, the cultural policing — and then flip them into something joyful, defiant, and deeply human. Villain Era isn’t just a show; it’s a reclamation. And Juliette is the one steering it, inviting audiences into a world where women get to be complex, loud, powerful, silly, sexy, nerdy, and unapologetically themselves. Find out more at the Fringe website.

 Villainous Women — Fiction’s “bad girls” often carry the truths polite society can’t handle. Which villainess taught you the most about power, and what did she give you that the so‑called heroines never could?

Coming to the show you will step into the world of fictional villainous and morally grey women including: Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Catwoman, Rogue, Emma Frost, Goblin Queen, witches like Agatha Harkness or Scarlet Witch, Greek Goddesses, and Yennefer of Vengerberg.

She starts life powerless, unwanted and dismissed, then stops trying to be “good” and starts owning who she is. That was a revelation for me. Heroines are often rewarded for being selfless; villainesses are punished for being powerful.

Rogue is the other key one for me. My favourite comic book character began as a villain in the comic books in the 1980s. In the X-Men, she begins as a villain who absorbs the power and psyche of Carol Danvers aka Captain Marvel aka the most powerful Avenger and is terrified she can’t contain it. That fear that embracing your power might make you dangerous, felt familiar to me. Now I realise it only makes you dangerous who people who benefit from you being weak or controlled.

Fearing for her sanity Rogue turned to Professor Xavier for help. When I feared for my own sanity, I too turned to a bald man – Bill Bailey. He inspired me to get into stand up and just like Rogue became a leader in the XMen I also lead people… astray.

One of the things comic book villains and heroes like the XMen taught me is that power isn’t zero-sum. My power doesn’t diminish anyone else’s, it can highlight and sharpen it. The real shift happens when we stop seeing each other’s strength as a threat, and start learning how to exist alongside it in harmony.

If we can do that – personally, culturally, collectively – we don’t just survive each other’s differences but we become stronger because of them. That feels, to me, like the most hopeful “Villain Era” there could be.

Then there are witches like Agatha Harkness and Wanda Maximoff, who show that women’s power often grows with age which is exactly why we’re encouraged to disappear as we get older. Not me. I’m determined to get louder, prouder and embrace my power.

And Dark Phoenix, who taught me that the problem isn’t our innate power itself, but other people’s inability to cope with it.

It’s not even a case of ‘step into your power’ – we always had it. But now, we’re remembering our power and becoming it.

 

• Good Girl Conditioning — You describe yourself as a former “good girl”. What’s the most insidious part of that conditioning that you had to unlearn to step into your Villain Era?

The most insidious part of “good girl” conditioning is how deeply it ties identity, worth and safety to being agreeable, pleasing and non-disruptive. I learnt early that taking up space, having opinions, changing my body or challenging other people all come with social punishment. So I ended up chasing an impossible version of myself that was never meant to be achievable.

And even when I thought I’d attained it, I wasn’t allowed to veer from it even for a moment. You’re punished if you veer off the course that’s set and you’re punished if you achieve it – just look at women in the spotlight, allowed a brief stint there before they’re torn down one way or another.

And I think a lot of those “goals” are deliberately unattainable, set by systems and industries that profit from you feeling like you’re not enough. Comedy helped me unpick that, because it isn’t built on perfection or pleasing everyone. It’s built on truth, risk and joy. And there’s very little profit in joy, just freedom.

 

• Nerd Culture Politics — Nerd culture loves a redemption arc but fears female rage. How much of Villain Era is you reclaiming a space that was never built with women in mind?

Nerd culture has often been gatekept by people who frame it as “us vs them”, scarcity vs belonging, and who can be very attached to clear binaries of good and bad. It’s interesting, because on the surface nerd culture may love a redemption arc… but underneath that is the question: why do we need redemption at all and who decided someone was “beyond it” in the first place?

A lot of nerd storytelling, especially in comics, is basically modern mythology. The X-Men are essentially Greek gods in cool jackets. They constantly wrestle with identity, power and belonging, and just like ancient gods and goddesses we can turn to each of them to help us through an aspect of being human that we might be wrestling with at any given time in our lives. And I think the most compelling stories are the ones where hero and villain aren’t fixed states, but internal struggles.

The idea that nerd culture “fears female rage” is partly true in some spaces, but not all. I’ve also seen it be one of the few places and people that properly welcome, encourage and embrace powerful, complex women – women who are allowed to be messy, angry, moral, immoral, all of it.

What fascinates me most is the idea that society has to exist as if there’s a “them versus us”, eg men versus women, or nerds versus jocks, or old fans versus new fans, or an old franchise version versus a new franchise version/spinoff. It’s bizarre to me considering that so much of comic books and nerd culture is supposedly about wrestling with unity. The X-Men wrestle with the idea that they are inherently born different and so, do they use their powers to help protect those who would seek to persecute them? Or is tolerance extinction? For either ‘them’ or ‘us’?

The very fact that the nerd culture communities are aware of these conversations makes me feel safer in nerd culture than in other spaces in society right now, purely because we’re having those conversations, albeit via the prism of comic book lore.

All my shows are me reclaiming space… being on stage an inviting people into my world for an hour is my favourite place to be – I get to set the tone and invite people in. No gatekeeping, all inclusive… I wish that meant your food and drink was free but sadly just the joy.

 

• Sexy vs Silly — Your show promises to be “very silly, very sexy, incredibly nerdy”. Where do you think humour and sexuality meet, and why do British audiences still get twitchy when women mix the two?

Humour and sexuality have always been intertwined for me, they’re both about timing, truth, and not taking yourself too seriously. It still makes me laugh that when I came out as queer, my friends said, “we thought you already knew.” Apparently I was the last to know.

I also think we often confuse sexuality with sensuality and eroticism, and then immediately panic about what women are “allowed” to be in public. There’s still discomfort—particularly in British culture around openly sexual women who are also funny, clever, nerdy, or self-aware. It can disrupt the very tidy Madonna/whore boxes people would prefer to keep us in.

Adding in ‘funny’ confuses those who benefit from forcing women into polarised identities because humour empowers, laughter unites and brings us together, it breaks down pretty little lies about who we are, who we can be and what our roles are.

But the truth is women aren’t one thing. We’re allowed to be silly and sexy and ridiculous and powerful all at once. And if that makes people twitchy, I think that says more about their conditioning than it does about us.

 

• Rage as Fuel — You’re tackling inequality, bad sex lives, and the cultural policing of women’s behaviour. What role does anger play in your writing — ignition, compass, or something more dangerous?

Anger is definitely the ignition point for my writing. If something makes me angry, it usually means there’s a crack in the system somewhere and that’s where the comedy lives. Big things, small things, bad sex, inequality, cultural policing of women’s behaviour… it all starts with that moment of “hang on, why is this just normal?”

I used to be quite afraid of my anger. Therapy taught me that holding onto it was like holding hot stones except the only person getting burned was me. And that’s still true… if you just sit in resentment. But anger handled properly isn’t destruction, it’s information. It tells you what matters, what’s wrong, and what needs changing.

I’m angry about inequality, I’m angry about the amount of mediocre sex women are expected to quietly accept, and I’m very angry about how tightly women’s behaviour is still policed. But I don’t think anger is my compass, that’s a steadier commitment to belief we can do better. Anger is the spark, not the map.

Anger only becomes dangerous when it’s misused to divide people or distract from where the real power sits. In comedy, I try to aim it somewhere more useful: at the absurdity of the rules themselves. And ideally, we get to laugh at them while they fall apart.

 

• Queerness and Power — The press release hints at queerness as part of the journey. How does stepping into a “villain” identity open up new ways of talking about desire and identity?

When you’re raised in a culture where female desire is suppressed – whether that’s appetite, sexuality, difference, or queerness – it can start to feel like anything outside the “acceptable” script is automatically wrong. Even just wanting too much, or wanting differently, can get framed as selfish or even villainous.

So stepping into a “villain” identity becomes strangely freeing. It allows you to question who decided the rules in the first place, and why honesty about desire has to be punished. Whether that’s queerness, polyamory, or just forms of attraction and romance that don’t fit neatly into a norm, it all gets labelled as deviation from a story someone else wrote.

But “villainy” is really just perspective. It’s narrative. Good and bad aren’t fixed states – they’re labels we’ve inherited. And once you start pulling at that thread, the whole idea of what’s “normal” or “acceptable” starts to flip upside down in an exciting and liberating way.

 

• Fantasy Armour — You mention armour made of “hard truths, high fantasy and hilarious punchlines”. What’s the piece of metaphorical armour you didn’t realise you needed until you wrote this show?

Every woman needs a sword right now. That’s just a fact. But since actual armour isn’t exactly socially acceptable in most day-to-day situations, I think what I didn’t realise I needed was a full emotional breastplate – something that lets you walk into the world slightly more protected, but still very much a woman in power.

Or, you know… just better boundaries and less apologising. That too.

 

• Nerdgasms — You promise “live nerdgasms”. For the uninitiated: what exactly constitutes a nerdgasm, and how do you engineer one onstage without breaking Fringe fire regulations?

A nerdgasm is a kind of euphoric nerd peak—the tingle of recognition, like Spidey sense kicking in, when you feel completely seen by others who accept you, get you, understand your niche references, share your passions – whether that be for a fandom, for a passion or for challenging the status quo. It’s that moment of shared joy when a niche detail suddenly becomes a communal experience.

A nerdgasm happens when fandom, humour, sexuality and storytelling all collide in one room. Because the best nerdgasms aren’t solo, they’re collective. Multiple nerdgasms, if you will.

This cannot be engineered. A nerdgasm in the wild can only happen naturally, organically and only if we give ourselves permission to feel safe and lean in together. All I can do is create the conditions: honesty, play, a bit of chaos and a lot of love and respect. The rest is chemistry.

And if the fire alarm goes, well, we’ve clearly made the show incredibly hot.

 

 

• Villain Era Ethics — Every villain thinks they’re the hero of their own story. What’s the ethical line you refuse to cross, even in your Villain Era?

You can be a baddie, just don’t be a dick.

My “Villain Era” reign holds no cruelty or destruction. Just integrity, honesty, agency and refusing to shrink myself to make other people comfortable.

I’ve been the villain in other people’s stories for long enough that I’ve stopped trying to to be the “hero”. Instead, I’m leaning into the villain they’ve already decided I am. At least I look good in black. That doesn’t mean I wish them harm, I just wish them well while I live my life in the fullest, darkest, most powerful way possible. When you embrace your shadow self, turns out the team up is a power up.

That, to me, is the ethical line: don’t lose your humanity while you’re realising your power.

 

• Cultural Rebellion — Counter Culture readers love a rebellion. Do you see Villain Era as a personal metamorphosis, a cultural protest, or a gleeful act of mischief aimed at the patriarchy?

Villain Era is all of the above and more. Just like a woman, this show is multifaceted and is many things all at once.

Villain Era is all of the above and more. Like most women, it refuses to be just one thing at a time.

It’s a personal metamorphosis, because it’s been shaped by unlearning who I was told to be.

It’s a cultural protest, because so much of what I’m talking about – gender, power, sexuality, identity – doesn’t exist outside of politics, whether we name it or not.

And it’s a gleeful act of mischief aimed at the patriarchy because sometimes the best response to absurd systems that seek to control us is to laugh at them.

But underneath all of that, Villain Era is joyful, silly and fun. It’s a reclamation. It’s permission for me and for the audience to take up space without asking nicely.

Click here to buy tickets

Advert

Leave a Comment

Culture Vulture 6th–12th June 2026

The countdown to the World Cup continues, and football runs through this week’s selections like a thread stitched into the cultural fabric. From 1966: The World Cup Final in Colour and Lionesses: How Football Came Home to Gareth Southgate’s thoughtful exploration of modern masculinity and Kevin Bridges’ search for the soul of the beautiful game, television seems determined to remind us why football remains far more than a sport. It is memory, identity, aspiration and sometimes national therapy.

Away from the pitch, there is plenty to tempt the curious viewer. Ken Loach reflects on a lifetime spent chronicling working-class Britain, Steven Spielberg offers perhaps his most personal film in The Fabelmans, while science fiction enthusiasts are spoiled with everything from Blade Runner 2049 and Ex Machina to documentaries tracing the genre’s history from Mary Shelley to Isaac Asimov. Add in ancient Greece, Constantine the Great, James Dean, Clint Eastwood, Billy Idol and Muhammad Ali, and the result is one of the most varied weeks of the year so far.

As always, Culture Vulture’s aim is not simply to recommend programmes but to encourage exploration. The best television and cinema take us somewhere unexpected. This week, whether that journey leads to a football stadium, a distant galaxy, an Alpine village or the Roman Empire, there are plenty of worthwhile destinations.

Saturday 6th June

The Longest Day (1962) – Film4, 1:10pm

There’s a kind of architectural grace to The Longest Day — a film built not for spectacle but for endurance. Every sequence feels placed with deliberation, every perspective a brick in a vast, collective structure. It doesn’t chase emotion; it constructs it, piece by piece, until the enormity of D‑Day becomes something you can inhabit rather than merely watch.

What’s remarkable is its refusal to narrow the lens. Instead of a single hero’s journey, we get a mosaic of nationalities and motives, each fragment carrying its own rhythm. The film’s scale becomes human precisely because it’s broken into smaller, comprehensible acts — soldiers crossing fields, commanders weighing impossible decisions, civilians caught in the undertow of history.

Shot in stark black and white, it has the clarity of reportage. There’s no glamour in the mud, no romanticism in the chaos. Even the grand set‑pieces feel matter‑of‑fact, as if the camera were recording rather than interpreting. That restraint gives the film its moral weight: it honours the event by refusing to simplify it.

What lingers is the design — the sense that you’re watching not just a film but a reconstruction of memory itself. It may lack the visceral immediacy of modern war cinema, but its precision and quiet authority have aged beautifully. The Longest Day endures because it understands that history, like architecture, is built to last.

Prometheus (2012) – 5Star, 9:00pm

Few films divide opinion quite as consistently as Prometheus, and perhaps that is part of its appeal. It is a work that reaches, sometimes beyond its grasp, but always with an evident seriousness of intent. Ridley Scott returns to a universe he helped define, yet seems determined not to repeat himself.

What emerges is less a horror film than a meditation—albeit an uneasy one—on origins and belief. The questions it raises are large, almost unwieldy: who made us, and why? And more importantly, what does it mean if the answers are not comforting?

Visually, it is often extraordinary. Scott’s control of space, light and texture transforms even the simplest scenes into something imposing. The environments feel simultaneously alien and strangely recognisable, reinforcing the film’s central unease.

Yet the narrative resists coherence at times. Characters behave unpredictably, motivations blur, and the plot occasionally strains under the weight of its ideas. But even these flaws feel oddly consistent with the film’s ambition—it is less interested in tidy storytelling than in provocation.

For all its imperfections, Prometheus remains compelling. It is a film that invites interrogation rather than passive viewing, and that alone makes it worth revisiting.

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) – Channel 4, 9:00pm

At its core, Bohemian Rhapsody is not a biography in the strict sense, but a celebration—one that occasionally sacrifices nuance for momentum. It moves briskly through familiar milestones, selecting moments that reinforce its central narrative of rise, fall and triumphant return.

Where it falters, it does so through simplification. Complex relationships are streamlined, tensions softened, contradictions smoothed over. But the film seems unconcerned with precision. Its priorities lie elsewhere.

Those priorities become clear in its musical sequences. Here, the film shifts register entirely, allowing performance to take precedence over narrative. The energy becomes infectious, the pacing more assured, the purpose more focused.

The Live Aid reconstruction is the culmination of that approach. Meticulously staged and emotionally calibrated, it is less a re-creation than a kind of cinematic homage. It works not because it is perfect, but because it understands what the moment represents.

In the end, it is a film that succeeds through feeling rather than detail. And while it may not satisfy every expectation, it is difficult to deny its impact.

Vermiglio (2024) – BBC Four, 9:20pm

Vermiglio unfolds with remarkable patience, allowing its world to emerge gradually rather than assert itself. Set within an isolated mountain community, it captures not just a place but a way of life that feels quietly on the verge of transition.

The pacing is deliberate, almost meditative. Moments are allowed to breathe, conversations linger, silences carry weight. There is little sense of urgency, yet a subtle tension runs beneath the surface.

Visually, the film is striking in its restraint. The landscape is not presented as spectacle, but as presence—constant, watchful, shaping the lives within it. Interiors are equally carefully composed, each frame suggesting relationships before they are spoken.

What gives the film its depth is its attention to detail. Small gestures, fleeting glances, everyday routines—these become the building blocks of something much larger. It is observation elevated into storytelling.

By its conclusion, Vermiglio does not so much resolve as settle. It leaves behind an impression rather than a statement, and that impression stays with you.

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) – BBC One, 10:20pm

Sequels often struggle under the weight of expectation, but Blade Runner 2049 approaches its inheritance with unusual confidence. Rather than attempting to replicate the original, it expands upon it—both visually and philosophically.

Villeneuve’s direction is precise, almost measured. Scenes unfold with a calm assurance that allows the ideas to surface naturally. There is no rush to explain, no urgency to conclude. The film trusts its audience.

Visually, it is extraordinary. Every frame feels composed, every environment carefully realised. The scale is vast, yet the focus remains intimate. This balance between spectacle and introspection is rare, and here it is sustained throughout.

Thematically, it deepens the original’s concerns with identity and memory. What does it mean to be human? And perhaps more intriguingly, what does it mean to believe that you are?

There is a quiet melancholy running through the film, a sense of distance that never fully resolves. It gives the narrative its emotional core, even when the plot becomes secondary.

The result is a sequel that feels both respectful and independent—a continuation that justifies its own existence.

BlackBerry (2023) – Channel 4, 11:35pm

BlackBerry approaches its subject with an unexpected lightness of touch. What might have been a straightforward corporate drama instead becomes something more agile—part satire, part character study, part cautionary tale.

The story of rapid ascent is handled with energy. Innovation, ambition and a certain degree of naïveté drive the early stages, creating a sense of inevitability that feels almost exhilarating.

Then, almost imperceptibly, the tone begins to shift. Success becomes pressure, growth becomes instability, and the cracks begin to show. The transition is gradual, which makes it all the more convincing.

Performance plays a central role here. The characters are drawn with enough specificity to feel real, yet broad enough to capture the wider themes. There is humour, but also tension.

What the film ultimately captures is not just the rise and fall of a company, but the fragility of success itself. It is as much about timing as it is about innovation.

Sunday 7th June

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) – BBC Two, 1:00pm

Adapted from Tennessee Williams, the film retains much of the play’s theatrical intensity while opening it out just enough for the screen. The result is a chamber piece charged with emotional pressure.

The performances are central. Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman bring a volatile chemistry that never quite settles. Their exchanges carry a sense of unfinished business, of things left unsaid.

Beneath the surface lies a network of tensions—family, identity, expectation—that never fully resolve. The film thrives on this instability.

Dialogue does much of the work, but it is supported by careful staging and pacing. Scenes are allowed to unfold without interruption, creating a sense of accumulation.

It is a film that operates as much in what it withholds as in what it reveals.

The Beautiful Game (2024) – Channel 4, 3:35pm

Football provides the framework, but the film’s interests lie elsewhere. It uses the sport as a means of exploring dignity, resilience and the possibility of redemption.

The narrative is straightforward, but effective. Each character brings a different perspective, allowing the themes to emerge organically rather than being imposed.

There is a warmth to the storytelling that carries it through its more predictable moments. It never feels cynical, even when it leans towards sentiment.

Visually, it keeps things grounded. The emphasis remains on people rather than spectacle.

By the end, it is less about victory than about recognition—of self, of worth, of possibility.

Unforgiven (1992) – BBC Two, 10:45pm

Unforgiven dismantles the mythology of the western with quiet precision. It does not reject the genre outright, but it questions its assumptions at every turn.

Eastwood’s performance is central to that process. His character carries the weight of history—both personal and cinematic. Every action feels deliberate, considered.

Violence is presented without glamour. Its consequences are immediate and lasting, stripping away any sense of heroism.

The film’s pacing reflects its themes. It moves slowly, allowing tension to build without release.

What remains is something far more complex than a traditional western. It is a reflection on memory, regret and the stories we tell ourselves.

The Damned United (2009) – BBC One, 11:30pm

At first glance, it looks like a football film — the dugouts, the touchline fury, the familiar choreography of triumph and disaster. But The Damned United is really something narrower and far more revealing: a character study disguised as a sports drama. Brian Clough isn’t presented as a legend in waiting but as a man caught between swagger and self‑doubt, ambition and insecurity. The film is less interested in what he won than in what it cost him to want it so badly.

Michael Sheen captures that contradiction with unnerving precision. His Clough is magnetic one moment and brittle the next, a man who performs confidence because he cannot bear to show how fragile he feels underneath. Sheen plays him as someone who needs the room to love him but fears the moment they stop. It’s a performance built on tension — the kind that flickers behind the eyes rather than erupts in speeches.

The film’s structure helps enormously. By focusing on a single, disastrous chapter of Clough’s career, it avoids the sprawl of the traditional biopic. Instead, it becomes a study in pressure: the Leeds job as crucible, as mirror, as trap. The narrowness gives it clarity. We’re not watching a life; we’re watching a moment that defines one.

There’s humour here — sharp, needling, often at Clough’s expense — but it’s threaded with discomfort. The film refuses to indulge in easy admiration. It understands that charisma can be corrosive, that brilliance can shade into self‑destruction, and that the line between confidence and delusion is thinner than most of us would like to admit.

In the end, The Damned United is as much about failure as success, and that’s what makes it compelling. It’s a portrait of a man who wanted greatness so fiercely that he almost broke himself chasing it — and a reminder that sometimes the most interesting stories are the ones where things fall apart.

Monday 8th June

Bridge of Spies (2015) – Film4, 8:00pm

Spielberg treats the Cold War not as spectacle but as moral geometry — a landscape of lines, boundaries and quiet negotiations. The film moves with deliberate calm, its tension drawn from the spaces between words rather than the explosions that usually define the genre. It’s a story about decency under pressure, and the courage required to remain ordinary when the world demands extremes.

Tom Hanks anchors it with a performance of quiet conviction. His character, James Donovan, is not a man of grand gestures but of steady principles. In a world of paranoia and posturing, his restraint becomes radical. Hanks plays him as someone who believes that fairness is not naïve but necessary — that the law, even when inconvenient, is the last defence against chaos.

Visually, the film is composed like a negotiation itself: muted tones, careful framing, the chill of divided Berlin rendered with painterly precision. Spielberg’s camera doesn’t shout; it listens. Every shot feels weighed, every silence deliberate. The result is a film that trusts its audience to feel the gravity of diplomacy without the need for spectacle.

All of Us Strangers (2023) – Channel 4, 10:00pm

All of Us Strangers moves like a dream you’re not entirely sure you want to wake from — drifting between memory, imagination and lived experience with a kind of emotional weightlessness. It resists the usual scaffolding of narrative, choosing instead to follow the currents of feeling: uncertain, searching, unresolved. The film’s pacing mirrors its themes, as if time itself were hesitating.

The performances carry the film’s emotional charge. There’s a vulnerability here that never feels engineered — a kind of openness that allows the smallest gestures to land with surprising force. Andrew Scott, in particular, plays grief as something porous, a state that leaks into everything without ever announcing itself.

Relationships are drawn with unusual care. Nothing is simplified, nothing forced into neat arcs. Instead, the film allows complexity to emerge gradually, like a photograph developing in slow motion. The connections feel fragile but real, shaped as much by what is unsaid as by what is spoken.

Visually, the film walks a delicate line between realism and abstraction. Interiors glow with a soft, uncanny warmth; exteriors feel slightly out of reach, as though the world were being remembered rather than observed. It’s a film that understands how memory distorts even as it preserves.

All of Us Strangers doesn’t tie its threads together; it lets them drift, trusting that the audience will feel the shape of what can’t quite be articulated.


Tuesday 9th June

The Fabelmans (2022)

Film4, 9:00pm

Spielberg turns the camera on himself — or at least on the emotional terrain of his childhood. The Fabelmans is a film about the birth of an artist, but also about the fractures and loyalties of family life. It’s tender, painful, funny and occasionally startling in its honesty. What makes it so affecting is the way Spielberg balances the mythmaking of cinema with the messiness of real life. The film understands that art can be both an escape and a reckoning.

The performances are uniformly superb. Michelle Williams gives one of her finest turns as a woman torn between duty and desire, while Paul Dano brings quiet, heartbreaking dignity to a father who cannot quite understand the world his son is entering. The film’s emotional centre, though, is Gabriel LaBelle, who plays the young Spielberg with a mixture of vulnerability and fierce creative instinct.

What lingers is the film’s generosity. Even when depicting pain, it refuses to be cruel. It is a work of memory — imperfect, selective, but deeply felt. A late‑career masterpiece.

Muhammad Ali Night

BBC Four, from 10:00pm

A portrait of a man whose influence extended far beyond sport. Ali remains one of the most charismatic figures of the 20th century, and the documentaries capture both his brilliance and his contradictions. The programmes avoid hagiography, instead presenting a man who was equal parts poet, fighter, activist and showman.

Brexit: A Very British Civil War (Part Two)

BBC Two, 11:00pm

The conclusion of a story that continues to shape British public life. The documentary is clear‑eyed without being cynical, tracing the political and cultural fractures that remain unresolved.

Science Fiction in the Atomic Age: Mary Shelley to Isaac Asimov

Sky Arts, 11:00pm

A quietly absorbing journey through the roots of a genre that has always doubled as a cultural pressure gauge. What the programme understands — and articulates beautifully — is that science fiction isn’t really about the future at all. It’s about the present: the fears we can’t name, the hopes we barely admit, the technologies we suspect might outgrow us.

Tracing a line from Frankenstein to Foundation gives the documentary a pleasing sweep. Mary Shelley’s gothic anxiety about creation and responsibility sits surprisingly comfortably beside Asimov’s cool, rational visions of robotics and empire. The programme treats these works not as curiosities but as milestones in our evolving relationship with science — each one a marker of what humanity was afraid of, or yearning for, at a particular moment.

What makes it compelling is its refusal to flatten the genre into a single narrative. Instead, it shows how science fiction has always been a conversation: between writers and readers, between imagination and technology, between dread and possibility. The Atomic Age becomes a kind of crucible, where fear of annihilation and excitement about progress coexist uneasily.

By the end, you’re left with a sense of continuity — that the questions Shelley posed in the 19th century are still with us, simply wearing new clothes. The documentary doesn’t try to answer them. It just reminds us why we keep asking.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

ITV1, 11:00pm

Terminator 2 remains one of those rare sequels that doesn’t just outdo its predecessor — it redefines the terrain entirely. What James Cameron achieves here is a kind of muscular elegance: action cinema engineered with the precision of a machine and the emotional pulse of something unmistakably human. The film moves with propulsive force, yet never feels rushed; every set‑piece is earned, every beat calibrated.

What surprises, even now, is the emotional undercurrent. Beneath the molten steel, the chases, the relentless forward motion, there’s a story about connection — unlikely, fragile, and all the more affecting for it. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s T‑800, once a symbol of implacable threat, becomes a study in programmed compassion, while Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Connor is transformed into something fierce, haunted and utterly compelling.

Visually, the film still feels astonishingly modern. The liquid‑metal T‑1000 remains one of cinema’s great creations, not because of the effects alone but because of the cold, unsettling grace with which it moves. Cameron understands that technology is most frightening when it feels inevitable.

More than three decades on, T2 hasn’t lost its edge. It’s still the benchmark — the film that proved action cinema could be thrilling, intelligent and unexpectedly tender, all at once.

Mean Streets (1973)

Film4, 11:55pm

Mean Streets still feels like a live wire — raw, restless, and vibrating with the energy of a filmmaker discovering his voice in real time. Scorsese’s breakthrough isn’t polished; it isn’t meant to be. It moves with the jittery rhythm of the neighbourhood it depicts, a world where loyalty is currency and guilt is a constant, unpayable debt. You don’t watch it so much as get pulled into its orbit.

Harvey Keitel’s Charlie is the film’s uneasy centre of gravity, a man trying to balance faith, obligation and the gravitational pull of old streets that refuse to let him go. He’s torn between the life he wants and the life he owes — a tension Scorsese renders with a kind of bruised tenderness. Charlie’s moral compass spins, but never quite settles.

Then there’s De Niro’s Johnny Boy, a performance that still feels dangerous. He’s chaos in a leather jacket — charming, reckless, infuriating, and impossible to ignore. The chemistry between Keitel and De Niro is electric, the kind that suggests a lifetime of shared history even when the script leaves it unspoken.

What gives the film its enduring power is its authenticity. Scorsese isn’t mythologising the streets; he’s remembering them — the bars, the debts, the rituals of masculinity, the way violence can erupt from nothing and return to nothing just as quickly. It’s a portrait of a community that traps as much as it sustains.

Half a century on, Mean Streets still crackles. It’s messy, alive, and utterly sincere — a film that understands how hard it is to leave the places that shaped you, even when you know you should.


Wednesday 10th June

Constantine the Great

PBS America, 8:50pm

History on an epic scale as the life of the Roman emperor unfolds. The documentary traces Constantine’s rise with clarity and sweep, showing how one man’s political instincts and religious convictions reshaped the ancient world. It’s a reminder that empires turn on personalities as much as armies.

Riddick (2013)

Sky One, 9:00pm

Riddick is the franchise stripped back to its sinew — no prophecy, no operatic world‑building, just a man, a hostile planet and the stubborn will to outlive whatever wants him dead. It’s a return to the lean, survivalist instincts that made the character compelling in the first place. The film moves with a kind of simplicity, as if clearing its throat after the bloated mythology of Chronicles.

Vin Diesel slips back into the role with the ease of someone putting on a well‑worn jacket. His Riddick is still all gravel and glare, but there’s a sharper edge here — a sense of calculation beneath the brute force. The film gives him room to be cunning rather than merely indestructible, and that shift makes the action feel more grounded, more earned.

The setup is classic pulp: abandoned on a sun‑scorched world, hunted by mercenaries who underestimate him, and stalked by creatures that definitely don’t. But the execution has a pleasing clarity. Director David Twohy knows exactly what kind of film he’s making — a survival thriller with sci‑fi trimmings — and he doesn’t clutter it with unnecessary lore.

What emerges is a story that feels oddly refreshing in its directness. No grand destinies, no cosmic stakes, just a man trying to stay alive long enough to get off the rock he’s been left on. It’s not profound, but it is satisfying — a reminder that sometimes the most effective sequels are the ones that remember what worked in the first place.

Ken Loach Remembers

BBC Four, 10:05pm

A reflective, moving look back at a career spent chronicling working‑class Britain. Loach speaks with the clarity and compassion that have defined his work for decades. There’s a sense of summing up here — not nostalgia, but a quiet reckoning with the stories he felt compelled to tell.

The Old Oak (2023)

BBC Four, 10:20pm

The Old Oak feels like a final note held just a little longer than expected — quiet, steady, and full of the moral clarity that has defined Loach’s career. Set in a former mining town hollowed out by decades of loss, the film watches what happens when a community already on its knees is asked to absorb even more change. There’s no sentimentality here, just the hard, necessary work of people trying to live alongside one another.

Loach treats migration not as a political talking point but as a human encounter: awkward, fraught, hopeful, and often tender in ways that catch you off guard. The pub at the film’s centre becomes a kind of pressure chamber, a place where old grievances and new possibilities collide. It’s a setting Loach understands instinctively — the last communal room in a town that has lost almost everything else.

What gives the film its quiet power is its belief in connection. Not easy connection, not the tidy kind that resolves itself by the credits, but the slow, fragile kind built through shared meals, shared stories, and the recognition of mutual struggle. Loach has always been at his best when he shows solidarity not as a slogan but as a practice, and The Old Oak is steeped in that sensibility.

As a final chapter, it feels right. Not triumphant, not despairing — simply honest. A filmmaker taking one last look at the people he has spent a lifetime championing, and offering them, and us, a measure of hope.

Witches: Truth Behind the Trials

National Geographic, 10:00pm

An examination of fear, power and one of history’s most enduring moral panics. The documentary digs into the social and political forces that fuelled witch trials, showing how hysteria becomes a tool for control.

Up the Junction

BBC Four, 12:25am

Up the Junction still lands with the force of something freshly made — raw, unvarnished, and unwilling to soften its edges for comfort. It’s one of those rare pieces of television that feels like a rupture, a reminder of just how radical British TV once dared to be. The film’s honesty is almost abrasive: no sentimentality, no tidy resolutions, just the lived reality of working‑class women navigating a world that offers them little and judges them for taking even that.

What makes it endure is its refusal to look away. The performances have a documentary immediacy, the kind that makes you forget you’re watching actors at all. The social commentary isn’t delivered as message but as experience — embedded in the rhythms of daily life, the choices constrained by circumstance, the quiet tragedies that accumulate.

Half a century on, its power hasn’t dimmed. If anything, its clarity feels sharper now, a reminder of a time when television didn’t just reflect society but confronted it.


Thursday 11th June

The Making of King Arthur

BBC Four, 8:00pm

A thoughtful exploration of Britain’s most enduring legend — part history, part myth, part national mirror. The programme traces how Arthur has been reinvented across centuries, reflecting the hopes and anxieties of each era.

James Dean: The Emotional Man

Sky Arts, 9:00pmA portrait of a performer who seemed to burn from the inside out. James Dean’s career was brief enough to feel like a flash, yet the emotional afterglow has lasted decades — a mixture of youthful intensity, unresolved longing and that strange, magnetic vulnerability that made him look both invincible and breakable at the same time.

The documentary leans into that duality. It doesn’t try to tidy him into a myth, nor does it pretend the myth isn’t part of the story. Instead, it traces the tension between the boy he was, the man he was becoming, and the icon the world insisted on making him. You feel the fragility beneath the swagger, the ache beneath the cool.

What emerges is a study in contradictions: a performer who seemed to reveal everything while giving almost nothing away; a symbol of rebellion who was, in many ways, searching for connection; a star whose brief life became a template for a certain kind of cinematic longing.

It’s a reminder that some figures endure not because they were fully understood, but because they never quite were. Dean remains one of them.

Constantine the Great (Part Two)

PBS America, 8:35pm

The concluding chapter follows the emperor’s creation of Constantinople and the reshaping of an empire. A sweeping end to a story that still echoes through European history.

Ex Machina (2014)

Film4, 10:45pm

Ex Machina still feels like a shard of ice slipped under the skin — sleek, controlled, and quietly unnerving. Alex Garland builds his story with the precision of a psychological trap, letting tension accumulate in the pauses, the glances, the silences that stretch just a little too long. It’s science fiction pared back to its essentials: intelligence, power, desire, and the dangerous spaces where they overlap.

Oscar Isaac gives the film its swaggering volatility, a tech‑messiah with a god complex and a taste for manipulation. Alicia Vikander, by contrast, is all poise and ambiguity — a performance so finely calibrated you’re never entirely sure where the machine ends and the person begins. Their scenes hum with a kind of electric unease.

Visually, the film is immaculate. Glass, concrete, soft light, and the sense that every surface is observing you. Garland uses the environment like a second script, a place where transparency becomes its own form of menace.

And then there’s the final act — cold, precise, inevitable. It lands not with shock but with the quiet, devastating logic of a conclusion you should have seen coming all along.

Arena: Clint Eastwood – Out of the West

BBC Four, 11:05pm

A portrait of one of Hollywood’s last great auteurs — a filmmaker whose career spans genres, decades and cultural shifts. The documentary is affectionate without being fawning.

Clint Eastwood: American Filmmaker

BBC Four, 12:05am

The second part of an excellent Eastwood double bill, tracing the evolution of a director who has always been more complex than his public image suggests.

Little Richard: I Am Everything (2023)

Channel 4, 1:55am

A blast of colour, noise and unapologetic self‑invention, Little Richard: I Am Everything is as flamboyant and furious as the man himself. The documentary refuses to sand down the contradictions — the joy, the rage, the brilliance, the lifelong tug‑of‑war between identity and expectation. It understands that Little Richard didn’t just help invent rock and roll; he detonated it, reshaping the cultural landscape with a scream, a shimmy and a streak of eyeliner.

What the film captures so well is the emotional voltage behind the performance. The joy is real — ecstatic, liberating — but so is the fury, the sense of someone fighting to claim space in a world determined to shrink him. The archival footage crackles, the interviews deepen the portrait, and the whole thing moves with the rhythm of a man who refused to be quiet.

It’s vibrant, defiant, and impossible to ignore — just like Richard himself.


Friday 12th June

Hunting the Debt Predators

Channel 4, 8:00pm

Investigative journalism at its most urgent. A look at those who profit from financial hardship — and the people fighting back. The programme is angry, clear‑eyed and necessary.

Queer (2024)

BBC Two, 11:00pm

A bold, jagged adaptation of Burroughs that refuses to smooth the edges of the source material. Queer moves with a kind of raw, intimate unease — a film that sits inside longing, self‑loathing and desire without trying to tidy any of it into catharsis. It feels both anchored in its period and strangely unmoored from time, as if the emotional landscape hasn’t changed as much as we’d like to think.

The film leans into the book’s nervy, uncomfortable honesty. Relationships are sketched in quick, piercing strokes; the vulnerability is palpable but never overstated. What emerges is a portrait of a man circling his own loneliness, reaching out and recoiling in the same breath.

Visually, it balances grit with a kind of feverish lyricism — realism shading into hallucination, memory bleeding into the present. It’s a film that trusts atmosphere as much as narrative.

The result is unsettling, intimate, and quietly devastating. It doesn’t seek resolution; it simply sits with the ache.

Queen & Slim (2019)

BBC Two, 1:10am

Queen & Slim unfolds like a modern myth written on the move — a road movie where romance, tragedy and political urgency are braided so tightly they become inseparable. It starts quietly, almost tentatively, then gathers emotional force until it hits with the weight of something inevitable.

What makes it so powerful is the intimacy at its core. The relationship grows in the spaces between danger, in the glances and hesitations, in the way two people learn to trust each other while the world closes in. The film never rushes that connection; it lets it breathe, deepen, complicate.

Visually, it’s striking — bold compositions, saturated colours, a sense of America as both vast and claustrophobic. The landscapes feel mythic, yet the violence and injustice that shape the journey are painfully real.

By the end, the film leaves you with a mixture of ache and awe. It’s a love story, a protest and a lament.


Streaming Choice

Michael Jackson: The Verdict (Netflix)

All three episodes available from Wednesday 3rd June

A forensic, often uncomfortable examination of one of the most scrutinised trials in modern pop‑culture history. The documentary avoids sensationalism, instead laying out the legal, cultural and media forces that shaped the case. It’s sober, detailed and designed to provoke reflection rather than deliver easy answers.

USA 94: Brazil’s Return to Glory (Netflix)

Available from Sunday 7th June

A richly assembled look back at one of the World Cup’s most emotionally charged triumphs. The documentary captures both the tactical evolution of the Brazilian side and the wider cultural moment that surrounded their victory. For football fans, it’s a warm bath of nostalgia; for everyone else, it’s a reminder of how sport can become a national myth.

Daisy Jones & The Six (ITVX)

All 10 episodes available from Sunday 7th June

One of the finest music dramas of recent years. Adapted from Taylor Jenkins Reid’s novel, the series charts the rise and implosion of a fictional 1970s rock band with such conviction that it feels like a recovered piece of music history. The performances are magnetic, the songs are genuinely good, and the emotional fallout is handled with surprising delicacy. It first appeared on Prime, where I watched it, and I loved every episode.

The Score (ITVX)

Both episodes available from Monday 8th June

A taut, stylish two‑parter that blends crime drama with character study. The Score is less interested in the mechanics of wrongdoing than in the people who find themselves pulled into its orbit. Sharp writing and a lean runtime make it an easy, satisfying binge.

The Evil Lawyer (Netflix)

All seven episodes available from Thursday 11th June

A taut, stylish legal thriller with a decidedly dark streak, The Evil Lawyer takes the familiar architecture of courtroom drama and twists it into something sharper and more morally slippery. The series follows a defence attorney whose brilliance is matched only by his capacity for manipulation, and the result is a portrait of power exercised in the shadows — calculated, ruthless, and unsettlingly compelling.

What gives the show its bite is the way it treats the law not as a noble ideal but as a weapon, wielded by someone who understands exactly how to bend systems, people and outcomes to his will. The tension comes less from the cases themselves than from the psychological games surrounding them: alliances formed and broken, truths buried, motives obscured.

Across seven episodes, the series maintains a sleek, propulsive rhythm. It’s glossy without being hollow, cynical without losing its grip on character, and just heightened enough to feel addictive. Beneath the twists, there’s a clear fascination with the cost of ambition — and the ease with which morality can be traded away when winning becomes the only metric that matters.

Leave a Comment

Culture Vulture 30th May – 5th June 2026

A large vulture soaring in the sky with mountains in the background, accompanied by bold text reading 'CULTURE VULTURE' and a banner for 'COUNTER CULTURE' event from 30th May to 5th June 2026.

From Tudor intrigue and American paranoia to Bowie beneath the floodlights and Aretha reclaiming the airwaves, this week’s Culture Vulture ranges widely across cinema, television and sound. There is something quietly defiant about these selections. History refuses to stay buried, old scandals echo into the present and entertainment itself becomes a way of understanding power, identity and memory. Whether it is Gordon Banks and football folklore, Muhammad Ali refusing to fit into easy categories or Russell T Davies returning to themes of love and belonging, the week rewards curiosity.

Three selections stand out. 🌟 The Lion in Winter remains one of the sharpest battles of wills ever committed to film, a royal family drama that could have been written yesterday. 🌟 Shergar: The Racehorse and the IRA revisits one of Ireland’s great unsolved mysteries where sport, politics and organised violence intersect. And 🌟 Dear England arrives as a reminder that football stories are rarely just about football at all, but about national identity, expectation and the fragile business of collective belief.

Culture Vulture, as ever, offers an alternative route through the schedules.

Saturday 30th May 2026

🌟 Shergar: The Racehorse and the IRA
Channel 4, 8.00pm
Catch up via Channel 4 streaming

The disappearance of Shergar remains one of those stories that feels suspended between crime thriller and national myth. The Derby winner who seemed destined for sporting immortality vanished in 1983 and was never recovered, leaving behind rumour, accusation and unanswered questions. Channel 4 revisits the case through the complicated intersection of horse racing, Irish politics and the shadow world of paramilitary activity.

What gives the story its grip is that Shergar was more than a horse. He represented prestige, money and status, and his disappearance carried emotional resonance well beyond racing circles. Even now the case provokes disagreement over motive, culpability and what may have happened during those lost days.

Good documentaries know when mystery matters more than neat resolution. This looks set to recognise that uncertainty is often part of the story itself.

The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)
5Star, 6.20pm

Revenge dramas live or die on the audience believing not merely in injustice but in the wounded intelligence of the person seeking redress. Kevin Reynolds’ adaptation of Alexandre Dumas understands this instinctively. Jim Caviezel’s Edmond Dantès begins as an ordinary sailor betrayed by jealousy and greed, only to emerge from imprisonment transformed into a calculating avenger.

The story remains irresistible because its pleasures are both emotional and theatrical. Dantès does not simply seek revenge; he curates it. His enemies are dismantled piece by piece, and the audience enjoys the spectacle even while sensing the moral cost.

Guy Pearce makes an especially effective Mondego, his treachery rooted not in grand villainy but insecurity and entitlement. Pearce understands that envy often wears the face of friendship before revealing its sharper edges.

The film compresses and simplifies Dumas, sometimes drastically, yet retains the novel’s central heartbeat — the fantasy that intelligence and patience might defeat privilege and corruption.

There is also something enduringly appealing about its romantic sweep. Modern cinema can sometimes be nervous about emotional sincerity, but Monte Cristo embraces melodrama with confidence and charm.

A handsome, entertaining adventure that still carries enough darkness beneath the swordplay to linger.

Ghost Trail (2024)
BBC Four, 9.05pm

Jonathan Millet’s Ghost Trail plays less like a thriller and more like a man trying to walk through the wreckage of his own mind. The Syrian war sits in the background like a bruise that never quite fades, and the film follows a lone figure moving across Europe in pursuit of a man he believes once held the power to destroy him.

What gives the film its quiet force is the way it refuses to turn suffering into a set‑piece. Trauma isn’t staged or stylised; it’s carried. You see it in the way the protagonist holds himself, in the pauses before he speaks, in the way memory seems to press down on him like weight rather than narrative.

Millet keeps the pacing spare, almost ascetic. Scenes breathe. Silences stretch. The tension comes not from the machinery of genre but from the unease of not knowing what justice might look like, or whether it’s even possible after so much damage. Suspicion becomes a kind of weather system the characters move through.

It sits comfortably in that European tradition where filmmakers trust the audience to live with ambiguity. No explanatory flashbacks, no moral signposts, no tidy catharsis — just the slow, unsettling drift of a man trying to decide what he owes to the past and what he can still salvage from the future.

A reminder, stark and unadorned, that crossing a border doesn’t mean leaving a war behind.

David Bowie: Serious Moonlight
Sky Arts, 9.00pm

As a lifelong Bowie obsessive, I always return to 1983 with a kind of fascinated ambivalence. This was the moment when the great shape‑shifter — the man who’d spent a decade outrunning categories — suddenly became a global pop phenomenon. Serious Moonlight captures him right at that pivot point, balancing mass adoration with the cool intelligence that made him Bowie in the first place.

The setlist is almost indecently rich: Heroes, Fashion, Space Oddity, Young Americans, Life on Mars?, and the irresistible, sun‑lit swagger of Let’s Dance. But what holds the attention isn’t just the songs — it’s the way he moves through them. There’s that familiar Bowie duality: fully present yet somehow hovering above the moment, performer and anthropologist of his own fame.

Concert films often wilt as decades pass, victims of their own hairstyles and shoulder pads. Bowie, though, rarely dates. He seems to exist slightly outside the calendar, as if time bends a little to accommodate him. Even here, in his most commercially accessible era, he’s still playing with persona, still testing the edges of what a pop star can be.

A reminder, for those of us who’ve followed him through every incarnation, that even at his most mainstream he never stopped being singular.

Playboy: Secrets of the Centrefolds
12.35am

The Playboy empire remains one of the twentieth century’s strangest cultural contradictions — marketed as liberation while frequently entangled in exploitation and image-making. This documentary strand explores the experiences behind the mythology.

The Great Fire: London Burns
PBS America, 7.35pm
The Great Fire: Death and Destruction
PBS America, 8.35pm
The Great Fire: A City Rebuilt
PBS America, 9.35pm

This three-part examination of the Great Fire promises not simply disaster reconstruction but social history. Fires reveal inequalities as much as architecture, and London’s catastrophe of 1666 reshaped the city physically and psychologically.

Sunday 31st May 2026

🌟 Dear England
BBC One, 9.00pm
Episode 3 of 4 – All episodes on iPlayer

Football dramas often stumble by mistaking fandom for storytelling. James Graham’s Dear England avoids that trap by recognising that Gareth Southgate’s England represented something larger than tournament results.

The drama explores pressure, vulnerability and the attempt to rebuild a national sporting culture too often trapped by fear and nostalgia.

Even viewers indifferent to football may find themselves unexpectedly drawn in.

The Book of Life (2014)
BBC One, 10.00am

Animated cinema occasionally dares to look genuinely distinctive. Jorge Gutierrez’s The Book of Life does precisely that, drawing on Mexican folklore and Day of the Dead traditions with vivid imagination.

Rather than chasing generic fantasy, the film embraces cultural specificity, giving it warmth and personality.

There is romance, humour and adventure, but also reflection on family expectation and memory.

The visual design alone deserves admiration.

A colourful and heartfelt alternative to formula animation.

Genevieve (1953)
Talking Pictures TV, 1.00pm

There’s a particular strain of British comedy that thrives on mild disorder — not slapstick, not farce exactly, but the gentle unravelling of people who think they’re far more dignified than they are. Genevieve remains one of the loveliest examples. Built around the London–Brighton veteran car run, it turns a simple motoring jaunt into a quietly escalating contest of pride and wounded male ego.

Kenneth More and John Gregson spark off each other with an ease that feels almost accidental. The humour doesn’t come from contrived set‑pieces but from personality: two men who can’t quite admit how much they care about winning, or how ridiculous that makes them look.

Yes, there’s nostalgia — the soft glow of post‑war Britain, the charm of old engines and older manners — but there’s also a slyness to it. A knowing look at masculinity, rivalry, and the middle‑class urge to turn everything into a test of character.

A small, bright pleasure of a film, and very British in the best sense.

The Searchers (1956)
BBC Two, 3.30pm

The Searchers is one of those films that refuses to settle neatly into the heroic myth of the American West. John Ford gives you the sweeping vistas, yes — those vast, indifferent landscapes that seem to swallow people whole — but the emotional terrain is far more jagged. And at the centre stands John Wayne’s Ethan Edwards, a figure who is both magnetic and deeply troubling.

Wayne plays him with a hard, unyielding intensity. He’s a man driven by purpose, but the purpose curdles. What begins as a rescue mission slowly reveals itself as something darker: obsession, prejudice, a worldview so rigid it threatens to break everyone around him. Ford never softens it, never reassures the audience with easy moral signposting.

The Monument Valley backdrops are majestic, almost mythic, yet the story they frame is anything but comforting. The film keeps circling the same uneasy question: what happens when the man riding out to save the day is also the one carrying the deepest poison?

Few westerns have the courage to look that squarely at hatred, or to acknowledge how violence can twist a person long after the shooting stops. And the older the film gets, the more unsettling it becomes — as if time only sharpens its edges.

A classic, yes, but one that sta.

Top Hat (1935)
BBC Four, 7.15pm

Pure elegance from Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Depression-era escapism at its most graceful.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
Sky Arts, 9.00pm

Few films capture the texture of political paranoia as cleanly as The Manchurian Candidate. Even now, its Cold War anxieties feel uncomfortably close to home. Frank Sinatra gives one of his sharpest performances, playing a man circling a truth he can barely articulate, let alone face.

What makes the film endure isn’t just its thriller mechanics but its sense of psychological intrusion — the idea that the real danger isn’t out on the battlefield but inside the mind, quietly rewired. The satire is razor‑edged, the mood icy, and the implications still sting.

A reminder that conspiracy, manipulation and manufactured certainty are not relics of another era but recurring features of political life.

The Nice Guys (2016)
BBC One, 10.30pm

Shane Black’s scruffy detective comedy pairs Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling to glorious effect.

The Blues Brothers (1980)
BBC Two, 10.45pm

Some films strain for cool; The Blues Brothers simply assumes it. Part musical, part anarchic road movie, it barrels forward with the confidence of two men who believe — quite sincerely — that God wants them to save an orphanage and that the best way to do it is by assembling the greatest rhythm‑and‑blues band in Illinois.

What keeps it irresistible is the film’s total commitment to its own glorious absurdity. Car chases that defy physics, musical numbers that erupt without warning, and a parade of legends — Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, James Brown — who treat the chaos as perfectly normal.

It shouldn’t work. It absolutely does. A hymn to deadpan mayhem and the healing power of a good horn section.

South Bank at 75: You Are Here
BBC Two, 10.00pm
Catch up via iPlayer

A celebration of one of Britain’s great cultural institutions and the conversations that have shaped it.

Monday 1st June 2026

🌟 Tiptoe
Channel 4, 9.00pm
Episodes 1 and 2 – also available via Channel 4 streaming

Russell T Davies has spent much of his career exploring the spaces where private lives and public attitudes collide. From Queer as Folk to It’s A Sin, he has shown a gift for mixing wit, emotion and social observation without reducing characters to arguments. Tiptoe arrives carrying inevitable expectation.

The drama promises to examine relationships and identity with Davies’ familiar combination of warmth and confrontation. His scripts rarely avoid discomfort, but they also recognise humour and tenderness as survival mechanisms.

That matters because television drama can sometimes become strangely bloodless when attempting seriousness, mistaking solemnity for emotional truth. Davies understands that life rarely behaves so tidily.

The shadow of Queer as Folk inevitably hangs nearby, particularly with Channel 4 making his breakthrough series newly available again. Yet revisiting Queer as Folk is a reminder not only of how provocative it once felt, but how playful and alive it remains.

Television has changed enormously since 1999. So too has the political and cultural atmosphere surrounding sexuality and belonging. Tiptoe enters that conversation at a moment when questions of identity again dominate public debate.

Whether it becomes essential television remains to be seen, but Davies rarely lacks ambition and almost never lacks something worth saying.

Monolith (2022)
Film4, 9.00pm

Science fiction does not require giant budgets to generate unease. Monolith proves the point through admirable restraint. Much of the film unfolds through the voice and experience of a disgraced journalist investigating strange reports connected to mysterious black bricks.

The set-up sounds eccentric and, admittedly, it is. Yet the film cleverly uses isolation and ambiguity to create atmosphere.

There is something distinctly contemporary about its concern with information, credibility and digital storytelling. The protagonist lives in a world where truth competes with rumour and attention itself becomes currency.

The limited setting works to the film’s advantage. Rather than feeling constrained, the story develops an almost claustrophobic intimacy.

Genre cinema sometimes benefits from knowing exactly what not to explain.

A quietly unnerving piece of speculative storytelling.

🌟 Dear England
BBC One, 9.00pm
Episode 4 of 4

James Graham’s drama reaches its conclusion with Gareth Southgate and England confronting the pressures that accompany modern football. Yet the appeal of Dear England lies not in match results but emotional architecture.

Southgate emerges less as sporting saviour than reluctant national therapist, trying to reshape attitudes inherited through decades of disappointment and defensive masculinity.

Football occupies an unusual place within British life — simultaneously entertainment, identity and emotional shorthand. Graham’s drama understands this instinctively.

By exploring vulnerability alongside competition, the series offers something richer than simple sporting biography.

Even those who know the outcomes may find themselves invested in the emotional journey.

Ancient Greece: The Dark Chronicles
Begins Monday – Part 1 of 5

Civilisation documentaries sometimes present antiquity as settled fact, all marble certainty and textbook chronology. The attraction of this new series lies in its promise to examine the more shadowy and uncertain origins of Ancient Greece.

The “dark” in Dark Ages history often refers not to barbarism but gaps in evidence — periods where archaeology and scholarship must work harder to reconstruct vanished worlds.

That uncertainty makes history exciting.

Leonora Carrington: The Lost Surrealist
BBC Four, 10.50pm

Carrington remains one of surrealism’s most fascinating and frequently overlooked figures. Artist, novelist and myth-maker, she moved through twentieth-century upheaval refusing easy categorisation.

Documentaries about artists often reduce creative lives to chronology. Carrington deserves something stranger and more adventurous.

BBC Four generally understands this territory well.

King Rat (1965)
Talking Pictures TV, 1.45am

Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of James Clavell’s novel turns the prison camp drama into something morally slippery and psychologically revealing.

George Segal’s opportunistic anti-hero survives through barter and manipulation, exposing how systems of deprivation reshape ethics.

The film avoids patriotic simplification and instead studies power in miniature.

Uncomfortable and intelligent.

Tuesday 2nd June 2026

Belle (2013)
Film4, 6.45pm

Amma Asante’s Belle begins with historical curiosity and develops into something more resonant — a period drama attentive not only to romance and costume but race, inheritance and social status.

Inspired by the life of Dido Elizabeth Belle, the film explores eighteenth-century Britain through a perspective too rarely granted centre stage.

Gugu Mbatha-Raw brings intelligence and emotional nuance to the role.

The film recognises that privilege and exclusion often coexist in uneasy proximity.

Beautifully staged and quietly political.

Carlito’s Way (1993)
Legend, 9.00pm

Brian De Palma’s crime drama deserves discussion alongside the director’s better-known gangster films. Al Pacino plays Carlito Brigante, recently released from prison and desperate to escape criminal life.

What makes the film moving is that Carlito genuinely wants redemption.

Pacino gives a performance filled with melancholy and self-awareness, while Sean Penn delivers one of cinema’s great performances as crooked lawyer Dave Kleinfeld.

The tension comes not from whether violence exists, but whether history can be escaped.

De Palma stages suspense with characteristic elegance.

A tragic gangster picture about fate, loyalty and the impossibility of outrunning reputation.

Artsnight: A Tribute to Carla Lane
BBC Four, 8.00pm
Catch up via iPlayer

Carla Lane possessed a rare ability to write comedy grounded in recognisable human frustration. From The Liver Birds to Bread, her work balanced humour with social observation and emotional truth.

This tribute revisits a writer who understood ordinary lives without patronising them.

Muhammad Ali
BBC Four, 10.00pm

Ken Burns’ portrait of Muhammad Ali remains one of the most complete attempts to understand a man who refused to be contained by any single role. Boxer, activist, showman, dissenter — Ali kept shifting shape, and the documentary’s strength lies in acknowledging that complexity rather than sanding it down.

Burns doesn’t chase a tidy narrative. Instead, he sits with the contradictions: the bravado and the vulnerability, the political courage and the personal cost, the way Ali could be both a unifying symbol and a divisive presence. It’s a study of a man who changed sport and then stepped beyond it, becoming a figure onto whom entire eras projected their anxieties and hopes.

This conveys the sense of a life lived at full voltage — principled, provocative, and never less than compelling. Ali didn’t just transcend boxing; he rewrote the terms on which an athlete could exist in public.

Wednesday 3rd June 2026

The Future with Hannah Fry
BBC Two, 7.30pm
Full series available via iPlayer

Television science can sometimes drift towards the reassuringly spectacular — dazzling graphics, simplified certainties and declarations of imminent revolution. Hannah Fry tends to resist that temptation. Her strength lies in curiosity and clarity rather than grandstanding.

This edition turns to nuclear fusion, that tantalising scientific horizon forever described as both transformative and frustratingly distant. Fusion has occupied a strange place in public imagination for decades — part engineering challenge, part technological dream, forever hovering between promise and practical reality.

Fry is particularly good at translating complexity without patronising her audience. That matters because science is often treated as something delivered from on high rather than explored collectively.

Fusion, if realised, carries obvious implications for energy, economics and environmental policy, but the human drama behind scientific endeavour is equally compelling — persistence, rivalry, failure and breakthrough.

At its best, science television reminds us that knowledge itself is an adventure.

Penny Serenade (1941)
Talking Pictures TV, 9.10am

Hollywood melodrama has fallen out of fashion among critics wary of open emotion, yet Penny Serenade is a reminder of why audiences once embraced it so fiercely. There’s a sincerity to it — unguarded, unembarrassed — that feels almost radical now.

Irene Dunne and Cary Grant play a couple weathering love, disappointment and the fragile hope of parenthood. The story edges towards sentimentality, of course it does, but it earns its weight through the performances. Grant, so often remembered for his wit and immaculate poise, gives one of his most vulnerable turns here; the mask slips, and what’s underneath is raw and deeply human.

The film understands grief not as a grand collapse but as something that gathers quietly — a slow accumulation of moments, losses, compromises. It’s in the silences, the hesitations, the way two people try to keep moving forward even when the ground shifts beneath them.

Its emotional honesty lingers long after the final scene. A small reminder, delivered without apology, that sincerity still has its place.

Its emotional honesty lingers long after the closing scenes.

The Caine Mutiny (1954)
Film4, 12.45pm

Military dramas frequently present leadership as either noble certainty or outright villainy. The Caine Mutiny wisely prefers ambiguity.

Humphrey Bogart’s Captain Queeg remains one of cinema’s most fascinating authority figures — insecure, obsessive and gradually destabilised under pressure.

The film asks difficult questions about obedience and responsibility. Was mutiny justified, or did the crew simply lose faith too quickly? Such uncertainty keeps the drama alive.

Courtroom scenes crackle with tension and moral complexity. A superb study of hierarchy and doubt.

Corsage (2022)
Film4, 1.30am

Historical drama can become trapped inside museum glass, reverential and lifeless. Corsage refuses that fate.

Vicky Krieps plays Empress Elisabeth of Austria not as decorative icon but restless, intelligent and constrained woman resisting the suffocating rituals of imperial life.

The film deliberately unsettles expectations.

Modern flourishes and tonal dislocation prevent history becoming comfortable heritage.

Krieps delivers a remarkable performance full of wit, sadness and defiance.

The result feels unexpectedly contemporary.

A fascinating portrait of rebellion against image and expectation.

Bombshell (2019)
Film4, 11.40pm

The downfall of Roger Ailes and the sexual harassment scandal surrounding Fox News became one of the defining media stories of recent years. Bombshell dramatises those events with energy and star power.

Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman and Margot Robbie anchor the film, though Theron’s transformation into Megyn Kelly remains particularly striking.

The film moves briskly, sometimes at the expense of deeper analysis, yet it captures something vital about institutional culture and the pressures surrounding power.

Media organisations often market themselves as truth-tellers while quietly reproducing their own internal silences.

That contradiction gives Bombshell its charge.

Sharp, unsettling and highly watchable.

Fire Island (2022)
Channel 4, 1.55am

Austen and queer comedy might sound like an unlikely pairing, but Fire Island makes the connection feel effortless. It lifts the bones of Pride and Prejudice and relocates them to the sun‑bleached chaos of the famous holiday enclave, where romantic misreadings and class anxieties play out with a distinctly modern charge.

The humour is bright, quick on its feet, and affectionate rather than arch. But beneath the jokes sits something more attentive: a clear‑eyed look at friendship, exclusion, and the quiet negotiations of belonging that shape queer spaces. The film never treats representation as homework. Instead, it lets its characters exist with warmth, contradiction and the kind of emotional looseness that feels lived‑in rather than symbolic.

Playful, clever, and unexpectedly touching — a reminder that reinvention can be both joyful and sincere.

Thursday 4th June 2026

🌟 The Lion in Winter (1968)
Sky Arts, 9.00pm

Some family gatherings end in awkward silences; Henry II’s Christmas court makes most domestic disputes look like a mild disagreement over the turkey. Anthony Harvey’s The Lion in Winter gathers a cast operating at full, almost operatic intensity, with Peter O’Toole’s combustible Henry squaring off against Katharine Hepburn’s Eleanor of Aquitaine — a woman who has turned wounded brilliance into a political art form.

James Goldman’s dialogue is a feast in itself: barbed, witty, and laced with the kind of intelligence that assumes the audience can keep up. Every exchange feels like a duel, every line a strategic move. Royal politics here aren’t about crowns and territories so much as psychological warfare — old grievances sharpened into weapons, love and resentment tangled beyond separation.

Hepburn is extraordinary: amused one moment, furious the next, always calculating, always alive to the shifting balance of power. She gives Eleanor a dangerous sparkle, a sense that she’s playing three games at once and winning at least two of them.

What the film understands — and what gives it its enduring bite — is that the great political struggles of history often begin at the dinner table, long before they spill into the chronicles. Power, after all, is a family business.

Timeless, literate, and gloriously savage.

Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)
Rewind TV, 12 noon and 8.00pm
Catch up via Freeview Play

Few television premises sound quite as cheerfully eccentric as a detective aided by his dead partner. Yet Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) possesses the charm and imaginative confidence characteristic of late-1960s British television.

There is nostalgia here, certainly, but also invention.

Lion (2016)
Film4, 11.20pm

True stories often arrive already heavy with emotion, but Lion earns its power by refusing to push or manipulate. It trusts the story — and the audience — enough to let the feeling emerge naturally.

Dev Patel plays Saroo Brierley, a boy separated from his family in India and later adopted by an Australian couple. Patel gives the film its emotional spine, charting the long, uncertain journey between the life he remembers and the life he’s built. Nicole Kidman and David Wenham offer quietly affecting support, their performances grounded in the everyday tenderness and strain of parenting a child shaped by loss.

What the film captures so well is the complexity of identity: the pull of memory, the ache of belonging, the way home can be both a place and a longing. Modern technology — so often a narrative shortcut — becomes here a bridge, a way of stitching together two halves of a life without diminishing either.

The result is deeply moving without tipping into sentimentality. A film about home in its deepest sense: the one you come from, the one you make, and the one you spend years trying to find again.

Friday 5th June 2026

The Ballad of Lefty Brown (2017)
Great Action, 6.45pm

Revisionist westerns often examine the myth of heroism through damaged or overlooked figures. The Ballad of Lefty Brown does precisely that.

Bill Pullman gives an engaging performance as ageing sidekick Lefty, unexpectedly pushed into the foreground after violence overturns familiar loyalties.

The western landscape remains beautiful, though melancholy hangs over it.

A modest but rewarding genre piece.

🌟 Nope (2022)
Film4, 9.00pm

Jordan Peele has rapidly become one of modern cinema’s most intriguing filmmakers because he recognises horror as social language rather than simple fright mechanism.

Nope begins with spectacle and gradually becomes an inquiry into spectatorship itself — our hunger to witness, record and commodify the extraordinary.

Daniel Kaluuya and Keke Palmer provide contrasting energies, one inward and cautious, the other charismatic and restless.

The film blends science fiction, western imagery and monster movie tradition.

Yet beneath the thrills sits something more unsettling about entertainment culture and our appetite for disaster.

Strange, ambitious and visually extraordinary.

Celebrity Gogglebox
Channel 4, 9.00pm
Episode 1 of 7 – catch up via Channel 4 streaming

The appeal of Gogglebox has always rested on a simple truth: people enjoy watching other people react. Celebrity editions risk gimmickry, yet often succeed because familiar faces prove unexpectedly candid.

This year’s cast — from Vernon Kay and Paddy McGuinness to Bez and Shaun Ryder, Rylan and his mother Linda — promises the usual mixture of wit, irritation and affectionate chaos.

Have I Got News for You
BBC One, 9.00pm

Yet HIGNFY survives through sharp improvisation and the pleasure of watching certainty punctured.

David Tennant hosts, joined by Michael Gove and Chloe Petts. In politically turbulent times, satire increasingly finds itself competing with reality.

Aretha Franklin Night
BBC Four, from 9.00pm
Catch up via iPlayer

Aretha Franklin possessed one of those voices capable of sounding both intimate and monumental. BBC Four devotes the evening to the Queen of Soul, celebrating a performer whose artistry transcended genre and era.

Music television rarely needs elaborate justification when the subject is Aretha.

Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022)
BBC One, 11.20pmA horror film on the surface, but really a scalpel aimed at wealth, performance and the jittery anxieties of the very online generation. Bodies Bodies Bodies dresses itself as a murder‑mystery, yet the real bloodletting happens in the group chat — status, insecurity and self‑curation turning toxic long before anyone picks up a weapon.

The satire is razor‑clean. Every accusation feels like a performance, every confession a bid for sympathy, every friendship a negotiation of power. It’s funny, vicious and uncomfortably accurate about how quickly people implode when the Wi‑Fi drops and the masks slip.

A thriller for the age of curated selves and catastrophic overthinking — sharp, stylish and far more revealing than its neon chaos suggests.

The Lighthouse (2019)
Channel 4, 1.05am

Robert Eggers’ The Lighthouse is less a film than a fever — a two‑handed descent into isolation, superstition and the kind of madness that grows when the sea won’t stop howling. It turns confinement into delirium, the walls closing in as reality begins to warp.

Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson clash magnificently, two men circling each other like rival myths. Dafoe’s barnacled old keeper speaks in curses and sea‑dog poetry; Pattinson’s younger man unravels in fits and starts, as if the island itself is prying him open.

Shot in stark black‑and‑white, the film feels ancient and alien, as though dredged up from some forgotten maritime

Radio Selections

A digital radio displaying '92.5 FM' with black headphones placed beside it on a smooth surface, representing a modern radio listening experience.

Archive on 4: The Louisville Lip
Saturday, 8.00pm – Radio 4

Muhammad Ali continues to echo across this week’s schedules. This documentary revisits the boxer whose brilliance and provocation reshaped sport and public life.

Voices from the Beach
Sunday, 7.15pm – Radio 4

At the heart of Voices from the Beach is poet Sali Katebe, who arrived in Britain from landlocked Zambia and fell, almost immediately, for the strange, shifting magic of our coastlines. The programme uses his perspective as its anchor: someone encountering the sea not as a familiar backdrop but as a revelation — a place where sound, weather and memory seem to rearrange themselves.

Katebe’s voice threads through the piece like a tide‑line. He speaks of beaches as thresholds, as invitations, as spaces where the mind loosens and the past drifts closer. Around him, Radio 4 builds an immersive soundscape: gulls cutting across the air, waves folding over themselves, the soft percussion of shingle underfoot. It’s radio that breathes.

What emerges is part memoir, part meditation. Katebe reflects on belonging, on the pull of water for someone raised far from it, and on how coastlines can become a kind of emotional shorthand — for arrival, for solitude, for the quiet work of remaking a life. The programme listens closely to the small things: the way light changes on a grey afternoon, the rhythm of a walk taken to clear the head, the stories beaches seem to hold without ever speaking.

Reflective, atmospheric and quietly moving, it’s a reminder that the sea means different things depending on where you began — and that sometimes the most powerful journeys happen at the water’s edge.

Podcast Picks

A desktop podcasting setup featuring a microphone on a boom arm, a laptop displaying sound waves, a notepad with a pen, and a coffee cup.

We Was Robbed (Audible – available 28th May)

Gabriel Gatehouse investigates one of English football’s enduring mysteries — what derailed England’s 1970 World Cup defence, and was Gordon Banks somehow “knobbled”? The series mixes sporting folklore, forgotten detail and investigative curiosity with real verve.

Stateside with Kai and Carter

The Guardian launches a podcast for listeners exhausted by the churn of modern news. Three times weekly, Kai Wright and Carter Sherman unpack American stories with guests able to explain rather than inflame.

Kingdom of Fraud

Michele McPhee investigates a billion-dollar tax fraud involving Armenian mafia figure Levon Termendzhyan and Mormon sect leader Jacob Kingston.

True crime with scale, intrigue and stranger-than-fiction alliances.

Streaming Choices

A hand holding a remote control points at a television showing streaming options labeled 'Top Picks' and 'New Releases,' with a radio displaying FM frequency 92.5 in the foreground and a bowl of popcorn next to it.

Netflix

The Murder of Rachel Nickell

A sober, unsettling retelling of a case that scarred the 1990s. The documentary avoids lurid reconstruction, focusing instead on institutional failure, media frenzy and the human cost of a police force chasing the wrong man. Clear‑eyed, compassionate and quietly devastating.

It Ends With Us Available now

Colleen Hoover’s bestseller arrives on screen as a glossy, emotionally forthright drama about love, trauma and the patterns people struggle to break. Blake Lively anchors it with a performance that balances charm and bruised resolve. Melodrama with purpose, and more bite than expected.


Michael Jackson: The Verdict Available Wednesday, 3 June 2026

A cool, methodical examination of the legal battles that reshaped Jackson’s final years. Rather than reheating scandal, it traces the machinery of accusation, defence and public perception. The result is stark, unsettling and revealing about the pressures placed on a man already living inside a global myth.

Channel 4 Streaming


Walter Presents: The Devil’s Throat All 12 episodes from Friday, 5 June 2026

A taut Bulgarian thriller that blends crime drama with political unease. The investigation winds through corruption, folklore and buried trauma, giving the series a brooding, wintry charge. Dark, deliberate and quietly gripping.

Advert

Book cover for 'The Angela Suite' by Anthony C. Green featuring a pair of feet and an urban backdrop with the text 'BUY NOW' prominently displayed.

Leave a Comment

The Man in the High Castle Season 3: A Study of Totalitarian Control

A world rebuilt from ashes, and the people crushed beneath the weight of its new myths

Promotional image for 'The Man in the High Castle' Season 3 featuring a destroyed Statue of Liberty amidst rubble and flames, with Nazi symbols and a large portrait of Hitler in the background.

Season 3 of The Man in the High Castle is where the show stops merely imagining an alternate history and begins interrogating the machinery that sustains one. It’s a season obsessed with erasure — cultural, personal, historical — and with the terrible quiet that follows when a regime decides that the past is an inconvenience rather than a foundation. The Reich’s “Year Zero” programme, lifted chillingly from Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, becomes the ideological spine of the season: a promise to wipe the slate clean, to bulldoze memory itself, and to force a population to live inside a story written by its conquerors.

The show understands that such projects are never abstract. They seep into homes, marriages, friendships. They demand loyalty not just to the state but to the fictions the state insists upon. And Season 3 is at its strongest when it shows how that fiction corrodes the people trying to survive inside it.

Year Zero: the art of unmaking a world

The Reich’s plan to inaugurate a new age by obliterating the old is not just a plot device — it’s the season’s central metaphor. The replacement of the Statue of Liberty with a Nazi colossus is the most obvious symbol, a moment staged with operatic cruelty. But the deeper violence is quieter: the rewriting of textbooks, the cleansing of archives, the insistence that the world before the Reich was a mistake.

This is where the season becomes genuinely unsettling. It shows how totalitarianism doesn’t simply dominate the present; it colonises the past and mortgages the future. It demands that people forget who they were so they can be remade into who the regime needs them to be. And in that forced forgetting, families begin to fracture. Parents and children no longer share the same memories, the same moral vocabulary, the same sense of what is real.

Season 3 is, in many ways, a study of that fracture.

The Smiths: loyalty as a form of self‑harm

John Smith’s ascent into the highest echelons of Nazi society is presented with a kind of suffocating glamour — the immaculate uniforms, the banquets, the whispered conspiracies. But beneath the surface lies a family imploding under the weight of its own obedience.

Helen Smith, still reeling from Thomas’s death, becomes the emotional centre of this collapse. Her grief is not permitted to exist in a society that treats sacrifice as virtue and mourning as weakness. She is forced to perform loyalty even as her world shrinks to a single, unbearable absence. The season’s most painful moments come from watching her try to protect what remains of her family while knowing, deep down, that the regime she serves is the very thing destroying it.

Season 3 makes clear that totalitarianism doesn’t just demand compliance — it demands complicity. And the Smiths, more than any other characters, show the cost of that bargain.

The LGBTQ+ storyline: visibility as danger

Your notes rightly highlight one of the season’s most resonant threads: the vulnerability of queer characters in a society that treats difference as treason. The relationship between Thelma Harris and Nicole Dörmer is handled with a kind of tragic inevitability. Both women occupy privileged spaces — media, propaganda, the curated world of elite culture — yet their status offers no real protection.

The crackdown on queer spaces, culminating in the raid on the lesbian club, is one of the season’s most harrowing sequences. It’s not just the violence of the act; it’s the message behind it. Even those who help manufacture the Reich’s illusions are disposable if they fail to embody its ideals. Thelma’s storyline becomes a study in how isolation is engineered — how a regime convinces people that their private selves are liabilities.

This is where Season 3 feels most contemporary. It understands that authoritarianism always begins by policing the margins, and that the people who believe themselves safe are often the first to fall.

Juliana, Tagomi, and the widening mystery

While the Reich tightens its grip, Juliana Crain moves in the opposite direction — toward uncertainty, toward possibility, toward the multiverse that the films hint at. Her alliance with Tagomi remains one of the show’s most humane relationships, built on mutual respect and a shared sense that the world is larger than the Reich or the Empire can comprehend.

Their storyline provides the season’s philosophical counterweight. If the Reich is obsessed with narrowing reality to a single narrative, Juliana and Tagomi are drawn to the idea that reality is plural, unstable, and resistant to control. The films become artefacts of hope — proof that other worlds exist, and that this one is not inevitable.

Joe Blake: the prodigal son returns

Joe’s return from Berlin is framed as a diplomatic mission, but it quickly becomes clear that he is being used as a pawn in a much larger game. His reunion with Juliana is brief, charged, and ultimately tragic. Joe is a character torn between identities, and Season 3 finally forces him to confront the fact that he cannot inhabit all of them at once.

His arc is a reminder that the Reich devours its own. Loyalty is never enough; purity is always demanded.

A season of tightening screws

By the time the new Nazi programme is unveiled — a project with implications that stretch far beyond geopolitics — the season has made its point with devastating clarity. Totalitarianism is not sustained by brute force alone. It is sustained by stories: the ones people are told, the ones they are allowed to remember, and the ones they are forbidden to imagine.

Season 3 is the show’s most methodical and thematically coherent chapter. It’s a season about the violence of forgetting, the danger of conformity, and the fragile, stubborn persistence of identity in a world determined to erase it.

It leaves you with the uneasy sense that the greatest threat is not the regime’s power, but its ability to make people believe that no other world is possible.

By Pat Harrington

Promotional image for 'The Angela Suite' by Anthony C. Green featuring a book cover with a pair of feet and a city background, along with the text 'BUY NOW'.

Leave a Comment

« Newer Posts · Older Posts »