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

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

 

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

Leave a Comment

Culture Vulture: 4–10 July 2026

The Fourth of July casts a long, confident shadow across this week’s viewing, and broadcasters have embraced the 250th anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence with gusto. History, music, politics, travel, and a run of films that remind you just how deeply American storytelling has seeped into the cultural bloodstream. It’s a week where Neil Armstrong rubs shoulders with Ravi Shankar, where The Specials share the stage with Blondie, and where Ridley Scott’s neon‑soaked Los Angeles still feels like the future.

There’s celebration, certainly, but also reflection. The concluding chapter of The American Revolution lands with real weight, while Armstrong offers a quieter portrait of a man who changed the world simply by stepping onto another. And if you’d rather mark the week with music, Sky Arts and the BBC have you covered with 2 Tone, Blondie, and a generous helping of American icons.

Film lovers are spoiled: Blade Runner, The Lady Eve, Leave Her to Heaven, Atonement, BlackBerry, Official Secrets, Red Rooms — a line‑up that swings from Technicolor noir to modern paranoia without missing a beat. It’s a rich, varied week, and one that rewards dipping in and out rather than trying to consume everything at once.

Saturday 4 July

8.00pm – Alexander Armstrong Across America (Channel 5)

Armstrong’s cross‑country wander continues, this time through West Virginia. He’s a genial guide — curious without being intrusive, amused without being arch — and the series has settled into a relaxed, intelligent rhythm. Ideal early‑evening viewing.

9.00pm – 50 American Music Icons at the BBC (BBC Two)

A generous sweep through the artists who shaped modern music. Expect the usual BBC archive magic: grainy footage, unexpected pairings, and performances that still crackle decades later.

9.00pm – Starter for 10 (BBC Four, 2006)

Starter for 10 begins as a gentle comedy about a working‑class lad arriving at Bristol University in the mid‑1980s, but quickly becomes something more textured: a story about belonging, aspiration, and the awkwardness of trying to reinvent yourself. James McAvoy plays Brian with a mix of earnestness and self‑inflicted calamity, the kind of young man who wants desperately to be clever but hasn’t yet learned how to be comfortable.

The University Challenge sequences are great fun — brisk, competitive, and full of the kind of trivia that once felt like the height of sophistication. But the film’s real strength lies in its emotional honesty. Brian’s romantic missteps, his friendships, and his attempts to reconcile his new life with the one he left behind are handled with a light touch that never slips into sentimentality.

The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, especially Rebecca Hall and Dominic Cooper, who bring nuance to roles that could easily have been caricatures. And the soundtrack — all jangly guitars and wistful nostalgia — gives the film a warm, lived‑in feel. A small story told with generosity.

9.00pm – The Specials Live from Coventry Cathedral (Sky Arts)

This 2019 concert captures The Specials at a moment when their music felt newly urgent. Performing inside Coventry Cathedral — a space steeped in history and resilience — the band channels decades of political frustration into something electrifying. There’s no sense of nostalgia or polite revivalism; the performance is sharp, committed, and defiantly present.

Tracks like “Ghost Town” and “A Message to You, Rudy” land with renewed force, their themes of inequality and social tension sounding depressingly familiar in 2026. It’s a reminder that 2 Tone wasn’t just a musical movement; it was a cultural reckoning.

10.15pm – The Creator (Channel 4, 2023)

The Creator wears its ambition openly. Gareth Edwards builds a future where artificial intelligence has evolved into something indistinguishable from humanity, and the film explores the uneasy boundary between creation and control. John David Washington anchors the story with a performance full of conflicted empathy, and the relationship between his character and the AI child gives the film its emotional spine.

Visually stunning, thematically bold, occasionally uneven — but always sincere.

10.20pm – Anyone But You (BBC One, 2023)

A sun‑drenched rom‑com that leans unapologetically into screwball tradition. Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell spark off each other with the kind of chemistry that can’t be faked, turning bickering into foreplay and mishaps into momentum. Breezy, confident, and exactly what it sets out to be.

10.35pm – Record On: The Specials – A Message to You (Sky Arts)

A compact, lively documentary exploring one of the defining tracks of the 2 Tone era. It’s a reminder that some songs become landmarks not because they’re catchy, but because they capture a moment with uncanny precision.

12.10am – White Riot (Sky Arts)

White Riot remains one of the most vital music‑politics documentaries of recent years — urgent, angry, and absolutely crackling with purpose. It charts the rise of Rock Against Racism, that scrappy, DIY coalition of musicians, activists and ordinary kids who refused to let the far right colonise Britain’s youth culture in the 1970s. What makes the film sing is its blend of raw archival footage and present‑day testimony: it feels historical and contemporary at the same time, a reminder that the battles fought then still echo now.

The documentary captures the electricity of those early RAR gigs — the sense of possibility, the belief that culture could be a weapon rather than a mirror. Punk, reggae, ska: all thrown together in a glorious, defiant mess that said more about Britain than any politician ever could. It’s a portrait of people who didn’t wait for permission to resist; they just built a movement out of flyers, fanzines, borrowed amps and sheer bloody-minded conviction.

And of course, the far right noticed. The National Front, rattled by RAR’s momentum and terrified of losing cultural ground, responded by creating Rock Against Communism — a clumsy attempt at a counter‑movement that eventually morphed into White Noise, a more organised and effective effort to push racist music into youth subcultures. It was the mirror image of RAR: where one side preached solidarity, the other peddled division; where one fused genres, the other narrowed them into a clenched fist. The fact that White Noise gained traction is a reminder that culture wars aren’t new — and they’re never fought on just one front.

White Riot doesn’t shy away from any of this. It’s a call to remember that culture can be a force for change, but also that it’s always contested. RAR won hearts, minds and dancefloors — but the NF kept trying to exert influence. The film ends with a sense of unfinished business, and rightly so. We’re still waiting on the documentary that tackles Rock Against Communism and White Noise head‑on, tracing how the far right tried to reshape youth culture in the opposite direction. It’s a story that deserves the same forensic, fiery treatment.

Until then, White Riot stands as a testament to what happens when ordinary people decide they’ve had enough — and pick up guitars instead of giving up.

1.30am – Godland (BBC Two, 2022)

A stark Icelandic drama of faith, colonialism and endurance. Slow, severe and visually extraordinary — a film that demands patience and rewards it with depth.

1.55am – Ian Dury and the Blockheads: Hold On to Your Structure (Sky Arts)

A late‑night jolt of energy, attitude and sheer artistic stubbornness. This documentary doesn’t just sketch Ian Dury; it inhabits him — the charisma, the bite, the wit, the refusal to be anything other than gloriously, awkwardly himself. Dury wasn’t built for tidy narratives or polite applause, and the programme wisely leans into that. It shows a performer who treated the stage like a battleground and a playground at the same time, swaggering through songs that sounded like they’d been chiselled out of everyday life and then electrified.

What emerges is a portrait of a man who understood rhythm as instinct, language as weaponry, and performance as a kind of joyful confrontation. The Blockheads, tight as a drumskin and twice as sharp, weren’t just a backing band — they were co‑conspirators. You see how their precision allowed Dury’s lyrical mischief to land with maximum impact. The documentary captures that chemistry beautifully: the way a sly grin from Dury could send the whole ensemble pivoting into something loose, funky and unmistakably theirs.

There’s also a strong sense of context — Britain in the late 70s, restless, loud, and culturally up for grabs. Dury wasn’t punk, but he wasn’t not punk either. He occupied that strange, thrilling space where pub rock, art‑school eccentricity and working‑class grit collided. The film shows how he channelled all of it: disability, class, frustration, humour, defiance. He turned the messiness of life into songs that felt like they were speaking directly to you, even when they were taking the mick.

What the programme gets right is the emotional truth beneath the bravado. Dury’s uncompromising nature wasn’t just attitude — it was survival. He built a structure for himself out of words, rhythm and sheer bloody-mindedness, and then held onto it with both hands. The documentary honours that without smoothing the edges or romanticising the chaos.

It’s a lively, affectionate, slightly rowdy tribute to a performer who never fitted neatly into any category and never wanted to. Charismatic, uncompromising, utterly original — the film reminds you that Ian Dury didn’t just make music. He made a world, and invited you in if you were brave enough to keep up.

Sunday 5 July

9.25am – Jane Eyre (BBC Two, 1943)

What makes this version endure isn’t just its fidelity to Charlotte Brontë’s story, but the way it captures the novel’s emotional weather. There’s a dampness to the air, a sense of wind pressing against old stone, that gives the whole film a haunted, half‑lit quality. Joan Fontaine plays Jane with that soft‑spoken resolve she was so good at: a woman who has learned to survive by shrinking herself, yet whose inner life is fierce, alert, and quietly defiant. You see it in the way she holds her posture, in the small hesitations before she speaks, as though weighing the cost of honesty.

Orson Welles, meanwhile, storms through Thornfield like a man wrestling with his own legend. His Rochester is theatrical, yes, but that’s part of the pleasure — he brings a bruised grandeur to the role, a sense of someone who has lived too intensely and now hides in the shadows of his own house. When he and Fontaine share the frame, the contrast is electric: her stillness against his volatility, her moral clarity against his romantic turbulence.

The Gothic atmosphere isn’t decoration; it’s the film’s emotional architecture. The fog, the candlelit corridors, the sudden bursts of sound — all of it mirrors Jane’s journey from repression to self‑possession. Even after eighty years, the film feels startlingly alive, a reminder of how potent Brontë’s story becomes when treated not as a costume drama but as a tale of yearning, loneliness, and the stubborn hope of finding a place where one’s heart is finally recognised.

8.00pm – Inside Classical: The Rite of Spring (BBC Four)

A clear, engaging introduction to Stravinsky’s revolutionary masterpiece. Accessible without oversimplifying — ideal for curious newcomers.

8.45pm – BBC Proms 2017: Passages (BBC Four)

Ravi Shankar and Philip Glass’s collaboration is performed in full. Hypnotic, intricate, and quietly transcendent.

9.15pm – Armstrong (PBS America)

A thoughtful portrait of Neil Armstrong that avoids hero worship. Disciplined, private, and quietly determined — a man defined not by fame but by precision.

10.00pm – Ravi Shankar in Concert (BBC Four)

Watching Shankar perform is witnessing music as conversation. Fluid, expressive, and masterful.

10.00pm – Blade Runner (BBC Two, 1982)

There are films that age, films that date, and films that simply continue — Blade Runner belongs to the last category. Every return to Ridley Scott’s neon‑drenched Los Angeles feels like stepping back into a dream you half‑remember. The city is vast, exhausted, and strangely beautiful, as if decay itself has become a kind of art form.

What keeps the film alive isn’t just the production design; it’s the moral unease that runs through every frame. Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty remains one of cinema’s great tragic figures — a creature fighting for dignity in a world that denies him even the right to exist.

Vangelis’s score wraps the film in drifting melancholy. Blade Runner hasn’t been overtaken by the future because it already occupies it.

1.20am – Glory (Channel 4, 1989)

What strikes you, watching Glory again, is how completely it refuses to soften the brutality of the American Civil War. Edward Zwick frames the story of the 54th Massachusetts — the first all‑Black regiment in the Union Army — with a kind of sombre grandeur, letting the mud, smoke and chaos speak for themselves. It’s a film about courage, yes, but also about the grinding cost of being asked to prove your worth in a world determined to doubt it.

Denzel Washington’s performance remains the film’s emotional centre of gravity. He plays Private Trip with a rawness that never tips into sentimentality: a man hardened by injustice, suspicious of authority, and yet capable of moments of piercing vulnerability. The famous flogging scene still lands like a punch — Washington’s silent tears aren’t a plea for sympathy but a statement of defiance, a refusal to be broken again. It’s one of those rare moments in cinema where an actor seems to compress an entire history into a single expression.

Around him, Morgan Freeman brings quiet moral authority, and Matthew Broderick — often underestimated — gives Colonel Shaw a thoughtful, conflicted presence, a young officer learning the difference between command and leadership. The film’s final act, the assault on Fort Wagner, is staged with operatic intensity: not triumphant, but tragic, a recognition that heroism often comes without reward.

Glory endures because it treats its subject with seriousness and respect. It’s earnest, moving, and essential — a reminder of the sacrifices made by men who fought not just for a country, but for the right to be seen as part of it.

Monday 6 July

2.45pm – The Lady Eve (Film4, 1941)

Preston Sturges’ sparkling comedy remains a masterclass in elegance and timing. Barbara Stanwyck is sensational — sly, seductive and effortlessly in control — while Henry Fonda’s earnest innocence gives the film its comic heartbeat.

Sturges’ dialogue still crackles, full of sly jokes and perfectly timed reversals. Romance, deception and champagne-light wit combine into something timeless.

10.40pm – I Am Legend (BBC One, 2007)

Will Smith carries this post‑apocalyptic thriller with surprising emotional heft. Atmospheric and quietly affecting.

11.40pm – BlackBerry (Film4, 2023)

A whip‑smart, chaotic and irresistibly entertaining dive into the rise and implosion of the world’s first smartphone obsession. BlackBerry plays like a tech thriller filtered through a punk fanzine — scrappy, fast, and vibrating with the energy of people who have no idea they’re about to change the world, then absolutely no idea how to hold onto it.

Jay Baruchel is superb as Mike Lazaridis, all nervous brilliance and apologetic genius, a man who can build the future but can’t quite look anyone in the eye while doing it. His twitchy, soft‑spoken intensity gives the film its emotional core: the engineer who wants to make something elegant, functional, beautiful, and keeps watching it get swallowed by forces louder and more ruthless than he is.

Enter Glenn Howerton as Jim Balsillie — a volcanic, vein‑popping storm of ambition who seems to operate at a frequency only dogs can hear. It’s one of the great recent performances in a business drama: terrifying, hilarious, and weirdly compelling. He doesn’t just chew the scenery; he detonates it. The film’s best scenes come from the collision between Baruchel’s fragile idealism and Howerton’s corporate berserker energy, a partnership that feels both inevitable and doomed from the moment they shake hands.

Director Matt Johnson keeps the pace frantic and the tone razor‑sharp, capturing the absurdity of tech culture before tech culture learned to hide its absurdity behind glossy keynotes and minimalist branding. There’s a real pleasure in watching the early days of innovation rendered as something messy, human and slightly ridiculous — a reminder that the devices we now treat as extensions of ourselves were born out of chaos, ego and sheer improvisation.

What makes BlackBerry stand out is its refusal to mythologise. It’s funny, biting and occasionally bleak, but never reverent. It understands that the story of the smartphone pioneer isn’t a tale of heroes and villains — it’s a story of people who flew too close to the sun while arguing about data compression and supply chains.

One of the most entertaining business dramas in years, and one that knows exactly how to balance satire with sincerity. It’s frantic, funny and sharply observed — a rise‑and‑fall story that never stops moving, because neither did the people who built the thing in the first place.

12.05am – Official Secrets (BBC Two, 2019)

Katharine Gun’s whistleblowing story becomes a quietly gripping drama about conscience and consequence. Keira Knightley is superb — restrained, determined, and deeply human.

12.05am – Secrets of the Celebrity Sex Tapes (Channel 4)

The series concludes with Kim Kardashian and the birth of scandal‑as‑currency in the digital age.

Tuesday 7 July

10.00pm – The American Revolution (BBC Four)

The final episode — The Most Sacred Thing — lands with real force. A clear, confident account of the ideals that shaped a nation and still echo today.

10.40pm – The Lady in the Van (BBC One, 2015)

Maggie Smith is magnificent in Alan Bennett’s bittersweet tale.

What Bennett understands — and what this film preserves so beautifully — is that eccentricity isn’t a quirk, it’s a form of armour. Maggie Smith’s Miss Shepherd arrives on screen like a small weather system: unpredictable, sharp, and entirely uninterested in being liked. Yet Smith plays her not as a caricature of British oddity but as a woman whose stubbornness has become a survival strategy. There’s a flinty dignity in the way she occupies Bennett’s driveway, as though claiming a tiny republic of her own.

Alex Jennings, doing a double-act as Bennett’s internal and external selves, gives the film its gentle hum of self-mockery. He captures that familiar Bennett blend of wry detachment and reluctant compassion — the writer who would prefer to observe life from a safe distance but keeps finding himself drawn into its mess. Their relationship becomes a kind of slow, awkward dance: two people circling each other, neither quite willing to admit they care.

What lifts the film is its refusal to sentimentalise the situation. The humour is dry, the melancholy unforced. You feel the weight of Miss Shepherd’s past pressing through the cracks, and the way Bennett’s quiet acts of kindness accumulate almost despite himself. By the time the film reaches its final, lightly magical flourish, it feels earned — a recognition that even the most unlikely connections can leave a lasting mark.

It’s gentle, humane and quietly transformative, a story about responsibility that sneaks up on you and becomes something tender.

2.20am – Ayena (Channel 4, 2022)

A thoughtful independent drama exploring identity and expectation with sensitivity and restraint.

Wednesday 8 July

9.00pm – How to Get Filthy Rich with Gary Stevenson (Channel 4)

Stevenson brings rare clarity to discussions of wealth and inequality. Provocative, evidence‑driven and bracing.

9.00pm – Katie Price: Nothing to Hide (Sky Documentaries)

An unexpectedly intimate portrait of a figure long defined by tabloid glare. Candid, empathetic and quietly revealing.

11.10pm – Red Rooms (Film4, 2023)

A chilling psychological thriller that burrows under the skin. Cold, clinical and unsettling — a study of obsession in the digital age.

11.45pm – David Brent: Life on the Road (BBC Three, 2016)

Ricky Gervais drags his most excruciating creation back into the spotlight, and the result is a mockumentary that leans hard into the painful humour that made The Office so indelible. Brent, still clinging to the tatters of his rock‑star delusion, bankrolls a doomed tour with a band who’d clearly rather be anywhere else. It’s a familiar cocktail of bravado, desperation and toe‑curling self‑promotion — the kind of comedy where you laugh, wince, and occasionally look away.

What gives the film its pulse is the way Gervais threads moments of genuine pathos through the cringe. Brent’s loneliness is never overstated, but it’s always there: in the forced banter, the awkward silences, the way he keeps performing even when no one’s watching. The jokes land because the sadness is real, and the sadness lands because the jokes are so sharply observed.

There’s also a sly commentary on ageing ambition — the man who can’t accept that the world has moved on, still chasing the dream he sketched out in a Slough office two decades earlier. The film doesn’t redeem Brent, but it does understand him. And in that understanding, it finds something oddly touching amid the chaos, the bad gigs, and the endless, exhausting need to be loved.

Thursday 9 July

9.00pm – Bletchley Park: Codebreaker’s Forgotten Genius (BBC Four)

A deserved tribute to Gordon Welchman, whose wartime innovations shaped Allied intelligence. Thoughtful and quietly moving.

9.00pm – The Road (Great! Action, 2009)

Cormac McCarthy’s bleak novel becomes an equally stark film. Viggo Mortensen gives a remarkable performance — gaunt, haunted, fiercely protective. A difficult, powerful meditation on love and survival.

10.40pm – Elvis (BBC One, 2022)

Baz Luhrmann’s maximalist whirlwind of a biopic — loud, glittering, and absolutely determined to sweep you off your feet. It’s cinema as spectacle, every frame straining with colour, movement and musical pulse. Yet beneath the rhinestones and riotous editing, the film keeps circling back to the emotional cost of myth‑making: the boy who became the brand, the man trapped inside the legend.

Austin Butler is magnetic throughout, not just mimicking Elvis’s swagger but finding the vulnerability underneath — the hesitations, the longing, the flashes of fear when the machinery around him grows too big to control. His performance gives the film its heartbeat, grounding Luhrmann’s operatic excess in something recognisably human.

And then there’s Tom Hanks’ Colonel Parker, a grotesque carnival barker of a presence, steering the story with a sinister grin. The dynamic between Butler’s raw sincerity and Hanks’ oily manipulation becomes the film’s engine, driving it through the highs, the heartbreak, and the inevitable crash.

It’s bold, messy, and often overwhelming — but that’s the point. Luhrmann isn’t trying to tell the story of Elvis so much as recreate the sensation of him: the dazzle, the noise, the impossible momentum of a life lived in the spotlight.

Friday 10 July

8.15pm – Women of World War II: More Untold Stories (PBS America)

Important, absorbing accounts of women whose wartime contributions deserve far wider recognition.

9.40pm – Blondie in Concert (BBC Four)

Asbury Park, New Jersey – September 29, 2018: Debbie Harry of Blondie performs on stage at the 2018 Sea Hear Now Music Festival.. Picture credit: Adam McCullough / Shutterstock.com

Captured in Glasgow in 1979, Blondie in Concert is a time capsule of a band at the height of its powers — tight, stylish, and effortlessly cool. Debbie Harry commands the stage with icy charisma, her voice cutting through the mix with precision and attitude. The performance brims with confidence: the band knows exactly what it’s doing and how good it sounds.

What’s striking, watching it now, is how modern it feels. The rhythms, the energy, the interplay between punk edge and pop sophistication — all of it still sounds fresh. Blondie were never just a band riding a trend; they were architects of a sound that bridged worlds, bringing New York grit into the mainstream without losing its bite.

Harry’s stage presence remains magnetic. She moves with the ease of someone who understands that cool isn’t about effort; it’s about control. The camera loves her, and she knows it, but there’s no vanity — just a performer completely in command of her craft.

The Glasgow crowd, caught between awe and exhilaration, adds its own electricity. You can feel the pulse of a moment when Blondie were redefining what pop could be: sharp, stylish, and utterly alive. It’s a concert that reminds you why they mattered — and why they still do.

10.00pm – 1977: When Virginia Wade Won Wimbledon (Channel 5)

A timely look back at Britain’s last women’s singles champion as Wimbledon reaches its climax.

11.00am – Leave Her to Heaven (Film4, 1945)

Gene Tierney’s performance remains one of cinema’s great femme fatale turns. A sumptuous Technicolor noir that hides darkness beneath its glossy surface.

12.05am – Atonement (BBC Two, 2007)

Romantic, devastating and beautifully made. Joe Wright’s adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel remains one of the finest British films of the century — a story about guilt, imagination and the long shadow of a single mistake.

Streaming

Saturday 4 July – Turn: Washington’s Spies (ITVX)

All four seasons drop at once. Jamie Bell anchors this smart, underrated drama about espionage during the American Revolution. Ideal for a long weekend binge.

Sunday 5 July – Sparks of Tomorrow (Netflix)

Weekly episodes. An imaginative anime set in an alternative twentieth century — visually striking and narratively ambitious.

Monday 6 July – Hamnet (Netflix)

Maggie O’Farrell’s novel becomes a sensitive, beautifully acted drama about grief, family and the shadows cast by genius.

Friday 10 July – Miguel Ángel Blanco: The 48 Hours That Changed Spain (Netflix)

A powerful documentary revisiting a moment that reshaped Spanish politics and united a nation.

Friday 10 July – Star City: Season Finale (Apple TV+)

The For All Mankind spin‑off reaches its Soviet‑side conclusion. Ambitious, thoughtful alternate‑history storytelling.

Leave a Comment

2 Guys, 3 Drams — Counter Culture UK Interview

Blues, whisky, and a room full of willing conspirators — few Fringe shows blend music, storytelling and guided tasting with the swagger and charm of 2 Guys, 3 Drams. Now entering their fourth consecutive Edinburgh run, Felipe and Paul return with a fresh line‑up of whiskies, a new sponsor in InchDairnie, and the same mission as ever: to turn a room of strangers into one merry, whisky‑swigging organism. Counter Culture asked the duo to talk drams, blues, audience alchemy, and why their show title is technically a lie…

You describe the show as “more than a concert and more than a tasting.” What’s the moment where those two worlds collide most perfectly on stage?

Honestly, the moment we start playing the first song of the show, and we bring out the first whisky to serve our audience. It’s an unusual format, so this is the point where I think everyone realises together “oh, they’re DEFINITELY serving whisky too” and is immediately ready to go along with whatever we have planned for them.

Felipe Schrieberg and Paul Archibald

Three whiskies in an hour is a bold structure. How do you choose which drams make the cut each year?

We reach out to different brands or distilleries who have whisky that we really like, and then curate the selection of available whiskies for the show. We prefer to have something lighter to start, spicier and more robust or unusual second, and preferably something quite heavy or peated last. We regularly rotate the selection throughout the run.

Blues and whisky both have deep cultural roots. What’s the connection between them that keeps pulling you back?

In blues, you rarely are playing more than three chords with relatively simple grooves. In Scotch malt whisky, you’ve just got three ingredients to work with. And yet, there’s infinite ways to prepare and combine those elements, meaning that you end up with so much character, flavour, and variety across both. I think this is why they’re such a good pairing.

You’ve had three consecutive sell‑out years. What’s the biggest change you’ve made to the show for 2026?

We don’t actually follow a script. We block the show out in modular segments that encourage audience interaction, provide some kind of educational fact about the world of whisky, or feature tricks on sounding clever whenever you’re drinking whisky. We’re constantly coming up with new segments to add, or swapping different ones in and out with each show. It’ll be the same this year. The whiskies we’re working with are completely different as well.

InchDairnie is sponsoring the run — how does working with a new‑wave distillery influence the tasting experience?

InchDairnie is one of nine sponsors, but the only one involved for a full run, and we’ll be serving their fascinating rye whisky every night. The team really gets what our show is about and what we want to do. In their case, it is truly unusual to try a Scottish rye whisky (under Scottish law, it is technically a “grain whisky”), so this is a chance to showcase some truly unique aromas and flavours to our crowd. Even most hardcore Scotch geeks won’t have tried something like this before.

Felipe, you’ve said audiences will “leave knowing how to sound clever about whisky.” What’s the one whisky fact people always get wrong?

I don’t know about “getting wrong,” but we like to joke that our show title is a lie. In old‑school Scottish bar‑speak, a dram actually refers to a double measure whereas a nip refers to a single measure. Over the years, the word “dram” has become a catch‑all for any measure that everyone uses, even the whisky industry. Since we’re actually serving single measures at the show, a more appropriate title for the show is 2 Guys, 3 Nips

The show mixes humour, education, and live music. What’s the hardest part of keeping all three elements in balance?

I would say being able to calibrate the performance to the energy of the room. It means meeting the audience where they are, and then seeing where you can go together.

It’s quite special when we can make the audience turn into one merry whisky‑swigging organism over the course of the show. We employ a whole suite of tricks to do it, and blending together music, education and humour actually gives us many useful tools to work with to reach our goal.

Blues is often about storytelling. Whisky is too. What’s the best story behind one of the drams you’re serving this year?

InchDairnie is a really interesting one — they really are a truly groundbreaking distillery with how they produce their whisky, and serving a rye that’s normally associated with the USA and Canada is really fun. It helps break the usual preconceptions people have about whisky and what it should “be.”

We’re also serving a blended whisky called Ardray, which is actually a collaboration between Beam Suntory’s top Scotch whisky master blender and the legendary Japanese whisky blender Shinji Fukuyo. It’s a great argument as to why you should never see blends as inferior.

You’ve played everywhere from tasting rooms to festival stages. What makes the Fringe audience different?

For us, it’s more the nature of doing a theatre show. Performing at the Fringe is a format that makes us tighten up our usual chaos into something more formal and structured. We actually like this — we think it’s vitally important as musicians to be performing in different contexts. It means you stay present, take nothing for granted, and learn how to connect with your audience no matter the situation. Putting together a Fringe show is a different way to explore making meaningful connections through music and whisky.

After years of performing this show, what’s the most surprising reaction you’ve ever had from someone tasting whisky for the first time?

Not too surprising, but we always give ourselves a little pat on the back when we get someone who says they thought they didn’t like whisky until they came to our show and realised that they actually do like whisky after all!

Find out more about the show and buy tickets here

 

Leave a Comment

Round‑up of Films Recently Released and Coming Up

These are the films we’re watching, talking about, or quietly circling — the ones that feel interesting, promising, or simply too intriguing to let slip past. Some have already landed, others are just over the horizon, but together they sketch out the shape of the cinematic months ahead. Supergirl brings a burst of cosmic energy and emotional turbulence. The Last Viking offers a darkly comic tale of fractured identity and buried secrets. The Invite turns a simple dinner into a slow‑burning emotional detonation. Spider‑Man: Brand New Day pushes Peter Parker into the uneasy territory of adulthood and consequence. The End of Oak Street wraps suburban mystery in a warm, Spielberg‑tinged glow. Bitter Christmas blends autofiction and grief across two timelines. The Dog Stars delivers Ridley Scott’s windswept, post‑pandemic odyssey of survival and connection. Pressure tightens the screws on the tense 72 hours before D‑Day. Bad Apples digs into moral grey zones inside a failing school system.

Supergirl — 25 June 2026

Supergirl arrives with a blast of interstellar energy and a punky, chaotic edge. Kara Zor‑El finds her world upended when a ruthless adversary strikes too close to home, forcing her into an uneasy alliance on a vengeance‑driven journey across the stars. It’s bold, messy, emotional, and occasionally brash — a DC film that leans into character as much as spectacle.

The Last Viking — 26 June 2026

The Last Viking isn’t a saga of shields and armour at all — it’s a darkly comic, character‑driven crime story from Anders Thomas Jensen, built around two brothers whose lives have splintered in very different ways. Years after a bank robbery goes wrong, Anker returns home to recover the stolen money he buried before his arrest. The problem is his brother Manfred — played by Mads Mikkelsen — now lives with dissociative identity disorder and believes he is John Lennon, complete with mannerisms, worldview, and a total detachment from the criminal mess Anker is trying to clean up.

The film blends off‑beat humour with emotional weight as the brothers navigate old wounds, buried secrets, and the fallout of choices made long ago. Expect something atmospheric, strange, and quietly moving — a story about fractured identity, loyalty, and the long shadow cast by the past.

The Invite — 3 July 2026

Olivia Wilde’s The Invite is a comedy of manners that turns into a pressure cooker. Joe and Angela’s marriage is already wobbling when their neighbours arrive for dinner — and what follows is an evening of confessions, collisions, and emotional unravelling. It’s funny, tense, and sharply observed, with a tight four‑person cast that keeps the whole thing humming.

Spider‑Man: Brand New Day — 31 July 2026

Peter Parker steps into a harsher world in Brand New Day, navigating adulthood, exposed identity, and the fallout of being a hero without a mask to hide behind. The film blends humour, heart, and high‑stakes action, but its core is Peter’s struggle to balance responsibility with the fragile business of growing up. A fresh chapter with emotional weight beneath the spectacle.

The End of Oak Street — 14 August 2026

A suburban mystery with a Spielbergian glow, The End of Oak Street follows characters caught between the ordinary and the uncanny. Hathaway and McGregor anchor the story with warmth as strange events ripple through a neighbourhood that seems to shift moods like weather. Expect thrills, spills, and that rare communal gasp only a packed cinema can deliver.

Bitter Christmas — 28 August 2026

Pedro Almodóvar’s tragicomedy weaves two timelines together: Elsa, an advertising director in 2004 navigating grief and creative burnout, and Raúl in 2026, a filmmaker turning Elsa’s life into autofiction as he battles his own creative drought. The film blurs reality and fiction, set partly against Lanzarote’s volcanic landscapes, and explores how personal pain becomes artistic fuel.

The Dog Stars — 28 August 2026

Ridley Scott adapts Peter Heller’s post‑pandemic survival novel into a windswept, intimate epic. Following Hig (Jacob Elordi) as he navigates a world stripped back to essentials — trust, shelter, the next safe horizon — the film focuses on the quiet, haunting business of living after everything has fallen. Expect scorched landscapes, battered hope, and Scott’s signature blend of muscular filmmaking and emotional grit.

Pressure — 9 September 2026

Set in the tense 72 hours before D‑Day, Pressure follows General Eisenhower and Captain James Stagg as they face an impossible choice: launch the largest seaborne invasion in history or risk losing the war. It’s a tight, procedural drama driven by strategy, doubt, and the weight of responsibility — with Andrew Scott and Brendan Fraser leading a strong ensemble.

Bad Apples — 11 September 2026

A smaller film on paper, but one that looks set to land with a thud of recognition. Bad Apples threads through school corridors and bureaucratic blind spots, following Marian, Danny and Eddie Waller as they navigate moral grey zones institutions prefer not to acknowledge. Twists arrive as consequences rather than gimmicks. By the end, you’re left chewing over the choices people make when the system around them is already cracked.

Conclusion

Taken together, these films paint a lively, unpredictable picture of the months ahead — a mix of spectacle, intimacy, mystery, and grit. Some lean into myth, others into emotional truth, and a few simply want to entertain with sharp writing and strong performances. Whether you’re after blockbuster escapism, character‑driven drama, or something stranger and more atmospheric, there’s plenty here worth marking on the calendar. The next stretch of cinema looks varied, confident, and full of stories that might just linger longer than expected.

By Pat Harrington

Leave a Comment

01/07/26 – Counter Culture – Midweek Song List (155)

The first day of July always carries a shadow. 1st July 1916 — the Somme — a day so brutal it still echoes. Nearly 57,500 British casualties before nightfall, 19,000 of them never coming home. The French lost over 1,500. Germany around 6,000. A century later, the numbers still feel obscene and carry a genetic impact we still feel the effect of.

From that solemn ground we step into music — the sublime, the ridiculous, and everything in between. July deserves range.

Nicola Benedetti – Spiegel im Spiegel

Arvo Pärt’s minimalist meditation, played with Benedetti’s trademark stillness. Written in 1978, it’s one of those pieces that seems to suspend time — a single line unfolding like breath, or prayer, or memory.

The Pipes & Drums of The Black Watch – Wha’ Saw the 42nd?

A regimental march with centuries behind it. The 42nd Highlanders — later The Black Watch — carried this tune across continents. It’s brisk, proud, and impossible not to straighten your back to.

Cockney Rejects – Police Car

East End punk at full throttle. Released in 1980, the Rejects were never subtle — and that’s the charm. A raw snapshot of street-level Britain before the decade turned sour.

Didi Dubbeldam & Jan van der Plas – Choo Choo Wa

Pure silliness. A children’s party favourite from the Netherlands that somehow became a global earworm. Proof that music doesn’t always need meaning — sometimes it just needs movement.

Amy MacDonald – Born to Run

MacDonald’s folk-rock energy meets Springsteen’s myth-making title. Not a cover — her own song — but carrying that same restless spirit she’s been bottling since This Is the Life.

John Mayer – Free Fallin’

A gentle, live reimagining of Tom Petty’s classic. Mayer strips it back to open chords and soft phrasing, turning a highway anthem into something closer to confession.

Gary Moore – Still Got The Blues

Moore’s Belfast fire meets American blues tradition. Released in 1990, it’s the track that cemented his reputation beyond hard rock — a slow-burn solo that still floors guitar players.

Randy & The Rainbows – Denise

Early‑60s doo‑wop sunshine. Blondie later reinvented it as Denis, flipping gender and adding French flair, but the original has that unmistakable Brill Building innocence.

Status Quo – Whatever You Want

The Quo at their most Quo. 1979. Denim. Telecasters. A riff that could power a small town. British boogie rock distilled to its purest form.

Al Stewart – The Year of the Cat

A soft-rock travelogue from 1976, wrapped in cinematic storytelling. Stewart’s lyrics wander through markets, strangers, and chance encounters — all carried by that unmistakable sax line.

Taylor Swift – I Can Do It With a Broken Heart

From The Tortured Poets Department. Swift at her most self-aware: glitter, exhaustion, and the pressure to perform even when life is cracking underneath.

Warning – Watching From a Distance

British doom metal at its most desolate. Released in 2006, Warning’s slow, aching chords and Patrick Walker’s vocals create a kind of emotional gravity few bands manage.

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Interview: The Last Bantam — Crafting History, Character, and Contention

In The Last Bantam, the Great War is refracted through an unexpected lens: the Bantam battalions — men under 5’3″ who volunteered in their tens of thousands — and one fictional Dubliner navigating the mud of France and the politics of home. What follows is a conversation with the writer and performer, Michael Hughes, about research, storytelling, Irish identity, and the emotional weight of performing history alone on stage.

1. What first pulled you toward the bantam soldiers? Thirty thousand men under 5’3” signing up to fight is an extraordinary footnote in history — what moment made you realise it deserved centre stage?

I spent a year reading about the Bantams. I was fascinated by their story and inspired by their courage. And me being me, made notes about what I read. Lots of notes. Pages of notes under random headings. “Recruitment”. “Motivation”. “Where they came from” etc. I kept those notes in a folder. After finishing the fourth or fifth book I laid those pages out on the floor. And that’s when the show jumped out at me. The headings read like episodes in a TV series or beats in a screenplay. I moved them around into some sort of order and hey presto, I had a show!

2. Patrick Michael Wolfe is such a compelling lens — a Dubliner chasing Irish Home Rule through the mud of the Western Front. How did you shape him? Was he inspired by someone real, or did he emerge from the gaps in the archive?

The Last Bantam was actually going to be about someone else entirely! It was originally going to tell the story of Sgt. Albert Mountain, a Leeds Bantam who was awarded the VC. I was impressed with his courage and tickled by the contrast between his name and his short stature. Sadly, I doubted my ability to do his accent justice and decided to make my character, Patrick Michael Wolfe, a Dubliner like me.

Wolfe is a fiction, though named after my two grandfathers, Patrick and Michael. 200,000 Irishmen served in the Great War, and some of those men were Bantams, but I chose to create my protagonist because I was in a hurry to write the story. Had I used an actual Irish Bantam I’d have felt obliged to find his descendants, get their permission, keep them in the creative loop, and honour their Bantam’s memory. Using a fictional Bantam however, dispensed with having to do any of that. It also meant that I could, if I wanted, present him in a less flattering light without upsetting anyone.

Making my Bantam an Irishman, and a Dubliner at that, also presented huge dramatic possibilities. Mine wouldn’t be a conventional British Great War story. Wolfe is overseas fighting for Irish Home Rule while huge political changes are happening back home. How would he feel about those changes? Would the events back in Dublin actually impact upon his life in France? My reading indicated that events in Ireland impacted hugely on Irishmen serving in the British army. Many of those men felt angry with the rebels while British army high command began to regard their Irish regiments with suspicion. Could they be trusted not to mutiny? Would they desert?

3. The play deals with patriotism, prejudice, courage and betrayal — big words that often get flattened in war stories. Which of those themes felt most dangerous to write about, and which surprised you as you dug deeper?

Betrayal. There’s a lot of betrayal in The Last Bantam. Wolfe and his Bantams are betrayed by the French, by their God and by the army itself when poor planning results in huge Bantam losses.

Where the theme of betrayal becomes dangerous however, is when Wolfe tells us how he feels about the 1916 Easter Rising. He is horrified by the destruction of his city, the loss of life and the harsh response of British forces in Ireland. Like many Irishmen in the British army at the time however, he is also shocked by the rebellion. He cannot understand why, when Ireland was promised its own Home Rule government, the rebels would start a war with Britain. A war that would alienate the Unionists and scupper any dreams of an all-Ireland government. He feels betrayed by the rebels, as many Irish soldiers did.

This is the most contentious thing to write about. Wolfe challenges the idea that the 1916 rebellion, the foundational moment of today’s Irish Republic, was a necessary or good thing.

This may be why none of the Dublin theatres I’ve approached or the Dublin Fringe are willing to host The Last Bantam. The one Dublin venue that has expressed an interest in my production is not a theatre.

4. Ireland’s role in the Great War is still strangely under‑examined. When you were researching, what did you discover that challenged your own assumptions about Irish soldiers and their motivations?

Ireland’s role in the Great War is under-examined, at least from a theatrical perspective. As far as I’m aware — and I’m very open to correction — there are only three other theatrical works examining the experience of Irish nationalists in the Great War: Sean O’Casey’s The Silver Tassie; George Bernard Shaw’s O’Flaherty V.C.; and Dermott Bolger’s Walking the Road. When you consider that 200,000 Irishmen were involved in the Great War, and Ireland’s flair for the literary, you might expect more works than that.

I knew that many Irishmen signed up for the same reasons as English, Scots or Welsh did: adventure, patriotism and money. Some Irishmen, like my character Wolfe, signed up because they believed it would help secure Home Rule. There were even some Irishmen who joined the British army to learn how to fight that same army later.

What surprised me though, was that the majority of Irishmen who signed up — about two thirds of them — were not from the Unionist northern counties. They were from what is today known as the Republic. They never taught us that in school!

5. The bantams were dismissed by the army before they’d even picked up a rifle. How do you approach that mix of ridicule and resilience on stage without turning it into either sentimentality or easy heroism?

First of all, I did my research. I got to know the Bantams. The majority of Bantams were volunteers and they were very proud to serve their country. They did their training, made friends and helped each other. They were practical, hardworking men — shipbuilders, miners and labourers. These men were not given to sentimentality or self‑pity.

Secondly, I’m short myself and I was never going to present the Bantams as tragic figures to be pitied, or as compensatorily heroic. I see them as short men who simply got on with it, ignoring the abuse and overcoming whatever came their way.

And finally, my background in character comedy helps. There is humour in The Last Bantam. It’s not a comedy show but there are laugh‑out‑loud moments. There has to be. There was humour in the trenches and my work should reflect that. Furthermore, humour gives the audience a chance to recover and it increases the dramatic impact when bad things happen to Wolfe and his men.

6. You’ve taken The Last Bantam through multiple Fringes, across the UK, and soon into the Chelsea History Festival and Dublin. How has the show changed as audiences have changed — especially younger ones encountering this history for the first time?

The Last Bantam has doubled in length, from a slim‑trim 25‑minute show to a lean 55–60 minutes today! The original version was just 25 minutes because it was my first foray into acting and the prospect of having to learn anything longer terrified me. Extending the show to an hour means that I can take it beyond the Fringe environment to theatre venues that need a longer run time. Making the show an hour has also enabled me to add additional action and detail and take the audience on a more varied, informative and emotionally satisfying journey.

Sadly, I don’t get too many younger people coming to my production, my audience tending to be mainly over 40. It’s a pity, but I think older people tend to be more interested in early 20th‑century history than younger people.

7. The Western Front is a place we think we already know — trenches, mud, horror. What details did you uncover that felt fresh, human, or painfully intimate enough to bring into the performance?

There were huge problems dressing the Bantam recruits. Bantams wore their own clothes for a long time before being issued with old Boer War uniforms, railwaymen’s overalls or uniforms made of Post Office blue serge. Boots were a specific challenge for the Bantams, the average Bantam having a size 6 foot. Trenches were also a problem. Being shorter is an advantage in trenches, but the fire step you’d stand on to look over the top of the trench was often too low. Bantams had to be issued with two sandbags that would be filled and placed on the fire step for them to stand on!

Another issue was the social class and poverty of many of the Bantam recruits. In my play my character says, “Some of the men came with nothing but the clothes on their backs.” And it’s true. While some Bantams signed up with spare clothes, food and money, others came with nothing apart from a desire to serve. They trusted, in a touching and perhaps naive way, that the state that called for them to enlist would look after them when they did.

Some Bantams were underage and that was probably to be expected. A 5‑foot‑tall 15‑year‑old had no hope of joining a regular‑sized battalion but he might be able to join a Bantam battalion if he lied about his age. And some did.

Some Bantams were illiterate. Receiving only the most basic schooling, young men living in poverty had to work from early childhood. In my play my character talks about this and describes how he helps them: “I read their letters out to them. And they hang on every word.” This aspect of the Bantam story is heartbreaking. Back then, letters and postcards were the key form of communication and Bantams who could not read or write would struggle to maintain contact with their families back home.

8. Your critics talk about “a masterclass in storytelling” and “another perfect example of the great Irish storyteller.” What does storytelling mean to you in a one‑man play? How do you keep the emotional thread taut without another actor to bounce off?

I was surprised when I saw myself described as a “storyteller”! It conjured up images of me standing by a peat fire in an Aran geansaí, telling mythical tales to an appreciative circle. But there’s different ways of telling stories, aren’t there? So I guess I am a storyteller after all!

Storytelling for me is the process in which I take my audience on an educational, entertaining and emotional journey. They come into my world, we begin in one place, end up in another and take several diversions along the way! I know where we’re going, I’ve mapped out the route, and they’re happy to come along with me.

Maintaining the “emotional thread” is essential. Without another actor to bounce off, I have to generate and maintain the emotional energy myself. The script is important in this regard. It’s hard to have a good show without a good script! This is where I believe the discipline of comedy writing influenced how I wrote the play. If a line isn’t really needed in comedy, it goes. If a word isn’t really needed in comedy, it’s out. That concise style of writing keeps things moving and makes for more dynamic work I think.

Just as important though — maybe more perhaps? — is how I perform my script. In addition to words, I use volume and tone, different accents, pauses, facial expressions and physical movements. If I do these things authentically I can hold the attention of the audience and communicate what my character is feeling. I’ve been a teacher a long time and I’ve been using these techniques for years, not realising they would help me become an actor!

9. The bantams fought to prove themselves; Wolfe fights for a political future; the audience watches knowing how history actually unfolded. How do you navigate that tension between hope and hindsight?

Interesting question! I wrote Wolfe from the perspective of an ordinary man who doesn’t know what the future holds. He gets letters from his sister and friends in Dublin. They tell him what’s going on and they send him newspapers. It’s March 1918 and Wolfe knows about the 1916 rebellion and execution of the ringleaders. He knows about the destruction of Dublin city centre and the internment of thousands of Irish men and women. He knows that the national mood is changing and Sinn Féin is growing in power. He knows these things. He still hopes for Home Rule but he is very afraid it will not happen.

British audiences generally don’t know well what happened in Ireland. They know that there was a rebellion in 1916 and that that is somehow related to today’s Irish Republic, but they are generally unaware that in 1914, Ireland was all set to get Home Rule, its own devolved government. Audience members often confuse Home Rule with independence and they tend to be ignorant of the 1919–1921 Anglo‑Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War that followed partition. This lack of knowledge is disappointing, but not unexpected. Many of my audience tend to be over 50 and I gather that Irish history has not always been well taught in British schools. Irish history is political!

10. After living with this story for years — Fringe runs, awards, tours — what still catches in your throat when you perform it? What moment refuses to soften with repetition?

My character goes through a lot in the play. But there is one line that gets me almost every time I say it.

Wolfe establishes a relationship with a nurse while he’s in hospital and she writes to him, inviting him to visit when he gets leave. He tells the audience about the invitation, bashful but also clearly delighted. He’s written a letter back to her, agreeing to meet. He’s been carrying it for days. He tells the audience, “It would be nice to see her again. Away from this.”

That’s the line that gets me. Wolfe’s coyness and delight change. He tries to remain upbeat and cheerful but he knows, because of what he has to do later, that he may not see her again. It’s why he hasn’t posted the letter. He knows he may not survive and he is filled with grief for a love lost. Should he post it or simply let her go?

Find out more at the Fringe website

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.

Leave a Comment

The Quiet Power Behind Whale Fall: A Conversation with Bruna Longo

What hits you first about Whale Fall is its emotional clarity. Bruna Longo — the show’s writer, creator, and solo performer — speaks about the piece with a directness that makes its themes feel close to the skin. She’s not dealing in abstractions; she’s tracing grief, memory, and the strange beauty in collapse and renewal with a kind of steady, unforced honesty.

In this conversation, Bruna lays out the ideas driving the work and the experiences that shaped it. There’s no grandstanding, no over‑polish — just a clear sense of why Whale Fall exists and what she hopes it stirs in the audience. It’s a piece built on substance, and her reflections carry that same weight.

You can explore the production further on the Fringe listing.

 

1.              You’ve spoken about creating this piece in the aftermath of your father’s death. When grief becomes the raw material of a performance, does the stage feel like a refuge, a reckoning, or something stranger altogether?

I wasn’t setting out to make a play about my father’s death, or even one inspired by it. I started researching death because I was trying to understand what was happening to me, to face it, to face my grief. I am very, very nerdy. And at some point, it became very clear that my way of moving through life, of dealing with everything, is through theatre. As I say in the play, theatre is my religare, my non-religious form of spirituality. But I always want to make one thing clear: the show isn’t a therapeutic exercise about my mourning process. It’s the result of a genuine curiosity about death and grief that grew out of the research I began to help me navigate that experience. The play isn’t the process itself, it’s what came from it. So more than a refuge or a reckoning, the stage is a place of congregation, a place where we come together to share our humanity. And I think that’s what this process ultimately became for me.

2.              Western societies have a habit of sanitising death — hiding it behind curtains, euphemisms, and professionalised rituals. What convinced you that theatre could reopen that conversation without slipping into sentimentality or spectacle?

I think if we go back to how theatre was born, we already have the answer to that question. It’s a place where humanity gathers to see itself reflected. And theatre is so raw. Even when we try to make it more like film, with special effects or technology, it’s still fundamentally human. That’s what makes it so powerful and, for me, what makes it the perfect place to face our demons and our fears, to talk about them, and to bring them into the light.

3.              The original version of Whale Fall unfolded inside a functioning funeral chapel in São Paulo. How does relocating the work to St Cuthbert’s Church — with its own centuries of burial and memory — change the emotional temperature of the piece?

We perform in a historic chapel in São Paulo that dates back to 1912. So just the fact that the first recorded church on the site where St Cuthbert’s stands today dates from the 12th century is already incredible to me. Brazil was colonized by the Portuguese in 1500, although, of course, Indigenous peoples had been living there for thousands of years before that. But the Indigenous peoples of Brazil had very different cultures from civilizations like the Maya or the Aztec. They didn’t leave behind monumental stone architecture in the same way, so the oldest stone buildings we have are mostly from the Portuguese colonial period. I love history and architecture, and even though I’m certainly not a fan of colonization, whenever I visit historic buildings, I have a deep respect for the lives of the people who occupied those spaces before me. So performing in a place as ancient as St Cuthbert’s certainly adds another layer to the experience. You’re aware that so many people have passed through that space over so many centuries, carrying their own stories, their own joys, and their own grief. I think there’s something very beautiful about adding our story to that long continuum.

4.              You imagine your own death as a way of mourning yourself — an impossible act in life, but a potent one in theatre. What did that imaginative leap reveal to you that ordinary grief could not?

Imagining our own death, and really imagining the decomposition process, is actually a very Buddhist practice. I’m Buddhist, so it was something I always knew was done, but I never thought I’d actually be able to engage with it. I was afraid, as I think most of us are, to bring that image into my mind. This play is very much in the tradition of memento mori, an artistic tradition that goes back to the Middle Ages, where artists depicted death and mortality to remind us that we’re alive. The full idea is memento mori, memento vivere: remember you will die, remember to live. That’s what imagining my own death has helped me do. Imagining my own death reminds me every day that I am very much alive, and it makes me want to be fully alive until the very last microsecond I live.

5.              The show blends autobiography, anthropology, philosophy, and physical theatre. When you’re working across so many registers, how do you keep the ritualistic core of the piece intact?

I always like to go back to the original meaning of things. So, what is a ritual? It’s a set of gestures, words, and formalized actions with symbolic meaning, performed by or in front of a group of people. And when you think about it, theatre is exactly that. Theatre is a ritual. Whale Fall  have different layers to it. The dramaturgy is built from ethnographic and anthropological research, together with some autobiographical elements. Then there’s the language of the performance itself. The physicality draws on traditions of physical theatre and also inspirations from Japanese theatre, although they’re not the kind of references an audience would necessarily recognize while watching the show. And then there’s the staging. The decision to perform inside a chapel wasn’t just an aesthetic choice; it was part of creating a ritual space. The scenes are structured in a very ritualized way. Music plays a fundamental role, as it does in so many ritual traditions. Those are the bricks the piece is made of. So the performance isn’t recreating any specific ritual, but it borrows the grammar of ritual to create a shared experience where we can gather and reflect on mortality together.

6.              You’ve said that death is perhaps the last taboo in Western culture. Do you think audiences are genuinely ready to confront it, or are they still arriving with the same fear and avoidance you’re trying to unpick?

One of my masters, the director Eugenio Barba, once said in a rehearsal that there is no audience. There is only that one person, and then the next person, and the next, and the next. I’ve carried that with me ever since. So I try to meet each audience member wherever they are. I’ve spoken to people after the show who told me it genuinely shifted something for them, that it helped them look at death with a little more tranquility than they had before. And then, about a month ago, I got a DM on Instagram from someone who had seen the show months earlier. They wrote, “I loved the show, but being inside the chapel in the cemetery was a horrible experience for me because I’m terrified of death.” They spent the whole performance feeling anxious, and yet they were still grateful they came. And I think that’s wonderful. If that’s what the show brought up for that person, then that’s what it brought up. I’m not trying to lead people toward one specific conclusion or emotional response. The only thing I hope is that people begin to think about death as part of life, as something worth bringing to the dinner table, into our everyday conversations. Where that reflection takes them is completely beyond my control. There isn’t a right or wrong way to experience the piece.

7.              The São Paulo Showcase is bringing a wave of Brazilian work to Edinburgh this year. What feels distinctly Brazilian about Whale Fall, and what feels universal — something that belongs to anyone who has ever lost someone?

Death is a universal experience. Everybody dies in the end: spoiler alert! But culturally, we relate to death in many different ways. There are a lot of similarities across Western societies, especially in big cities and metropolitan areas, but every culture has its own temperament, its own rituals, and its own emotional relationship with death. Part of the research behind the show was also ethnographic. I became fascinated by the different ways cultures around the world care for their dead and make sense of loss. The performance brings some of those funeral rites into conversation with our own Western, capitalist, highly industrialized experience of death to remind us that the way we approach death isn’t universal, it’s cultural. And once we realize that, we can start asking whether the relationship we’ve built with death is really the one we want. So, of course, the show brings my own perspective: a Brazilian-Italian Latina woman from one of the biggest cities in the world. But underneath all those identities, I’m just another person who’s going to die and going to lose people I love. And that’s the one thing every audience member and I have in common.

8.              You’re performing 18 shows without a break at the Fringe. How do you protect your own emotional and physical boundaries when the work itself asks you to revisit grief night after night?

That’s a fantastic question. People have asked me before how I deal with talking about my grief and my father every week, month after month. But the truth is, it’s not really about my grief, and it’s not really about my father anymore. And that’s very important to me. As I said before, the research began because of my father’s death and my attempt to understand my own experience of mourning. But once I decided to turn that research into a performance, it stopped being about processing my grief and started being about sharing the curiosity that had grown out of it: my curiosity about death, grief, and ritual. During the research and rehearsal process, there were definitely moments when it was difficult to face some emotions. But once the show opened, something shifted. It became about celebrating life. So, for me, it’s actually a very joyful show. I know that sounds contradictory because it’s about death, but I don’t experience it as a sad piece. I don’t feel like I have to protect myself emotionally from performing it. Physically, though, that’s a different story. Eighteen performances in a row is a lot, and I’m no spring chicken anymore. So I’m trying to get as strong as I can before Edinburgh. It’s a demanding show for my voice because I sing throughout it, and it’s demanding on my body, especially my spine. During the run, my plan is to sleep well, eat well, take care of myself… and wait until it’s all over before I start celebrating.

9.              The press in Brazil described the piece as courageous, ritualistic, and among the year’s best. Does that kind of acclaim create pressure, or does it give you permission to push even further into the uncomfortable questions the show raises?

Honestly, I believe in acclaim as much as I believe in bad reviews. I try not to give either of them too much weight because I don’t think it’s particularly helpful or healthy. Of course, reviews and award nominations are fantastic for the business of show business. They help put bums on seats, they give the work credibility, and they make the show more visible, especially at the Fringe, where audiences have thousands of shows to choose from. That’s all incredibly valuable. But for me, as an artist, what really matters is what happens in the room, in that living moment. That’s theatre. Everything else is important, but it isn’t theatre itself.

10.           If an audience member walks out of St Cuthbert’s with one lingering thought — not a neat lesson, but a disturbance they can’t quite shake — what do you hope that thought is?

I want people to leave asking themselves: What kind of relationship do I want to have with death? There’s a Brazilian psychoanalyst, Rubem Alves, who wrote that instead of being something frightening or cruel, death can be a counselor. I love that. We already know we’re going to die: that part isn’t optional. So maybe, instead of trying to forget about death or push it away, we can let that awareness guide the way we choose to live. And that has very practical consequences too. When we allow ourselves to talk about death, we’re much more likely to take ownership of how we want to die. We can leave our wishes behind, have conversations with our loved ones and our doctors, think about palliative care or assisted dying if that is aligned with our values. These are conversations we tend to avoid because they’re uncomfortable, but they’re really conversations about autonomy.

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »