Posts Tagged Interviews

Inside The Bowie Story: How Peter Marchant Channels a Cultural Supernova

David Bowie didn’t just bend culture; he detonated it and then calmly walked through the smoke wearing something nobody had seen before. The Bowie Story promises to trace that volatility — the reinventions, the provocations, the sheer audacity of a man who treated identity as raw material. At the centre of Night Owl’s world‑premiere production is Peter Marchant, whose performance has already been described as “electric”.

In conversation, Marchant is thoughtful, curious, and disarmingly funny — but onstage he steps into Bowie’s slipstream, chasing the imagination that made him a lodestar for misfits, futurists, and anyone who ever felt the world might be bigger than the version they were handed.

This interview digs into the mythology, the music, the queerness, the chaos, and the craft behind The Bowie Story — and why Marchant believes Bowie’s relevance isn’t historical, but ongoing.

When you step onstage for The Bowie Story, are you channelling Bowie the icon, Bowie the innovator, or Bowie the cultural disruptor — and which of those feels most dangerous to inhabit.

A bit of all three I’d say, though if I had to pick one I’d say the cultural disruptor. I’m fascinated by what’s next in popular culture and Bowie wasn’t just interested in what was coming next, he created it. That’s a big focus in the story we tell.

Night Owl Shows thrive on narrative‑driven music experiences. What story about Bowie did you feel compelled to tell that other tributes always seem to miss.

I think the first few years of his career (before he was calling himself Bowie) was a topic I found quite interesting to research and I open up the show talking about this period. He tried various bands and pseudonyms during his teens but didn’t really achieve any success for years, which is crazy when you look at how legendary and influential he became.

Your performance is described as “electric” — what’s the current behind that charge: the music, the mythology, or the responsibility of carrying someone who reshaped the cultural landscape.

Again, probably a bit of all three. Above all it’s the passion for the artist. When the artist holds such a big place in my heart the energy I feel singing their songs comes from somewhere ‘not of this world’.

Bowie reinvented himself so often he almost made authenticity irrelevant. When you perform these songs, which version of him do you think audiences are really searching for.

The unshakable qualities of the man himself were always present in every one of Bowie’s different personas, that’s what I’m reaching for. The man behind the mask whose imagination and vision gave life to his characters.

Space Oddity, Life on Mars, Heroes, Let’s Dance — these tracks are cultural artefacts now. How do you stop them becoming museum pieces and make them feel volatile again.

So long as artists continue to talk about these songs and apply their messages to the world we live in today, they’ll stay relevant. Bowie perfectly predicted the future when talking about the Internet in his interview with Paxman in 1999 and I think that ability to predict the future helped him write songs that would hold eternal relevance.

Bowie blurred the line between persona and performance. Do you ever feel that same tension when leading an all‑star band through his catalogue.

The ways in which Bowie presented his different personas on each album was not just in how he dressed but was also in how he moved and even how he pronounced words — he puts on a bit of a New York twang in Rebel Rebel for example. That’s something I like to try and reflect when portraying his different personas and our band do a great job of showing how his use of sound and production techniques evolved over the years.

The show promises audiences a rediscovery of their favourite songs. What’s the one Bowie track that surprised you most once you started digging into its origins.

I was quite surprised when I found out that Young Americans was released less than a year after the Diamond Dogs album, where Bowie was still putting out a glam‑rock kind of persona. To go from that to his ‘plastic soul’ in such a short space of time is a pretty drastic and rapid transformation.

Bowie shaped pop culture by refusing to play by its rules. What’s the most rebellious choice you’ve made in crafting this show.

Refusing to wear boring trousers.

Night Owl Shows impose narrative clarity — but Bowie thrived on chaos. How do you create a coherent story around someone who resisted being pinned down.

It definitely wasn’t an easy task. Although within each phase of his career there was a lot of consistency — organised chaos you might say. I think when you go year by year and look at the context behind his creative decisions (i.e. his move from LA to Berlin to escape drug addiction and working with Eno and Visconti) the drastic changes he went through seem to make more sense.

Bowie was a trailblazer for sexual freedom, queerness, and self‑invention. When you embody his work, how consciously do you engage with that legacy — and what does it mean to perform songs that once helped people feel seen for the first time.

I speak about this a little bit when talking about his Ziggy years, making the character androgynous and gender‑fluid. But I think much of how I embody that comes from how I dress and move on stage (I do a lot of ass shaking on stage in my glittery trousers and sequin lightning bolt jacket). Hearing lyrics like “you got your mother in a whirl, she can’t tell if you’re a boy or a girl, hey babe your hair’s alright, hey babe let’s go out tonight” must have been very liberating and validating for queer people to hear for the first time.

See our review of The Bowie Story

Buy tickets for The Bowie Story

Advert

Leave a Comment

Good Girl: Mimi Collins on Betrayal, Consent and Starting Again

Click on image to buy ticket

Some Fringe shows don’t just tell a story — they hit a nerve. Good Girl is one of them. It’s direct, open, and unexpectedly funny even when things get heavy. Mimi Collins doesn’t hide behind performance tricks or distance herself from the material. She steps straight into it and shows what it really takes to put yourself back together after everything falls apart.

What follows is a conversation about betrayal, identity, kink, consent, and the strange, stubborn hope that keeps people standing even when the ground gives way. It’s not tidy. It’s not polite. It’s real — and that’s why it lands.

Alix’s breaking point — Your show begins with infidelity but quickly becomes about the reaction rather than the betrayal. Why do you think so many people are more shocked by their own responses than by the crisis itself?

How we expect ourselves to react in certain situations is a core part of our sense of self. If you were to see a crime being committed, for example, most people would say they’d intervene. That’s who they think they are. But what happens if, when confronted with that reality, they don’t?

The truth is, we often don’t know ourselves as well as we think we do. And that’s an incredibly unnerving thing to face. When Alix realizes her reaction to this betrayal is nothing like what she would have guessed — nothing like what she would advise others to do, or what her younger self would tell her to do — it rocks her entire world. Her core identity. And it’s really hard to find your footing again when you’re suddenly standing in quicksand.

Emotional self‑deception — You portray Alix as flawed, contradictory, and sometimes complicit in her own pain. What made you want to resist the “pure victim” narrative?

The only way to connect with people is to tell the truth. The truth is what allows the audience to connect with the characters. And the truth is, there is no pure victim. Just like there is no pure villain. We are flawed. We make mistakes. We handle hard situations imperfectly. And all we can do is wake up tomorrow and try to be better than we were the day before.

Therapy as storytelling — The piece unfolds through therapy sessions, late‑night confessions and “hey girl” texts. How did you use these forms to reveal the logic of someone trying to hold a collapsing marriage together?

The three avenues sort of act as a filtration system. They offer different amounts of external input. The “hey girl” texts are external information with a calculated response, therapy sessions are external conversations designed to spark internal dialogue, and the late-night confessions — well, that’s just Alix and her audience. That’s where she gets to be completely unfiltered. Say the inside thoughts out loud. The things you’d never say in daylight — not even at a whisper. The audience allows her a space to give voice to her deepest fears and most shameful secrets. And by giving voice to them, they lose their power. And she might just be able to find herself again.

The nude photo moment — Posting a nude online is a huge turning point. What does that impulsive act unlock for Alix that nothing else could?

Well — let’s be frank. Infidelity can really do a number on your self-esteem. And while infidelity rarely has much to do with the person on the receiving end, it is not unreasonable for that person to wonder — is it me? Am I simply undesirable? And, listen, I am not advising people to post nudes online. But… if you do, you’ll get an answer.

But to push beyond the initial impulse, posting a nude online offers Alix a new vantage point from which to see herself. It almost allows her to try on a new skin. And in discovering what this new person she’s playing as craves, she becomes more aware of her own needs. Needs she has been minimizing for a long time, that very much deserve to be tended to.

BDSM as sanctuary — The kink community becomes the safest, most honest space in the story. What surprised you most when exploring BDSM as a site of healing rather than taboo?

Oh, I found so much about the BDSM community to be surprising. But the most surprising thing is probably the length and depth of the conversations surrounding each and every facet of “play” or “a scene” — terms used to describe encounters (often but not always sexual) in the BDSM space.

Participants in the BDSM community talk. All the time. They have to. There’s no other way to build the trust and the consent necessary to safely play in these spaces that explore taboos.

And the welcome and open exploration of these taboos is what removes the shame around them. Shame is such a destructive force in so many relationships, and perhaps the most common precursor to deception. So removing that from the mix only enhances participants’ ability to trust one another.

Consent vs. marriage — The show contrasts the instability of a socially “acceptable” marriage with the radical communication of kink. What does that say about how society defines healthy relationships?

A lot of societal milestones (job, marriage, house, children, etc.) are in place to determine status — socially or otherwise. We put a lot of emphasis on this status. Which means we’ll fight for it even when it isn’t actually serving us. It also means we often don’t question if it’s actually what we want, until it’s too late.

We assume we want to get married, buy a house, and have kids. Because that’s what we’re taught is the pinnacle of achievement from a young age.

But the kink community assumes nothing. Everything is a question — pet names, sexual acts, aftercare, all options are presented as equal, with no pre‑conceived judgment attached to the answer — because these are not questions we’re taught to have answers for. And if you can let go of the shame, as I talked about before, and really answer honestly, you can discover a LOT about yourself.

Autobiographical risk — You describe the piece as “largely autobiographical.” What boundaries did you redraw for yourself while writing something so emotionally exposed?

This is a hard story to tell. But I think it’s one that a lot of people will see themselves in. There were a lot of times in the writing of it that I wanted to fictionalize something as a means to protect myself, as a shield. To create some distance. But then the story would suffer. And that feels like a disservice to the people who need to hear it.

So I was constantly redrawing my boundaries to expand them and break them down. If I’m going to do this, I’m going all in. There’s no use in softening the blow, we’re in it now.

Working with Ellie Pyle — You and director Ellie Pyle have a long creative shorthand. What was the darkest or most vulnerable territory she pushed you into that you wouldn’t have gone alone?

It’s because of Ellie that I’m performing this piece. That was not the original plan. But I did an early staged reading before we found an actress and she said, “You have to do this. It’s gotta be you.” And — devastatingly — she was right. It’s my story. I have to tell it. I would not have made that choice without her… erm, stern encouragement.

That said, she took incredible care of me. If you watch the show, you’ll learn about the stoplight safeword system often employed in BDSM. (Green, yellow, red — you get it, right?). And she, hilariously, co‑opted this for rehearsal. We’d run a tough scene and after it she’d ask, “color?” And if I said “green,” she’d know we were good to push on. But “yellow” meant we’d take a break, and “red” meant we needed to pivot to something else. It was both a really smart and clean way to check in with me, and also… very very funny.

Staying too long — The show asks why people stay in relationships that no longer serve them. What’s the most uncomfortable truth you discovered while exploring that question?

There are a lot of hard truths to face in this piece! But the most uncomfortable one is that we often stay in spaces that no longer serve us because we don’t think we deserve better. Or — crucially — that better exists.

But we do. And it does. It might not be what we envisioned, and that vision of how you thought your life would be is really hard to let go of. The grief for the future you imagined is heavy. But you have to remind yourself that that future never really existed. And you can’t find the actual future that’s meant for you until you let the other one go.

Pain into pleasure — The press release says the story is ultimately about turning pain into pleasure. What does that transformation look like for Alix by the end of the piece?

Well to find out properly, you’ll have to come see the play. But, without giving too much away, that transformation looks like finally facing the pain head on, owning it, and dealing with it, so as to make room for pleasure.

Good Girl 10.20pm, Gilded Balloon Patter House 5th–31st August

You can buy tickets here 

 

Leave a Comment

John-Luke Roberts: What I Talk About When I Run About Talking

Click on image to buy tickets

★★★★★ John‑Luke Roberts returns to the Fringe with an hour that blends surrealism, sharp language play and candid reflections on health, therapy and mortality. In a small room that suits his conversational style, he delivers a show that’s warm, inventive and consistently funny, proving once again why he occupies such a singular corner of British comedy.

John-Luke Roberts has long occupied a distinctive corner of British comedy, where surrealism, wordplay and intelligent observation meet. What I Talk About When I Run About Talking demonstrates why he has earned that reputation. This is a show that is often gloriously absurd, occasionally deeply personal and consistently engaging.

The intimate venue suits both the performer and the material. With room for around sixty people, it creates exactly the kind of atmosphere this show needs. Audience and performer feel part of the same conversation rather than separated by a stage. There’s also something pleasingly Fringe about the adjoining bar, where people can gather over a drink before taking their seats. By the time Roberts walks on, the audience already feels relaxed and receptive, and he rewards that goodwill from the opening moments.

One of Roberts’ greatest strengths is his command of language. He clearly enjoys words, not simply as vehicles for jokes but as toys to be turned over, stretched and occasionally twisted into unexpected shapes. His delivery is conversational yet meticulously controlled. There’s never a sense that he’s racing towards punchlines. Instead, he allows ideas to unfold at their own pace, trusting the audience to follow him wherever he’s heading.

What impressed me most was his ability to move effortlessly between comedy and subjects that, in other hands, might feel overwhelmingly serious. He speaks candidly about a recent health scare involving blood clots on his lungs, alongside reflections on mortality and therapy. These are not easy themes to make funny, yet Roberts never trivialises them. Instead, he finds humour in the way we process frightening experiences and the strange mental journeys they provoke.

His stories about therapy were among the afternoon’s highlights. The recurring image of his therapist ending sessions with probing questions for him to ponder until the next appointment became an inspired comic device. It reminded me, oddly enough, of the cliffhanger endings from the old Batman television series, forever leaving viewers hanging until the next episode. Roberts mines that structure brilliantly, turning psychological introspection into something unexpectedly hilarious.

Interspersed throughout the show are short poems that arrive almost without warning. They provide delightful changes of pace and consistently earned some of the biggest laughs of the evening. Roberts understands the value of surprise. Just as the audience thinks they know where a routine is heading, he quietly changes direction and lands somewhere entirely unexpected.

His physical presence on stage should not be overlooked either. Although this is a language-rich show, he uses movement economically and effectively, maintaining the audience’s attention throughout. He projects warmth and confidence without becoming overbearing, and there is a generosity to his performance that keeps everyone with him.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the hour is its rhythm. Many stand-up shows have noticeable peaks and quieter patches. This one scarcely does. Roberts maintains a steady flow of laughs from beginning to end, moving naturally between stories, observations, poems and surreal detours. The different strands might appear unrelated on paper, yet on stage they knit together into a coherent whole.

Comedy that embraces the surreal can sometimes become self-indulgent or leave audiences behind. Roberts avoids that trap. However eccentric the destination, he always provides enough emotional truth to keep the audience invested. Beneath the absurdity lies an astute observer of human behaviour, capable of making us laugh at life’s anxieties without ever dismissing their seriousness.

Above all, John-Luke Roberts knows how to entertain an audience. He combines intelligence, imagination, excellent timing and complete command of the room into an hour that feels fresh, thoughtful and consistently funny. Fringe audiences looking for comedy that rewards careful listening as much as spontaneous laughter should make time for this show.

Reviewed by Patrick Harrington

Click here to buy tickets

Click here to read an interview with John-Luke Roberts

Leave a Comment

Culture: Interview with Jack Shaheen

Reel Bad Arabs Book Cover

Click on the image to buy this book

Your book Reel Bad Arabs  deals with how Hollywood films portray Arabs. It’s certainly comprehensive. Just how many films did you watch?

 

 About 95 percent of the 900-plus films I discuss – the movies I could not see were the silent films of the early 1900s – they were destroyed–films such as “The Arab” and an early sound flick, “Tom Mix in Arabia,” and a 1926 cartoon: “Felix the Cat Shatters the Sheik.”

What motivated you to undertake such a daunting task?

I’d always been sensitive to hurtful images…I grew up in a small steel town, Clairton, pa, just outside of Pittsburgh. A terrific place to interact with various ethnic groups. One problem, though. Blacks were still considered to be “less smart.” I had several good black friends. Some of my white pals looked down on them because of their color; I would speak out and defend them but it was difficult, being a single voice and going against the tide.

Also, our home was free of prejudicial barbs. No one vilified another person because of color creed or culture. Not a single member of the family.

Later, in the late 1960s when I began teaching at southern Illinois I started seeing all these ugly Arab caricatures prowling TV screens. Then, my children saw them on Saturday morning cartoons, asking, “who are these ugly Arabs?” so I went to the library and tried to find some research. Zilch. No essays…no books… so, I began reading everything I could find on how others were demonzined in the media – Jews- Asians- Blacks- American Indians. The readings helped and I became the first scholar to seriously examine this issue – though all my research was not is any way related to the my broadcast journalism. Thus, I had two jobs – normal teaching during the day and at night, researching Arab images in us popular culture.

There are over seven million Arab-Americans living in the US. Have you been able to find any positive or even neutral portrayals of Arabs in US movies?

 Yes…notably recent films such as Three Kings and The 13th Warrior and Party Girl . To save time, see my recommended rba viewing list.

 What is the overall stereotype of Arabs depicted in US films?

Subhumans – Arab Muslims are fanatics who believe in a different god, who don’t value human life as much as we do, they are intent on destroying us – the west – with there oil or with their terrorism; the men seek to abduct and brutally seduce our women; they are without family and reside in a primitive place – the desert – and behave like primitive beings. The women are subservient – resembling black crows or we see them as mute, somewhat exotic harem maidens.

 If you had to name the three worst modern films in terms of a negative portrayal of Arabs what would they be and why?

  • Rules of Engagement – film justifies us marines killing Arab women and children
  • Wanted Dead or Alive- Arab thugs with the help of American Arab terrorists plan to ignite Los Angeles – killing millions
  • True Lies- Arnold S. INC shoots dead Palestinians like clay pigeons
     

How do they get away with such racism? If Jews or Black people were depicted in this way there would be an outcry. How come few say anything about this?

Fear of being perceived as pro-Arab, greed, pro-Israeli feelings, lack of an American Arab pressure group in la, reluctance of any major political or church leader to condemn this stereotype.

 How far do you think negative portrayals of Arabs in films and fiction influence the way Americans (in particular) interpret the news? How does it colour the way they view the Palestinian/Israeli conflict for example?

100 percent. Consider. What we do not see is also as important if not more important than what we do see. What, for example, would be the public and policy behavior if we stereotyped Israelis as sub humans in the same way we show Arabs as sub humans? Think about it.

You were a consultant on the 1999 post-Gulf war film ‘Three Kings’. How did that come about?

 Terrific. Because the two producers with whom I worked – Chuck Roven and Doug Segal – did not want to vilify anyone. We were a fantastic team – mutual respect prevailed. I was brought in from the beginning and met regularly with them -an on-going dialogue.

You had two Jewish producers on that film. What did the think of these issues? Were the sympathetic to your attempts to portray Arabs (in this case Iraqis) in a more complex and sympathetic way?

DVD cover of Three Kings

Click on image to buy DVD

I never think about a producer’s color or religion. I simply study the artist’s movie[s] and praise/criticize him/her based on what appears on the screen.

What was the reaction to your book when it was published in the US?

 Not bad. The problem was and remains: the popular trade entertainment/film.TV magazines – Variety – Premiere, Hollywood reported, Film Comment, People, Entertainment Weekly – failed to review, acknowledge the book’s existence. N.Y. times and Washington post were silent. No major TV critic who reviews movies addressed it. Not one.

Has the reaction in the UK been any different?

More receptive, more interest, more concern, more intelligence

 What are you working on at the moment?

 Documenting how American TV shows project American Arabs and American Muslims.

Comments (2)