Having problems getting a new Internet connection at the moment, so posting will be a lot sparser than usual for a while!

Nevertheless, here are a few music videos to start the weekend to! Have a good one y’all!

Deerhoof – My Purple Past

oooOOOooo

The Most Serene Republic – The Old Forever New Things

oooOOOooo

Dirty Projectors – Stillness is the Move

oooOOOooo

Franz Ferdinand – Can’t Stop Feeling

This is a film about maths boffins. Yet there is nary a sign to be had of a calculator, a square-lined jotter, or even a humble pair of thick-lens glasses held together by sticky tape. Instead, the opening scene introduces us to three simpering girls listening to some hip-looking bloke explain how he is about to unveil a proof to a problem that has defied mathematicians for centuries. He then tries to turn the girls on with an overacted demonstration of his calculating prowess. Yikes to that!

When the next scene confronts our numerate Lothario with the sight of his thrashed dorm room, the Dan Brown alarm bells are ringing loudly and your reviewer’s eyes are drawn immediately towards the nearest way out, just in case a swift, sharp exit is to be required. At the same time, the film had warned the audience from the outset that they needed to know what a prime number was in order to properly enjoy the film. Accordingly, I was already feeling honour-bound to stay with this number-cruncher and bone-crusher of a story!

In fairness, after these unlikely opening scenes, the film does settle down nicely into being a reasonable suspense-filled thriller thereafter. Moreover, the audience warning above is more for dramatic effect than anything else – so there is no need to pack a calculator! The basic idea is that four strangers are assembled in a room at the invitation of a mysterious host. Their evening then rapidly turns into a battle to stay alive, as they discover that the room is a trap and that they need to solve a series of puzzles under time pressure in order to stay alive.

While this makes for an ambitious and dynamic plot, the script does buckle every now and then under the weight of trying to solve riddles against the clock, while ways to escape are sought and they try to figure out who their tormentor is. As a result, the audience often has to make a decision in terms of either trying to figure out the solutions to the challenges that the four are being set or to just focus on the general story in order to try and guess what the overall outcome will be.

The acting is very much a team effort, with no one character especially standing out, whilst each brings a suitably different personality into this pressurised situation. Furthermore, despite the adverse effect that it has on the script, there is an impressive zippiness to how the story unfolds. This allows a great deal of drama to be squashed into a modest ninety-minute runtime, even if there are some blink-and-you-have-missed-them developments. Towards the ends, the need to keep twisting the tale does start to make the plot rather convoluted, but the story is close enough to its denouement for this not to be a significant problem.

On the whole, Fermat’s Room is a decent thriller for fans of European cinema, whose faults lie mostly in its overly ambitious nature. However, for this reviewer, that is one of the least grevious sins that a director can be found guilty of.

We are particularly pleased that Ireland could secure substantial long term funding in the very competitive conditions which now prevail in the government bond markets.

The success of this bond issue is a clear signal of the confidence investors have in the Irish government bond market.

- Michael Somers, Chief Executive of the NTMA

While you could put a more cynical spin on the above quotation, it is meant as a bullish show of confidence by the National Treasury Management Agency (“NTMA”) in its ability to issue debt on behalf of the State. While getting €6 billion of a 10-year bond issuance away in troubled times is presumably an accomplishment of some description, the cost at which this so-called success was achieved is enormous.

According to The Sunday Business Post, the new issue has an interest cost that is just under 2.5% more than Germany’s equivalent issue. In other words, the Irish government has to pay €150 million per year more of interest than the German government would have to for an equivalent amount of debt of similar duration.

To put that €150 million of premium into context, it pretty much equates to what the State allocates to the running of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children in Crumlin every year and that €6 billion only represents 23% of the debt that the NTMA plans on issuing this year. This hospital, of course, has had a high profile in the media recently following its warnings regarding what government budgetary cutbacks will do to the front-line services that it offers.

Very simply, we are paying through the nose for what the NTMA calls a success and it is the most vulnerable in our society who will feel the pain of this victory the most. Does anyone dare contemplate what failure looks like to them?

If nothing else, please show some more sensitivity, Mr. Somers.

Revolution is not the uprising against preexisting order, but the setting up of a new order contradictory to the traditional one.

- José Ortega y Gasset

When I think of the word “institution”, it suggests to me a sense of permanence, formality, and a dogmatic way of doing things. Changes to an institution are, therefore, unlikely to come easily or quickly to it. After all, it is part of the status quo in society. Indeed, in some instances, it has been an institution’s very existence that has given rise to the status quo, e.g., the Catholic Church and Irish society.

As a pertinent etymological aside, the term status quo originates from a slightly longer Latin phrase statu quo ante bellum, which means “in the same state as before the war”. It is a diplomatic term that referred to the withdrawal of military troops from an area of conflict and the restoration of power to those who had it before the fighting broke out. Its relevance to this article is that the roots of the term lie in both challenge and violence.

Writing for The Irish Times last week on the subject of reforming political institutions, Dr. Elaine Byrne concluded her article with the following set of observations:

Anger focused into outrage is necessary for a public opinion to grow into genuine demands for political change. Anger management if you will. But first we must join the dots of causes and consequences.

For this to happen, three crucial factors must coincide. An issue must strike deep into the hearts of an electorate, as the Ryan report, so powerfully demonstrated. Attitudes from diverse perspectives must crystallise and consequently invoke polarisation. Finally, an event must erupt whereby political parties are sharply differentiated in relation to public perception.

There are some strong terms used here – “outrage”, “strike deep into the heart”, “invoke polarisation”, “erupt”, “sharply differentiated”… In other words, an event of great severity is needed to act as a catalyst if the status quo is to be successfully challenged and overcome.

Faites comme les Français

At this point, it is worth considering the case of France, which has established a new republic on five occasions over the past two centuries or so. The following is a highly potted history about how each of them came about:

• 1st Republic – Following the French Revolution of 1789
• 2nd Republic – Following the French Revolution of 1848
• 3rd Republic – Following defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870
• 4th Republic – Following the Second World War and the collapse of the collaborationist Vichy regime
• 5th Republic – Following a series of weak, short-lived governments and a threatened coup d’Etat in 1958 over the Algerian War of Independence

Revolutions, wars, military coups – in other words, each time that France underwent serious political reform of this nature, the birth of each new republic was preceded by a period of bloodshed and violence.

Now, rest assured, comrade, that this article is not seeking to waltz you down the gilded path of armed insurrection! Rather the intention is simply to illustrate just how significant the catalyst has sometimes needed to be in the past before major political change has occurred.

Cauldron Bubble

Applying Dr. Byrne’s remarks above to Ireland, there certainly is a great deal of anger to be found when it comes to the perilous state of the economy, the degree of cronyism that exists between the political and business elite of this country, and the revelations regarding the decades of systemic chronic child abuse perpetrated by members of the Catholic Church, despite key institutions in this country being aware of the problem.

At the same time, this anger does not appear to have significantly “focussed into outrage” just yet. While the punitive budget of last October did bring people out onto the streets for a short time, the second such budget in April was greeted more mutely, albeit with an electoral thrashing subsequently handed out to the government parties in the local and European elections.

On the other hand, there are several more such punitive budgets to come, which will most likely entail further reductions in public sector pay, more cuts in social welfare payments, and ever new forms of taxation being introduced. Hence, there will be considerable cause for more anger as people come to terms with steadily dwindling incomes, the ongoing need to service debts on houses that are deep into negative equity values, and, for some, the prospect of long-term unemployment.

Accordingly, the possibility of strikes and protest marches next winter/spring very much remains, as does the risk of an increase in crime and intolerance being shown towards migrant workers. However, this still does not seem powerful enough to give people genuine cause to break free of the status quo. After all, we have been down this path before in the 1980s, with a series of weak governments unable to reverse the country’s economic decline. Unemployment and emigration soared as a result.

Yet, in the end, the surprise election of Mary Robinson to the office of President in 1990 may have been the only real political change to have resulted from it all.

Not Niceland

Now, though, Ireland does not have the magical valve of emigration to release pressure with. Moreover, back then it was the national debt that was the problem. Now, people have hung the millstones of huge home mortgages, buy-to-let mortgages, car loans, and/or credit card debt strapped around their necks. Moreover, the national debt is rising rapidly as Fianna Fail struggles to plug the gaping hole in its government budget, as well as provide protection to the entire domestic banking system.

Moreover, the spectre of what happened to Iceland still hangs over the country. Our northerly neighbours nearly went bankrupt last October and only an IMF-fronted rescue package kept the country from disappearing down such a nasty vortex. With the same IMF now warning of dire Japanese-like consequences for Ireland if the government does not deal adequately with the problems in the domestic banking system (i.e. a decade or more of economic turmoil), we may yet  have to contemplate some of those extraordinarily unattractive vistas that are still hovering out on the horizon. In that context, it would not be hard to foresee how this could substantially weaken the current Establishment’s hold on power in this country, opening up the door at last to genuine and meaningful social and political change.

At the same time, this is said with a heavy heart and a recognition that the long-term prosperity of my family, friends, and I will be seriously imperilled by such an outcome. Therefore, it is with no sense of self-satisfaction that I speak of such a scenario. Rather, it is to be gloomily realistic about the circumstances in which the changes that I would love to see made to the running of this country may end up coming about. As they say, you really do need to be careful what you wish for.

Nevertheless, should we end up being plunged into this grim economic netherworld, let us come out of it in due course with a far better set of political institutions compared to those that allowed or were unable to prevent this devastating mess from occurring.

Hello, bonjour, and howya to the latest edition of this site’s new musical magazine!

Music @ Gigs

Meredith Godreau is the young multi-instrumentalist behind the Gregory & The Hawk moniker. Hailing from upstate New York, she has been quietly building up a respectful name for herself online. Blessed with an enchantingly sweet and deceptively fragile voice, her most recent record Moenie & Kitchi was one of those to be badly overlooked by many an alternative music fan last year.

Playing the upstairs venue at Whelan’s last Monday evening, Godreau was accompanied by two touring musicians. Unfortunately, she is most definitely a musician served best by an approach where less means more. Therefore, the cheap and loud sound of the keyboards threatened to ruin most of the songs where they were employed. At the same time, where it was a gentle guitar riff or where the flute was sparingly used, her backing band did manage to accentuate her own singing and guitar playing.

Undoubtedly the best sections of a well-attended show were when Godreau performed by herself. Here, her voice was allowed the chance to shine and the reasons why you wanted to be there in the first place came rushing back to you. In particular, her rendition of August Moon was lovely!

Definitely one to watch!

Music @ Mixtapes

Click here for the mixtape that I published on 8tracks during the week. it features the following artists:

• Angus & Julia Stone
• Aun
• Clues
• DiggingRoots
• The Ghost is Dancing
• Little Girls
• Maria Taylor
• The Nightjars
• Simone White
• Sonic Youth

Music @ Videos

Also, here are another selection of recently released videos for your enjoyment!

Bat For Lashes – Pearl’s Dream

oooOOOooo

These Are Powers – Easy Answers

oooOOOooo

Wild Beasts – Hooting & Howling

oooOOOooo

Viva Voce – Octavio

oooOOOooo

Portland Cello Project (feat. Thao) – Tallymarks

And Finally…

Inevitably, there is only one story in music right now – the passing away of Michael Jackson. Just to record my own thoughts on a musician who utterly dominated pop music for most of my childhood and teenage years, I simply find it very hard to look past the creepy plastic-faced-man-child weirdness that passed for Jackson’s life. More specifically, no matter how benign a spin that his supporters may put on his relationship with children, it is one that was highly inappropriate at best and deeply repugnant if ever anything less than innocent. Therefore, the music, no matter how incredibly popular it may have been, must take second place to these concerns. Yes, he was a great and captivating performer. However, that must not be used as a way to whitewash the the seriously disquieting aspects of the life that he led.

And, with that, I shall now gallop away on my moral high horse! See you next time pop-pickers!

Should this film be indicative of reality, there would appear to be a shortage of virile youngsters of both sexes in Lyon. On the one hand, there are several middle-aged men with their tongues hanging out when it comes to the vapid Gabrielle Deneige (Ludivine Sagnier), as if she was Botticelli’s Venus come to life. Meanwhile, there seems to be no young man, brimming with wit, vim and vigour, on hand for long enough to dispatch all of these greasy-minded old codgers and wealthy screwballs for six.

While much respected filmmaker Claude Chabrol clearly has his tongue firmly in cheek with this story of intense and convoluted love affairs, there is still something rather tiresome and painfully predictable about yet another French movie that portrays high culture, upper class living, and casual chauvinism as if it the whole country spent their days indulging in all three at once. Accordingly, for this étranger at least, the film quickly becomes an uneasy hybrid between fairly entertaining parody and yet another shovel load or two of deluded French cinema.

Speaking of crossbreeds, both Nicole Kidman in To Die For and Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary appear to be channelled in this performance by Sagnier. However, in attempting to be naïve and manipulated, on the one hand, and devious and manipulative, on the other, she ends up getting bogged down in a morass between the two poles in her character. At the same time, and at the risk of turning me into a hypocrite on the subject of casual chauvinism, she really does have a lovely smile that lights up the screen.

In fairness to Sagnier, she is being asked to maintain two quite questionable relationships. One of these is with bestselling author Charles Saint-Denis (François Berléand). However, he is a sufficiently selfish and depraved brute that a flasher outside of a primary school seems sexually well adjusted in comparison. Her other lover (Benoît Magimel) then comes across as being such a pompous yet gormless fool that babies presumably steal candy from him.

Now, of course it panders to the male ego to see even a middle-aged bore getting to bed a besotted young filly whilst maintaining a meaningful and loving relationship with his chaste yet open-minded wife (Valeria Cavalli). However, as this is such an obvious nonsense in reality, one might generously assume that a good chunk of the joke may have gone A.W.O.L. in cultural translation.

That said, Chabrol spends precious little time providing any background to these characters. Instead, they are introduced in two-dimensional terms, with all of them apparently falling madly in love at first sight and with no real emotional depth ever deemed necessary. As a result, to give two figs about what happens to any of them is to give two figs too many. All the same, Magimel is pretty entertaining in the role of the foppish yet volatile playboy and the best moments in the film belong to him.

However, this is not enough to offset a film that feels a little old-fashioned in its comedy and which struggles to go beyond being well-crafted but ultimately modest entertainment. The melodramatic and blindingly obvious visual metaphor at the end feels as disappointing as it seems unnecessary. A good film in parts, but never a great one on the whole.

Because political reform is one of those subjects that I would love to see far more widely debated in Ireland, this post is just to provide a resource that links to a series of relevant opinion pieces that The Irish Times has been publishing this week. Hence you may wish to bookmark it for future reference.

Political reform is a subject that I will return to frequently enough, but any thoughts on the articles below are most welcome.

• Dr. Eoin O’Malley – Policy Oversight Required
• Dr. Elaine Byrne – Our calls for reform fail to blame our basic culture
• Prof. John Coakley – Economic fallout may compel political elite to alter behaviour
• Vincent Browne – What Price Involving People in Decisions?
• Dr. Muiris MacCarthaigh – Reform of political system key to developing national policy
• Neil Collins – Time to shift focus from economic to political agenda

The genesis of this series lies in a conference called  Are Our Institutions Fit for Purpose? that was held in Trinity College last Monday. The slides from this conference can be found here.

It may be an overly facile remark, but you tend not to find households of immigrants living next door to well-to-do families. A whole variety of socioeconomic factors pretty much ensure this. Yet, some of the strongest advocates of a multicultural society are drawn from the ranks of those who are well educated, have travelled a fair bit abroad, and who now have professional occupations. Rather, most immigrants live alongside the people that they are typically competing with in general economic terms.

At the same time, for as long as jobs were plentiful enough in this country, the anecdotal evidence has suggested that these new arrivals were able to settle in pretty well, despite some low-level unpleasantness (e.g. name-calling) and some sporadic and generally isolated incidents of greater severity. However, with an economic downturn in progress, the concern will always be that social tensions between immigrants and the local people with whom they are competing with economically will start to rise. Equally, the more prolonged such a downturn proves to be, the worse that these tensions may then become.

The True Victims of Immigration

In such situations, a favourite line of conservative commentators is that “we should be looking after our own firstly”. For, you see, they always like to grow a bleeding heart for the salt-of-the-earth working classes whenever they want to indulge in a spot of bash-the-immigrant. Evidence of this hypocrisy comes when you try turning the conversation around to reducing the appalling disparities in living standards between the people at the lower rungs of Ireland’s socioeconomic ladder compared to those nearer to the top. Watch how quickly that bleeding heart will then congeal!

Alas and alack, if a profusely haemorrhaging vital organ was not enough to be suffering from, these conservative commentators are also martyrs who suffer greatly at the intolerant hands of the merciless guardians of political correctness. For, every time that they meekly wish to discuss immigration, they are summarily stoned, crucified upside down, or burned at the stake for being racists. Of course, promotion of this perception is just a ruse used to gain sympathy for their point of view. For there is nothing inherently racist in frankly and openly discussing immigration and what degree of integration is desirable. However, dissemination of the notion that free speech is being curtailed serves to exploit a sense of alienation and abandonment that certain socioeconomic classes are feeling.

Multiculturalism Means the Irish Too

Which does bring this article neatly back around to its primary preoccupation – that there are people in this country who genuinely feel that they are being put at a disadvantage because of immigration. Whether this feeling is justified or not is certainly debatable. Either way, though, to ignore such concerns increases the risk that an even less liberal form of politics than that espoused by our conservative chums above will start to foment at grass roots level.

On the one hand, overt evidence that this may be happening is not significant. For example, in the recent by-election for Dublin Central, a candidate running on an “immigration control” platform garnered a negligible 2.2% of first preference votes, despite the north inner city boasting some of the most obvious manifestations of inward migration to be found anywhere in Ireland. Equally, after some signs to the contrary last year, Ireland’s main conservative political parties – Fine Gael and Fianna Fail respectively – have been refraining from public pronouncements that have sought to pick on and isolate out one of the most vulnerable and least represented communities in this country. Clearly, there are limited votes in it at present so…

On the other hand, one would need to be enjoying a pretty cloistered lifestyle not to hear the frequent enough murmurings of discontent on the ground. People are economically hard-pressed and they are misdirecting some of their ire at those whose jobs they now covet, instead of concentrating all of it on the political and business leaders who have made their lives this difficult. At the same time, this attitude of theirs should not be casually construed as being either racist or xenophobic. Rather, in its first flushes, this attitude is typically more like picking on a convenient, obvious, and soft target to take their frustration out on. The real problem arises where that attitude is allowed to harden into something worse and more ingrained.

Bud Nipping

Indeed, it may be an oft-intoned mantra that the Irish do not do extremist politics. However, they also have never had to deal with high levels of personal debt, negligible opportunities to emigrate, and living cheek-to-jowl with foreigners before either. Hence, a combination of these factors and the serious economic challenges that Ireland is faced with for the next few years, regardless of what party is in government, definitely establishes the conditions whereby intolerance can begin to thrive. We are already seeing it elsewhere in Europe and it would be naïve to think that this society can avoid moving in essentially the same direction if, as is likely, our current plight crystallises into a tangibly lower standard of living for so many of us for the next number of years.

Therefore, let us be upfront and candid about the likely socioeconomic challenges that lie ahead, let us be sure that the voices of those most affected by this downturn are heard and not spoken on behalf of, let those of us who promote tolerance of a multicultural society not rush to judge them when they do speak, and let us ultimately have a meaningful and spirited debate on what policies are needed to create as fair a society as possible. After all, no one but the bastards wants the bastards to win.

I voted in favour of adopting the Lisbon Treaty last summer. I have no reason to change my mind when asked to vote on it again in October. Europe is good for Ireland, closer cooperation is to be welcomed and not feared, giving national legislatures time to debate and influence new laws as they are being drafted will be a positive development, and the need to overhaul the outmoded ways in which decisions get made is evident, with the current 27 Member States likely to be joined shortly by Iceland and Croatia (at least).

Déjà Vote All Over Again

I do not have a problem with the principle of being asked to vote again either. It would seem to me that a free society should and does allow decisions to be appealed. Equally, a second referendum on the same amendment does not diminish the sovereignty of the people. Rather it demonstrates it. For the Establishment must ask the people again and if the latter wish to reject its request for a second time, then that is their prerogative to do so. Indeed, the  fallout from such a second rejection would be quite costly for the main political parties, so it is hardly something that they are seeking with carefree abandon.

Beyond this, our 26 partners in Europe have asked us to be sure of our position before the fallout of just one Member State rejecting the treaty is truly contemplated. Already, the continued enlargement of the EU has been put on hold until this impasse has been resolved. Hence, it is the act of a good partner to give serious consideration to any such request that is reasonably made of it and to respect its partners’ position as far as it is then reasonably possible to do so.

This all said, there are two disappointing aspects to all of this, though.

Quit Beating That Ass

Firstly, just as I was angered by the “scaremongering and disinformation” that characterised the campaign run by the “No” side the last time out, I am equally unhappy with the contention that people should now vote “Yes” simply because our economy is banjaxed and that the support and goodwill of our European neighbours is therefore sorely needed.

While there may even be a good deal of validity to that point of view, it is still to promote the “stick” rather than the “carrot” of why people should support this constitutional amendment. It ignores the intrinsic justifications for voting “yes” and once more fails to address the fundamental reasons why the people have not supported either Nice or Lisbon at the first time of asking.

Guaranteed Irish

Secondly, what are we to make of these allegedly hard-won protocols that enshrine our national obsessions with the sacred cows of neutrality and abortion respectively into every future treaty ever signed? Truth be told, how Brian Cowen and Micheál Martin convinced both the bloodthirsty Swedes and the child-killing Poles to concede on these points, I will never know. However, we can at least sleep easily at night, secure in the knowledge that plucky little Ireland remains the last European bastion of peace, love, and morality. Isn’t that right, Justice Ryan?

Indeed, these protocols represent little more than a fop to people who, despite protestations to the contrary, seem fundamentally opposed to our membership of the European Union. They are still going to advocate a “no” vote regardless. In other words, what a way to spend our current stock of political capital within Europe! It is not as if we may have better uses for it coming up on the horizon!

Are Europe For It?

Anyway, to end on an optimistic note, hopefully this rerunning of the referendum will finally provide a platform for a sincere, distortion-free, and open discussion of what Europe means to us and what direction we would now like to see it move in. It is probably far too much to even unrealistically hope for, but we shall see!

As suggested by its title, the play has both a voyeuristic and an introspective quality to it. Voyeuristic insofar is it allows the audience to observe three young characters as they grapple with their racing and conflicting emotions in what should be the privacy of a studio apartment. Introspective insofar as it allows many in the audience to reminisce about that time when they too were this virile but awkward, hostile yet vulnerable, and enthusiastic, but given to sudden mood swings.

Despite being the tale of three young people from affluent backgrounds with unresolved personal issues, it would do a disservice to the play to bracket it alongside the hideous rich-kid dramas beloved of US television channels. To begin with, it is a far seedier story, dealing candidly with drugs, sex, and death. Secondly, it is a period piece set in New York City in 1982, just as Reaganomics are firmly taking root across the country. Obviously, this is pertinent to the story. Finally, whereas the former have been used as a vehicle by bland indie pop bands to make a name for themselves, this play is only ever concerned with referencing legendary artists such as Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart!

Dennis (Conor Cillian Madden) lives in the apartment. Although he has no job, his parents cover the rent, while he gets by as a small-time drugs peddler. He is both a lazy, self-deluded dreamer and a thoughtless, hot-headed bully. Moreover, his self-image is no doubt boosted by being able to exploit Warren (Ciarán O’Brien), who so openly looks up to him.

As may be then imagined, Warren is a nervous, confused, but likeable kid, who is trying to deal with a lot of repressed anger. His often-times childlike personality is easily influenced by stronger ones such as Dennis.

Finally, there is Jessica (Charlie Murphy), a budding fashion designer already imbued with firm ideas about how the human psyche works. She finds herself on less certain ground , though, when it comes to articulating her feelings for others!

The play itself takes place over the course of a day. Warren has fallen out with his apparently aggressive father and, in a fit of pique, has stolen a briefcase containing $15,000 from him. While Dennis is scared that Warren’s father will send a henchman around to violently recover the money, the temptation to use it to turn an illicit profit before giving it back proves too great. Soon, he is manipulating Warren into doing his bidding. This includes bringing Jessica over to the apartment, as Warren has a strong crush on her. After an unpromising initial set of advances towards her, Warren starts to make better progress once he starts to be himself. However, there are inevitably problems ahead and a lot of growing up to be done.

Unsurprisingly, Warren is the focus of this play, as written by Kenneth Lonergan. Coming from a troubled background, he is clearly now at a crossroads in his life and which road he will now choose to go down is what this drama wishes to explore. Fortunately, O’Brien plays the messed-up character with a great deal of conviction, looking sad and crushed one minute and bubbling over with excitement and hormones the next. Both his accent and sense of comic timing are impressive too.

On the whole, the play is a really confusing cauldron of emotions. With all three characters already struggling to keep their hormones in check, adding a cocktail of drugs into the equation virtually guarantees a near-hysterical outcome. Certainly, as directed here by Jimmy Fay, this aspect of the play is strongly emphasised, even though it does become a bit irksome and drawn out towards the end. That said, there is still an enjoyable intensity and pace to most of this piece, especially with respect to the merciless cut-and-thrust of the dialogue.