A Streetcar Named Desire - Review
0 Comments Published by Svetlana Zhukova on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 at 1:09 PM.
Last Saturday it was a glamour time - I have attended the opening night premiere of "A Streetcar Named Desire" play of Sydney Theatre Company.
It's quite a cultural event around here - starring Cate Blanchett in the main role, and directed by Liv Ullmann, famous director (I have to say I haven't heard of her before, but she is very known; an actress in the 60s, dircetor of the Faithless movie and an ex-wife of Ingmar Bergman, starred in most of his movies - of which I've seen none either I have to admit - but I've heard the name :)
The opening night was an interesting outing - many Sydney celebrities were there, I think I saw Miranda Otto, a few local actors, a couple of TV personalities, and I'm sure many other 'who is who's' were around - unfortunately not being local, I couldn't be as impressed :) Just saw camera flashes going off, but who they were photographing all the time, I have no idea...
Now, the play.
I think the acting was great (but I wish we were sitting closer to the stage, so I could see better the acting of Cate Blanchett!), and all critics are raving, tickets are sold out and impossible to get etc... But I wasn't as impressed as I thought I would be.
May be it's the fact the play went for over 3 hours - which is quite long and takes away the dynamism and intensity of the events in my opinion. Or was is that the story line of the play isn't as scandalous/confronting as it was when the play was written? With the media nowadays everything is much more on display, and there are many stories we see around and hear about, that are much more shocking, gripping and thought provoking than the play. The subject now seems almost trivial...
Or was it that I didn't know the background/plot, haven't seen the movie with Marlon Brando and Vivien Leigh to appreciate the story?
Blanche (played by Cate Blanchett) is far from sexual predator/addict the character is described as; you feel rather pity for the poor soul rather than her desires...
But for a balanced point of view, check these two reviews out:
Nevertheless, it's a very good play - this opening night was almost like a partying gift from my company - I managed the sponsorship of STC for the last couple of years, so it's a very good exit I'd say :)
It's quite a cultural event around here - starring Cate Blanchett in the main role, and directed by Liv Ullmann, famous director (I have to say I haven't heard of her before, but she is very known; an actress in the 60s, dircetor of the Faithless movie and an ex-wife of Ingmar Bergman, starred in most of his movies - of which I've seen none either I have to admit - but I've heard the name :)
The opening night was an interesting outing - many Sydney celebrities were there, I think I saw Miranda Otto, a few local actors, a couple of TV personalities, and I'm sure many other 'who is who's' were around - unfortunately not being local, I couldn't be as impressed :) Just saw camera flashes going off, but who they were photographing all the time, I have no idea...
Now, the play.
I think the acting was great (but I wish we were sitting closer to the stage, so I could see better the acting of Cate Blanchett!), and all critics are raving, tickets are sold out and impossible to get etc... But I wasn't as impressed as I thought I would be.
May be it's the fact the play went for over 3 hours - which is quite long and takes away the dynamism and intensity of the events in my opinion. Or was is that the story line of the play isn't as scandalous/confronting as it was when the play was written? With the media nowadays everything is much more on display, and there are many stories we see around and hear about, that are much more shocking, gripping and thought provoking than the play. The subject now seems almost trivial...
Or was it that I didn't know the background/plot, haven't seen the movie with Marlon Brando and Vivien Leigh to appreciate the story?
Blanche (played by Cate Blanchett) is far from sexual predator/addict the character is described as; you feel rather pity for the poor soul rather than her desires...
But for a balanced point of view, check these two reviews out:
"Extraordinary" - Australian Stage online (joined by similar reviews form The Australian, SMH and many others: READ HERE
"Missing something" - from Same Same, and the only review that echoes my thoughts on the play: READ HERE
Nevertheless, it's a very good play - this opening night was almost like a partying gift from my company - I managed the sponsorship of STC for the last couple of years, so it's a very good exit I'd say :)
Labels: a streetcar named desire, opinion, review, sydney theatre company
4 Reasons Why I Disagree With the "social media employment test"
0 Comments Published by Svetlana Zhukova on Sunday, April 19, 2009 at 7:47 AM.
Now, this is a post I feel strongly about. The general idea of employers looking for a better rounded individuals is true (in an ideal world), but I disagree with the statements of the following 'social media employment test'
Here is why.
(disclaimer: if a person in question is being evaluated as a social media specialist, then yes, the article applies. If it is any other profession - my response is below)
1. "You need to have twitter, FB and linkedin". REALLY? Social media is a communication channel of CHOICE - people choose if they want to use any media, how they want to use it, and how often. If I choose not to have facebook profile, why would it make me a worse candidate? If your recruitment agent tells you "hire the guy who has FB vs the one who doesn't" as a differentiating criterion, may be you need a new recruitment agent.
2. It's PERSONAL. People start facebook, blog, twitter, linkedin profiles for all sorts of reasons, and if I choose to login to facebook once a week, not 10 times a day, and have 80 close friends against 800 everyone-I-know, it doesn't make me a better or worse employee. (well, it kinda makes you a bad one if you spend 2 hours of your working time on facebook - unless you work for facebook). No one has the authority to say "this is a right use of social media. This is a wrong use of social media".
3. "Start your blog to portray yourself as a well-rounded individual". Hmm, let me think about this one… Genuinely interesting blogs and tweets are started as a personal passion, they are AUTHENTIC because people care and have interest for what they write about. Gimmicky social media backfires, you know.
4. "Do not express controversial points of view on your profiles". Now, this one upsets me the most. Most interesting reads are the ones that spark conversations - which usually happens when there are different views. Write what you care about, not what your employer wants you to care about (unless the two are the same, then you have an ideal job already).
Here is why.
(disclaimer: if a person in question is being evaluated as a social media specialist, then yes, the article applies. If it is any other profession - my response is below)
1. "You need to have twitter, FB and linkedin". REALLY? Social media is a communication channel of CHOICE - people choose if they want to use any media, how they want to use it, and how often. If I choose not to have facebook profile, why would it make me a worse candidate? If your recruitment agent tells you "hire the guy who has FB vs the one who doesn't" as a differentiating criterion, may be you need a new recruitment agent.
2. It's PERSONAL. People start facebook, blog, twitter, linkedin profiles for all sorts of reasons, and if I choose to login to facebook once a week, not 10 times a day, and have 80 close friends against 800 everyone-I-know, it doesn't make me a better or worse employee. (well, it kinda makes you a bad one if you spend 2 hours of your working time on facebook - unless you work for facebook). No one has the authority to say "this is a right use of social media. This is a wrong use of social media".
3. "Start your blog to portray yourself as a well-rounded individual". Hmm, let me think about this one… Genuinely interesting blogs and tweets are started as a personal passion, they are AUTHENTIC because people care and have interest for what they write about. Gimmicky social media backfires, you know.
4. "Do not express controversial points of view on your profiles". Now, this one upsets me the most. Most interesting reads are the ones that spark conversations - which usually happens when there are different views. Write what you care about, not what your employer wants you to care about (unless the two are the same, then you have an ideal job already).
Labels: opinion, social media, why i disagree
Russia and Georgia
2 Comments Published by Svetlana Zhukova on Saturday, August 23, 2008 at 1:42 PM.
Recently I found myself being often asked "what do you think about South Ossetia conflict?"
(a side remark - so often many people don't have a clue some place exists until one day something happens and then everyone seems to be an expert)
I do not particularly support either side, but as always I am frustrated that the media choose to portrait a particular side of the story, not really covering all the facts (both, Russian and Western media)
Australian papers, for example, made no reference to the fact, that it was actually Georgia who launched an attack on South Ossetia, with Russia responding (fairly said, overreacting). And that many of the victims are victims of Georgian assault, and it's not only Russian forces that are the reason for all misplaced and killed...
I found, rather surprisingly, that in this case BBC was reasonably objective, and for those wondering, check out their Q&A on the conflict (they tell it better that I would :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7549736.stm
Just a comment on double standards that Russia at least was consistent, in both Kosovo and South Ossetia situation, while West proclaimed support of Kosovo's independence and did not support South Ossetia's, because with this country, their friend is the mainland leader... How do we (and who can, if any?) decide, who is worth having independence, who is not?
As for the summary, here is some good overview, again from BBC, about lessons from South Ossetia conflict: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7553390.stm
(and by saying good, I do not mean pro-russian, no one was really the good, right side in this conflict...)
(a side remark - so often many people don't have a clue some place exists until one day something happens and then everyone seems to be an expert)
I do not particularly support either side, but as always I am frustrated that the media choose to portrait a particular side of the story, not really covering all the facts (both, Russian and Western media)
Australian papers, for example, made no reference to the fact, that it was actually Georgia who launched an attack on South Ossetia, with Russia responding (fairly said, overreacting). And that many of the victims are victims of Georgian assault, and it's not only Russian forces that are the reason for all misplaced and killed...
I found, rather surprisingly, that in this case BBC was reasonably objective, and for those wondering, check out their Q&A on the conflict (they tell it better that I would :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7549736.stm
Just a comment on double standards that Russia at least was consistent, in both Kosovo and South Ossetia situation, while West proclaimed support of Kosovo's independence and did not support South Ossetia's, because with this country, their friend is the mainland leader... How do we (and who can, if any?) decide, who is worth having independence, who is not?
As for the summary, here is some good overview, again from BBC, about lessons from South Ossetia conflict: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7553390.stm
(and by saying good, I do not mean pro-russian, no one was really the good, right side in this conflict...)
Labels: opinion, politics, russia and georgia conflict
Women, men and beauty standards
0 Comments Published by Svetlana Zhukova on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 at 3:25 PM.
I read recently an article in one of Sydney papers, it was by an American women's leadership advocate Marie Wilson, delivering some talks here; and while I'm not a feminist myself (I'm definitely for equality in rights, beliefs and opportunities, however I take the view that there are different roles we play), there was one thought that I really liked:
I think it's a very precise way to describe the attitude problem that many girls and women have: lack of confidence in their own self. This is where all diets, hard work-outs, fashion products kick in; you have that image in mind that if you are thin and beautiful, life is easy and good. Oh well, there is much more to our existence and to relationships :) (the later by human nature play a key role for most people in being happy)
As many my male friends say, thing that attracts them to the opposite sex is not (just) the beauty, but personality and confidence. Without that it's hard to aspire to be a leader - in your own life and in the lives of others.
And even though sometimes I am whining about "I want to be bla-bla-bla", deep inside I know my love for myself doesn't really depend on whether I'm size 10 or 14 - as it should be for others
Love thy self etc :)
We're stuck in many ways and here's why: the images that girls see, the culture they inhabit - all of those things tell them that while the key to power for men may be leadership, for women it's still mostly through men. And men come only if the women are thin and beautiful
I think it's a very precise way to describe the attitude problem that many girls and women have: lack of confidence in their own self. This is where all diets, hard work-outs, fashion products kick in; you have that image in mind that if you are thin and beautiful, life is easy and good. Oh well, there is much more to our existence and to relationships :) (the later by human nature play a key role for most people in being happy)
As many my male friends say, thing that attracts them to the opposite sex is not (just) the beauty, but personality and confidence. Without that it's hard to aspire to be a leader - in your own life and in the lives of others.
And even though sometimes I am whining about "I want to be bla-bla-bla", deep inside I know my love for myself doesn't really depend on whether I'm size 10 or 14 - as it should be for others
Love thy self etc :)
Labels: opinion
Boris Yeltsin's legacy
Published by Svetlana Zhukova on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 1:11 PM.
This week is the mourning for Boris Yeltsin, the first president of Russia, and the man who was the face of USSR collapse, together with Gorbachev.
While it is almost always sad that a person passes away, and while acknowledging a significance of the role Yeltsin played in Russian and all other Soviet republics' history, I find it hard to agree with those rosy views of Western politicians on Yeltsin's years in power.
While the rest of the world was celebrating the death of the communistic beast country and cheering a new hopefully democracy, life of people inside the destroyed USSR empire was not that rosy at all. I remember years when I had to wake up early to go to the shop to stand in the queue to get milk, because it wouldn't be any later... I remember stories of ruined lives of engineers whose institutes and factories were sold for nothing to new oligarkhs (it was in Yelstin's time that corruption just skyrocketed in Russia), and how teachers had to be the tradesmen in the market selling cheap Turkish clothes because there was no other way to make a decent living for their families... And even if it was not as bad in Belarus, where privatization didn't happen, as it was in Russia, I know how my family in Russia - my grandparents and ants and uncles - lived. After some year people were not saluting "freedom and democracy" as much anymore, because this freedom and democracy and benefits of new life were true for people on the top, for people close to the power.
Yes, there were many good things, and I'm glad USSR doesn't exist anymore; otherwise I wouldn't be able to live the kind of life i live now; but I urge that people understand - it wasn't easy and great all the way at all.
In the morning when I read news about Yeltsin's death, there were only those"he-was-the-one who-built-better-future" responses, but then I found a couple of decent articles. Decent meaning that they are talking about both sides - good and bad - of Yeltsin's legacy, because this is how it really was.
This one - "Why Yeltsin's legacy is rosier in the West"
and this one -
At any rate, Yeltsin did play his role in our history, and respect to him for whatever positive he brought.
And talking about last 15 years in post-USSR history - any major transformation implicates tragedies happening in everyday life - because life changes dramatically, and fast change is one of those things that too many people are not good with...
While it is almost always sad that a person passes away, and while acknowledging a significance of the role Yeltsin played in Russian and all other Soviet republics' history, I find it hard to agree with those rosy views of Western politicians on Yeltsin's years in power.
While the rest of the world was celebrating the death of the communistic beast country and cheering a new hopefully democracy, life of people inside the destroyed USSR empire was not that rosy at all. I remember years when I had to wake up early to go to the shop to stand in the queue to get milk, because it wouldn't be any later... I remember stories of ruined lives of engineers whose institutes and factories were sold for nothing to new oligarkhs (it was in Yelstin's time that corruption just skyrocketed in Russia), and how teachers had to be the tradesmen in the market selling cheap Turkish clothes because there was no other way to make a decent living for their families... And even if it was not as bad in Belarus, where privatization didn't happen, as it was in Russia, I know how my family in Russia - my grandparents and ants and uncles - lived. After some year people were not saluting "freedom and democracy" as much anymore, because this freedom and democracy and benefits of new life were true for people on the top, for people close to the power.
Yes, there were many good things, and I'm glad USSR doesn't exist anymore; otherwise I wouldn't be able to live the kind of life i live now; but I urge that people understand - it wasn't easy and great all the way at all.
In the morning when I read news about Yeltsin's death, there were only those"he-was-the-one who-built-better-future" responses, but then I found a couple of decent articles. Decent meaning that they are talking about both sides - good and bad - of Yeltsin's legacy, because this is how it really was.
This one - "Why Yeltsin's legacy is rosier in the West"
and this one -
And this article is even more radical - perhaps this is like most Russian thinkViews on Mr Yeltsin's legacy differed sharply. His economic "shock therapy" cost millions of people their savings and his officials sold off state assets to politically connected businessmen for a fraction of their value.
"They say he gave people freedom but that is just not so," said Igor Smirnov, 30, a physicist who was passing the cathedral. "He gave freedom to steal, he gave freedom to anarchy, freedom to lawlessness."
In Chechnya, a southern Russian republic struggling to return to normal life after more than a decade of war, people have not forgotten Mr Yeltsin's 1994 order to send in troops.
"They also need to declare a day of mourning for those who have died at his hands, the Chechens and the Russians," Ruslan Mantsaev, 30, said in the Chechen capital Grozny.
At any rate, Yeltsin did play his role in our history, and respect to him for whatever positive he brought.
And talking about last 15 years in post-USSR history - any major transformation implicates tragedies happening in everyday life - because life changes dramatically, and fast change is one of those things that too many people are not good with...
