JURASSIC WORLD: DOMINION (A Review)(inc. spoilers)

*This review includes spoilers*

JURASSIC WORLD: DOMINION – Showing how ‘giving people what they want’ doesn’t give people what they want.

I found this insulting obvious when Trevorrow directed Jurassic World in 2015; it was blockbuster popcorn fodder and not a lot else. I don’t believe it tried to be any more than this. I think it should have, but that’s a whole different review. Some people I know generously deemed Jurassic World as ‘satirical’: a comment on consumerism and our vacuous privilege. A bold and plain old ‘wrong’ statement, to my eye, since it literally followed the blueprint for Jurassic Park from 22 years before. How could it make any more of a satirical comment than the ethos it was directly copying? They may have had interactive CD-roms and souvenir pyjama sets for consumers in 1993, while Jurassic World had shiny holograms and overpriced Coca-Cola, but the message was still the same – what Malcolm called ‘the lack of humility before nature’ (1993).  Sadly, I don’t see how this film can be considered satirical. The words Ian Malcolm said to John Hammond in Jurassic Park (1993) were the same words that the creative team should have been discussing when they made Jurassic World;

“You stood on the shoulders on geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had, you’ve patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox and now – you’re selling it, you wanna sell it”

Am I meant to believe that the film makers were deliberately trying to satirise themselves? Because their own movie is the only satire I see here.

Jump forward to 2022, and we are at the end of the Jurassic World trilogy, and nothing has changed. And I mean nothing. I didn’t believe at the time that there was any reason to make Jurassic World, and at the end of the three movie latch-on trilogy, I still don’t see the point in why any of the three films even exist. Other than, painfully transparently, to make money. Because that’s all Jurassic World: Dominion has shown itself to be.

Now, I know that The Movies are a business, and business exists to exist, and sell itself. But I mean that this is all this movie is. It is a very shiny film. It is, yet again, a blockbuster popcorn fodder action movie. With no depth. No plot. No stakes. No fear. And no point.

Now, I want to explain that I am an absolute die-hard Jurassic Park fan, and staunch defender of The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park 3. I had such high hopes for the Jurassic World films, with understandable reservations; why they felt the need to mess with a good thing, for a start. I really wanted them to do well, and despite not being impressed with Jurassic World (2015), and not too much more enamoured with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018), I did hope that Jurassic World: Dominion would have shown the evolution of the series from ‘give the people what they want’ blockbuster hollowness into a gritty action movie. Dare I say, even an action thriller. Just something with more depth than the first one. But it didn’t even manage that. In fact, Dominion proves itself to be the weakest of the three.

In a nutshell, here are my issues with this film.

Firstly, it is lazy: there is no real plot – there is certainly no plot arc; there is no real conflict for the characters to engage in. The conflict they try to present to us, when broken down, reveals itself not to be a conflict at all (SPOILERS: Biosyn, the genetics company, wants Maisy, the cloned girl, and Beta, Blue’s baby, in order to fix the genetic issues with their monster locust creations. Claire and Owen want Maisy and Beta back. Ellie Satler and Alan Grant want to stop Biosyn’s monster locust creation due to the genetics issue they have. Don’t all parties really want the shame thing? Why doesn’t Maisy turn around and offer some of her blood in order to solve the whole problem? Wouldn’t this eliminate all the issues? Since the good guys and the bad guys actually want the same thing: ‘to fix the fuck up’. I’m not saying kidnapping the person you want to help you is a good idea, but there was no need for a 2hr 27min non-stop action-yet-with-no-stakes movie just to have that be the only real conflict.

The script is sloppy, and the blatantly transparent set-ups are insulting and childish. Frankly, my big toe knows more about suspense than the writers on this movie.

The beauty and genius of Jurassic Park was that Spielberg made magic with little – he created more high-stakes tension with three raptors, a T-Rex and a Dilophosaurus than any of the Jurassic World films managed with their many ‘big bad’s. Jurassic Park was character based, and the performances of genuine alarm, tension, terror, and fearing for ones life are incredible, even when a dinosaur can’t be seen. Even by the character. The sound of the raptor’s claws clicking or its breath were enough to strike fear into the hearts of the characters. The sheer ripples in a glass of water on a dashboard where enough to tell us that shit was going down. No dinosaurs needed in frame.

I didn’t believe the fear in Jurassic World: Dominion. I understand that dinosaurs are now moving amongst humans, and humans are supposedly now more exposed to them at least. But that does not take away the fear of a great, big, fuck-off dinosaur that could and will eat you at the first given moment. Even the Vegetarian ones can stand on you. You would not be so numb to the fear of these wild creatures. I’m pretty sure people living in Alaska aren’t unafraid of bears. Or, if they are, can the same be said if they met a great, big, unnaturally massive type of bear, brought back from some prehistoric period, that they know nothing about? You would be scared!

Now, is this a satirical comment? Is this film trying to show us how we desensitise to the marvel of nature because we minimise its enormity with our ignorance and so disregard and disrespect it? Not when every character, protagonist and antagonist alike, does it. That’s just a sloppy film, and a sloppy director who is not getting the right performances out of his actors and/or isn’t prioritising the truth of their characters.

As for the lazy set-ups… Steven Spielberg, again, was a genius. In Jurassic Park, the character pool was small, and we liked them (except Nedry). And he still killed them off. Ray Arnold, dead. Robert Muldoon, dead. Gennaro (okay, a bit of a wet blanket), dead. Timmy, dead and then resuscitated. Ian Malcolm, very injured. Anything could happen! And Dr Sattler and Dr Grant? Were they a couple, or were they not, and did it even matter? Frankly, I love the suggestion that they’re together but it doesn’t need to be talked about, and the plot has nothing to do with it. I also love that you see Grant soften to the children by the end (oh, so that’s what a character arc looks like), but he doesn’t go on to have any, and Ellie even marries and has a kid with someone else in Jurassic Park 3! Because this isn’t a fairytale where all loose ends need to be tied up and happy. This is a movie! An original concept for a story! Why do we need to give the people what they want?

The Jurassic World movies tried to do that and, in my eyes, that has been their failing. In this latest movie, the pace is pretty relentless straight from the start and the plot and arc of the story has been replaced with the format of ‘action, action, action, tender moment, action, action, action, tender moment, action, action, action’. Everything was so rammed down your throat to disguise the fact that the stakes in the story were not high enough. And so, here, barely minutes into Jurassic World: Dominion, we see Ellie Sattler and Alan Grant reunite. What do we instantly learn? Her children have grown and left home and she’s divorced. How convenient. Not like they’re going to get together by the end of this movie then, now that we’ve neatly made some space for Grant to fill. So when they kiss and get together at the end… is that meant to be a payoff? Is that a reveal?

This film is dotted with set-ups and failed reveals like this and, sadly, it meant the movie left me feeling cold. Every emotive situation was seen from a mile away, clumsily handled – self-gratuitously handled – and then demanded rapturous applause, with a swell in the music, and a significant look shared between lovers/friends/animals/animals and humans, you name it.

Secondly (yes, that was all one big point about laziness), that’s another broad issue to summarise a lot of these points and more – the film makers clearly think they’re being clever and they’re not.

These set-ups and failed reveals being one thing, the heavy nodding, pointing and winking at the original film/s, being another. There are many nods  - names, references, literal characters and even frames for shooting – to the original film; here, the antagonist is Lewis Dodgson (a lovely nod to both Michael Crichton’s books where Dodgson features more prominently, and Spielberg’s 1993 movie where such a minor character’s name was immortalised by Wayne Knight’s Dennis Nedry). It's a shame they didn’t bring back Cameron Thor, but these things happen. At least they had BD Wong. As we’ve discussed, Grant, Sattler and Malcolm all return. Not only that, but the audience are ‘treated’ to lines, similar phrases, costume choices and full on action sequences imitating what went before:

Ellie Sattler wears another reddish shirt that ties at her waist, Grant returns complete with denim, shirt and hat (which seems to have taken on Indiana Jones levels of iconicism since Billy’s throwaway comment about saving Grant’s hat at the end of Jurassic Park 3), Malcolm is in all black and even seems to have the same glasses. Most jarringly though – and you could tell Trevorrow really thought he was being clever – situations and frames are recreated. It’s a strange, unnecessary and diminishing homage to the iconic 1993 action thriller.

The gang (for there are what feels like a fleet of good guys in this movie, and of course they don’t die) are squaring off against this movie’s ‘big bad’, the Gigantosaurus. We see them all, in a line and plainly visible, edging around the edge of a flipped jeep and the dinosaur is looking straight at them. I actually gesticulated in incredulity in the cinema. What were they doing? There was no comment on ‘how does this one see?’, ‘is its vision based on movement?’, ‘can it see us?’ – they were just shuffling around this car, in an obvious nod to the original, but why? For whom? I can tell you now, as a massive fan of Jurassic Park, I don’t need to see that. I don’t want to see that. Especially not when you’re going to shit all over the moment: the action in the action sequence is insincere, the logic doesn’t fit the plot you’ve set up, there are no stakes, there is no tension – please, don’t bother.

Then they do it again. Malcolm does his thing with the flare again. I don’t even need to reiterate everything I’ve just said – it was simply unnecessary. And with a character who said in the first movie that he ‘hates being right all the time’ about the things he said earlier in the plot, why would Malcolm here not be meta enough to comment on having done this before? Make it witty, make it a comedy line, I don’t care, but at least let the character hang a light on this random bit of déjà vu. Because otherwise, it’s just the film makers trying to be clever and gratuitous to the audience, but it isn’t clever, it's transparent, and cheapens the action, not to mention the characters. Suddenly, it makes a joke of their history, their experience and their memories of these things. As an audience member, I’m meant to believe that Ian Malcolm remembers the events of ‘Jurassic Park’ but doesn’t remember this specific act during the events? Bullshit. That makes no sense.

The inconsistency that these film makers have with the material and its logic is baffling. Crichton and Spielberg make it very obvious that raptors are fast. The 1993 movie even says they run at “cheetah speed; 50/60mph if they ever got out into the open”. How, then, Bryce Dallas Howard manages to outrun them in the Malta action sequence in Jurassic World: Dominion is beyond me. They’re ‘out in the open’ enough to outrun a human, and the film’s answer seems to be to show them slipping over again and again. Because silly raptors have slippery feet. Clearly.

Again, the sequence with Malcolm and the flare (this time, a flaming locust) – it’s amazing to see a flaming locust being shoved into a T-Rex’s mouth, and then see the locust burst into more flames, and see the fire streaming out of the dinosaur’s mouth. You know, because T-Rex drank petrol. Of course.

I have so many opinions about this movie and this whole franchise. Unlike the Director at the time of creating, it seems. Colin Trevorrow should never have been allowed to come back and make this film. His cheap film-making decisions have made this a poor and empty film, with a shit load of unnecessary dinosaurs and yet no bite. His inability to consider the intelligence of his audience shows his hand as an inexperienced director, and he was the wrong choice for the Jurassic World franchise at all, not just at the beginning with Jurassic World but definitely at the end with ‘Dominion’. I was so excited at the prospect of seeing Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum returning, but I feel this movie made terrible use of their return. Once again, just a transparent device to pull in old fans.

Go for the popcorn.

2/5  

New Year, New You

I've seen a lot of people poopooing the 'New Year, New Me' mantra this year, and I'm not really sure why. 

I want to believe it's because, in some self-righteous way, they're trying to demonstrate the very wise fact that, actually, 'new day, new you' - even, 'new minute, new you' - because, yes, humans should not change just because December has turned into January and the year is now different. We have the power to change every single day of our lives, and every single minute or second within that: I could make a life altering decision on February 3rd at 14:48pm (watch this space...).

But I don't really believe it's wholly to do with wisdom and this profound realisation about life and their own agency. Mostly because half the people I see grumbling about boycotting 'New Year, New Me' are people who are continuing to have sod-all awareness of how to take control of their life in a positive way. 

Instead I see people demeaning the notion of a (unified) fresh start, simply to give them some sought after justification to stay as the same person - and, according to many facebook memes, this will be as the same 'asshole' as the previous year*.

And these memes are, admittedly, using dark humour, but they're also ultimately just plain negative - about others but about ourselves. 

These memes speak volumes to me and can teach me a lot about the people sharing them. People who don't want to change, and judge you for wanting to change (what, you think you're perfect?). People who don't believe in themselves enough to change and therefore hide behind dark humour and self-deprecation. People who don't believe in you enough to believe you can change. People resisting help and advice. People who just want to justify being an 'asshole'. 

Don't get me wrong, there are some people out there who rock the "new year, same me" attitude, because they got it so right the year before. But 'new year, same me' isn't a damning statement - it's neither positive nor negative. No 'assholes' here. This isn't setting anyone up to fail, or be a wang. 

What I don't like about this surge of negativity at this time of year, is that other people genuinely want to try and change for the better and to introduce positivity into their lives. 

Life is hard enough to live at the best of times - why do people want to put others down and add to the shit we have to wade through? Grow up. 

Who cares that people have decided to change from the beginning of a new year? Is it because it's a unified effort that annoys people? The only downside I see to this is a sudden busyness at the gym. 
It can massively help to set and achieve goals by having clear goalposts in mind: working from the 1st - 31st of something is an obvious and clear cut way of keeping track of your progress. It is a clearly delineated chapter, much as 'a year' is, or 'a month' or 'a week'. 

Lent will run from Wednesday 26th February - Thursday 9th April this year, and Christians all over the world will abstain from something for that duration. Should we bitch at them? Or is it better because they have the decency not to do it from January 1st? 

People choose to change with the New Year - and share their 'resolutions' - because it is actually healthy to have goals, and it's a good productive push to have made yourself accountable to something or someone. Some people won't publicly share their resolutions and goals (and I'm hesitant to just refer to them as 'resolutions' because of the connotation of breaking them), but they have set them for themselves and that is no bad thing. 

It may not be a case of being a twat in 2019 and trying to be an angel in 2020 (which is certainly no bad thing either). It may be a case of self-improvement and betterment rather than changing to an entirely 'new me'. 

Perhaps you vaguely went to the gym in 2019 and floated between things, but now you know that you want to focus on fat burning or muscle building. You have a goal. 

Perhaps you gave up takeaways in 2019, but now you want to cook more fresh and healthy food from scratch. You have a goal. 

Maybe you didn't read much in 2019, so you've decided to read at least 6 books this year. You have a goal. 

And these goals are good for your soul! So why do people feel the need to put them down?!

It's fine (if not annoying for me) that you want to continue to be an arsehole this year. It makes no difference to me that you have no want to better yourself, physically, emotionally, mentally or spiritually. You are perfectly within your rights to continue just as you are - fuckwittery and all. 

Just don't drag me down with your sinking ship. 




* 
"No 'New Year/New Me' Here - I'll be the same honest asshole at 12:01 that I was at 11:59"
"Almost time for that 'New Year New Me' bullshit" 
"New Year, New Me.... Riiiiiiiiight!"
"Stop trying to make 'New Year, New Me' happen. It's not going to happen"
"New Year New Me? Tell me again how that went for you in 2019"
"No more 'new year, new me' I've just accepted the fact I'm going to be a messy bitch who ruins her life over and over until I die"

Learning to say "no"

Kids, the toughest thing you may have to learn is to say ‘no’. 

Sounds easy now, doesn’t it? 
“No, I don’t want to get in your car, stranger” 
“No, I don’t want to go to bed”
“Are you going to eat your vegetables, Jimmy?” Flat out “no”. 

It’s easier saying no to the stuff you don’t want to do and the people you don’t want to do things for. 
But it’s not this easy saying ‘no’ when part of you does want to do something. Think about the ‘temptation’ factor here: “No, I don’t want that brownie….” *bites lip and stares at brownie which stares straight back*

It’s even harder having to say ‘no’ to your friends – whether you want to do the thing or not. 

I am a classic work-horse. I like to be busy. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t always want to work, or run around doing things, but I can’t be idle. If I’m at home doing ‘nothing’ it usually means I’m writing or drawing or singing or cleaning or organising, or learning how to make a cheesecake for the first time, or helping my friend over the phone (all of which are true for the last week alone). You can bet I’ll be doing something. It doesn’t matter – that’s still a day off for me. 

And when it comes to work I do the same. 

I’m self-employed so my work comes in drips and drabs: forget weekly or daily schedules and appointments, I have hourly and even down to individual minute timetables dedicated to varying work projects. Imagine how this then impacts my social life. I have to fit in any social engagements around this hectic rota. For instance: 

 08:00 – 13:30 ‘JOB A’ 
13:30-14:00 ‘DRIVE TO JOB B’ 
14:00 – 15:30 ‘JOB B’ 
15:30 – 15:33 ‘INHALE A SANDWICH WHILE DRIVING TO JOB C’ 
15:33 – 18:30 ‘JOB C’ 
18:30 – 18:31 ‘SNIFF SOME COFFEE’
18:31 – 19:45 ‘JOB D’ 
19:45 – 20:30 ‘SOCIALISE’ 
20:30 – 20:35 ‘RUN TO JOB D’ 
20:35 – 22:50 ‘JOB D’ 
22:50 – 23:30 ‘DRIVE HOME’ 

Something like that. There may be minor exaggerations in there. 

I don’t really like coffee
. 
I rarely eat sandwiches. 

Running is a strong word. Better replaced with ‘panic’. ‘I panic to JOB BLARGH’. It covers the reality of the situation no matter what the mode of transport. 

Imagine a standard working day being juggling two or three jobs. Not to mention additional projects that don’t pay your living wage but are still work and necessary. 
Now add on the desire to socialise. 
Now add on a friend in need who needs you remotely. 
Now add on a friend in need because they need you in person. 
Now add on a family member who needs you. 
Heaven forfend you should have to add on a boyfriend/girlfriend.

Garnish with a smattering of sleep deprivation and irrational anger and season with high blood pressure to serve. 


Where do you draw the line? 

What bits are you meant to get rid of? 

Work is work – everyone has to work and you need to pay rent and bills and council tax and that overdue library fee because you were working consecutive 14 hour days and couldn’t take the books back. Can’t get rid of work. 

The additional projects – in my case, these are essential for building professional experience and launching what I actually want for my career. I can’t lose that, that would be pointless. 

The desire to socialise? Well, yes, this is usually where my saying ‘no’ comes into play and my social life (and happiness) takes a massive hit. 

The friend in need – well, they’re in need. I don’t want them to be unhappy. I’m an empathetic creature. I’m sure I could find half an hour for a phone call or skype… 

The friend in need who needs to cry on my shoulder or needs to crash on my sofa… well… they need someone. They need me. They’ve reached out for help. I can’t leave them high and dry, can I?

The family member who needs you – well, I can’t let my family down. Blood is blood and whatever. I love them. They’d do the same for me, right? 

Boyfriend? Don’t even start. 

I know that I will always have a lot on my plate. Because I am that kind of person and, a lot of the time, it is good for me; it drives my productivity and creativity. But I am only just learning that it shouldn’t be at the expense of me living my life and doing what I want to do. It’s not like I’m talking about going on holiday when I haven’t got the time or the funds or forgetting my healthy eating because ‘YOLO’. I’m talking about just having time for me. To be me. To do the things I want to do. To put myself first and be in my own driving seat. 

Ever see the film The Holiday? It’s like when Arthur says to Kate Winslet that she needs to be the leading lady of her own film, but she’s acting like the best friend. 

Preach. 

And in order to have that time and, more importantly, to have my agency – my freedom and my own power – I have to say no. 

Sometimes that will be to friends in need; sometimes it will be to friends not in need. 
Sometimes that will be to family; sometimes that will be to creative projects. 
Sometimes it will be to work. 

I hate letting people down. I really really hate letting people down. 

But I also hate feeling irritable and angry and resenting my own life when I have complete control over what’s in it and what I’m doing. How stupid to resent the life you are creating for yourself. 

And I know that it’s not just a case of ‘buy the dress, eat the cake, kiss the guy’: 
I’m broke, I don’t fit in the dress anyway cos I ate the cake, and the guy has a girlfriend. We can’t just do all the things we want because we want to. 

I have to work. I have to earn money. It would be lovely if money got handed to me and I could live any crazy lifestyle fantasy I wanted, but I have yet to find a benefactor. Plus, I know me, I’d only fill my time with other bloody projects anyway. 

But it is a case of balancing the stuff you don’t like so much with the stuff you do. And part of that needs to be some sacred time. 


And I cannot believe it’s taken me 25 years to learn this. 

Even eliminating the childhood years where I didn’t know up from down in terms of the big wide world and my emotions (let’s be honest. My primary concern was whether James McAvoy was ever going to love me back), I’ve had 7 adult years of not putting myself first. 

But, you know what they say – it’s never too late to learn. And I am learning it now. It’s tough, I won’t lie. I still hate saying ‘no’ to friends and feeling like I’ve let them down or I’ve hurt them. But I can still acknowledge that part of me that gets to use that time I would have given to someone or something else for myself, and that I like it. It feels good. It feels long overdue. 

I feel like I have more control and more agency. I also feel like I’ve reconnected with myself a little bit, where I know I really haven’t been ‘me’ for a long time. 

I don’t know if enough people know to honour themselves with some sacred time. I feel like such a simple concept has helped me massively.  Even if I am still learning how to do it and realizing where my boundaries are. 

I don’t owe anyone anything, yet isn’t it amazing how hard it can be to say one little word: “no”. 

You can't please everyone

It’s taken me a long time to realise that you can’t please everyone. And, boy, has it been a hard lesson to learn. I’ve always struggled with feeling like I need to make people proud. Put it down to my past (doesn’t everyone?).

I don’t just mean making family and loved ones proud; it impacts and influences my work ethic, my manners, my etiquette, my principles. It does mean, from a work ethic point of view, that I have some high standards that others sometimes do not meet, usually in terms of ethos. But that’s my issue, not theirs, ultimately, however frustrating I find it at the time and having to work with them. But it does affect my personal relationships, significantly my relationship with the parent and with significant others.

Mum knows I’ve got a thing about making her proud. It makes things like awards, graduations, and plays being staged so rewarding. Assuming I feel like she cares enough. But it makes things like fall-outs really difficult. Because your own opinions and feelings are compromised with the want to make her proud. Which is hard to do when you’re also trying to express why she’s wrong.

I feel like I’ve had a breakthrough in this area in the last year. This is not to say I don’t get on with my Mum, that I don’t love her, or that I blame her anything. Nothing of the sort. Yet I have felt more secure in myself and my decisions recently and have realised that that must ultimately be enough for me; I can’t do everything for her reassurance and approval. Not anymore. That’s been a very scary and turbulent personal journey for me.

I haven’t quite reached that point with my romantic feelings. I am still the one to say sorry for things that are bad even if they are things which are not my fault (very importantly, these things do not have to be synonymous. I didn’t learn that for a very long time). I am still someone who will try and compromise, even if the other person may not be compromising; someone who will try and learn and grow and develop as a person within a relationship. And I know in myself that I can’t live my life just to make this other person proud or do things in order to get their seal of approval. That knowledge just hasn’t quite made its way into practice yet.

In the past, I have always been plagued by feelings of inadequacy as a person; feeling insufficient, lesser than others on a variety of things; ‘not enough’. Such was a self-inflicted phrase that tormented me for a decade. I felt dispensable, replaceable, and unworthy. I developed trust issues to an acute degree. The old routine I knew to work was to always strive harder, work yourself to the bone and be a person that people could be proud of. It didn’t always get me the recognition I so clearly sought and needed. So I’d strive even harder.

I see this now. I didn’t always.

I’m also having to learn that I don’t have to be liked by everyone. I’ve got to a point where I’m not struggling with feelings of inadequacy in the same way; I think I’m a decent person with good manners and with a fierce dedication to those I love. I’m a hard worker, and I’m stubborn (using it as a good feature here). And I know that that’s enough. I’m not ‘lesser’ just because someone still doesn’t like me. It doesn’t make me any less of a hard worker or a decent person. And that feeling – of being disliked by someone – isn’t pleasant. But I do know that it isn’t my job to fix that. I can try being ‘nicer’, whatever that may mean at the time – calmer, cooler, who knows. But if that still isn’t enough, and it’s just that they don’t like me for me, I have no power to change their minds.

And it’s a tough old lesson to learn.

Can I have a wheat free, dairy free, sugar free flapjack please?

“Can I have a wheat free, dairy free, sugar free flapjack please?”

The answer is no, you can’t. Because they don’t exist.

There’re aren’t a lot of treats out there when you’re off what feels like every food type going. 

You know when you’re flagging and you just really need that sugar kick to get you going again?

You have to make do with sparkling water and just imagine it’s not just the carbonated version of the tap stuff.

But generally you don’t really find yourself craving cheesecake, chocolate, pizza or milk. You miss the simple things: fruit juice, jam, tuna mayo, a sniff of a French stick. Oh, for a spoonful of raspberry jam in my unsweetened-almond-milk-made plain porridge! Alas, one banana on top instead. Yummy.

For my health at the moment I’m having to follow the candida diet. Right about now I should detect a shudder from those in the know. For those who don’t know what this is, google it. Google it and despair. I generally can’t take wheat, but the candida diet means no yeast, no lactose, no sugar – even natural sugars, meaning you’re rationed to two pieces of fruit a day.

Aka. No fun.

I find it quite a test of character. I’ve had to follow this diet before for what felt like forever, but was probably only about 150 days, so I’m stoically determined I shouldn’t have a problem this time. And most of the time I just suck it up and get on with it. So a carrot with hummus and a couple of Ryvita for lunch it is.

All would be well. If it hadn’t just been Easter.

I’m a big fan of baking, and the candida diet hasn’t stopped me from making cute little easter themed cornflake cakes for my friends and family, and a rather majestic carrot cake for my Nan’s Birthday. I didn’t particularly resent the fact I wouldn’t be able to eat them (maybe the carrot cake a little bit because I was rather proud of that). But the dessert course of the Easter lunch was another matter.

Imagine, if you can, being at the head of the table, looking down a table of 9 at everyone tucking in to not one, not two, but three different types of dessert. Nan had pulled out all the stops: there was a tarte au citron with a delicate icing sugar dusting, a mandarin topped cheesecake, eton mess ice-cream, and a jug of cream to go with any of the above. 

A nibble here and there from my friends I won’t resent. But it was the dessert course. People are meant to eat during a dessert course. Imagine being the only one not eating pudding. Not even being able to dig in to the undecadent fruit salad because you’d used your quota of fruit that morning making your porridge more bearable.

I used the opportunity to relieve my brother of his squirming offspring and give him the chance to eat his pudding. I spooned just a little fruit salad into my bowl, thinking I’d ‘treat myself’; ‘what the heck, it’s easter’.

My 19 month old niece sat on my lap and stuck her fist into my bowl, helping herself to the few morsels of fruit in there.

The universe told me not to bother.

I have no idea why, but it really was agony. The clinking of forks and spoons against crockery and the “mmm”ing and “yes, it really is lovely”ing – torture to my ears! Oh, for a lick of a discarded serving spoon!

I also happen to be a sucker for an easter egg. Yes, it’s just regular chocolate in the shape of a hollow egg. I don’t care. I love them. You can break off little bits and just nibble on them, not like a chocolate bar where you know you have six squares, and six squares only. With an egg, you can make it last as long as you want. Or wolf all the little bits in one and be done with it!

My Mum very sweetly handed over a Golden Eggs easter egg on Sunday morning and said, apologetically, “I’m sorry Judes. Save it for another time?”

I am saving it for another time. It’s in my drawer and out of sight, but not quite out of mind.

Knowing I’ll get to tuck in the that at the end of the summer puts the imaginary sugar back in the sparkling water, and I’m sure even the porridge is looking a little better. 

Midsummer Madness

I do this to myself every year. 

Every March through to June. I load up my plate full of projects and I burn out. And every year, about June 5^th, I say to myself that I won’t be doing that again next year. Then by September I’m feeling complacent and start looking for small projects just to stop me twiddling my thumbs. Then while Christmas is approaching, I may as well be working on so-and-so. Then I’ll get an amazing opportunity for a lovely new project, and I think “amazing! I want to be a part of that!” And then you start the planning, which is pretty plain sailing at the beginning, but then BOOM it’s March and all those little things are suddenly sprouting and suddenly you’re in 5 places at once and then oh good god you’re rehearsing/working every night of the week and it’s not even Fringe yet and then it IS Fringe and you swear to god you’ll never do this again next year.

So here I am; April, and thinking, I’ll take a break next year. March was manic (as March always is). Last year was hellish in terms of what I needed to balance (3 sets of rehearsals for 3 set of performances all in the one month), so I said to myself that I wouldn’t do certain projects again the next year. This March, I did all 3 projects again – actually managing to take on more responsibility within 2 of them than I previously had. Aren’t I clever?

No. That makes me very stupid.

It’s not that I don’t enjoy the projects. On the contrary. I cannot be idle creatively: I always have something on the go; I take a break from one creative project by dipping into another. A day off with no rehearsals? I’ll write a parody song! Actually, I’ve got some daylight hours – I’ll make a video to accompany it! Such is my strange, workaholic, masochistic little mind. I thoroughly enjoy the projects – more often than not they inspire ideas for other projects in other formats. But it does always get to that point, usually around now, in April, where I go “why am I doing all this – directing, acting, writing, singing, marketing, designing, creating – for no money?”

I absolutely hate the phrase ‘just think of it as a good chance to build some experience’. While there is certainly an undeniable truth to this, I have been building the same kind of experiences for about 3 years now, and yet never quite managing to get enough to make creative employers take me seriously. That’s the bitch. There are exceptions of course – certain projects I’ve only worked on in the last year may well take their next steps soon and that will open up a new stage of experience. Maybe this will be a breakthrough.

But in terms of slogging it through March, April, May and June, will I find myself back again next year to continue to ‘build experience’? Probably; I can’t just have a month off. I’ve already watched the entire Johnathan Creek boxset about 5 times and what else is there in life?

Check the 2018 Fringe flyers and see.

ps. I do of course love the projects I get involved with. I do just wish I could sleep without running through the admin in my head.

Deficit of Decency

A job in retail, as anyone will tell you, requires a sense of humour. 

Plus a good sleeping pattern; a visualization of your pay-cheque; a sturdy jaw to take the clenching of teeth; patience, and a box of tissues for whenever you waver on any of the above.

It requires you to smile when you don’t feel like smiling, laugh amiably when it’s not worth laughing and answer some really fucking stupid questions (while raising a few smarter ones of your own, such as “if having this stuff is this important to some people, then what is life?”). You are required to then take the abuse that comes with this, even when you have managed to generally pander to people and their whims as much as it is humanly possible without surfacing for air with a slurp, a gasp, and a very brown nose.

I am a firm believer of ‘do as you would be done by’. 

As a customer, I want to feel valued to some degree and be met with politeness and the due amount of respect that comes with it, as any well-mannered stranger in an establishment might expect and accord. I know what it feels like to have an uninterested person serving you in a shop. 

That is why the self-service machine was invented in the first place: because, buddy, you actually could have a machine doing your job. aka. taking my money and not packing my bag for me. Put some personality into your job and a machine can’t take it from you. 

Clearly why we’re suffering in the 21^st century. 

It stands to reason, then, that I should be able to emanate the qualities so desired by a customer when I, myself, am behind the cash desk, or answering your inquiries. I will do as I would be done by. 

So I will be patient, and polite, and smile, and maybe even crack a gentle, if not mildly self-deprecating joke, in your favour. 

I will gently acknowledge the weaker moments of the corporate scheme, while not damaging the reputation of the company who employ me. 

I will run your errand, find your product, recommend the next best thing and where to find it and even call you a god damn taxi and carry your bags out to it. 

So what do you do when your customer continues to be an utter cock?

It's not even just customers. It's the public. The people allowed out on the streets. Yes, it's the twat on the phone who comes to the till and doesn't say a word to you; but it's also the guy who stops in the doorway to put his receipt in his wallet. It's the person who gets off the top of the escalator and doesn't know where to go; the person who exits a shop at snail's pace into a stream of pedestrian traffic. 

Some people exist to test you. 

I'm sure of it. Why else would anyone be that much of, and that deliberately, a tosser? It's to keep The Strong strong.  

Maybe I started this out all wrong. Perhaps it's not customers in shops at all. Just because we stand behind tills for long shifts at a time, it doesn't mean it's just arsehole customers inside the store and logical people outside. No, no. It's people in general these days. 

No one thinks, no one cares. What happened to being conscientious? What happened to saying 'please' and 'thank you'; what happened to smiling at people? 

In shops, on the pavements, in cars (God, aren't there idiots in cars). When did 'giving other people a hard time' become a more common occurrence than congratulating others on a job well done? We're a very selfish and self-indulgent generation (well, we're a very selfish and self-indulgent race, but I'll save some misanthropy for another post). 

It ain't half a struggle to try and be a decent person on the highstreets of 2017. 

*deep breath* "And would you like a 5p bag for that?"