Oh Christmas Tree! Oh Christmas Tree!

As the Obama Administration introduces tax on Christmas trees, is one of the oldest seasonal traditions under threat from the modern day Grinch?

There is something intrinsically magical in the Christmas tree; its rustic scent, its eternal greenness, its charismatic grandeur, majestically guarding the array of wrapped parcels sheltering beneath. Christmas starts with the tree-selecting your very own, inspecting the line-up as though they were a procession of festive ambassadors; embellishing the fresh greenery with twinkling lights and multicoloured jewels. Yes, Christmas can only start with the tree.

Just as Saint Patrick used the shamrock to explain the holy trinity, the triangular shape of the fir tree was used in the same teaching. Even before Christianity, plants and trees that remained green all year had special significance for people in winter. Many people believed that evergreens would keep away witches, evil spirits and illnesses. Germany is credited with starting the Christmas tree tradition but the first decorated tree is rumoured to have been in Latvia in the early 1500s. The anticipated countdown to streets and cities being illuminated by fairy lights is thanks to the Protestant reformer Martin Luther. After admiring the sky of stars above the forest, he tried to recreate the wonderment for his children by placing lighted candles on the tree.   However, despite years of enchantment, there still appears to be the odd modern day Grinch, trying to hack at the joviality of this festive tradition.  

Earlier this week, Barack Obama announced that there would be a tax charge on Christmas firs to ‘improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees’.  The American leader assured it would serve as a marketing fund for the Christmas tree industry and the program was in fact requested by the tree growers association. Yet even still, is there not something inherently immoral about imposing taxes on a symbol of hope and goodwill? It tinges the symbol of peace and innocence with a darker shade, and suggests there is monetary motivation behind even the most pure of things. The glistening lights are supposed to scintillate charm not glisten with capitalist greed. The obligation to splurge in the month of December is proving challenging enough in this current economy without placing extra cost on, let’s face it, a December necessity.

The Christmas tree cheer has not escaped the radar of the environmentalists, either. Tree huggers have always been anxious over the ritual of adorning a fresh tree all in the name of merriment. They do have some cause for concern as statistics show numbers of the tree are dwindling.  It is estimated that less than 700,000 were planted each year in Ireland since 2004. ‘If growers achieve an 85% average yield then less than 600,000 trees will be available from 2011 onwards,’ says Dermot Page from the Irish Christmas Tree Growers. The environmentalists may have a point, it would seem. Another issue is the fact of chemicals. Fir trees, like any other crop, are vulnerable to attack from aphids, mites and other pests and diseases. This means that many farmers turn to chemicals, such as the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate which is, according to the Pesticide Action Network, the most frequent cause of complaints and poisoning incidents. But there would have to be another solution to this Christmas tree shortage rather than abstain. President Teddy Roosevelt once famously refused to display a Christmas tree in the white house, claiming that it ‘damaged the environment.’  His children subsequently kept one hidden in their wardrobe, their imagination and lust for enchantment, triumphing over the green Grinch.

And then there’s the dreaded of all woodland trees- the artificial substitute. The mock trees are actually less environmentally friendly: their transportation from the Far East where they are manufactured adds to the tree’s carbon footprint while their metal and plastic bodies make them non-bio-degradable. These imposters spurted to success, reaping the rewards without any of the hard work whereas it takes the real tree seven to ten years to reach the minimum height of two metres. Synthetic trees have become hugely popular, favoured for their durability and for the fact that they do not scatter their pine needles.  True they represent the sacred symbolism in their pyramid formation but do they encapsulate the true authenticity and atmosphere of the season? Not pine, spruce or fir but glittered, frosted and pink. Less Charles Dickens, more Katie Price.

 The artificial tree’s refusal to die is often regarded as the main advantage over the real thing. As Christmas starts with the tree, it ends with it too. The branches are stripped of its embellishments, it is robbed of its star and it topples on the day of the epiphany after weeks of frenzied excitement. The brown, withered remnant of merry indulgence lying in the garden is often the closing scene to the annual festivities. Yet is all this not worth the inherent allure of the fresh felled Christmas tree? The smell, the grandeur the emerald green? The Grinch they say is as ‘cuddly as a cactus’, but the Christmas tree- Oh Christmas tree! Leave the leaves on this antique tradition unchanging.  

Tim McGarry: History Lesson.

Theatre Review.

As the title dictates, Tim McGarry’s solo show at the Grand Opera House embodies a lesson structure, taking the audience on a journey through Ireland’s five thousand year history of invasion, war and famine with McGarry at the top of the class acting as teacher.
The instant McGarry walks on stage, Guinness in hand, claiming that he is “now a better dancer than Michael Jackson”, before a pathetic moonwalk, it is clear that this show would be inundated with good old Norn Iron sarcasm and that McGarry wouldn’t be unwilling to let anything, or anyone involved in the past five thousand years, off the hook.
He assures us he wants to teach us about Irish history as there are some people who know absolutely nothing about it. He calls these people “Protestants”. It is this controversial comedic style that informs the entire act and is what characterises McGarry’s history lesson as new, distinctive and uniquely funny. His brazen approach to Irish history is refreshing following years when people were cautious about saying practically anything to strangers, fearful of its potential to offend. McGarry doesn’t seem to hold any such qualms-in fact, if the show doesn’t offend a large portion of the audience maybe it didn’t fulfill its purpose. Yes, be offended but then laugh.
The history lesson does not neglect QUB students in Ireland’s historical past, although perhaps not for the reasons they would hope. Recalling the Saint Patrick Day riots, he comments how the “nationalist officers were terrified as they witnessed students smash windows and set cars alight, while the old-hand RUC officers looked on with a sense of nostalgia”.
The show transforms the most troublesome times into comedy genius. The Famine, for instance, he tells his Protestant friends, was “a Trocaire fast that got out of hand”, and the 1916 Easter Rising was “caused by Cadbury reducing the size of creme eggs”. The act is not without moral undertones however. Mocking masked paramilitaries, McGarry comments, “you’re not scary, you’re a wanker in a mask”. Tim McGarry’s History Lesson mirrors the progress in Northern Ireland, everyone can laugh at this show (if you’re not Peter Robinson) and find humour in our history. Tim McGarry’s History Lesson centers around satirizing sectarianism, and he makes no apologies for it, commenting; “Sectarianism – all the fun of racism with only a fraction of the guilt.”

30^th November: Theatre at the Mill, Newtonabbey. 7.45pm.
29^th December: Bardic Theatre, Donaghmore. 8.00pm.
30^th December: Island Arts Centre, Lisburn.8.00pm

Remember Remember the Month of Movember

The moustache is reminiscent of the eighties and fashion faux-pas- inextricably linked with colossal spectacles, patterned shirts and Tom Cruise movies. Fast forward three decades and the moustache is in vogue again and at the centre of one of the world’s most successful cancer charities–Movember.

Mo, slang for moustache, and November have been coming together annually since the idea was sparked in 2003 in Melbourne, Australia when a group of friends decided to reignite their upper-lip whiskers initially for fun. No money was raised in 2003 but the men recognised the potential their growing stubble had in generating discussion and decided to create a global charity focused on the number one cancer affecting men-prostate. In 2010 alone, Irish mo bros and sistas raised €1.6 million and a total of €60 million was raised worldwide. The idea of Movember is simple yet quirky: start off clean shaven on the first of November and grow a moustache for the rest of the month whilst trying to raise as much cash for spurting those fuzzy little hairs as possible. The charity challenges men to change their appearance and in turn the face of men’s health.

Image is evidently crucial to this campaign, taking visual aid to a new level and so each year, the charity takes a different stylistic approach to the anticipated return of the moustache. This year, it is all about the country gentlemen, as Movember stipulates, “a country gentleman is prepared ready for anything at any moment”. Think of some of the greatest mustachios: Tom Selleck, Albert Einstein or Clarke Gable for retro charm and glamour. Whatever style it may be it will certainly raise awareness and most hopefully funds for the prostate cancer charities.

The whole month culminates in Movember galas held across the country. Mo bros and sistas are encouraged to end their Movember journey by celebrating at a ‘world renowned exhibition of nature’s finest bounty, the moustache’. There are awards for Miss Movember, Team Mo and of course, man of Movember. The organisers summon, ‘Citizens of Movember, wear the crest with pride and join us in 2011 for another humdinger of a campaign’. Snickers have a more direct calling; ‘Get some nuts- grow a mo.’  

 The most notorious mustachio.

http://www.movember.ie/

Is it all about who has the X Factor?

Has reality television shaped more than we think?

Who would have ever thought that Saturday night television could transfigure our society? That Gary Barlow, Kelly Rowland and, God forbid, Louis Walsh could not only obliterate our Saturday night socialising but develop our political landscape? As the current presidential campaign progresses, it becomes more reminiscent of the race to be crowned reality show winner, very often a feat of personality rather than talent or ability, than the president of Ireland.  Reality television logistics have expanded, begging the question: is the talent show structure governing this politicalcampaign ?                                                                                  

Until next year, the X Factor auditions have drawn to a close. For those of us who will miss the lunacy, drama and desperation of the audition process, then fear not. There is a bigger and better circus in town: pop on down to Dublin for what appears to be open castings for the Irish presidency. Why not give it a go; everyone else has decided to. As the line-up sees a gay exuberant, a former Eurovision song contest winner and an ex-terrorist in the mix, the campaign ensures to grant the eccentricity and diversity that reality television is famed for. The argument emerges that it exceeds reality; the likelihood of being in the same room with such an assorted group would prove bizarre- this is no longer a mere political campaign. The quest for a national leader seems to be fused with some kind of hunt for the country’s most colourful character, entangled in our media obsessed culture. Of course, no-one succeeds in these contests on mere talent- much too mundane. The aspirant singers delve into their private lives, the most promising always having the obligatory sob story of how they have come through such pain, loss and suffering, dedicating songs to their recently deceased pet and so forth. The presidential candidates would do well to learn this lesson. It is perhaps not always an intentional move from the candidates but it is those with the most emphasis on their background that look set to do well. Martin Mc Guinness, undoubtedly the most controversial candidate of the campaign, embodies the X Factor role of the reformed rebel who has been saved by his talent. Mc Guinness uses this troubled, violent image in many ways to his advantage, urging people to forget his past and look to the future, emphasising his role in Northern Ireland’s reconciliation and branding himself as a poet of peace. The atrocity of his former role as an IRA commander will unquestionably cost him votes but his progression from those days will invoke other ticks on the ballot paper in support of the seemingly transformed Derry man.                                                                                              

Subsequent to successful nominations, the usual dance routines, harmonies and solos are replaced with interviews, press conferences and prying eyes in the campaign’s version of boot camp. This political training is no picnic for these contenders: grilling interviews, the constant anxiety of that photograph resurfacing and endless scrutiny and mockery- ‘all kinds of everything’ for Dana and her competitors. Oh, how fun this boot camp is-for us obviously,not them.

The factor has often faced accusations of farce and it is now transpiring that elements of the presidential race are subject to the same form of manufacturing. Senator David Norris’ appearance on Friday’s Late Late show was one of great expectation and curiosity. The selectivity of Norris as the only potential candidate to appear on the nation’s most watched show triggers significant and detrimental effects on the result of the political race. Transmitting to an audience of over one million people, the senator’s appearance enabled him to communicate to more voters in ten minutes than the other contenders could in a week of campaigning. The issue of Norris’ exclusivity to RTE raises questions as to the interview’s sincerity, his appeal to Ryan Tubridy, ‘When are we going to get to the good stuff’ an indication that there was an understanding between the broadcaster and politician of what would be addressed to benefit both parties. Perhaps, on this occasion the campaign should have directed itself towards the more equilibrium question time and left the stage handling to Cowell’s media hyped show.  It seems all figures in the public eye embrace the ‘no publicity is bad publicity’ mantra.                                                                                                  

And so the question remains, who will succeed to the all important live finals on the 27^th
of next month? It will surely be a moment that mirrors the talent shows electricity and vivacity of the ultimate hurdle but does the same go for the curse of the fast rising talent show champion? Just like the talent show’s winner, restricted by managerial decisions, the amount of difference the victorious figure will be allowed to make in this largely ceremonial role is questionable. Perhaps the race will prove more significant and absorbing than its unknown conclusion but like with any long-running reality show the inevitable question arises- What will we watch now?