Saturday, August 17, 2013

What D&D Character are You (Curtesy of Easdamus)?

I Am A: Lawful Good Elf Cleric (6th Level)

Ability Scores:

Lawful Good A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. However, lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.

Elves are known for their poetry, song, and magical arts, but when danger threatens they show great skill with weapons and strategy. Elves can live to be over 700 years old and, by human standards, are slow to make friends and enemies, and even slower to forget them. Elves are slim and stand 4.5 to 5.5 feet tall. They have no facial or body hair, prefer comfortable clothes, and possess unearthly grace. Many others races find them hauntingly beautiful.

Clerics act as intermediaries between the earthly and the divine (or infernal) worlds. A good cleric helps those in need, while an evil cleric seeks to spread his patron's vision of evil across the world. All clerics can heal wounds and bring people back from the brink of death, and powerful clerics can even raise the dead. Likewise, all clerics have authority over undead creatures, and they can turn away or even destroy these creatures. Clerics are trained in the use of simple weapons, and can use all forms of armor and shields without penalty, since armor does not interfere with the casting of divine spells. In addition to his normal complement of spells, every cleric chooses to focus on two of his deity's domains. These domains grants the cleric special powers, and give him access to spells that he might otherwise never learn. A cleric's Wisdom score should be high, since this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.

Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

A Short Review - Matt Byrne's Community Production of "Phantom of the Opera"

Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber’s hit musical, “Phantom of the Opera” still dazzles thousands if not hundreds of thousands – maybe even millions – every year. It has done so since it made its debut in 1986 starring Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman. Until recently, remembering the musical is more than 25 years old, the only community productions allowed were put on by educational institutions but it appears that the rights to community productions are expanding lately and I have had the pleasure of witnessing Australia’s second community production.
Produced by Matt Byrne Media, well known in Adelaide, South Australia, Matt Byrne is honest when he states it is the largest and most complex production they have attempted. I know full well that a professional production costs millions to stage – in venue hire, marketing, costumes and the cost of the cast and backstage crew. Ideally you’d have enough money to renovate the theatre as though it were the Paris Opera House; perhaps not from the outside but certainly from the inside.
With Michael Bates in the title role, Ellonye Keniry as Christine Daee and Will Daniels as the Vicomte de Chagny, this production is a credible resetting of the professionally staged musical. The standout performer of this production is Ms. Keniry whose vocal talents are superb and spot on. Mr. Bates provides a manic, angry phantom – certainly by the ending scene one loathes this phantom's actions but pities his fate - he made me shed a tear for him. An excellent performance and I look forward to seeing what roles Mr. Bates challenges himself to take next. Whilst there were some outstanding support from the other roles and ensemble, I was left a little disappointed in Mr. Daniels’ portrayal of Raoul. I found his voice was up to the role, but his acting (perhaps as much the director’s responsibility) left me quite unconvinced that he was the young, dashing nobleman Christine Daee would desert the phantom for.

I give a caveat to my comments about Mr. Daniels. When young I always dreamed that the Phantom of the Opera would teach me to sing and make me famous like Christine. It's possible I'm unconsciously jealous.
Overall, I enjoyed the production and it was generally well done. None of the performers – principal or ensemble – made me grit me teeth and bear them. The two main characters – the phantom and Christine – were superb, especially Christine. However, I feel the performers were let down by the constant crackling of their microphones and sound equipment and without a revolving set (lots of money) and such expensive “toys”, the scene changes did, at times, intrude into the story.
I would recommend seeing this production – bearing in mind that if you’ve seen a professional production, it will – of course – not compete. Nonetheless, I believe it is worth seeing.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Les Miserables - Part I


Set in the nineteenth century, Tom Hooper’s adaptation of Alain Boublil and Claude-Michel Schönberg’s best-selling musical Les Misérables, itself an adaptation from Victor Hugo’s lengthy novel of the same name, is a faithful resetting of Boublil and Schönberg’s production onto the big screen. It is faithful to the novel – in as much as one can be faithful to a novel of such prodigious length – but more importantly it is faithful to the stage musical that has played for more than twenty-five years in London’s famous west end.  Whilst this resetting of Les Misérables has attracted its share of reviews, not all of which are altogether positive, the direction, production and filmography – not to mention the cast’s live singing – when taken as a whole make for a masterly, well directed, produced and filmed piece.
Vive la France! Vive les Misérables!
Hooper, whose previous major production was the well-received tale of King George VI’s overcoming of his fear of public speaking during World War II, tackles Les Misérables setting it amongst the squalor and grittiness that many who can afford to see this movie show will never experience. The viewer is not spared the appalling conditions of the chain gang, life as a prostitute amongst the wharves nor hidden from the reality of the barricades and the young boys and girls who died fighting for the new world when the fighting’s done. This is no old-style Hollywood musical; there is no spontaneous dancing, deviating little from its stage adaptation it is mainly through sung. Hooper’s direction allows the musical, the actors and their songs to speak, or rather sing, to the audience. He has, for the most part, succeeded in bringing the stage musical to life on the theatre screen.
There are three important choices that Hooper has made, which do have a significant effect on the movie:
  1. The actors have sung their parts live with little sound studio retakes;
  2. His direction is to ensure that the singing stands out, almost as if the songs themselves were characters; and
  3. The book has been noticeably altered and amended – it is not the same as the stage musical.
In many, if not most, movie musicals, the songs are recorded in a sound studio before they are performed in front of the camera. Sometimes the actors may not even be in the same studio during the recording. Although it is the director’s role to ensure that the sound reflects the director’s conceptual idea of the musical, this introduces a number of problems:
  1. The actors and the director have to ensure the singing reflects the required mood even before they have rehearsed on the set;
  2. The director cannot easily adjust the singing or sound in case the pre-recorded singing or sound does not fit as the director had expected;
  3. Although directors are there to direct the show, the actors’ interaction can provide feedback to the director who may incorporate these spontaneous interactions into the songs; and
  4. Especially for a show such as this, many viewers can see and feel the difference between lip synching and actual singing.
For the most part, this decision has worked well for Hooper. All of the major actors have played roles before live audiences. Jackman played the role of Joe in the inaugural Australian version of Sunset Boulevard. Hathaway is a trained stage actress and singer. Crowe was the front man and singer for his own band. It is obvious that the singers are mostly singing live and it is equally obvious that there has been little sound studio editing apart from the addition of the orchestra.
In fact, in many parts, the film’s score sounds far more realistic than the Symphonic Cast Recording of the show. The Symphonic Cast Recording, whilst very good, sounds like a studio album and at times the interaction of Gary Morris (who plays Valjean) and the other cast members sounds somewhat forced and artificial. Thus, this decision by the director has clearly benefited the film. The only criticism that might be levelled is that, paradoxically, some of the singing might have sounded better had the actors redubbed it from within a sound studio.
There are many parts of the show, Les Misérables that a director might use to propel the director’s vision of the movie forward. It is a musical that invites fantastic filmography, period costumes not to mention the myriad of ways a director might interpret each of the individual characters and the characters in groups. No director of this show could ignore any of these invitations but the one emphasis that Hooper has clearly required is on the music and the singing. 
This Les Misérables shouts at you that it is a musical. At times, Hooper has clearly driven the film in a way that emphasises that there are people singing and it is the people and what they sing that is important. This is especially clear in Hooper’s rendition of Empty Chairs at Empty Tables. Take the song out of that scene and, to be perfectly honest, it would be terrible and one would wonder what all the fuss was about. But what Hooper has clearly asked the producer to do is to produce the scene in such a way that the audience is watching Marius (played by Redman) sing.
The songs in this production of the show are characters themselves. At times they take over a scene so thoroughly that they are the scene – it is as though they are so tangible that one could reach out and touch them. When this happens during the movie Hooper gets it mostly right. However, in doing so there are some scenes where this seems to be particularly forced and can be a little distracting. Nonetheless, it is a faithful rendition of the stage musical which, itself, is more about the songs and the people singing them rather than its settings, costumes or how they interact with each other.
Finally, many of the well-known songs have had their words altered or simply cut out. It is not clear this was Hooper’s doing as both Boublil and Schönberg feature in the film’s credits; it is logical that if anyone were to approve the fiddling of the words and book it would be the show’s original creators. However, the wording is sometimes clearer and sometimes more jarring. There appears to be a dual purpose:
  1. Some of the original words do not explain the show well to the audience; and
  2. The movie adaptation is already exceedingly long – including all the songs would simply make for a ridiculously long movie.
As this will be discussed later, perhaps only one example will suffice. In the original book, the bishop sings:
“Come in sir, for you are weary, and the night is cold out there though our lives are very humble, what we have, we have to share.” (My emphasis)
However, in this production the bishop sings:
“Come in sir, for you are weary, and the night is cold out here though our lives are very humble, what we have, we have to share.” (My emphasis)
This change makes sense from the film’s point of view. The bishop is “out here” when the bishop sings this as opposed to having answered the door of his house. However it totally throws out the rhyme totally and it breaks the rhythm of the song. It would have been better to have rewritten it as:
“Come in sir, for you are weary, and the night is cold out here though our lives are very humble, come in Sir, where there’s no fear.” (My emphasis)
In all, Hooper’s direction is faithful to the original stage musical and a good adaptation for the big screen. No director will ever produce the perfect version of this beloved stage musical on the big screen simply because the formats are so different and the stage musical, which came first, assumes that it is being staged on a theatre stage. A person familiar with the stage musical will see or hear the differences between that version and this big screen adaptation – and most likely find the difference unsettling.
What can be said, though, is that Hooper has successfully set the stage musical onto the big screen and has created a movie that is identifiably Boublil and Schönberg’s stage music of Les Misérables. This is one of the most faithful adaptations of an extraordinarily long-running and successful west end musical that one can expect.
It is well done.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Dear Ms Gillard

Dear Ms Gillard,

Your legislative achievements during this current parliament are nothing but astounding. The ALP's ability to shield Australia from the global financial crisis should not be overlooked.

That the ALP, which you lead at the parliamentary level, has not been able to capitalise on these achievements is also astounding. In fact, there have been times when I believe your Government has managed to upset ALL the interested parties.

To be fair, I think you are a courageous, hard working person with one of Australia's most difficult 'jobs'. However, you do not lead a stable Government and I doubt that a Government under your leadership will ever be stable; I am sure under other circumstances I could welcome your leadership and your legislative programme.

That said, I believe it is in the best interests for you to step down or use whatever reasonable means you can to call an election.

Thank you and I wish you well.

David S. Lloyd

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Saint Aidan's Has a New Web-Site

Just a quick note to say that Saint Aidan's Anglican Church, in Payneham South Australia, has a new web-site.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011


Missions has been associated with the Church for centuries. For the Church mission has been to spread the gospel and belief in Christ throughout the known world. In the time of Paul the known world was the Roman Empire and Asia (what we would now call Turkey). As the Church became more aware of other worlds it expanded its mission to them as well.
Unfortunately mission has been associated with conquest. Instead of believing in the Word because the Word is true, peoples have believed in the Word because they were compelled to, thought it was wise to do so for worldly reasons or we simply born into this belief. Because Christianity has been associated with so many dominant empires: Roman, Portuguese, Spanish and British to name a few it has been able to promulgate itself by force.
Yet where these empires have lessened their reigns, where they have been lost, Christianity has not been lost entirely but it certainly doesn’t enjoy the adherents it used to.
We need to find out what type of mission actually “works”. I tender:
  • Missionaries need to be culturally sensitive;
  • Missionaries need to be at least as concerned with those who do believe as those who do not - this is not a numbers game;
  • Missionaries need to be good, upstanding Christians themselves
They don’t need to be overly charismatic, wonderful theologians or great leaders. They just need these three qualities. With these three qualities “missionaries” can ask “How can I help you” and we can then show what being in Christ’s mission truly is.
I think that’s the best way.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

The Holy Spirit - Reflections

Reflections on the Holy Spirit
What do I think of when I think of the “Holy Spirit”?
Firstly, whilst my two mainstay bibles are the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the New American Standard Bible (NASB), I grew up preferring the King James Version (KJV). I use the NRSV now because I need a translation that is readily “approved” for my studies and the NASB because it’s even closer to the originals than the NRSV. However, my home bible is, still, the KJV and in the KJV, the Spirit is named the “Ghost”.
Thus, harking back to my heritage within the High Church of England, I have always heard the Trinity spoken of as “Father, Son and Holy Ghost”. Of course, language changes and the third part in that triad of words is not what we modern people might term a ghost. It is not an apparition, a poltergeist or something that slimes you as on Ghost Busters. Instead, it is something akin to “spirit” or “soul”.
Now, why do I answer this question like this? It is because I think of the “Holy Spirit” from within the tradition of the Church of England. There is another word. Notice I am not saying Anglican. I will generally use the term Anglican to most outsiders but I do prefer the term Church of England (Anglican is just a term invented to not upset people whose patriotism extends to the ecclesial life in my opinion).
Understand now that when I say Ghost I mean Spirit.
I have heard this term mainly in the liturgical phrase, “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.” If I talk of the Trinity itself and name the Trinity, this is how I think and what I want to say. These days I usually elide “Holy Ghost” into “Holy Spirit”, as modern hearers generally look at me funny when I say the word “ghost”, but it is what I think of.
I don’t actually think of the Holy Ghost without also thinking of the Father and the Son. Couched in these terms, I don’t really think of any of these individual names without the other two. This makes sense considering that this is the name of the three heads in the Trinity. For me, it makes no sense not to think of the Father and Son, when I think of the Holy Ghost. It makes no sense to think of the Son, without the Father and the Holy Ghost. When I think of the Holy Ghost, I also think of the Son and the Father.
Now, if I want to think of them individually, I tend to speak of “God” as the Father. The Son is easy - He has a name and His name is Jesus. However, do I ever think of the Holy Ghost individually? Truth be told, I do not. And I think I know why. The Holy Ghost is a Person to me (who is also the other two, namely the Father and the Son). Thinking of the “Holy Ghost” as one person doesn’t make sense to me - there are always three in one even though I may only be talking of the one.
I must confess that I have a natural suspicion of those who run around talking about just the Holy Spirit (or the Spirit) and using that particular word. The actions of the Holy Spirit alone have always been the ones most difficult to test and many will test the Holy Spirit’s actions against whatever their interpretation of the Scriptures happen to be; and of course their interpretation is the correct one.
When I think of the “Holy Spirit”, I think of God, the triune God. And I am suspicious of those who claim to do or be informed of the works of the Holy Spirit especially if they’re proving it on their own and only their own interpretation of the scripture. Test the spirits to see if it is THE spirit, we must, but if it relies on what I consider any special interpretation of scripture (and I consider the classical fundamentalist doctrine of scriptural inspiration a special interpretation) I will be suspicious.