Back after almost 2 weeks' Silence

Just realised that my last entry was on 14-May, and today's 27-May. Okay, let's try to account for what happened the last 13 days.

Week of 14-May and after: In hypersonic mode at work
20-May: Worked till 2:30am.
20-May: Lingering at Changi Airport, waiting to fly away to goof-off time at 6:30am.
(Yes. No typo. Same day)

A week later now, it's pay-back time AGAIN.

26-May: Half a day spent clearing mails... Ermm... I just meant scanning them through to get the gist of the happenings through the week. Still in a sluggish mode. Actions can come later.

In fact, I think I've got things that I want to pen, but simply cannot gather my thoughts.... hmmm....

Putting the photos together seemed to take less efforts.... Looking at the pictures, I realised that I looked a little crappy. Well, that's what happens when one gets too busy before a vacation. No time to preen before going on a trip... even though I knew there's gonna be lotsa photo takings - mementos to which I am suppose to be remembered by.

Well, let's just say that I want to be realistic enough to be able to look back and remember that there are times when I do look a little.... ermm... more flawed.... =P
*
*

Signature Icon for the last few weeks and weeks coming...

Busy. Busy. Busy.

Read in another blog that it's the tagline of newcomers in general to be super-duper hardworking. However, that will wear off and the enthusiasm will degenerate into ennui with time.... i guess the blogger meant that the accelerated speed of doing work will eventually retard as time spent at a workplace gets longer.

Almost a year later, I find myself in reverse to what the typical worker (in accordance to the forementioned) is likely to behave. Perhaps not out of own will, but circumstances seemed to have forced the speed to go faster. Everyone appears to want things done at presto!

Well, sometimes, i do hope that I can indeed press a button, and work will be done.... or if I can do a 變, 變, 變 and become four working persons instead of one.... hmmmm.... won't that be nice?
*
*

Stick to What is known

Last evening was indeed perplexing. It just didn't seemed like my day.

After the bad show and some fruitless shopping around, Hong and I decided to calm our nerves with some sweet treats. We hence dropped by Häagen-Dazs at Raffles City shopping centre. However, considering the late hours, we finally decided to settle for some tea instead after browsing the menu.

The waiter cheerfully took our orders of NightCap and Petite-fleur (or smtg like that), and then asked us, wide-eyed, if it's fine that they serve the teas in pots.

Slightly stunned, we looked at her, blinked, and asked an equally absurd question: Is it a big pot? (i mean, how big a pot can you fetch for $6.50 at a place like Häagen-Dazs?)

She blinked and gave an equally stupid answer like, "No. The pot is a one-person serving."

I mean... duh.... her question, to start with, was uncalled for. I mean, yah, one-person serving for each tea, there were two of us, and we ordered two teas, so, is that not right?

The teas came in nice clean glass pots. (I like clean looking pots!)

The puzzling thing was, Hong's teapot came without a cover. The waiter (or maybe he's the manager there, since he was in a different uniform) explained that they had broken the cover.
At first, that seemed forgiveable. But on second thought, we can't help but wonder why they can't use another teapot cover for the teapot they are serving.

We hence decided to try it out. Took the cover on my teapot and tried fitting it to Hong's teapot. And it fitted perfectly. I mean, of course, the teapots looked the same to begin with. We just wanted to confirm our suspicion and make sure there aren't some extra catch or something not visible to our myopic eyes.

Why can't they replace the cover from another teapot's? *Perplexed*

Haiz.... the only reason we can come up with is that perhaps they've only got two teapots in the outlet.... or maybe ordering teas at Häagen-Dazs was a mistake. We should have kept to the convention and maybe have an ice-cream instead....

Lesson of the day: Just stick to what is known.

That means...
#1 - If a show is not well-known, it's probably bad.
#2 - Just keep to ordering ice-creams at Häagen-Dazs.
*
*

High prices for a Super Budget Production

Watched the worst, budget musical today.
And yes. It cost me $80. Not very budget.
$80 can last me 16 workdays, if we work that on a $3 budget meal, with $2 for transport. Considering that we are working a 5-day week, 16 workdays works out to 3 weeks and a day.
And what did I do with that? Splurged that on watching some (not exactly handsome) man engaging in sexual acts with some (equally lousy) actresses without the sizzle.

Oops!

****

Love, Love changes everything:

Hands and faces,

Earth and sky,

Love, Love changes everything:

How you live and

How you die...

Love will turn your world around,

And that world will last forever...

Aww…. Don’t you think those lyrics are utterly romantic?

Having had a busy and hectic workweek, I was kinda looking forward to the Aspects of Love musical this weekend. But lo and behold, I was slapped with disappointment after disappointments during the show.

How bad can it be? Let’s just say it’s REALLY, REALLY, REALLY BAD!

#1: Entering the theatre, we were slapped with an unusual silence. That’s weird, cos usually, you will have the orchestra doing their tuning prior to the show.

Needless to say, there was no orchestra. Only two dull pianos.

No doubt, the pianists were pretty good. However, having just two pianos simply fail to swell the atmosphere. The mood was just not right – and I mean through the entire show!

If that is not bad enough, we have #2 to (gasp!) #6.

#2: The lead man singing those lines above were quite obviously devoid of the emotions & passions those lines are suppose to convey. He was obviously unable to feel what the character ought to feel. He’s just….. not into the character! And it seemed to me that he was not the only one… (not that there are a lot of characters to begin with.)

#3: No backdrops. No costumes. Set in the 1940s, how can the cast dress like any o’ Filipinos you see on the street today? How can the furniture from Barang-Barang stands as prop to set the French scene at that time? (And mind you, they are sponsored) My gosh! What audacity they’ve got to come on stage with just that, and claim it a musical (and charge $80 for the cheapest tix)!

#4: Off pitch singing. What can be worse in a musical production, especially when it did not only happen only once or twice? Without an orchestra, the burden will be on the casts to sing even better. But… but... but the singing of the casts were like… not the least melodious or in tune - often missing beats and pitches!

#5: Lousy storyline. This is the first time I am watching Aspects of Love. Having heard and read the lyrics on “Love changes everything”, I’ve imagined it to be a really romantic one. Well, even the Sistic synopsis says it's "one of the most romantic and passionate shows in the world". More than being over-rated, it's sad to say, however, that the plot did not drum Aspects of Love at all. On the contrary, it seemed to me that “Aspects of Lust” appeared to be a more appropriate title.

#6: Sitting beside a couple (I guess) on a getting-to-know-you date, where the boy kept shouting “Bravo!” when I was dreading to get over and be done with with the extremely lousy show. Interestingly, the girl (quite pretty one, ok?) was still positively polite towards him. If I were her, I would probably have dug a hole and dived into it asap to avoid being caught dead with anyone who associate boo-boos with bravo!s…. I mean, that's probably okay, it's just that he was like speaking of all the high & might arty stuff prior to the show and during the intermittent, as if proud that he's some arty-farty... well, quite obviously he's not...

Okay… should stop my bitchiness…

Anyway…


Even Ivan Heng’s The Visit of theTai-tai, through it’s many glitches on the first night managed to bring on litters of comic relief amid the dark plot. Okay, even if Hong disagrees with that, they at least had a backdrop and better costumes! (And Ivan Heng was funny.) The Aspects of Love show was expensive in comparison, and totally without any saving grace… okay, except perhaps for the upgrade of seats from Circles 2 to Circles 1. And that’s because of the poor turnout.

Now I know why Aspects of Love, though being one of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s early works, had remained so relatively unknown. Quite obviously, there’s a reason for everything…

Haiz… I should have put the money to better use.

Overall verdict for the show? No star. I will give negative stars, in fact, if there were such rates.

What have I paid for thus?

$10: The show +
$10: The 2 pianists
$60: Lead’s uninteresting sexual actions
= $80

*

*