492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 15:36:00 GMT
cancel ˈkans(ə)l verb 1. decide or announce that (a planned event) will not take place. It’s been cancelled at the RC It's very clear that I am aware of this.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 15:35:09 GMT
Agree with this or not, this is the result and how a lot of people will view it. A shame.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 14:12:05 GMT
Toby Stephens at the matinee of Albion He's doing one of the book readings at the Printroom in Notting Hill next month - they have a great line up for them. A few weeks ago they had Toby Jones, Hello to Jason Isaacs and that young Fox boy. Toby Jones or No-by Jones?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 14:08:09 GMT
The play hasn't been cancelled. IT's been agreed not to present it in this one venue. cancel ˈkans(ə)l verb 1. decide or announce that (a planned event) will not take place.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 14:03:46 GMT
I've said I think the RC have been brave in putting themselves forward in addressing this. I've acknowledged that this must have been an excruciatingly difficult decision for them. It's a joint statement by the Royal Court and Out of Joint. I just think it's more complicated than you have admitted when a play has actually been cancelled. The play hasn't been cancelled. IT's been agreed not to present it in this one venue. I think you're in denial if you're saying it doesn't send a message about the play itself, which in my opinion is unfortunate. Then, why keep repeating that you've picked up this message, whilst acknowledging that it's not what was meant? I now withdraw from this fruitless correspondence. Please don't go
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 14:02:53 GMT
I'm certainly not angry about it, it's too urgent and complex an issue, and as I've said I think the RC have been brave in putting themselves forward in addressing this. I've acknowledged that this must have been an excruciatingly difficult decision for them. I just think it's more complicated than you have admitted when a play has actually been cancelled. However you want to twist it, that is a big statement. We can get technical about wording all we like, we can talk about how they are continuing to support the rest of the tour, and how this is only 1 play in 1 theatre etc etc, but I think you're in denial if you're saying it doesn't send a message about the play itself, which in my opinion is unfortunate. There is an issue as to how much Stafford Clark made it into the play that it is, he himself says that the text is hers but how much did he suggest? A neophyte writer alongside a famous director starts with an imbalance in the power relationship that raises questions, especially when that director turns out to have tried to take advantage of that power at other times.
Yes, a very fair point and that would of course change everything. There's a real possibility that something has come to light VERY recently regarding the origins of this specific play or even this specific production of the play. However that is all pure speculation. Of course, they're under no obligation to divulge that information if it's true, and there may be a legal reason why they cannot, as others have suggested, but still, after all that, we've ended up with a play being cancelled and the only explanation, I think we can all agree, is vague at best. Most will only see that a play has been rejected, see that the themes are mentioned in the press release, and draw their own conclusions. And that's unfortunate. That's my main point really.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 13:48:01 GMT
Yes. No one is pretending it's some sort of conspiracy. Do you not find this sort of thing complex then? You seem to be pretty cut and dry about it. In this particular instance (and not extrapolating it into anything beyond what it is), yes, it is clear. As for where anger should be aimed I think there are thousands of organisations that are more deserving of people's ire than the Royal Court. I'm certainly not angry about it, it's too urgent and complex an issue, and as I've said I think the RC have been brave in putting themselves forward in addressing this. I've acknowledged that this must have been an excruciatingly difficult decision for them. I just think it's more complicated than you have admitted when a play has actually been cancelled. However you want to twist it, that is a big statement. We can get technical about wording all we like, we can talk about how they are continuing to support the rest of the tour (which I think muddies their stance), and how this is only 1 play in 1 theatre etc etc, but I think you're in denial if you're saying it doesn't send a message about the play itself, which in my opinion is unfortunate.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 13:32:32 GMT
Intent and result being two different things. One play by one writer in one theatre. Yes. No one is pretending it's some sort of conspiracy. Do you not find this sort of thing complex then? You seem to be pretty cut and dry about it.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 13:20:23 GMT
If this was a lay person then maybe that is what they might think it meant but they are people running a theatre and know exactly that the term means! Stafford Clark was the original director and started off directing the revival. Have ETT or someone put it on with a different director and the problem disappears, it's nothing wider than the confluence of director, play and venue, no big attempt to silence female or working class writers, both things being close to my heart (through upbringing and career) and ones that I am very keen on promoting.
I don't know why their words are being twisted to make it into a wider thing than it is, if anyone thinks they were blaming Dunbar for her play then they haven't really been paying attention!
Intent and result being two different things.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 13:18:45 GMT
If that's how the statement was worded, we'd be having a different conversation. But as we both know, you've left out a very important part in the middle there. An interesting way to back up your own point, taking certain parts in isolation. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it was just a badly worded statement. It's not the subordinate clause that creates the intent, it's the main clause, which is why I took it out and, lo and behold, you agree that the actual intent was not what you previously thought. Oh giver of wisdom. Not what I meant but never mind, going round in circles here.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 12:18:34 GMT
'"the staging of this work.....on that same stage now feels highly conflictual."
If that's how the statement was worded, we'd be having a different conversation. But as we both know, you've left out a very important part in the middle there. An interesting way to back up your own point, taking certain parts in isolation. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it was just a badly worded statement.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 11:56:33 GMT
Only those who have attended the cancelled production can comment on the cancellation of a production that they can no longer attend... due to its cancellation. As you must know, the production hasn't been cancelled - just its presentation at a single one of its fourteen tour venues, for reasons which have proved difficult for some to fully grasp. ok. if that makes you feel better.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 11:55:42 GMT
I just don't understand how you can claim that the following is not directed at the play: "the staging of this work, with its themes of grooming and abuses of power on young women, on that same stage now feels highly conflictual." That is a reference to the TEXT, not the director. Unfortunately we cannot just throw aside the fact that the play itself has been cancelled, that - along with the above quote - is a huge statement to make on the play itself and it doesn't sit right for me. That refers to the staging of the text not the text itself, it's a clear difference (although I imagine that the distinction between text and staging isn't that widely understood). I don't think it does only refer to the staging - it's not a clear difference at all - and to say that I think that because this kind of thing 'isn't that widely understood' feels like a cop out. I'm baffled that anyone could argue that the text doesn't contribute to a play's themes, that doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, I can understand that many people would feel upset that a production that seems to have MSC's stamp on it would be performed on the same stage as the testimonies, it must have been an impossibly tough decision.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 11:35:47 GMT
As I haven't seen the production, I can't comment. ! Only those who have attended the cancelled production can comment on the cancellation of a production that they can no longer attend... due to its cancellation.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 10:36:43 GMT
I chalked that up to clumsy phrasing. "Work" doesn't automatically mean "just the text and nothing but the text", in the case of theatre it's going to include acting and directing and design, and although the content of this tweet comes over as a bit of an after-thought, it does clarify that it's nothing against the play or playwright and all about the wider context. It probably is clumsy phrasing, which in itself is very disappointing considering the importance of the subject and how the RC have put themselves forward as an organisation willing to tackle the issue (which is to be applauded). I'm glad they are putting on the Dunbar event, but those 2 tweets do seem to contradict each other. As I haven't seen the production, I can't comment. Perhaps it is ill-judged? Perhaps it does send out the wrong message? Perhaps, in the absence of the writer, it does the text an injustice by missing the point completely? That would be a very different scenario, but none of that is implied in what has been said.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 10:19:32 GMT
Completely 100% agree with this, and it's why the decision doesn't sit right. The director (and Stafford Clark was the original director of this revival, then co-director) is the lens through which a play is seen. The same play directed at the present time by, say, Marianne Elliot, would have a different dynamic than one directed by Stafford Clark. It is not the writer who is complicit but the director.
I'm struggling to understand why people think this is an attack on Dunbar and her play, it is not. If it is directed by an acknowledged sex pest, however, and it become something less healthy. There are two threads running on this subject, confusingly, but on one of them I wondered why people are making one play directed by one director into something supposedly wider and all encompassing. Again, it isn't so why try and make it as such?
I just don't understand how you can claim that the following is not directed at the play: "the staging of this work, with its themes of grooming and abuses of power on young women, on that same stage now feels highly conflictual." That is a reference to the TEXT, not the director. Unfortunately we cannot just throw aside the fact that the play itself has been cancelled, that - along with the above quote - is a huge statement to make on the play itself and it doesn't sit right for me.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 9:34:49 GMT
The RC's statement makes clear that it's now uncomfortable with the play itself, because of its themes of "grooming and abuses of power of young women", and this seems absurdly to conflate the thematic concerns of Andrea Dunbar's work with the alleged behaviour of someone on the creative team. The alarming suggestion is that Dunbar is complicit, that merely writing a play about these topics makes her an accessory. Completely 100% agree with this, and it's why the decision doesn't sit right.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 13, 2017 23:03:35 GMT
I own the play but haven't read it yet. I have to say I'm very surprised that it has been cancelled, only because I had always assumed it was a play about grooming rather than one that glamourises it. Is that not the case then?
Seems bizarre to have tarred this play with the general zeitgeist brush, when it could have triggered important discussions.
Although, there may be more at play here with regards to, as others have suggested, the actual original putting together of the play / how Dunbar was treated herself, but that's all pure speculation.
I respect and applaud the way the RC has dealt with the ongoing issues and how they have put themselves forward as an important, historical cultural institution that is willing to take a stand and try to affect real change, but this specific cancellation does seem odd to me.
Missed opportunity I think.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 13, 2017 22:44:41 GMT
I will be a total bitch As I am annoyed But VF needs to go to a different clothes shop I really don't understand, do you think you're being edgy sat at your computer typing this sort of sh*te?
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 1, 2017 9:26:10 GMT
It's in the GILT offers at £20 for the Lillian Bayliss and £40 for D/C, stalls (keep getting row Q) stage stalls (row m or p). Those stage stalls -I was M 52, absolutely great view! I'm still seeing M stage stalls and Q stalls for £40, and the £20 for Lillian Bayliss - depends what night you are looking at. Birthday Party is Monday, Tuesday & Wednesday. Thursdays from 25th January. Sorry, seeing quite a few sold out in the different price ranges (£65 to £40, £45 to £30 especially, £29.50 to £20 is the other option). Thank you very much!! Hopefully there will be some left come next week.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 30, 2017 16:26:43 GMT
There have been a couple of mentions, but could someone please let me know which seats are available on Get Into London Theatre for the reduced prices? I'm only able to buy in the public sale for it, so would be appreciated. And if you're feeling ultra generous, the same info for The Birthday Party
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 10, 2017 11:46:45 GMT
I admit I'm rather smug that I booked this one ages ago - cannot wait to see Ms M on stage again. Same £12 stalls too
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Oct 28, 2017 21:22:36 GMT
Unfortunately I wasn't completely taken with this. I really like AM-D and the character didn't bother me. Cranham is clearly an enormously talented actor but I thought he found it a bit difficult to carry some of his lines. And I like Simon Stephens a lot. Like the concept and the ideas but didn't quite hit for me.
I agree though that it was brave to give the play a go in this theatre, so I have no issues with that at all.
Possibly it didn't help that I had seen Thebe's Land earlier in the day and that really blew me away.
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Sept 30, 2017 20:31:16 GMT
Slightly odd question for those who have seen:
Is there much swearing?
I'd like to take my Dad along to this, but he's fairly old school in that regard and I know it'll ruin it for him if there Is a lot of strong language.
Ta
|
|
492 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Sept 29, 2017 11:25:39 GMT
Sounds interesting but I'm still thinking lots of plays about maleness, male environments (Lehman bros, kings, gay Soho, a prison unit), by men, directed by men. The one production that looks like featuring lots of women - written by a man - portrays them as loathsome predators to be destroyed. It is disappointing in that regard. And that reminds me, when are they going to announce the new Annie Baker??!!
|
|