2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2017 13:18:13 GMT
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). Cardinal, I honestly think that you have misinterpreted the meaning of "staging" in the context of the statement. It has nothing to do with the production vs. text etc (after all it was directed by a female). In the context of the statement "staging" simply means the appearance of the play on the stage of the Royal Court, so the statement absolutely refers to the play's content. They should have had the courage to present Dunbar's work and to find a way to separate it from MS-C's misdemeanours. And for those who think that this is just a simple matter I beg to differ. There are so few plays by women presented on the British stages these days (although I must say that the RC is one of the theatre's that has upheld the tradition established by none other than MS-C of gender parity) that to cancel a work is a serious matter.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!
|
|
486 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.
|
|
486 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.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2017 13:28:36 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. One play by one writer in one theatre.
|
|
486 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.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2017 13:41:14 GMT
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. 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.
|
|
486 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.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2017 13:55:11 GMT
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, 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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:57:45 GMT
It’s a shame
They can’t run somewhere else
In London
Park or hampstead etc
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Dec 14, 2017 13:59:02 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.
|
|
486 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.
|
|
486 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
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 14:05:59 GMT
Shall we stage our own version
In London?
|
|
486 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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 15:18:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 15:18:44 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
|
|
1,860 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Dec 14, 2017 15:24:40 GMT
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). Cardinal, I honestly think that you have misinterpreted the meaning of "staging" in the context of the statement. It has nothing to do with the production vs. text etc (after all it was directed by a female). In the context of the statement "staging" simply means the appearance of the play on the stage of the Royal Court, so the statement absolutely refers to the play's content. They should have had the courage to present Dunbar's work and to find a way to separate it from MS-C's misdemeanours. And for those who think that this is just a simple matter I beg to differ. There are so few plays by women presented on the British stages these days (although I must say that the RC is one of the theatre's that has upheld the tradition established by none other than MS-C of gender parity) that to cancel a work is a serious matter.
You have hit the nail on the head here. MSC is not involved with the production anymore. Yet cast, crew, audiences and the legacy of Andrea suffer as a result. We have all lost out.
|
|
486 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.
|
|
486 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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 16:02:25 GMT
Agree with this or not, this is the result and how a lot of people will view it. A shame. Anyone up for a trip to Wales? It’s not that far from London Sod the RC The same theatre That presented and will present Tim fountain sex addict My mums a Tw*t This decision of theirs Almost smacks of the superstitious The more I think about it It’s so weird and bizarre Mock politically driven over sensitisation Making decisions on the behalf of the audience
|
|
1,903 posts
|
Post by sf on Dec 14, 2017 16:44:20 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. It opened in September, and some of us have seen it.
|
|
1,903 posts
|
Post by sf on Dec 14, 2017 16:52:24 GMT
You have hit the nail on the head here. MSC is not involved with the production anymore. Yet cast, crew, audiences and the legacy of Andrea suffer as a result. We have all lost out.
Max Stafford-Clark may have been forced out, but in Bolton, at least, he retained billing as co-director and co-script editor.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 17:00:37 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. It opened in September, and some of us have seen it. Interested to hear your thoughts.
|
|
1,903 posts
|
Post by sf on Dec 14, 2017 17:42:43 GMT
It opened in September, and some of us have seen it. Interested to hear your thoughts. Well, since I created this thread after I saw it, you could start by going back to the very first post.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 17:47:12 GMT
Interested to hear your thoughts. Well, since I created this thread after I saw it, you could start by going back to the very first post. Oh right, another poster like that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 18:14:16 GMT
There is something about this that leaves a nasty taste. Others have pointed out plays that complicate the debate and which were programmed during VF's "reign". I'll add another one: "The Nether". I believe this play, that imagines a virtual world where paedos are allowed to safely indulge their fantasies, even transferred to the West End. They might well say that they wouldn't programme such a play today and my question is "why not?" If indeed they wouldn't programme this play today it makes them complicit in what happened before the whole sexual harassment stuff came to light. If theatres are going to start censoring they'd better take a good look at themselves and their own culpability in the process.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2017 18:38:51 GMT
There is something about this that leaves a nasty taste. Others have pointed out plays that complicate the debate and which were programmed during VF's "reign". I'll add another one: "The Nether". I believe this play, that imagines a virtual world where paedos are allowed to safely indulge their fantasies, even transferred to the West End. They might well say that they wouldn't programme such a play today and my question is "why not?" If indeed they wouldn't programme this play today it makes them complicit in what happened before the whole sexual harassment stuff came to light. If theatres are going to start censoring they'd better take a good look at themselves and their own culpability in the process. If, if, if. Again, trying to make this into something wider. Why? What is going on here? Actually, I just read a vile article from Spiked articulating the same views as expressed here by Brendan O'Neill (who once wrote that Jimmy Saville's victims should just shut up and move on). former communist now libertarian (read, never got past being a student). You want a wider context then there you go, a number of men using Dunbar, in her absence, to complain about contemporary feminism and the #metoo movement. I'm not going to link to it and give it oxygen but when he went off to try and co-opt the working class and how we see sex as 'fun' compared to the uptight middle class and how Stafford Clark was the hero here, my computer screen barely survived intact.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 19:04:34 GMT
I'll probably regret wading in BUT...I think there's a hell of a lot of 'what if' happening right now. RC pulled this, which may or may not turn out to be for the best. If the whole remaining tour had been cancelled that is one thing, as it stands the piece is still being shared, therefore the playwright's voice is still out there and the hard work of the rest of the company (SC aside) is still being seen. In difficult and complex circumstances that's good enough I think.
It's also fair to acknowledge that Kate Wassarberg and the team at Out of Joint are dealing with a complex situation that's difficult to navigate- and is also steeped heavily in a theatrical past. They don't have a map for that so I take my hat off to a team who seem to be keeping their heads down and doing the best to work out what next. And if the RC have their reasons for pulling, and/or it's a joint decision then fair play. Given the timing, it's lucky this play got on it's feet at all.
These are new waters both at OOJ and everywhere, we hope and in a good way, it's not going to always be a smooth ride and I expect some 'art' will be 'sacrificed' along the way. But I'll take a handful of that for a greater good emerging somewhere down the line personally.
|
|
77 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by tributary on Dec 14, 2017 20:32:34 GMT
These are new waters both at OOJ and everywhere, we hope and in a good way, it's not going to always be a smooth ride and I expect some 'art' will be 'sacrificed' along the way. But I'll take a handful of that for a greater good emerging somewhere down the line personally. If only this sort of artistic censorship - and yes, that is precisely what this is - had ever led to a greater good emerging. It doesn’t. I agree with the people who find this decision both weak and worrying. I don’t think the RC mean badly, but it’s another sign of the times, where adherence to the party line counts more than the quality of the work on stage.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 21:22:29 GMT
Actually, I just read a vile article from Spiked articulating the same views as expressed here by Brendan O'Neill (who once wrote that Jimmy Saville's victims should just shut up and move on). former communist now libertarian (read, never got past being a student). You want a wider context then there you go, a number of men using Dunbar, in her absence, to complain about contemporary feminism and the #metoo movement.
I am finding this complex debate very engaging, but when someone links my comments to such vile ideas as those above then it becomes odiously personal. I am sure (I hope) that the poster did not mean what is suggested here: That I - and any other woman - who expresses dissent of any kind is colluding with predators, Saville apologists or anti feminists. My comments were levelled at an institution (all theatre institutions, actually) which should be able to answer difficult questions from its audience/public. I am not going to offer unquestioning support to any AD's - not even the female ones. Behind the scenes some people have questioned the sexual harassment prevalent in theatre for years, but nothing was done about it. Theatres should not be given a pat on the back for drawing up guidelines that other workplaces have had in place for over thirty years. For me, what is happening with this issue may indicate that a lot of theatre personnel are out of their depth. And my question about "The Nether" remains.
|
|