4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 1, 2018 15:28:15 GMT
Where to start.
The Almeida is adopting the fad of having a clear focus on female writers, which is fair enough, if the play they present is quality, for me the pass mark on whether a play should be presented should only come down to one factor and that is one of merit, if this happens to be 95% female that fulfil this, so be it and I will be happy to see all 95%. So the new play presented has me a bit suspicious that it fulfils a tick box, rather than greatness.
So disappointing announcement, however I am looking forward to Machinal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 15:33:17 GMT
Ella Hickson is a writer who has worked at the Almeida before, Sophie Treadwell's play is relatively legendary, and Clare Barron's play is an award winner. It's slightly disturbing that you seem to have genuinely concluded they were all programmed purely because the writers are female rather than because they might actually be any good. Also, we've gone for DECADES without viewing all-male-writer seasons with suspicion, surely you can go for a mere seven months with an open heart and mind?
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Feb 1, 2018 16:09:35 GMT
Ella Hickson is a writer who has worked at the Almeida before, Sophie Treadwell's play is relatively legendary, and Clare Barron's play is an award winner. It's slightly disturbing that you seem to have genuinely concluded they were all programmed purely because the writers are female rather than because they might actually be any good. Also, we've gone for DECADES without viewing all-male-writer seasons with suspicion, surely you can go for a mere seven months with an open heart and mind? Yeah, especially as the Almeida has been ATROCIOUS in the past with regards to female writers
Assuming its just political correctness seems somewhat unfair
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 16:45:19 GMT
Sometimes people are so used to the status quo being massively slanted in their favour that any slight movement in a more equitable direction feels like it's going over the top in the other direction - so they assume ulterior motives for it.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Feb 1, 2018 17:44:42 GMT
Hahahaha! I love it when people find something to moan about when presented with what looks like a genuinely refreshing season, it's nice to know there's always consistency on TheatreBoard, and I do love a good laugh. Well its not refreshing for me im afraid. Still saves me some money i guess.
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Feb 1, 2018 19:06:13 GMT
Struggling to remember if anyone has called the programming of dead white males a fad...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 20:27:22 GMT
I remember Stephen Daldry and Ian MacNeil's NT production of Machinal with Fiona Shaw. The Almeida blurb is pretty spot on so, if that doesn't interest you, I suggest you don't go. I saw that production and had forgotten all about it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 20:36:06 GMT
An extract from one of those scripts suggests the writer has poor editorial skills. Given that the extract has been chosen to attract an audience I wonder what the rest of the play is like. And yes I am banging on about the need for dramaturgs again. Hope I am proven wrong because this is an interesting set of plays overall.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 1, 2018 20:54:20 GMT
Sometimes people are so used to the status quo being massively slanted in their favour that any slight movement in a more equitable direction feels like it's going over the top in the other direction - so they assume ulterior motives for it. As an audience member having a male director and a male playwright doesn’t slant anything massively in my favour, I could not care less, there is no benefit to me at all. Likewise I am not bothered if both are female. All I’m bothered about is if their work is good or not. I am truly gender neutral. A couple of these directors are not much good in my experience so I find nothing refreshing in the fact one is female and one is not white. Anyway, as all three directors and the AD are middle-class, privately educated, and Oxbridge educated (and have the same agent) they aren’t doing that much for the cause of diversity.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 1, 2018 21:19:00 GMT
As the press release says "it's a clear focus on female writers" and I also said I don't care if the playwrights are 95% female, as long as it is good, the pass mark should always be on quality, not sex, theatre is leaning that way at the moment, so what's controversial about saying that quality should be the governing factor, when staging a play?
Oh one moment I did also say I am looking forward to seeing Machinal, as it is one of the most famous plays written and published.
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Feb 1, 2018 23:13:15 GMT
As the press release says "it's a clear focus on female writers" and I also said I don't care if the playwrights are 95% female, as long as it is good, the pass mark should always be on quality, not sex, theatre is leaning that way at the moment, so what's controversial about saying that quality should be the governing factor, when staging a play? Oh one moment I did also say I am looking forward to seeing Machinal, as it is one of the most famous plays written and published. You referred to it as a 'fad' which is a negative and slightly sneery way of looking at it. Makes it sound like a temporary, insincere thing. Also, why do u think quality will suffer?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 0:09:28 GMT
An extract from one of those scripts suggests the writer has poor editorial skills. I am puzzled by this comment. How are you able to deduce this?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 0:38:22 GMT
An extract from one of those scripts suggests the writer has poor editorial skills. I am puzzled by this comment. How are you able to deduce this? Okay...my honest opinion is that the extract is not very well written. I didn’t want to be impolite.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 8:22:06 GMT
I am puzzled by this comment. How are you able to deduce this? Okay...my honest opinion is that the extract is not very well written. I didn’t want to be impolite. You can see the strength of the writing even from the very short extract of Machinal. The writer is either gifted or spent a lot of time honing each sentence. There is no evidence of this in the other extracts.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 8:22:18 GMT
I am puzzled by this comment. How are you able to deduce this? Okay...my honest opinion is that the extract is not very well written. I didn’t want to be impolite. You can see the strength of the writing even from the very short extract of Machinal. The writer is either gifted or spent a lot of time honing each sentence. There is no evidence of this in the other extracts.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Feb 2, 2018 8:27:32 GMT
As the press release says "it's a clear focus on female writers" and I also said I don't care if the playwrights are 95% female, as long as it is good, the pass mark should always be on quality, not sex, theatre is leaning that way at the moment, so what's controversial about saying that quality should be the governing factor, when staging a play? Oh one moment I did also say I am looking forward to seeing Machinal, as it is one of the most famous plays written and published. I guess what's controversial is you stated the new play they've programmed has you suspecting it's pandering to the gender gap and ticking a box, rather than it might legitimately be good, and that's why it's been programmed. A quick google would have unearthed some great reviews of it from when it was on at Playwright's Horizons. Did you suspect any pandering when Albion was shoehorned in to the previous season? Did that strike you as being programmed for some box ticking? Did you think it might not be any good because a man had written it? Do you now see why your choice of phrasing was a little careless?
|
|
2,529 posts
|
Post by n1david on Feb 2, 2018 9:46:47 GMT
I am puzzled by this comment. How are you able to deduce this? Okay...my honest opinion is that the extract is not very well written. I didn’t want to be impolite. Is this an extract from the finished play, or an early draft, or just something that was written to advertise what is currently a work in progress? Is it by any means certain that the text in the publicity blurb will actually be in the finished play?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 10:18:59 GMT
I don't care if the writer, the director or the complete production team are all women so long as there are some hotties in the casts.
And Matthew Needham of course.
#HottiesToo
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 12:09:48 GMT
Okay...my honest opinion is that the extract is not very well written. I didn’t want to be impolite. You can see the strength of the writing even from the very short extract of Machinal. The writer is either gifted or spent a lot of time honing each sentence. There is no evidence of this in the other extracts. Must be a real boon to be able to successfully judge whether a play/playwright is decent or not based on an isolated extract.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 13:32:51 GMT
Must be a real boon to be able to successfully judge whether a play/playwright is decent or not based on an isolated extract. Oh, I think judging someone on the smallest bit of information you have is the only way to do it quite frankly. When you start to know more about them it becomes much harder to do and I do so hate having to back down or eat my words.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 14:04:52 GMT
"I really hate this new fad of employing women, they should get back to serving in the bar of the theatre and nothing else. Or better yet stay home with some needlework"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 14:11:09 GMT
"I really hate this new fad of employing women, they should get back to serving in the bar of the theatre and nothing else. Or better yet stay home with some needlework" Oh I'm with you there. They'll be wanting to vote next. Wait. What??
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 2, 2018 14:40:10 GMT
"I really hate this new fad of employing women, they should get back to serving in the bar of the theatre and nothing else. Or better yet stay home with some needlework" You forgot to add *rolls eyes* like you normally do. I think “fad” is the wrong word but there is a new enthusiasm for positive discrimination in favour of women directors and writers, the NT are quite open about doing it to reach their 50/50 target. The RSC are running a season with all female directors, but bizarrely after proudly drawing attention to the fact then said it was purely a coincidence. I think it is clear the Almeida are positively discriminating too in this season. Of course as is the way of things the three ADs involved are all men.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 14:45:14 GMT
"I really hate this new fad of employing women, they should get back to serving in the bar of the theatre and nothing else. Or better yet stay home with some needlework" You forgot to add *rolls eyes* like you normally do. I think “fad” is the wrong word but there is a new enthusiasm for positive discrimination in favour of women directors and writers, the NT are quite open about doing it to reach their 50/50 target. The RSC are running a season with all female directors, but bizarrely after proudly drawing attention to the fact then said it was purely a coincidence. I think it is clear the Almeida are positively discriminating too in this season. Of course as is the way of things the three ADs involved are all men. Just for you *Rolls Eyes* How dare there be an enthusiasm for redressing the balance in terms of representation. It's almost as if theatre was trying to be...progressive. Signed, Dr-not-so-insecure-to-need-it-on-a-forum
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 2, 2018 14:53:20 GMT
You forgot to add *rolls eyes* like you normally do. I think “fad” is the wrong word but there is a new enthusiasm for positive discrimination in favour of women directors and writers, the NT are quite open about doing it to reach their 50/50 target. The RSC are running a season with all female directors, but bizarrely after proudly drawing attention to the fact then said it was purely a coincidence. I think it is clear the Almeida are positively discriminating too in this season. Of course as is the way of things the three ADs involved are all men. Just for you *Rolls Eyes* How dare there be an enthusiasm for redressing the balance in terms of representation. It's almost as if theatre was trying to be...progressive. Signed, Dr-not-so-insecure-to-need-it-on-a-forum Positive discrimination may be progressive but it is of course illegal in the UK. That is why it is odd the NT were quite so open about recruiting to fill a specific gender balance.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 14:58:41 GMT
Just for you *Rolls Eyes* How dare there be an enthusiasm for redressing the balance in terms of representation. It's almost as if theatre was trying to be...progressive. Signed, Dr-not-so-insecure-to-need-it-on-a-forum Positive discrimination may be progressive but it is of course illegal in the UK. That is why it is odd the NT were quite so open about recruiting to fill a specific gender balance. Yes but positive action isn't illegal. And in a creative environment there it has been (all too) easy to dodge any kind of recruitment legislation because'best for the job' is even more subjective and difficult to prove than in any other industries. 'Best writer for the job' is simply on the say so of the AD. And so it's worked both ways- with men dominating until now. Other than showing off the fact you know how to google, you're also making no point whatsoever other than you don't support the idea of moves towards gender parity in the arts or indeed probably any workplace.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 15:21:59 GMT
I don't think choosing female writing is "positive discrimination," just "exploring fully theatrical options." Or, more to the point, seeking exciting new work in directions maybe not looked at before. Indeed or just maybe "Hey lads we read this play and it's quite good shall we put it on?"
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Feb 2, 2018 15:53:35 GMT
I understand, and agree with, the idea that scripts should be selected entirely based on quality. I know this is brought up regularly, by those unhappy with apparent trends like the recent season. However, does anyone think that this has ever truly been the case; that the arts haven't always been partly driven by the subjective aims & tastes of curators & creators?
Furthermore, given how subjective a script's 'quality' is, and how collaborative theatre tends to be, does anyone think this is even possible? Artwork is never judged objectively within a vacuum, so why is it surprising (or negative) that the arts would try to respond to important & contemporary issues?
I have no idea whether or not the intention was always to have more female writers. Simple probabilities would suggest that, if it were 'fair' every so often you'd get an entirely female line-up; a lack of variation every once in a while doesn't necessarily prove that this was intentional. However, even if it were, it's hardly surprising or unfair that curators would look to respond to, and correct, long-standing inequalities in the artform.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 2, 2018 16:59:09 GMT
If the job of AD came up tomorrow for the National Theatre, my 5 choices would be Stephen Daltry, Marianne Elliott, Vicky Featherstone, Josie Rouke and finally Rupert Gould, there you have it 2/3 women and appointed on one competency only and that is ability alone,
When the National Theatre says it wants half their work represented by women and the Almedia shift their focus to a season by women writers, then you begin to wonder if the work is judged by merit alone. it is nothing to do with women stuck in the kitchen, whilst the man goes out to work, it is solely on quality. I have seen some brilliant plays by women.
Albion was alright, but a lot better than Mosquitos, which went a bit mad or Future Conditional which was a disaster. However I thought Nina Raine's Consent was very good, despite the grave subject, that perhaps a male author could never do.
Laura Wade's Posh, Lucy Preeble's Enron and Lucy Kirkwood's Chiamerica were among my favourite plays ever. Sara Kane was (sadly) a ingenious, except however no one knew it at the time. I am dying to see Lucy Kirwood's The Effect and Nina Raine's Tribe's and waiting for them to be revived.
I repeat again that I am looking forward to Machinal and I don't care if 95% of plays are by women, if they pass on quality alone.
Oh Shelagh Delaney's A Taste of Honey is outright superb and a play that spoke for its time, a play and a playwright that challenged a very 1950's conservative thinking nation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 17:04:12 GMT
The point though, which seems to be passing not just Phantom (so I don't want to single you out here) and many other males on the board (and beyond) by is that women haven't been presented with the same opportunities to demonstrate their merit. Institutionalized sexism and misogyny means that women are decades behind their male counterparts. Women of colour even further so.
And it takes radical shifts in thinking to get women on a par with men in terms of representation. Only when it becomes the norm to see as many plays by women as men, will we genuinely be selected on merit alone.
In terms of submissions to a theatre, I'm all in favour of anonymous submission to competitions etc which means all are read with as little bias as possible. But once you get to Almeida level writing the names will be known. So I'm afraid that action to consciously programme more women (and POC while we're at it) IS the only way to address this imbalance
|
|