The Fantastic Follies of Mrs Rich - RSC

There are so many characters that it took quite a time to get them all sorted out and I was thinking during the first half I can understand why this play hasn't been revived before. However it picked up in the second half when I knew who was who and became funnier. The costumes are period Restoration and the place where the action takes place is put on the scenery. Sophie Stanton as Mrs Rich is very good and sings most of the songs, which are a replacement for her talking to the audience. The "proscenium" is lit by spot bulbs and there are old fashioned footlights all around the edge of the stage giving a very theatrical look. After seeing The Duchess of Malfi and Macbeth at Stratford over the last couple of weeks it was a relief to see something so much lighter. I wouldn't recommend travelling a great distance to see it but certainly worth seeing if you're going for Macbeth or something else and you can fit it in.

Enjoyed this - a good bit of lightweight fun. Seems to be a fairly straight rendering of the play (with the exception of the songs as noted above). Felt a bit too pleased with itself with lots of (literal) winking at the audience.

Got a top price seat for £10 with the Friday Rush offer after ditching my Macbeth ticket in favour of the London run but having a hotel booked

Although it did end up being a bit more expensive due to my eye being caught by these very cool Larry and Vivien espresso cups 

www.rsc.org.uk/shop/item/96002-angus-mcbean-espresso-set---olivier--leigh/

You did the right thing as the RSC rush scheme doesn't make tickets available for every performance (or indeed every production - nothing for Macbeth for instance) so difficult to plan ahead.

RSC has responded to Quentin Letts' review:

www.rsc.org.uk/news/the-rsc-responds-to-the-daily-mails-review-of-the-fantastic-follies-of-mrs-rich?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SocialSignIn&utm_content=The+Fantastic+Follies+of+Mrs+Rich

He hasn’t made his point

In the most elegant of ways

But I do think

There is a honest dicussion to be had

That in society as a whole

We don’t offer the job or post or opportunity

To the best candidate in all areas

As some fields are too busy positively discriminating

I have noted

That at the RSC and NT

The diversity of the casts is very broad

And similarly the acting talent is also very broad

I am not saying there is a correlation

Not passing a comment in which actors are good and bad

But it appears to me

They aren’t always casting the best actor for the role

I am of Indian origin

Would I rather see a bad Indian actor than a white one who can do the role better

Just to tick the diversity box

NO THANKS


Acting and theatre has not been a priority for most members of the Asian community as a career

This might change slowly

But it will be very very slow

And you can’t force things where they don’t
Exist or there isn’t the demand

Also I don’t think increasing the diversity of casting necessarily increased audience diversity

More often than not it can compromise the quality of the show in many cases I have seen

All or predominately black casts have worked amazingly

Tina
Dreamgirls
Caroline or change
The updated Cat On a Hot Tin Roof
The Firm
Ma Rainey
Fences

Are a few examples of spectacular work

I think it works much better if the roles are actually written for actors of a particular ethnicity
As they will come across as more authentic

Sometimes a play is so robust

It can take all sorts of casting decisions

Hamlet being one example

But some plays are very of the period
And aren’t very good anyway

And I personally don’t think directors or casting should feel forced to be diverse for the sake of it

And there is a bias the other way round

For example
Why not a white caroline
Or white Effie
Or ma Rainey

Decisions have to be made for the right reason

And the RSC and NT often seem to go over the top

Perhaps I should write some plays
For actors of Indian Asian origin

As a starting point....

All pretty much a storm in a teacup.

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5584191/QUENTIN-LETTS-reviews-Fantastic-Follies-Mrs-Rich.html

Pretty mild - Along the lines of casting an actor because of the colour of their skin.

Should blow over in a couple of years time.

Letts crosses a line with this review. He mentions that two other actors are not very persuasive in their roles and leaves it at that, but suggests that Wringer is unconvincing because of his race - meaning that no other black actor is fit for the role either. Appalling to think that someone could write such racist rubbish in the twenty first century. I agree that there should be more roles written for actors of colour, but the suggestion that these actors should only play in such roles is to suggest a form of artistic apartheid. This is important because, although Theatre is a fairly elitist activity, it nevertheless represents and reflects the values of its society. Doran’s response is admirably restrained. The review gives the lie to the idea of a critic’s impartiality: Letts has compromised his credibility with regards to work created by black artists.

It's the assumption that white and male is the norm and anything other than that has to be scrutinised to account for its presence that's the prob. You see it in every sector; I've certainly worked with a hell of a lot of very average white men who have advanced effortlessly over much more talented and committed people who are not white men who have to work a lot harder to justify their right to be in the room.

And less this sounds like sour grapes, I am a very average white woman with absolutely no desire to work hard and get on so I don't count myself as a great talent thwarted by the patriarchy!

The RSC have made their position clear. To rescind press tickets would be wrong. A critic has to be free to write an unpopular review. Theatres have no right to say who can or can't write about their work.

Casting should not ALWAYS be colourblind or genderblind. It should, however, never be blind to talent.

Casting anyone in a role for which they are not properly fitted to play is always wrong.

And does he say 'again'? So who else is he thinking of? What about a list Mr Letts of black actors who shouldn’t have been given their roles.

I am sorry to make my first contribution here such a potential divisive one but I do have to speak out on this subject.

Race is always going to be an issue that provokes strong reactions and there is no doubt that Quentin Letts did not express himself in a way that is going to provoke a calm debate. But then, that is his schtick. He likes to provoke controversy.

However I think we can all think of examples where someone has been cast in a role for which they are fundamentally unsuited. Not because of their race or other defining characteristic but simply because they do not have the acting skills to carry it off. If that happens in a major production by a state-funded company, it is legitimate to ask how that casting decision came about.

Affirmative action or positive discrimination (or whatever term is being used these days) is only right where the candidate chosen for a given role (whether that is an acting role or a job in a non-theatrical context) is as qualified as the other candidates but the deciding factor over whether to appoint is because of a defining characteristic. Otherwise you risk appointing someone who may not be equipped to do the role. Yes, there are circumstances where you take a chance on someone slightly less able but who has the potential to flourish given the opportunity. But that should be the exception, not the norm.

I haven't seen this production and have never seen the actor in question in any other role. I have no idea whether he has the acting skills to carry it off. If he doesn't, that does not mean it is because of his racial heritage. It does not mean that he is necessarily a bad actor. But not everyone is suited for Restoration comedy, just as not everyone is suited for Shakespeare or Pinter or Sarah Kane. Everyone has different skill sets and some of those make you better qualified for certain genres than for others.

But in this era where not being as diverse as others believe you should be is seen as unforgivable, I can see how casting decisions might be made that don't, in the end, pay off as you would have expected or hoped.

I don't think there is anyone on this forum who would disagree that we want theatre in the UK to be as representative as possible of the different communities who make up our nations. But that does not mean every single show should demonstrate that diversity. Diversity for the sake of diversity is not necessarily a good thing in all circumstances. Talent and skill should be top of the list when it comes to criteria for any casting process.

I know people will disagree with my thinking on this - that is fine. But I felt I had to speak out to bring a different perspective to the discussion.

I shall now retreat back to lurking.

Spreading racism mearly to "provoke", or for entertainment purposes, surely makes the matter worse. Not only is he happy to cause distress, he's happy to do so for money, and for the purposes of his own amusement.

Exciting (how they can affect others) not excitable (how they are themselves).

That is an interesting semantic point, but actors who are genuinely exciting aren't the norm.