All in a Row Southwark Playhouse

I’m seeing this on Saturday

I'd be interested in seeing this and reading more about it.

I work in a social care team with adults who are diagnosed with a learning disability and so I can see why the puppet option was chosen but ouch.

The character is described as severely autistic and non-verbal, as well as violent. As somebody who has worked with people across the spectrum I assure your suggestion is not a good idea unless you're talking about somebody with such a mild variant e.g. Asperger's that it is actually closer to the general population than the character described. In which case, what's the point?

Also, who is to say using the puppet isn't an interesting and deliberate creative choice that might be a commentary in itself? Is it dehumanising or is it a statement on dehumanisation? This kind of mindless outrage can kill creative vision, I hope the director doesn't end up backing down.

I already booked to see this in a couple of weeks on the strength of liking Oates' previous play "Silk Road."

I don't agree that it's necessarily dehumanising for a human being to be depicted by a puppet, any more than it is for a human being to be depicted by a photograph, or a drawing, or by words, or by any other medium that isn't an actual human being.

We all know that theatre is an act of the imagination, and the way the puppet is used will impress on our imaginations an effect, and only then can we judge whether that effect is "dehumanising," or indeed, perhaps, paradoxically, humanising.

As far as I can tell, the play opens in two days, and nobody criticising it, including a very nasty piece in the Guardian ( www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/12/casting-puppet-as-autistic-child-step-backwards-new-play-row-other-actors-played-by-humans ) has actually seen it.

I wonder if Simon Lipkin will be operating the puppet? The times I have seen Lipkin operate puppets, he has always acted the part himself, so that you can see the puppet, but you can also see his face. If this were the case, then it would not be entirely true that a puppet was playing the boy, but that BOTH Simon Lipkin AND a puppet would be playing the boy, which would mean that a human conduit would in fact be on stage channeling human emotions.

Whether it was "The Lorax" or Barlow in "I Can't Sing," (less so "Avenue Q"), I was very much aware, in Lipkin, that I watching a warm-blooded human being being very human and warm-blooded, more human and relatable even than the other human actors around him. The fact he was operating a puppet didn't detract from his humanity.

This would be very different from "War Horse," where the puppeteering is invisible and without anthropomorphic characterisation. Still, even in "War Horse," when I saw it, many people related to those puppets more warmly than if they were flesh and blood horses. So even there, you had to see the thing to judge the thing. (And no, I am not saying we can be as cavalier at depicting people as we can with horses, I am just saying that puppetry can be a medium through which emotions and warmth and connection can be conveyed through artistic skill and imagination, and we need to appreciate that skill adn imagination before we judge it).

I would book this right now, despite the controversy, because as far as I can tell, nobody who is judging the play has seen it. And the track record of the people making the show is good.

I've just seen this and, having started the thread, probably ought to venture an opinion. First the puppet. There is an adult operator, and he holds the puppet which is a waist-up figure, so a hoody, head and arms. He has one hand in the back of the head and the other operates the hands. He also vocalises. Had I gone in cold, I'm sure I would have seen the puppet as symbolising the innocent child in the midst of the storm of adult feelings. As it was, I was slightly on edge about the whole thing and this probably affected my perception. The play also gets very intense, to the extent that people were crying around me. There is humour, some of it admittedly uncomfortable, and the cast certainly give their all. I didn't fully buy the way the parents were set up against each other, though the contrasting interactions between the child and the carer are very touching.The overall message seems to be sadness that no choice can be fully right but I know that those watching through a lens of more experience will have stronger views .

I saw the play this afternoon and here are my thoughts:

Firstly, I found it to be a very engaging play. It's only 80 minutes long, and it zips through quite quickly with only a couple of moments which aren't really needed (a bit with the mum and the carer comes to mind). There are a couple of very high intensity moments which I could see being quite uncomfortable for some. It's hard hitting stuff.

There is no way Laurence could have been played by an autistic child, and even for a non-autistic child I feel it would be far too intense. So I think the puppet it actually a great idea, Hugh Purves operated the puppet but it is so much more than that, and he vocalises and brings a human element to Laurence. This may sound like a bizarre comparison but think Avenue Q. The actors very much used their own expressions alongside the puppet.

It's definitely a one worth seeing, just unfortunate that #puppetgate has been blown out of proportion by some unable to see the value of it as a theatrical device. Then again it has probably brought the attention of the play into the wider public view, so hopefully more people will get to see it!

I've just read this very thoughtful blog post on the subject, thought it could be of interest here: www.touretteshero.com/2019/02/17/whos-in-the-rows/

Seeing this tonight and judging by the seating plan online less than 50 tickets have been sold, will be interesting to see what (if any) reaction tonight’s performance gets. I’ve only ever seen to close to or sold out performances at the Southwark Playhouse before.