3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Nov 7, 2021 19:34:23 GMT
Because Jewish people have been stereotyped as mean, avaricious, money-obsessed, etc and these were believed by many to be actual racial characteristics. So choosing a Jewish name for a money-grabbing character is offensive because it fits those incorrect and offensive historical stereotypes. Perhaps also because the RC is seen as left wing, they should be extra careful about the portrayal of Jewish characters, at a time when the left is still embroiled in accusations of anti-Semitism. I guess I don't see enough serious plays, because the only dramatic character that I can think of who fits that stereotype is Shylock. More in books, admittedly. I suppose it would depend on what the Royal Court think are the majority opinions of their core audience. I wonder if it would be considered acceptable to have a character who is villainous in some way unconnected to money - say a murderer in a crime passionel - have a Jewish name.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 7, 2021 19:40:57 GMT
It's notable too that in a character trailer, where the character is seen making an advert for his company, the name on the clapperboard (seen at the start of each abortive take) is 'Debbie Aarons'. Was this another fictional name to open up his universe; if so was it just for the trailer, or another character in the play itself? If a fictional choice, it extends the references to Jewish identity they attached to the central character. It's still on the Royal Court website. It is, and it's dated 3/2020 so it must part of the same fictional world. Two 'accidentally' Jewish-named characters working on the same 'side' in the play?
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 7, 2021 20:26:56 GMT
It's a character with a name that is heavily implied to be Jewish who is portrayed as an immoral money grabber. What aren't you getting about this? I'm not getting why a villainous character can't be Jewish? You've completely lost me. I'm baffled as to how you can miss the point by so much. Honestly just re read what everyone is saying here, it's not particularly difficult to follow.
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Nov 7, 2021 20:45:52 GMT
I'm not getting why a villainous character can't be Jewish? You've completely lost me. I'm baffled as to how you can miss the point by so much. Honestly just re read what everyone is saying here, it's not particularly difficult to follow. cavocado has kindly explained. Maybe it's because I'm autistic, I don't always understand things in the way normal people do & sometimes need to ask what others think are obvious questions.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Nov 7, 2021 21:17:17 GMT
I can explain.
It’s nothing to do with having a villainous character who is Jewish. It’s having a Jewish character whose specific “villainous qualities” are well-known antisemitic tropes that have been used in racist propaganda for centuries.
If someone created a villain who was a serial killer who went around butchering people with a chainsaw, and that character happened to be Jewish, that wouldn’t necessarily be antisemitic since there’s no history of Jewish people being associated with chainsaws.
If you don’t mind a quick history lesson: during the Middle Ages Jewish people were banned from many jobs and guilds and were forced to become money lenders, which was considered dirty/bad and not something decent Christian people were allowed to do. The entire reason that the association between Jews and finance exists in the first place is because Christian Western societies quite literally forced Jews to do so.
The authorities and the Church (remember this is when the Church had huge power) then demonised and violently oppressed Jewish people for doing the very thing they themselves had forced them to do.
The historical association of Jews and finance was then weaponised to incite Jew hate, and this association has been a mainstay of antisemitic propaganda ever since. Over time this association grew and grew, and developed into conspiracy theories, about Jews secretly controlling the world (as well as racist tropes about Jews being greedy, Jews being Demonic, Jews not caring about anything but money).
This antisemetic propaganda has been directly responsible for centuries of murder and oppression, including forced exiles and genocides.
For example, one of the main reasons WWII/the Holocaust happened was because the Treaty of Versailles (the Treaty that formally ended WWI) enforced such incredibly harsh penalties on Germany - Germany was ordered to pay Reparations to a cost that would be £284 BILLION in today’s money - that the country went broke and plunged the German people into severe poverty and starvation.
Now the number one rule of government is always find someone else to blame and scapegoat for your failures, and always find someone weaker to blame. Of course the German government were not going to hold their hands up and say “hey we screwed up, we went to war and lost and this is our punishment.” Instead the German government launched a deliberate plan to convince the German people that their country’s financial situation was the fault of the Jews, who were secretly hoarding money.
It’s the exact same thing the Tory government and Tory press do when they try to pretend the country’s financial problems are due to disabled people claiming benefits (disability benefit fraud is something like 1% and the amount the government pay out in disability benefits is negligible) to detract attention from the fact the UK would have a lot more money if the government made corporations pay tax, and cracked down on corruption! But it’s easier to lie to people that the reason they had to wait ten hours in an understaffed A&E is because Jim from next door who has MS used his benefits money to buy a TV.
The Holocaust simply would not have happened if the German government hadn’t used Jews as a scapegoat, and the reason they were able to do so is because of literally centuries of antisemitic propaganda painting Jews as money hoarders. (There’s plenty of information out there if you want to research, start by looking at post-WWI era propaganda posters and magazines.)
This continues to this day. That’s without even going into the Elders of Zion, blood libel, Q-Anon.
That’s the reason this specific set of characteristics is antisemitic. Because it’s referencing a specific stereotype that was invented in order to scapegoat Jews, demonise Jews, incite racial hatred, and justify forced expulsion and genocide.
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Nov 7, 2021 21:32:33 GMT
It’s nothing to do with having a villainous character who is Jewish. It’s having a Jewish character whose specific “villainous quantities” are well-known antisemitic tropes that have been used in racist propaganda for centuries. If someone created a villain who was a serial killer who went around butchering people with a chainsaw, and that character happened to be Jewish, that wouldn’t necessarily be antisemitic since there’s no history of Jewish people being associated with chainsaws. Thank you for answering my question. It is good to see that the objection has a well-founded specific reason & is not like the blanket objections that sometimes seem to happen nowadays, when it can feel like villains can only be prosperous white men. That is what I thought might be the case when I first saw comments about the issue, as I don't know much about what the play is about.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 8, 2021 9:00:31 GMT
They've just had David Baddiel on talking about it on Radio 4's Today programme.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 8, 2021 17:29:36 GMT
The Royal Court got this wrong by not spotting this months ago. They got it wrong in the way they have handled it since the criticism started pouring in.
This is a resignation matter for senior management. Someone needs to accept responsibility and do the honorable thing. This is not about demanding a sacrifice to the mob. This is about a serious mismanagement across an entire organisation that likes to pride itself on being ideologically perfect.
|
|
4,579 posts
|
Post by Mark on Nov 8, 2021 18:11:11 GMT
Curious - what has the name been changed to? (Sorrry if I missed it).
|
|
907 posts
|
Post by max on Nov 8, 2021 18:32:43 GMT
Curious - what has the name been changed to? (Sorrry if I missed it). Herschel Fink has become Henry Finn. As someone said on Twitter, it's a strange mirroring of the kind of adaptation Jewish people used to do (some may still) to 'pass' as a gentile.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 9, 2021 10:15:45 GMT
Succession spoiler alert: a strand in yesterday's episode was partly built around this theme. A character is mentioned called Josh Aaronson, and the Waystar people start dropping anti-semitic tropes and phrases into the conversation. The programme writers assume their audience are sensitive enough to pick up on this, and if they don't, towards the end, it's called out.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 9, 2021 10:21:05 GMT
The Royal Court got this wrong by not spotting this months ago. They got it wrong in the way they have handled it since the criticism started pouring in. This is a resignation matter for senior management. Someone needs to accept responsibility and do the honorable thing. This is not about demanding a sacrifice to the mob. This is about a serious mismanagement across an entire organisation that likes to pride itself on being ideologically perfect. I imagine that left to their own devices no-one will resign and based on recent history probably a few of them still don't think there's anything wrong. ACE should step in. Their explanation that it was due to "unconscious bias" is interesting as it basically admits the charge with "bias" being something of a euphemism.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 16, 2021 0:07:32 GMT
I went tonight. It’s a lot of fun, tongue-in-cheek, smart, insightful, thought-provoking and more. I came away thinking of it as a season of Succession-like shenanigans crammed into three hours.
* Succession = HBO tv show, now 3 series.
Contemporary issues and cultures are thrown up and twisted around without a pulpit being wheeled out. Multiple levels, lots of ideas and perspectives. Taking one to illustrate: Elon Musk (pretty literally) vs. the NHS as a clash of ideologies, ethics, solutions/outcomes, and also challenging their evangelical dimensions, played out on an Ecuadorian salt flat littered with colonial detritus.
Name checks from Jobs and Gates to Thunberg and Trump help suggest the space we're in.
I’m not sure this can be trimmed much (or that they'd want to!). Atm it’s 7.30 to 10.38 (with a 15-minute break). Much to dwell on. In a good way, it’s a bit epic.
|
|
2,349 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Nov 18, 2021 23:33:51 GMT
|
|
82 posts
|
Post by G on Nov 24, 2021 0:50:26 GMT
I went tonight. It’s a lot of fun, tongue-in-cheek, smart, insightful, thought-provoking and more. I came away thinking of it as a season of Succession-like shenanigans crammed into three hours.
* Succession = HBO tv show, now 3 series.
Contemporary issues and cultures are thrown up and twisted around without a pulpit being wheeled out. Multiple levels, lots of ideas and perspectives. Taking one to illustrate: Elon Musk (pretty literally) vs. the NHS as a clash of ideologies, ethics, solutions/outcomes, and also challenging their evangelical dimensions, played out on an Ecuadorian salt flat littered with colonial detritus.
Name checks from Jobs and Gates to Thunberg and Trump help suggest the space we're in.
I’m not sure this can be trimmed much (or that they'd want to!). Atm it’s 7.30 to 10.38 (with a 15-minute break). Much to dwell on. In a good way, it’s a bit epic. (The antisemitism trope situation is appalling, as the fact that it was not spotted a mile away and the poor manner it was dealt with). Just saw this earlier and it was a hoot. Epic is a good way to put it. Very funny (the choreography! the translations!), long but doesn't drag. The post above mentions HBO - if this was turned into a TV series I would probably watch it, and there should be plenty of material for a couple of seasons at least.
|
|
|
Post by Forrest on Nov 24, 2021 7:56:05 GMT
I really disliked this: I left the theatre wondering why on earth the Court would want to stage it.
The characters were all caricatures, the portrayal of the Bolivians was very much "from a higher/Western ground" and felt really problematic, the plot was nonsensical and unconvincing, the staging was chaotic (but not in a good way)...
The only good thing in it, for me, was Arthur Darvill, who was brilliant. (But just to make it clear - the cast were not at all to blame for me disliking this, they all did a good job with what they were given to work with.)
This is one of those things I am pretty eager to forget, the first time this has happened to me with the Court.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 24, 2021 10:04:23 GMT
It's paywalled, but there was an article on it in the Sunday Times and the article's writer posted on Twitter that the anti-semitic issue with the name was flagged up to the director Hamish Pirie but he didn't convey this to the writer. The writer of the article, Kate Maltby, also comments on Twitter that the Royal Court didn't release the information until after her article had gone to press, 'as they knew'. It's bad, especially coming from a venue that is so meticulously careful when it comes to other groups and issues (there was even talk of them confiscating plastic water bottles from audience members a couple of years ago!).
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 24, 2021 10:18:30 GMT
I've continued to ponder this. In a way it reminds me a little of Emma Rice's Bahgdad Café at the Old Vic, and I got no where near figuring that one either. Here I'm stiil musing parody or pastiche as well as straight. Can't come to a clear view and maybe that's fine - treat it as a pure entertainment and let it wash over.
The Elon Musk vs. NHS thing still nags at me, though. There be big ideas in there somewhere. A second look might not hurt and I do so love sinking into those Stalls seats ..
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 25, 2021 18:09:51 GMT
It's paywalled, but there was an article on it in the Sunday Times and the article's writer posted on Twitter that the anti-semitic issue with the name was flagged up to the director Hamish Pirie but he didn't convey this to the writer. The writer of the article, Kate Maltby, also comments on Twitter that the Royal Court didn't release the information until after her article had gone to press, 'as they knew'. It's bad, especially coming from a venue that is so meticulously careful when it comes to other groups and issues (there was even talk of them confiscating plastic water bottles from audience members a couple of years ago!). In all the years it is the only theatre where phones have gone off again and again with no notice taken by staff. It also had terrible toilets. The food and bar, poor. Yes, the seats are comfy, but the sight lines are poor, you are under a canopy at the back of the stalls. All in all, I can do without and now I know about this production, I do not need to bother to go there.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 25, 2021 22:11:17 GMT
I don't eat there so can't comment on the revamp. What I do know is the beer is very good and the cheapest in this part of town by a distance - you'd have to seek out the Weatherspoons at Victoria for better value.
|
|
3,088 posts
|
Post by david on Dec 2, 2021 23:18:58 GMT
Having been at today’s matinee, after watching the 3hr show, this one definitely left me pondering at what the overall message playwright Al Smith was trying to convey (a health vs wealth debate?). I bought the programme/play text so I’m hoping a read of it will help. Certainly the run time for me was too long for this play and with only one interval made it a struggle to stay focused on proceedings. Also, were the little dance segments between scenes really necessary? I’m not sure what the point if them was, On a positive I thought Arthur Darvill was great here and the projection at the end was terrific. Having booked for “The Glow” in Feb, I’m hoping this one will be a better watch.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Dec 5, 2021 6:34:51 GMT
While there is a lot wrong with the play, I found myself engaged by it throughout the 3 hour + running time. The good: Arthur Darvill's engaging performance, and a lot of Mr Smith's twisting plotting throughout. Quite often his dialogue is funny, smart, and incisive. The second to the last scene between Mr Darvill and Ms O'Reilly was terrific. The other cast members were all good. The bad: Hamish Pirie's "look at me" direction and Moi Tran's misguided overly cumbersome set design. What's with the Enron dance interludes? Or the cumbersome and ineffective set changes? It's an ugly show at which to look and the overall effect was that it was simply trying too hard. The matinee was sparsely attended and there were a number of walkouts. Ultimately I think there are enough plots/sub plots/ underlying themes and performance opportunities within it that we're going to see a 4 part Netflix series very very soon. I'm very glad I saw it and given their level of business , if I was offered a ticket to see it again, I'd probably go.
|
|
82 posts
|
Post by G on Dec 5, 2021 12:42:45 GMT
While there is a lot wrong with the play, I found myself engaged by it throughout the 3 hour + running time. The good: Arthur Darvill's engaging performance, and a lot of Mr Smith's twisting plotting throughout. Quite often his dialogue is funny, smart, and incisive. The second to the last scene between Mr Darvill and Ms O'Reilly was terrific. The other cast members were all good. The bad: Hamish Pirie's "look at me" direction and Moi Tran's misguided overly cumbersome set design. What's with the Enron dance interludes? Or the cumbersome and ineffective set changes? It's an ugly show at which to look and the overall effect was that it was simply trying too hard. The matinee was sparsely attended and there were a number of walkouts. Ultimately I think there are enough plots/sub plots/ underlying themes and performance opportunities within it that we're going to see a 4 part Netflix series very very soon. I'm very glad I saw it and given their level of business , if I was offered a ticket to see it again, I'd probably go. The dances were so much fun! For me some drove home plot points, {Spoiler - click to view}e.g. the two doctors sparred, or before Henry offered an 'endowment' to the professor (!) some felt disjointed from the play (or I just didn't get them) but I liked that as a device to switch between scenes and break up a long play. I think I am rooting for the TV series at this point...
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Dec 5, 2021 12:54:48 GMT
Netflix would surely get two seasons and 16 hours out of this, at least. In relation to Elon Musk, they'd have to steer pretty clear of defamation but it seems very doable on this showing ..
I almost wonder if that was part of the appeal of this to the Royal Court - I'm sure they have a piece of any onward development.
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Dec 5, 2021 17:00:05 GMT
I'm also going to say that I liked this quite a lot. It wasn't really like anything I've seen before at the theatre, and I reckon it would be pretty hard to describe it in a way that makes it sound compelling or worthwhile. All I know is that for me personally it was laugh out loud funny, engaging and interesting, despite pretty obvious flaws in the writing characterisations, as well as some awkward direction at times. Quite liked the dancing though. But it was political without being preachy, dialectical without being dull, and relevant without being forced. At the same time I got Armando Iannucci/Chris Morris-esque razor satire vibes at times. A strange blend for sure. I thought that even with the lack of subtlety the characters were compelling, with the tropes being mostly surface level. Glad they didn't go too "mystical" with the Bolivian characters for sure. Overall I think this is the kind of thing I want to see at the Royal Court - something that strives for originality even if it doesn't absolutely pull it off. No need for an interval, there never is - just bang right through it, rattle it out, keep the pace up The audience was sparse but at least appreciative, with no walk outs that I could see and a few standing ovations. ) I do wish people wouldn't use the scene changes and musical scenes to have inane loud conversations though. Annoying as f***.
|
|
1,363 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Dec 7, 2021 9:03:34 GMT
We went last night. Stalls had a reasonable number of people, balcony appeared pretty empty... and that was on a Royal Court Monday. I enjoyed it, it is helped considerably by the performances and the at times very snappy dialogue. It doesn't feel it's length, I wasn't sitting waiting for it to end or drifting, It kept my engagement from the start. I do feel like it could have been trimmed even more or indeed as others have mentioned above more set for a longer Netflix series. I think dlevi above really captures it well and I'd agree entirely with their post. I do wonder what it must be like for a cast to do a long show to houses with a clear number of empty seats. The cast didn't return to the stage, from our seats we could see as they left most turned back as if to come back on but others just walked straight to the wings and the lights came on. Anyways, glad I saw it. I have been to the salt flats and been to the train as one of those 'unengaged tourists' so the poster had caught my interest from the original pre-covid schedule
|
|
907 posts
|
Post by max on Dec 9, 2021 10:42:07 GMT
Plenty of good and engaging ideas in this. It was the interface of writing and staging that let it down very badly. It is possible to have physical action while dialogue happens, lol. Made it feel like an early draft, before a script editor or director might say to the writer "So....in the office scenes, and in the lab, what are they actually DOING that we can interlace, so it doesn't just look like a backdrop to lots of talking".
Sometimes a frame dropped in, and it was just horrible stagecraft to see some cast leave a scene into the wings, and others awkwardly step over the frame. If that step signified someone dissenting, or quitting, it would carry some meaning - I couldn't see any scheme to it. The little dance sequences in between scenes signified nothing to me, other than an attempt to sprinkle some 'this show's quirky' gloss. Shows a lack of faith in the writing, as I didn't find it that quirky - I was expecting it to be satirically cartoon / lampoonish, but that's not the overall tone - which is more sardonic/world weary, but fundamentally naturalistic/realistic. That's just fine.
Which is why it felt out of kilter when a story strand about doctoring research has the story jump the shark. At this point the acting style shifted extremely - and I didn't feel it was just the characters being aware of their ridiculousness, but the cast not believing it and demonstrating the ridiculousness of what they had to do. It's the kind of thing a happy cast might go with, and believe that a style shift has integrity as it indicates a paradigm shift in the story - the characters' machinations so crazy it's right that it all slips into a more cartoonish mode. How would I know, but I think this was a struggle for the cast. It was the Monday cheap night, so stalls full, yet they looked miserable as sin at the curtain call.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 9, 2021 18:12:09 GMT
Just to say there is a story in media about donors withdrawing from TRC.
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Dec 11, 2021 21:27:16 GMT
I tried to forget about the controversy while I was watching this, though I still can't imagine how a group of (presumably) intelligent, well-informed people didn't realise Herschel Fink was a Jewish name. But I liked a lot about it. It's the kind of play I associate with the Royal Court - throws a lot of issues and questions at the audience, not always coherent, but plenty to think about, over-reaches itself a bit, but I like that they encourage writers to be ambitious, even if they end up with something that doesn't quite work. I want to go home having had my perceptions challenged and maybe changed a bit, and it achieved that.
I found it very funny, there were some good performances. I think everyone was a bit a a caracature, I'm not sure I believed any of them was sincere or genuine or fully realised, but maybe that was the point. I liked how it tried to link a lot of complex and worldwide issues. I think the NHS woman was the weakest part of the play. What kind of job involves devising new money-saving public health strategies for the UK govt but allows her to spend months moonlighting in Bolivia, providing at-home cancer care at her own expense?
I thought the dancing was ok, but it didn't really add anything. I quite liked the design and staging too, although some of the wheeled-about scenery seemed a bit superfluous.
So, it had some flaws, but was enjoyable, made me laugh and gave me a lot to think about - well worth the ticket price.
|
|
2,349 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 16, 2021 14:49:30 GMT
Closing early due to positive tests. Last performance today
|
|