227 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 1, 2017 20:44:06 GMT
What I do disagree with is forcing theatres to have BAME representation in the front of house and backstage. If they don’t meet a certain quota they can be fined or lose funding. However, I'm not sure why it's surprising or disagreeable when it comes to public funding that those funds should go to events and places that work towards the type of society we want to become. But not everyone is likely to be interested in everything. Some arts events are likely to appeal only to people of a certain background. Why should *they* not get funding? And are there requirements, where funding goes, say, to a mela, that persons of all types must be attracted? I was at a (rather unexciting) exhibition of abstract art in Edinburgh. A rather apologetic official came up to us and asked would we fill out a form that they had to get visitors to complete as a condition of public funding. The form largely consisted of boxes to be ticked giving gender, race, disability (if any), etc. Most of the visitors I saw were white males. I am a white male. I rarely lie, but on this occasion I ticked the boxes that said I was a disabled black lesbian single mother. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 21:45:49 GMT
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Dec 1, 2017 21:55:24 GMT
Good grief. Did I fall asleep and wake up in 1937? No. It's racist because it depends on the thought: "Hey, there's these people of a certain race. Hey! Let's put it on and include no actors except people of THAT race. That shows just how anti-racist we are. Race--Oh, it never crosses our minds." Have you ever considered the issue from any perspective OTHER than as a member of the dominant majority? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 22:00:12 GMT
No. It's racist because it depends on the thought: "Hey, there's these people of a certain race. Hey! Let's put it on and include no actors except people of THAT race. That shows just how anti-racist we are. Race--Oh, it never crosses our minds." You are just making up utter rubbish! Are you Donald Trump? Just to return to truth for a moment, Talawa's Mission is in fact: "Talawa is the UK’s primary Black led touring theatre company. Our work is informed by the wealth and diversity of the Black British experience, and through that we create outstanding work by cultivating the best in emerging and established Black artists. We invest in talent, develop audiences and inspire dialogue with and within communities across the UK and internationally. By doing so, we enrich the cultural life of all." |
|
3 posts
|
Post by theatrebag on Dec 2, 2017 11:45:18 GMT
An all black cast?? I think this is a disgrace and PC blind colour casting gone too far. What about an all white cast of The Lion King? Madness... I'm sorry but it has to be said. All this furore and showbizkid hasn't even had a chance to explain exactly what he meant by his comments. Showbizkid you have the floor... |
|
227 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 2, 2017 12:15:33 GMT
No. It's racist because it depends on the thought: "Hey, there's these people of a certain race. Hey! Let's put it on and include no actors except people of THAT race. That shows just how anti-racist we are. Race--Oh, it never crosses our minds." Have you ever considered the issue from any perspective OTHER than as a member of the dominant majority? Yes, I have. |
|
227 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 2, 2017 12:17:05 GMT
No. It's racist because it depends on the thought: "Hey, there's these people of a certain race. Hey! Let's put it on and include no actors except people of THAT race. That shows just how anti-racist we are. Race--Oh, it never crosses our minds." You are just making up utter rubbish! Are you Donald Trump? Just to return to truth for a moment, Talawa's Mission is in fact: "Talawa is the UK’s primary Black led touring theatre company. Our work is informed by the wealth and diversity of the Black British experience, and through that we create outstanding work by cultivating the best in emerging and established Black artists. We invest in talent, develop audiences and inspire dialogue with and within communities across the UK and internationally. By doing so, we enrich the cultural life of all." That may well be their mission. It doesn't mean it's not racist. |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Dec 2, 2017 13:55:49 GMT
However, I'm not sure why it's surprising or disagreeable when it comes to public funding that those funds should go to events and places that work towards the type of society we want to become. But not everyone is likely to be interested in everything. Some arts events are likely to appeal only to people of a certain background. Why should *they* not get funding? And are there requirements, where funding goes, say, to a mela, that persons of all types must be attracted? I was at a (rather unexciting) exhibition of abstract art in Edinburgh. A rather apologetic official came up to us and asked would we fill out a form that they had to get visitors to complete as a condition of public funding. The form largely consisted of boxes to be ticked giving gender, race, disability (if any), etc. Most of the visitors I saw were white males. I am a white male. I rarely lie, but on this occasion I ticked the boxes that said I was a disabled black lesbian single mother. 1. "Some events are likely to appeal only to..." You're thinking about your interests and the arts as a one-way street, e.g. "I like theatre so I go to the theatre" but it's really not that simple. The stuff that we like isn't intrisically built into us. Our tastes are partly a reflection of what we're exposed to, what we feel is accessible to us, and what we believe we can be a part of. Using public funds to encourage people who might not traditionally go to the opera or the ballet or whatever to go along is part of what will (over time) encourage people to break down the old cliches about how certain artforms are only for certain people. 2. "Why should *they* not get funding?" No one has suggested that funding should *only* go towards stuff that appeals to everyone. You only need to look at where the money goes to see that that's not the case. At the end of the day though, if you have more people applying than you have money, then you need to decide between the somehow. And since it's public funds, then it makes sense that the money is given out in a way that somehow represents the public and the aims for society. I know that the guidelines vary between funding bodies (and within them, between different funding streams), but for what it's worth, in the small number I've applied to I've never seen quotas about diversity. 3. I am a white male ... I ticked the boxes that said I was a disabled black lesbian single mother. I don't know if you're being literal here. But in any case this childish act of rebellion kinda suggests that you're missing the entire point here. I guess we just have very different ways of looking at this. |
|
227 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 2, 2017 15:16:04 GMT
But not everyone is likely to be interested in everything. Some arts events are likely to appeal only to people of a certain background. Why should *they* not get funding? And are there requirements, where funding goes, say, to a mela, that persons of all types must be attracted? I was at a (rather unexciting) exhibition of abstract art in Edinburgh. A rather apologetic official came up to us and asked would we fill out a form that they had to get visitors to complete as a condition of public funding. The form largely consisted of boxes to be ticked giving gender, race, disability (if any), etc. Most of the visitors I saw were white males. I am a white male. I rarely lie, but on this occasion I ticked the boxes that said I was a disabled black lesbian single mother. 1. "Some events are likely to appeal only to..." You're thinking about your interests and the arts as a one-way street, e.g. "I like theatre so I go to the theatre" but it's really not that simple. The stuff that we like isn't intrisically built into us. Our tastes are partly a reflection of what we're exposed to, what we feel is accessible to us, and what we believe we can be a part of. Using public funds to encourage people who might not traditionally go to the opera or the ballet or whatever to go along is part of what will (over time) encourage people to break down the old cliches about how certain artforms are only for certain people. 2. "Why should *they* not get funding?" No one has suggested that funding should *only* go towards stuff that appeals to everyone. You only need to look at where the money goes to see that that's not the case. At the end of the day though, if you have more people applying than you have money, then you need to decide between the somehow. And since it's public funds, then it makes sense that the money is given out in a way that somehow represents the public and the aims for society. I know that the guidelines vary between funding bodies (and within them, between different funding streams), but for what it's worth, in the small number I've applied to I've never seen quotas about diversity. 3. I am a white male ... I ticked the boxes that said I was a disabled black lesbian single mother. I don't know if you're being literal here. But in any case this childish act of rebellion kinda suggests that you're missing the entire point here. I guess we just have very different ways of looking at this. "You're thinking about your interests and the arts as a one-way street, e.g. "I like theatre so I go to the theatre" " No, I'm not. "Using public funds to encourage people who might not traditionally go to the opera or the ballet or whatever to go along is part of what will (over time) encourage people to break down the old cliches about how certain artforms are only for certain people." By all means, use public funds to *encourage*. Give out free opera tickets at black community centres or to people in the queue at the DWP. The trouble is that the sort of survey I referred to may well pave the way for, "No funds for you because you aren't attracting enough people of types B, C and D." "And since it's public funds, then it makes sense that the money is given out in a way that somehow represents the public and the aims for society." Giving out funds in a way that "represents the public" doesn't mean giving out funds only to events that attract people across every sector of society. And if the "aims of society" include that, then it shouldn't be in the "aims of society". "But in any case this childish act of rebellion kinda suggests that you're missing the entire point here. " It wasn't childish in the slightest. It was a principled act of doing my bit to circumvent any possibility that the organisers of the event in question would be denied future funding because they hadn't attracted enough people of types B, C, D and E. So I wasn't missing the point, let alone "the entire point". |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Dec 2, 2017 16:18:40 GMT
edit: I had a longer post responding to your points, but I suspect this is one of those internet discussions that has no end; I think you're wrong, and you think I am and I doubt we'll reach a middle ground. So I've deleted it.
|
|
32 posts
|
Post by amadeus on Dec 3, 2017 21:20:40 GMT
Does anyone know if the walk from the Exchange to Manchester Piccadilly station is doable in 15/20 mins?? I'm thinking I'm going to have to miss the last 10 minutes of the show to catch a 22:28 train.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Dec 3, 2017 21:42:29 GMT
Does anyone know if the walk from the Exchange to Manchester Piccadilly station is doable in 15/20 mins?? I'm thinking I'm going to have to miss the last 10 minutes of the show to catch a 22:28 train. Easily in my experience |
|
369 posts
|
Post by Jonnyboy on Dec 3, 2017 21:43:30 GMT
Does anyone know if the walk from the Exchange to Manchester Piccadilly station is doable in 15/20 mins?? I'm thinking I'm going to have to miss the last 10 minutes of the show to catch a 22:28 train. It’s doable in 15/20 but it’ll have to be a brisk walk!! |
|
32 posts
|
Post by amadeus on Dec 3, 2017 22:02:19 GMT
Does anyone know if the walk from the Exchange to Manchester Piccadilly station is doable in 15/20 mins?? I'm thinking I'm going to have to miss the last 10 minutes of the show to catch a 22:28 train. It’s doable in 15/20 but it’ll have to be a brisk walk!! Brisk walking to catch trains just happens to be one talent I am possessed with! |
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Dec 4, 2017 8:08:54 GMT
They’re doing 3 Sunday matinees in December.
|
|
5,158 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Dec 4, 2017 14:40:51 GMT
They’re doing 3 Sunday matinees in December. True, but two of those are Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, which all but rules out train travel afterwards. |
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Dec 4, 2017 16:14:37 GMT
Don’t know where you live but last train out of Manc to Sheffield (as an example) in New Year’s Eve is about 11pm.
That’s not to say I’d like to be on it!
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Dec 6, 2017 0:01:50 GMT
Just got home from seeing this evening's performance. It's a wonderful, fresh, thoroughly enjoyable take on the show, it has an absolutely terrific cast - and it isn't racist at all unless you have the IQ of biscotti.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Dec 6, 2017 7:18:13 GMT
Just got home from seeing this evening's performance. It's a wonderful, fresh, thoroughly enjoyable take on the show, it has an absolutely terrific cast - and it isn't racist at all unless you have the IQ of biscotti. Excellent. Though why did you have to mention biscotti, after all the overwraught fluttering about Madeleines at the Bridge Theatre! |
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Dec 6, 2017 7:49:57 GMT
Where is the show meant to be set now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2017 10:03:22 GMT
Harlem, in the Renaissance.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Dec 6, 2017 12:13:41 GMT
Thats the Harlem renaissance of the 1930s not Florence in the 16th century😆😆
|
|
409 posts
|
Post by maggiem on Dec 15, 2017 12:35:03 GMT
Saw this last night, and thought it was brilliant! I have booked for the matinee next Thursday. Great performances by all, colourful costumes, simple but effective staging, great band too. A very nice introduction to a musical I had never seen in full.
I'll be watching the film version over the Christmas period as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2017 13:11:46 GMT
The run has been extended until Sat 3 Feb.
|
|
3,349 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Dec 20, 2017 22:20:24 GMT
Saw this yesterday. Really good, packed full of energy and the score seemed "jazzed up" to me, which suits the material perfectly.
I saw the West End production and tour a year or two back and didn't take to it (even though I like the music). For this one, the jokes hit well and some excellent vocal performances, particularly from Ashley Zhangazha (Sky) and Lucy Vandi (Miss Adalaide).
Pretty full in the lower two levels. I think there were some seats at the back of the upper level, but I really wouldn't want to sit there. The view in the Stalls is pretty good from everywhere due to the tiered seating and the staging in the round.
A few people didn't return after the interval, which surprised me, but it is a long show and the religious subject matter could be considered controversial nowadays. One downside, I had a foot tapper near me and, due to the design of the stalls, the taps vibrate all the way down row. Thankfully, it was intermittent rather than every song.
Recommended anyway. I'd allow 20 minutes for a fast walk from Piccadilly Station, plus another 5 minutes to dodge around the Manchester crowds this time of year. Then 5 to 10 minutes in the station itself, depending which side of the station the platform is on. This finished about 10:20pm yesterday, including an additional call for donations at the end.
|
|
