|
|
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.
|
|
4,975 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
|
|
4,975 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 2, 2018 17:16:38 GMT
My point was never about sexism or misogyny, I see the merits of anonymous play submissions, I also see the pitfalls which Emily has kindly pointed out. I could also live my life quite contently if I never saw David Hare's Red Barn. However the National's and Almeida making their artistic policy put forward in black and white has quite frankly left them open to suggestions.
It is quite true that women are underrepresented, but it is also true that quality is underrepresented. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 18:55:26 GMT
Glad you got the drift of what I was saying Phantom!
(I could live without...well David Hare’s work in general from now on as well)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 19:45:34 GMT
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. Actually, my post says that the extracts presented do not seem to have been crafted, not the whole play. I suppose it is the PR person's responsibility to publicise the play using text that gives you a flavour of the play. Often they don't choose the best piece of writing, but in my opinion (and it is all subjective, isn't it?) the extract from Machinal really does make me want to see the play. When a character describes her skin curling... I want to know more about the character who speaks this way. I do agree with N1 David that some of the other plays are still in development or at draft stage. In some ways I wish I hadn't posted to the thread because I want to support women writers and want to hear their stories. I also agree with Phantom that quality is underrepresented in theatre at the moment and it is almost as though younger/newer writers are not being encouraged to apply rigour to their work; directors won't do that important dramaturgical work with them because the less skilled the writers are the more the director can inhabit the role of auteur. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 13:55:15 GMT
The qualite of posts on theatre boards has also deteriorated. I blame the Brexit referendum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 14:17:39 GMT
The qualite of posts on theatre boards has also deteriorated. I blame the Brexit referendum. In some cases, the quality was very poor to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 17:32:40 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. Ryan, after your having seen Lady Windermere's Fan, I think that Oscar Wilde* is rubbing off on you. * his style that is, very Duchess of Berwick...... |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 3, 2018 18:07:03 GMT
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. Oh I didn’t need to Google to know about employment law. My comment related to NT admin and backstage staff, they have set a target for recruitment into those areas too. While positive action is allowed, recruiting to meet a specific gender percentage split comes under the heading of positive discrimination. Probably it is prohibited under the European Convention on Human Rights too so you’d better hope for a hard Brexit - you can’t pick and choose which bits you like and don’t like Just as an aside, I see recently Saint Jeremy’s beloved Momentum formed a shortlist for their regional chairs. Of the 17 names guess how many were women ? (Clue: it was less than one). |
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Feb 3, 2018 19:51:13 GMT
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. Ryan, after your having seen Lady Windermere's Fan, I think that Oscar Wilde* is rubbing off on you. * his style that is, very Duchess of Berwick...... Oh god! Dont encourage Ryan but mentioning "rubbing off"😉 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 10:38:07 GMT
Of the 56 plays I saw last year very few were by women - Nina Raine, Elinor Cooke (version of The Lady from the Sea) Tanika Gupta., the author of the play the Goats and Grimly Handsome (forgive me, I have forgotten their names) I didn’t notice for a while and when I did it seemed so strange. There were plays by women that I didn’t get to see but mostly women playwrights were conspicuous by their absence. It is also interesting to me that some of the female playwrights who are perceived as among the most gifted were either overlooked earlier in their careers (Caryl Churchill) or reviled (Sarah Kane). So, the argument about quality is quite a tricky one. I always think that Theatre should represent its society so programming should try to reflect diversity. We should also remember that there is always an agenda behind the planning of every season - an AD doesn’t simply produce every excellent play that they receive. I have heard from friends about successful plays that ADs passed on and which were produced elsewhere. I could name at least one play produced last year where this was the case. An almost all male season does not mean that the AD received no good plays from women writers
|
|
4,975 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 4, 2018 21:29:03 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 Mused over this today and perhaps my original post may have been a bit strong and came across wrong, so my point wasn’t really well made then. The most important play a budding playwright can submit is their first one, or the first one that gets agreed to be produced, these ones is the base you can build your future. So up to this point why doesn’t the AD accept plays blind of gender. You can put you personal details in a separate envelope. The AD can anoounce what plays they intend to put on at the press conference and perhaps open those envelopes then with those personal details, or at a later date Obviously it wouldn’t work with an established playwright, who has had a professional relationship with the AD. If this procedure is adopted, then the argument about equality becomes irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 4, 2018 21:41:15 GMT
An AD can't hold a press conference announcing a new season of work without having contracts in place for each production - so as exciting as a reveal would be, it wouldn't work in the real world.
Blind submission for scripts is a sensible step for all relevant competitions/processes - but inevitably you will need human contact before you go into production.
I am currently starting a project to improve awareness of existing scripts by women writers amongst Oxford theatremakers - we are starting with play-readings to demonstrate the breadth of talent out there. Hopefully that will encourage more directors to think more broadly when it comes to repertoire. There is going to be a debate to be had around the subject of quotas - and I don't know how the local theatre community will react to that.
I don't think there is an easy answer to ensure equality - particularly when companies need to think about the bottom line. Because of the existing imbalance in terms of audience awareness of plays/authors, there will inevitably an imbalance in the perception of audience appeal and thus the potential marketability of any given title.
In time, more plays written by women will become more popular and thus more frequently staged. We can do all we can to speed up that process - but success will not be immediate. Continued awareness, monitoring and effort will eventually bring change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 22:04:34 GMT
Can I remind you all that the Royal Court produces an equal number of male and female playwrights. This tradition was established by Max Stafford Clarke who, despite now being a fallen angel, consciously developed and championed the work of some of our leading playwrights: Caryl Churchill, Timberlake Wertenbaker, the late Claire McIntyre, Sarah Daniels and Andrea Dunbar. No one ever questions the quality of this work (both male and female authors have garnered great good and not so good reviews) So, it can be done and the RC is already doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 11:32:57 GMT
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. Ryan, after your having seen Lady Windermere's Fan, I think that Oscar Wilde* is rubbing off on you. * his style that is, very Duchess of Berwick...... You know, I think I'd be rather good in an Oscar Wilde play. I would suit a frock coat. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 13:45:01 GMT
Ryan, after your having seen Lady Windermere's Fan, I think that Oscar Wilde* is rubbing off on you. * his style that is, very Duchess of Berwick...... You know, I think I'd be rather good in an Oscar Wilde play. I would suit a frock coat. You might also suit a crinoline. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 14:26:34 GMT
You know, I think I'd be rather good in an Oscar Wilde play. I would suit a frock coat. You might also suit a crinoline. Alas, I fear not. As a child living in Amsterdam, I had an unfortunate incident with a piece of "cake" and a windmill staircase that left me with an inner ear infection and a constant battle with balance. I think the weight of a crinoline would play merry havoc with me and sadly, those around me. |
|
