|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 13:23:18 GMT
I suppose the other thing is that class can change, and since we view theatregoing as a middle class occupation, the act of going renders you middle class automatically. For eg, I grew up in a northern working class town (sh*t school, dad a miner then a bricklayer, and on my very first night in London, I was asked what I wanted to drink with 'dinner' and requested a cup of tea, which was apparently hilarious to everyone else). But I'm now pretty solidly middle class and theatregoing was probably part of that conversion. So what came first - is it even possible to go to the theatre regularly and still be considered working class?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 13:28:08 GMT
PS - just to get back on topic, I liked this; I thought it was an effective piece of storytelling and the 'ghost set' was great. I thought CM's character was engaging and likable (minority opinion, apparently!) and liked that we were taken through what was initially a good relationship that deteriorated - the husband wasn't a monster, he was a normal guy and yet he was capable of something monstrous - which is probably pretty realistic.
I liked the matter of fact non-emotional telling of it at the end - the bald facts were hard-hitting and didn't need histrionics. I may have got to an age where that sort of thing affects me more than it would have done 10 years ago; I found myself thinking about it a lot after seeing it.
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 6, 2018 13:52:11 GMT
Personally I just find it very depressing that it's taken as a fact that it will never change. I sincerely hope theatres don't take that pessimistic opinion, and instead continue to try to change it.
"We shouldn't feel embarrassed or ashamed that Theatre is a white, middle-class pastime."
I disagree.
|
|
5,139 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Mar 6, 2018 14:00:20 GMT
May I direct my fellow board members to Eclipse Theatre Company which, with the help of NPO funding, is trying to change things: eclipsetheatre.org.uk/ |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 14:53:22 GMT
Personally I just find it very depressing that it's taken as a fact that it will never change. I sincerely hope theatres don't take that pessimistic opinion, and instead continue to try to change it. "We shouldn't feel embarrassed or ashamed that Theatre is a white, middle-class pastime." I disagree. But, what if other cultures - class and race - simply don't want to embrace the theatre en-masse? Isn't it pure arrogance to determine that they should like our culture just because of the value we attach to it?
And theatres aren't being pessimistic about change, but they're finding out - the hard way - that there probably isn't this amazing amount of non white middle-class people out there who want to go to the theatre but aren't at the moment. How long can they or will they be able to continue to justify the cost in both money and time to try and change something that won't?
And if something was almost exclusively embraced only by the non-white, working-class populate, would you want them to feel ashamed or embarrassed or would you be championing the diversity of life and cultures?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 15:03:55 GMT
I suppose the other thing is that class can change, and since we view theatregoing as a middle class occupation, the act of going renders you middle class automatically. For eg, I grew up in a northern working class town (sh*t school, dad a miner then a bricklayer, and on my very first night in London, I was asked what I wanted to drink with 'dinner' and requested a cup of tea, which was apparently hilarious to everyone else). But I'm now pretty solidly middle class and theatregoing was probably part of that conversion. So what came first - is it even possible to go to the theatre regularly and still be considered working class? I'm always at odds with my class... Not, I must hasten to add, because I am ashamed of it. I am very proud to come from the background I am from.
But I earn a decent wage, live in a nice part of London, vote Conservative and my main hobby is the theatre but I still class myself as working-class and identify more with those friends who still live on council estates than those I have met since and who live in similar surroundings to me.
Class, eh? No wonder the Aussies and the Americans laugh at us for taking it so seriously!
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 6, 2018 15:40:34 GMT
Personally I just find it very depressing that it's taken as a fact that it will never change. I sincerely hope theatres don't take that pessimistic opinion, and instead continue to try to change it. "We shouldn't feel embarrassed or ashamed that Theatre is a white, middle-class pastime." I disagree. But, what if other cultures - class and race - simply don't want to embrace the theatre en-masse? Isn't it pure arrogance to determine that they should like our culture just because of the value we attach to it?
And theatres aren't being pessimistic about change, but they're finding out - the hard way - that there probably isn't this amazing amount of non white middle-class people out there who want to go to the theatre but aren't at the moment. How long can they or will they be able to continue to justify the cost in both money and time to try and change something that won't?
And if something was almost exclusively embraced only by the non-white, working-class populate, would you want them to feel ashamed or embarrassed or would you be championing the diversity of life and cultures?
It's the issue with it being 'our culture' as if no non-white, or working class communities around the world embrace theatre :/ |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 15:41:42 GMT
I live in Hackney and was considering trying to crowd-fund for some local kids to go and see the RSC Hamlet at the Empire. I’m partially inspired by all the crowd-funding in the US for kids to go and see Black Panther and partially by this thread. Straw poll - would anyone contribute to something like that?
Back to Girls and Boys. Carey was very good, but in the back row of the stalls (well, they were only £12) and sat next to quite disruptive people (serves me right for reading the Bad Behaviour thread and feeling smug) I felt that maybe she was delivering more of a cinema performance. Her physical interactions with the children missed the mark for me. The writing in those sections was strong. I could hear them, but not see them. By the end, it felt like a strong performance in a flawed play.
I’m glad I saw it. I felt like maybe the lighting design was doing something very clever that went over my head. Someone upthread talked about a “sound and lighting coup de theatre” which I just missed. Anyone want to DM me with thoughts or put them in spoilers on here? Specifically, do we think there was any significance that each scene had a different object lit up? Usually red, although some of the fruit on the kitchen island was too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 15:49:08 GMT
what if other cultures - class and race - simply don't want to embrace the theatre en-masse? Isn't it pure arrogance to determine that they should like our culture just because of the value we attach to it? Or maybe it is re-defining "theatre" to begin with. Just as (generally) our society sees movies and thinks "Hollywood," for India it is "Bollywood." Similar concept - images captured and broadcast - but utterly different approach to content. But if you - and by that I mean people in general rather than you personally - wouldn't demand a culture embraced almost entirely only by non white, non working-class change to be more 'diverse' why should theatre change? Providing there is funding for theatre and other cultural heritage groups - and there is - surely the beauty of true diversity is that it is, by nature, diverse? Surely something that is perceived to be a white middle class interest has as much right to exist and in its current form as something perceived to be an interest for non white, non middle class people? Why should we apologise and amend our culture and heritage? If people want to embrace the theatre then - with help regarding clear accessibility issues - they will, if they want us to change theatre it means that they don't want it. It's like 20/20 cricket, a game designed for people who don't like cricket! |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 6, 2018 16:03:59 GMT
Or maybe it is re-defining "theatre" to begin with. Just as (generally) our society sees movies and thinks "Hollywood," for India it is "Bollywood." Similar concept - images captured and broadcast - but utterly different approach to content. But if you - and by that I mean people in general rather than you personally - wouldn't demand a culture embraced almost entirely only by non white, non working-class change to be more 'diverse' why should theatre change? Providing there is funding for theatre and other cultural heritage groups - and there is - surely the beauty of true diversity is that it is, by nature, diverse? Surely something that is perceived to be a white middle class interest has as much right to exist and in its current form as something perceived to be an interest for non white, non middle class people? Why should we apologise and amend our culture and heritage? If people want to embrace the theatre then - with help regarding clear accessibility issues - they will, if they want us to change theatre it means that they don't want it. It's like 20/20 cricket, a game designed for people who don't like cricket! But why would you want it to exist in its current form as something only mainly of interest to that specific group? The world is changing for the better and the 'us' and 'them' lines are blurring, hopefully into obscurity. I would hope theatre in general would be interested in ensuring it is playing a part in that, rather than trying desperately to keep hold of a dated, insular set of beliefs. (ie if they want us to change theatre it means that they don't want it.) |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 6, 2018 16:13:27 GMT
Surely something that is perceived to be a white middle class interest has as much right to exist and in its current form as something perceived to be an interest for non white, non middle class people? It does. In my example, I'm saying that the word "film" is equally "Hollywood" and "Bollywood." My feeling is that if the definition of "theatre" itself is widened, participation automatically becomes inclusive. Just to take one odd example - the amazing Pentecostal Church Choirs are as much a theatrical as religious performance. Does that make those who attend church "theatregoers" - participants getting a feeling from attending a performance - I feel it does. Exactly. But the argument seems to be 'they don't want what theatre is currently offering - therefore there is little/no interest on their part in theatre - therefore they don't want what we're offering - so why should we bother changing for them?' |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 16:23:10 GMT
But if you - and by that I mean people in general rather than you personally - wouldn't demand a culture embraced almost entirely only by non white, non working-class change to be more 'diverse' why should theatre change? Providing there is funding for theatre and other cultural heritage groups - and there is - surely the beauty of true diversity is that it is, by nature, diverse? Surely something that is perceived to be a white middle class interest has as much right to exist and in its current form as something perceived to be an interest for non white, non middle class people? Why should we apologise and amend our culture and heritage? If people want to embrace the theatre then - with help regarding clear accessibility issues - they will, if they want us to change theatre it means that they don't want it. It's like 20/20 cricket, a game designed for people who don't like cricket! But why would you want it to exist in its current form as something only mainly of interest to that specific group? The world is changing for the better and the 'us' and 'them' lines are blurring, hopefully into obscurity. I would hope theatre in general would be interested in ensuring it is playing a part in that, rather than trying desperately to keep hold of a dated, insular set of beliefs. (ie if they want us to change theatre it means that they don't want it.) Theatre monkey below mentions the Pentecostal Choirs and I would add the Gospel Church Choirs. There is no doubt that the main demographic of those participating in such choirs is non-white. Are you in favour of them changing their culture and heritage in a bid to attract people who don't like it in its current form?
The World is us and them and, when used correctly, this makes it a wonderful place to live. If we change everything simply because it only attracts to a particular section of society then what will we be left with? A boring homogeneous society rather than the beautiful heterogeneous one it is.
Embrace true diversity. If the established theatre is mainly the domain of white middle-class attendees, great! If Pentecostal Church choirs are mainly the domain of non-white attendees, great! Both are cultural heritages which are cherished by those within and both have an equal right to exist and prosper.
Multi-cultralisim is about diversity and embracing the differences. It isn't about forcing everyone to adapt their cultures and heritages to make everyone 'fit in'.
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 6, 2018 16:24:21 GMT
But why would you want it to exist in its current form as something only mainly of interest to that specific group? The world is changing for the better and the 'us' and 'them' lines are blurring, hopefully into obscurity. I would hope theatre in general would be interested in ensuring it is playing a part in that, rather than trying desperately to keep hold of a dated, insular set of beliefs. (ie if they want us to change theatre it means that they don't want it.) Theatre monkey below mentions the Pentecostal Choirs and I would add the Gospel Church Choirs. There is no doubt that the main demographic of those participating in such choirs is non-white. Are you in favour of them changing their culture and heritage in a bid to attract people who don't like it in its current form?
The World is us and them and, when used correctly, this makes it a wonderful place to live. If we change everything simply because it only attracts to a particular section of society then what will we be left with? A boring homogeneous society rather than the beautiful heterogeneous one it is.
Embrace true diversity. If the established theatre is mainly the domain of white middle-class attendees, great! If Pentecostal Church choirs are mainly the domain of non-white attendees, great! Both are cultural heritages which are cherished by those within and both have an equal right to exist and prosper.
Multi-cultralisim is about diversity and embracing the differences. It isn't about forcing everyone to adapt their cultures and heritages to make everyone 'fit in'.
ok |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 6, 2018 16:32:02 GMT
And just to add, don't forget that the theatre we think of today - musical theatre and pop music in particular - have roots in Jewish and African Tribal tradition to begin with. They're not bothered about it now, they're too busy trying to keep all the middle class white folk away from their gospel choirs. All I know is that without a scheme that was very specifically aimed at people like me, I would never have developed an interest/passion in theatre, so I hope they persevere trying to get a diverse crowd in, rather than just pulling the ladder up. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 16:34:13 GMT
And just to add, don't forget that the theatre we think of today - musical theatre and pop music in particular - have roots in Jewish and African Tribal tradition to begin with. I could bore you to tears with my love for the Blues, absolutely bore you. But Clapton, Mayall, Green and all those white men who 'discovered' the genre in the 60s embraced it in the form they found it in and were religious about ensuring the black men they worshiped were revered by their disciples. You don't have to change another culture to embrace it in its form. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 16:59:13 GMT
Theatre is wide and expansive. A quick google of "how many theatres are there in London" brings up a Stage article that reckons there are over 230 professional theatres within the M25 alone. There is room for white middle-class sitting-room family drama AND there is room for all the thousands of things that *aren't* that AS WELL. No one's asking theatre to *change*, we just want it to *expand* and *include*. Speaking as a white middle-class woman, I'd be finding a new hobby PDQ if I were the *only* target audience being catered for, what a dull theatrical landscape that would be after a year or two!
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Mar 6, 2018 17:02:40 GMT
I know I'm late to the party, but here are my two cents anyway;
It's true that certain artforms are traditionally associated with certain demographics, but imo it's incorrect to assume that these relationships are a reflection of anything concrete. Furthermore, it's untrue to assume that any efforts to diversify the audience involve some dilution or bastardisation of the 'true' original artform.
People like stuff that they're exposed to, that they feel connects to them, and that they have some agency in. Naturally tradition has a huge momentum in this regard, but that's not a fixed underlying factor, it's simply a side effect of history. There's nothing wrong with an artform that is of interest to a small group, but the fact that hip hop, opera, ballet or Bollywood might have accepted key audience demographics isn't an immutable thing.
The clearest example I can think of in recent past is anime and manga. If you went back ~30 years this was a somewhat niche artform in places like the UK and America. In roughly a generation, it's moved to being something much more engrained in popular culture. This has less to do with these forms changing (although that's part of the story), and more to do with a few companies marketing heavily to the west, and the success of a few films.
I have little doubt that the success of films like Black Panther and Wonder Woman will have a big impact on the demographics of comicbook readers in a generation or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 17:58:15 GMT
Diversity means embracing both heterogeneity and homogeneity.
Something like Kabuki or Noh is unchanging, something like Contemporary Dance is constantly taking on board all sort of cross cultural influences.
Both are great.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 10, 2018 16:53:27 GMT
I like Mulligan but I'm in the "second half wasn't good enough" column. I wasn't really sure what I was supposed to do with the 'events' that we're told of. There was no opportunity for me to feel the sadness, the grief with Mulligan because she's recounting events in quite a teachy way. But despite feeling teachy, I'm not sure what about this subject matter I was supposed to learn. I wouldn't have wanted a second half of more jokiness, because I was pulled in a bit more when the play got more serious, but it didn't quite pull it all the way through for me. I very much liked the set and the projections (which I think one could have not spotted the presence of) and the lighting and Carey Mulligan, and the direction was probably as good with the material as it could have been. Overall I liked the play, but the last 20 minutes of it just didn't present the best version of itself. So it was all Dennis Kelly's fault basically. I agree with all that. Mulligan fantastic, play flawed. The problem is that Mulligan's character is a tourist all the way through the play. The play is laugh-out-loud funny when Mulligan describes being an actual "tourist" at the beginning, but then she becomes a "tourist" in the drama of her own life, as all the real drama takes place in her husband's head. So too is the stuff, about the boy playing with guns, thin gruel, with respect to coming to terms with toxic elements of masculinity. A missed opportunity! I had an apparently affable acquaintance who committed family-murder-suicide, and everything that could be helpful in understanding his behaviour had to do with the poisonous expectations of what it is to be "a man," his fragile identity constructed on account of that poison, associated feelings of humiliation when he supposedly didn't measure up, macho inability to admit or ever talk about such feelings, compounding the fragility of his identity, and eventaually total despair, with only the worst and most violent "solutions" presenting themselves to him. He killed his wife, his child and himself. To make a drama about this successfully, you need to describe what goes on in his head. Watching from the outside, as Kelly does here, is as useless and pointless as watching this on the news. Nonetheless, worth watching for Mulligan and the great observational humour of the first half. 3 stars I’ve just come out of this, and dropped into the thread a few pages back for a read through opinions. I have to say this seems to miss the point - it’s not about him, it’s about her. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 10, 2018 17:08:20 GMT
They actually wanted expensive seats - they couldn't get anything suitable. The problem is that those of any class at all who are not "tuned in" to the system of how to get tickets are now at a massive disadvantage. In the old days it was "turn up and buy at the door." Then it became "write in with an SAE," then "phone," now it's "get priority / use this agency / hope you get given a chance as a registered fan" etc, etc, etc. I was talking to an air steward on my plane home from Oz yesterday, and she mentioned that her boyfriend wanted to see Hamilton but it was all booked out for months - she didn’t know about returns, late-released premium seats or the ticket lottery. After I enlightened her she wanted to know where to sit so I told her about Theatremonkey! Hopefully she’ll be able to get hold of a ticket now she knows it’s not actually impossible. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 10, 2018 17:21:10 GMT
I found this really impactful. I am not sure if Mulligan’s performance has grown since earlier in the run, and that has made the difference, but I found the funny bits at the start genuinely funny, thought she made a good connection to the audience as a storyteller, and the end pretty devastating. I loved the character’s chutzpah and the way her career affected how she told her story - she felt like a complete, rounded, consistent character.
I see some have complained about the lack of ‘drama’, but that is sort of the point - she makes documentaries, not dramas, and the piece is all about her, not about her husband.
This one is going to stay with me.
|
|
1,478 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 10, 2018 19:17:27 GMT
I agree with all that. Mulligan fantastic, play flawed. The problem is that Mulligan's character is a tourist all the way through the play. The play is laugh-out-loud funny when Mulligan describes being an actual "tourist" at the beginning, but then she becomes a "tourist" in the drama of her own life, as all the real drama takes place in her husband's head. So too is the stuff, about the boy playing with guns, thin gruel, with respect to coming to terms with toxic elements of masculinity. A missed opportunity! I had an apparently affable acquaintance who committed family-murder-suicide, and everything that could be helpful in understanding his behaviour had to do with the poisonous expectations of what it is to be "a man," his fragile identity constructed on account of that poison, associated feelings of humiliation when he supposedly didn't measure up, macho inability to admit or ever talk about such feelings, compounding the fragility of his identity, and eventaually total despair, with only the worst and most violent "solutions" presenting themselves to him. He killed his wife, his child and himself. To make a drama about this successfully, you need to describe what goes on in his head. Watching from the outside, as Kelly does here, is as useless and pointless as watching this on the news. Nonetheless, worth watching for Mulligan and the great observational humour of the first half. 3 stars I’ve just come out of this, and dropped into the thread a few pages back for a read through opinions. I have to say this seems to miss the point - it’s not about him, it’s about her. Got to write quickly, as "Brief Encounter" begins in about 15 minutes lol. I agree it's about her. It's just that she is either an observant person, in which case, the degree to which his behaviour surprises her is unrealistic. Or she is completely unobservant, in which castle, the passages at the beginning that show her to be observant are betrayed. I once studied this area, and in one hundred percent of cases, women saw this behaviour coming, in that they had called the police, and reported living in fear of their husband, before such a thing ever happened.
This is like serial killers, in that one hundred percent of serial killers engage in pyromania and animal abuse kill, but not every person who does this kills.
Similarly, not every woman who grows terrified of their husband's behaviour, and calls the police due to his escalating lack of control and violent outbursts,, has her children killed. But in every case I looked into, the woman called the police, or made some attempt to flee with her children, before this happened.
So my point is that unlike real women, who are not clueless and unobservant, Mulligan's character seems far too blase, leading up to the incident. This feels phony. I described her behaviour as being "a tourist in her own life." That's what I meant by that phrase.
So, yes it's her story, but through the mind of a.man who doesn't seem to know much about women this actually happens to, and is faithless to those real women and children.
And boy, is he faithless to boys. The caricature of the boy playing violent suggests boys are naturally like that, whereas it would have to be socialised by her, her husband, and his peers, because until testosterone is pumped into him at a later age, his brain is essentially no different from a girl's brain. So Kelly appears to be engaging in misandry, unsubtly at that. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 10, 2018 19:41:16 GMT
100%? Really? I find myself doubting that - if it happens once every 10 days that’s a lot to of cases to check the details of.
Yes, the piece is certainly slanted towards the idea that men and masculinity are inherently violent. I suspect that is why many here are resistant to it, rather than the writing of main the character, who rings totally true to me - even the most observant person can be too distracted to pay proper attention to what is right in front of them.
|
|
1,478 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 10, 2018 22:44:40 GMT
100%? Really? I find myself doubting that - if it happens once every 10 days that’s a lot to of cases to check the details of. Yes, the piece is certainly slanted towards the idea that men and masculinity are inherently violent. I suspect that is why many here are resistant to it, rather than the writing of main the character, who rings totally true to me - even the most observant person can be too distracted to pay proper attention to what is right in front of them. Yes, it's the anti-man slant that bothers me. I loved the astute comic observations the character made in the first half, but then the misandry became ridiculous. Digression: When I said 100 percent of women (murdered by their partners) called the police, I was referring to research I did into some 60 women murdered by their male partners in the United States in the mid nineties. At the time, I was trying to determine if it was justifiable for battered women to kill their partners while they were sleeping, on the basis that the law wasn't protecting them, and calling the police hadn't stopped the murders. Expert witnesses were testifying at the time that such murders were actually in "self defence", because the women had a battered women "syndrome."
Back to the play. I imagine the statistics regarding filial murder that you quote also include the 43 percent of mothers who kill their own children, as well as the 57 percent of fathers who kill their own children, and are not limited to the MUCH rarer case of family anihilation, where a man (usually) sets out to kill everyone in his family, including himself. It is this latter category that I think this play is about, and such rare cases are much more akin to the research I did in the nineties than the case of a depressed mum killing herself and her kids.
The fact that the play links the prepubescent little boy's violent playtime to the father's depressed withdrawal makes plain that this show is intent on simplifying all the issues and demonising men, and the character is a mere vehicle to suggest this demonisation.
This inconsistent character can spot the minutest social faux pas in the beginning, but later she mindlessly and ridiculously seems to classify her son as a sort of male monster, and she blunders past the fact that her husband is planning to kill her, a circumstance that I couldn't find a single instance of in my above mentioned research, anecdotal as it is.
I thought it made Carey Mulligan's character look stupid, demonised men and little boys, and misrepresented the horror of the lives of real women who live through this sort of thing.
If this play were only entertainment, I wouldn't care. But it is also anti-male propaganda, that will lead to people getting the wrong idea about the issues. If a play is designed to get people to talk, however, I commend the play, as I can't shut up about it lol. Anyway, I'm glad you liked Mulligan's character, and I agree with you that the character was highly empathetic, beautifully observed comedy gold at the beginning.  |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 11, 2018 11:11:14 GMT
It is certainly meant to provoke discussion. I don’t think it is as cut and dried as you do - I was intrigued by the parenting on display, and how she reacted differently to her son than her daughter. I don’t think it is intended to demonise men, but to ask how do we come to this position as a society? Because the stats are overwhelming, when it comes to who commits violent acts. Is society designed to facilitate or to control male violence? After all, we admire her husband’s behaviour along with her and the start of the play, we laugh approvingly. There are warning flags that she misses because they are part of what attracts her to him, and I feel part of the function of the narrative is her looking back and realising that, just as she looks back on her parenting style and relives the moments when she prioritises her son’s feelings over her daughter’s.
Lots to think about, with this one. It’s interesting to me that Dennis Kelly wrote it rather than a female author. I don’t think most female writers would have pushed it so far. Think I’m going to look up interviews and see what he has said about it.
|
|
