4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 4, 2019 16:33:07 GMT
They've suggested meeting publicly somehow, which is being framed here as some sort of intimidation tactic, but if they'd suggested a private meeting then I've little doubt the board would have seen that as a secretive and legalistic delay tactic. Similarly, talk about personal circumstances is emotional manipulation, while being formal is cold and legalistic. The 'let's have a public meeting' raised red flags, because I don't know what that is meant to achieve, apart from setting Sarah and Tori up for a public humiliation by two famous men who are experienced public communicators, with professional PR teams, and who already have a legion of supporters. The power imbalance there is obvious. How can meeting publicly resolve a dispute about who was told what when and by whom, what their contract actually entitles them to, and how much their initial ideas and draft influenced the current show? This is a situation that needs mediation by an independent third party experienced in theatrical development, who can take an objective view. The 'let's have a public meeting' suggestion is so indicative of the power imbalance involved in the situation that it honestly makes me think that something dodgy has gone on during the process, and maybe that's unfair and is prejudicing my response to these statements, but honestly, it's so very blind to the power that Idris and Kwame have that it highlights the underlying structural issue at the heart of the dispute. |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jul 4, 2019 16:43:18 GMT
This has made for very troubling reading. I feel very sorry for the two original writers. I'm sure it has been an unbearable situation for them.
|
|
584 posts
|
Post by princeton on Jul 4, 2019 16:55:18 GMT
Wow - that statement is quite something, especially given that it's taken 48 hours to write. Whilst there was so much wrong with Kwame Kwai-Armah's statement at least it had a sense of urgency, attempted to address some of the issues, went some way to acknowledging the input which Sarah and Tori had during the early stages and that there had been communication issues during the development stages last summer. It also had a degree of candour which probably had lawyers throwing their hands up in horror. Idris Elba's statement is more aggressive and uncompromising in tone (even down to the order to Read my statement - rather than here is my statement), makes it clear that he's in charge (or should that be we're in charge as he uses we long before the YC and MIF become involved - he must love nosism) and that he's had lawyers all over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 4, 2019 17:07:13 GMT
Well now,Idris,methinks you and your mate doth protest too much!
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 4, 2019 17:19:49 GMT
He is now complaining that someone called them out for mentioning dead parents
He really doesn't get that this is ALL making him look bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 4, 2019 17:22:34 GMT
...and Idris shoots and scores another own goal!
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 4, 2019 17:31:21 GMT
It's clear that many here are reading the mentions about the bereavements are simply ways to deflect from their wrongdoing. While that's possible, it's not certain that the way you're reading this is different from the way it was written (not to mention that your view might be coloured by the fact you've already decided who's in the right here). I mean, it could be an (arguably misguided) way of talking about something important that's connected (for him) to a hugely personal project.
Furthermore, Kwame and Idris being distasteful, unfriendly or egotistical isn't actually proof that they are wrong about this issue. Being nice does not equal being in the right.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 4, 2019 17:41:45 GMT
That is true. But this is now a PR damage-limitation exercise, so it doesn’t help their case.
I am sure they feel they are in the right. It is possible that they are in the right, or at least more-right than they appear at the moment. But if that’s the case then a neutral third-party looking into the situation
would actually benefit them. It’s just as possible that the deeply-felt personal connection is blinding them to how much the initial workshop influenced the direction of the final piece and the unfairness of the process to Sarah and Tori, and that they simply can’t see the wood for the trees.
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 4, 2019 17:53:43 GMT
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 4, 2019 18:02:02 GMT
It's clear that many here are reading the mentions about the bereavements are simply ways to deflect from their wrongdoing. While that's possible, it's not certain that the way you're reading this is different from the way it was written
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm reading it exactly the way it was written. If they'd intended to say something else, they should have said something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 4, 2019 18:04:45 GMT
sf,totally agree with you...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 4, 2019 18:10:07 GMT
It's clear that many here are reading the mentions about the bereavements are simply ways to deflect from their wrongdoing. While that's possible, it's not certain that the way you're reading this is different from the way it was written
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm reading it exactly the way it was written. If they'd intended to say something else, they should have said something else.
You read the words that were written. But when you suggest that they were written in order to provide a ‘get out of jail free card’ and ‘to use ... as an alibi for treating other people less well than [they] should have.’ you’re talking about the intention behind the words, which isn’t the same thing. It is of course possible that you’ve never experienced reading something in one way, only to realise later that it was meant in a different way, but I suspect you’ll be in the minority if that’s the case. (Edit: Anyway, I appreciate that I’m in a minority in suggesting that it’s possible that things are not as simple as they appear, and that it might be worth knowing a bit more about the situation before jumping on a side. This is probably a story that could run and run, but is unlikely to reach a conclusion on these boards. Either way, I hope things reach an amicable end for all concerned) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 18:13:08 GMT
Proposed revised title and artwork:  |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 4, 2019 18:29:01 GMT
You read the words that were written. But when you suggest that they were written in order to provide a ‘get out of jail free card’ and ‘to use ... as an alibi for treating other people less well than [they] should have.’ you’re talking about the intention behind the words, which isn’t the same thing. No kidding. Words have specific meanings. Words in a given context carry a particular weight. If they'd intended a different meaning, they should have chosen different words. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jul 4, 2019 18:30:18 GMT
I kind of feel like this is none of my business. I like Tori, and enjoyed her work in After The Turn. That is as close as I am to these events.
I am very happy for the young lady cast as Ariel, but feel that until I see the movie, I kind of feel like it’s none of my business. It isn’t a revelation to me; I’m not upset or offended any more by the casting of a POC as Ariel than I am of a PCD in ‘Waitress’. I realise that historically it’s a big deal and don’t wish to take anything away from peoples achievements/stitch ups. I understand the reasoning behind both decisions and don’t feel the need to get gammony about it. People love a cause don’t they? (however much or not it might have to do with them).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 18:32:45 GMT
I kind of feel like this is none of my business. I like Tori, and enjoyed her work in After The Turn. That is as close as I am to these events. I am very happy for the young lady cast as Ariel, but feel that until I see the movie, I kind of feel like it’s none of my business. It isn’t a revelation to me; I’m not upset or offended any more by the casting of a POC as Ariel than I am of a PCD in ‘Waitress’. I realise that historically it’s a big deal and don’t wish to take anything away from peoples achievements/stitch ups. I understand the reasoning behind both decisions and don’t feel the need to get gammony about it. People love a cause don’t they? (however much or not it might have to do with them). Have you had a drink? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 18:34:52 GMT
The BBC website now has a front page story about Idris Elba helping during the medical emergency at the show last night...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 18:40:28 GMT
The BBC website now has a front page story about Idris Elba helping during the medical emergency at the show last night... The seventh sentence of that article being... With more context to the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jul 4, 2019 18:41:27 GMT
I kind of feel like this is none of my business. I like Tori, and enjoyed her work in After The Turn. That is as close as I am to these events. I am very happy for the young lady cast as Ariel, but feel that until I see the movie, I kind of feel like it’s none of my business. It isn’t a revelation to me; I’m not upset or offended any more by the casting of a POC as Ariel than I am of a PCD in ‘Waitress’. I realise that historically it’s a big deal and don’t wish to take anything away from peoples achievements/stitch ups. I understand the reasoning behind both decisions and don’t feel the need to get gammony about it. People love a cause don’t they? (however much or not it might have to do with them). Have you had a drink? Cheeky, not yet...😂 I just look at twitter and it’s full of people saying the stuff that they think they should be saying, with very little heart. Peoples comments here relating to their own circumstances are a wholly different kettle of fish and not what I was referring to ❤️. |
|
|
|
Post by missthelma on Jul 4, 2019 18:56:24 GMT
sf, much sympathy for your recent loss. I agree with you bereavement is something we all go through as is grief and the seeming with no context invocation of both men in their statements is bizarre, and yes disrespectful.
Having said that my dad died in 1974 and I would therefore like you all to consider everything I have done, said, written or thought since through the context of this. I thank you
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 4, 2019 19:01:49 GMT
Exit: this is getting silly. Apologies. Probably silly to continue this conversation
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 4, 2019 19:05:41 GMT
sf, much sympathy for your recent loss. I agree with you bereavement is something we all go through as is grief and the seeming with no context invocation of both men in their statements is bizarre, and yes disrespectful. Having said that my dad died in 1974 and I would therefore like you all to consider everything I have done, said, written or thought since through the context of this. I thank you Do you really think that second paragraph is, in any way, a helpful contribution? If it is your attempt at humour, it has misfired. |
|
|
|
Post by missthelma on Jul 4, 2019 19:12:53 GMT
sf, much sympathy for your recent loss. I agree with you bereavement is something we all go through as is grief and the seeming with no context invocation of both men in their statements is bizarre, and yes disrespectful. Having said that my dad died in 1974 and I would therefore like you all to consider everything I have done, said, written or thought since through the context of this. I thank you Do you really think that second paragraph is, in any way, a helpful contribution? If it is your attempt at humour, it has misfired. Could I suggest you read it again and then get off your high horse? |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 4, 2019 19:19:11 GMT
No kidding. Words have specific meanings. Words in a given context carry a particular weight. If they'd intended a different meaning, they should have chosen different words. When you suggest that someone else did or said something “in order to X” you’re talking about their underlying motivations behind the words; not just the words themselves. Being 100% sure on that is mind reader territory.
Well, no. All I have to go on is what they chose to write, which doesn't leave a great deal of room for interpretation. Both posts read as being rather condescending to the two women, and the tone of both posts is one of self-righteous self-justification. Both Mr. Kwei-Armah and Mr. Elba chose, one must assume, the statements they put together in response to Ms. Allen-Martin and Ms. Henley's Medium article, and both of them invoked the trauma of bereavement in a way that leaves little room for any conclusion other than that they were playing for sympathy. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not minimising the impact of a bereavement. I'm in the middle of it myself, and it's not a pleasant experience. It is also, though, absolutely NOT a mitigating factor in a case like this, and it is simply not relevant to the question of whether Ms. Allen-Martin and Ms. Henley's work has been used without proper credit/payment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 20:02:36 GMT
Don't forget they want to you feel like you're at a festival, so bring your wellys and expect to be covered in piss. I’ll get involved in audience participation, but no dancing! Hope you're having a great time david  |
|
